Ballance, Rankin Anglicised

[Contra]

Firstly, nobody's being recruited and I'm getting really quite sick of having to go over this over and over again when it really isn't difficult for people to comprehend. Secondly, Australia are doing that and have done in the past. I don't know what countries you think Fawad Ahmed and Kepler Wessels are from but they're not Australia.

The reason I don't object is because in order to represent England, you have to be a British passport holder; so you have to have been born there, hold dual nationality or have lived in the country for a significant enough amount of time that you become a citizen. It requires a good degree of dedication to England and to English cricket, you can't just wake up one morning and decide that you want to play for England so off you go to be selected for the team. These people are products of the English game, technically speaking they're British citizens, and they've shown the dedication to English cricket to earn selection. So I don't really give a fuck where they were born.

[jaybro]

the Fawad Ahmed case is a special one since he is a asylum seeker but i dont agree that he is granted citizenship just because he can play cricket when hundreds and thousands of others are keep in detention centres, I also dont agree he should play for Australia, but I will cheer him on anyway.

Mate calm down Im only stating my opinions u seem to be very worked up, Im not only picking on England when it comes to selecting foreign players Im against all Countries doing it so no need to get all defensive but the original points I was making were not saying England are cheaters I just pointed out a few circumstances they were benefitting from.

I can see we arn't going to agree so we'll agree to disagree ??

And Im not blinded by my support to Australia or so called hatred towards England ( your words I never said I hated them lol ),I honestly only started to support them once they started to struggle I'd rather see a competetive match then Australia win by an innings !!!!

Same for England I'd rather see them play a competetive match then get flogged by an innings !!!!

[aydee]

I do realise migration is part of the world today and sport, but I think there should be no changing alligances once you represent a nation at U19's level you should be locked in, once players start playing for two different Countries it takes away some of the prestige of International sport.

I agree with the point that you are trying to make here. However, there is a counter arguement. It would go that associate nations may well suffer, were your "locked in" principle to be applied. Because any young Irish player who potentially has the ambition to play test cricket in future, may refuse to play for Ireland in the first place. At least with the current system, Ireland were still able to play the likes of Morgan or Rankin before they jumped ship. They may well have just made themselves ineligable for Ireland from day 1, so as to maintain their opportunity to play test cricket, or play in a side that won a world T20, should they get selected by England one day.

[Contra]

I do realise migration is part of the world today and sport, but I think there should be no changing alligances once you represent a nation at U19's level you should be locked in, once players start playing for two different Countries it takes away some of the prestige of International sport.

I agree with the point that you are trying to make here. However, there is a counter arguement. It would go that associate nations may well suffer, were your "locked in" principle to be applied. Because any young Irish player who potentially has the ambition to play test cricket in future, may refuse to play for Ireland in the first place. At least with the current system, Ireland were still able to play the likes of Morgan or Rankin before they jumped ship. They may well have just made themselves ineligable for Ireland from day 1, so as to maintain their opportunity to play test cricket, or play in a side that won a world T20, should they get selected by England one day.

This is absolutely correct. The circumstances in cricket in the Associate nations mean that it's obviously not played to the same standard nor does it have the same resources as a Full Member. So if you start locking players in then not only do you potentially discourage home-grown players from representing these countries but you also prevent them from benefiting from overseas-born talent. You could argue that a Full Member doesn't need to field overseas-born players, but that isn't the case for many Associates, who are heavily reliant on these players and who gain far more players from Full Members than they lose to them. For instance, Ireland recently lost Boyd Rankin but they gained Tim Murtagh, a former England U19 international who's second-highest wicket taker in division one of the County Championship this season. But if you start locking players into nationalities then Associates like Ireland, the Netherlands, Scotland, Hong Kong, Denmark and Canada who rely quite heavily on these players will suffer massively and it will potentially end up damaging the game long-term in those places. In a sense, every cricket-playing nation on the planet benefits from one circumstance or another, be it employment law, vicinity to other nations, weather conditions, anything.

We all love cricket, and we all want to see teams succeed and to enjoy competitive cricket because that's the best thing for the game. But what we've all got to remember is that international cricket doesn't work in the same way as many other international sports, and the playing field is anything but level. Players have been switching countries or playing for nations they weren't born in since the inception of Test cricket, it's just a fact of the game and every country has fielded players of this nature. It's worth looking at the birthplaces of many players who represented Australia against England in the first ever Test match in 1877. Because of the way cricket is spread and the way it's played across the globe, it would be irresponsible and damaging to the sport as a whole to take a black-and-white approach to nationality and eligibility because you're potentially compromising Associate's ability to play at a competitive level now and lay the foundations for competitive cricket in the future.

[jaybro]

Ok but tell me what Zimbabwe got out of giving Gary Ballance a start in the U19's WC he scored a club contract then county deal and Zimbabwe still got nothing should have given the start to some kid that was committed ..... Just using Ballance as an example. I know it's not a perfect world but it seems all the rules are in favor of the big Countries and the little ones get left behind.

[Contra]

Zimbabwe has actually benefited a good deal from certain circumstances. In the past it has benefited from its close proximity to South Africa, allowing Rhodesia to field a team in the Currie Cup for many years and allowing them to field South African-born players who have migrated there. It's also become increasingly common for English players to play Logan Cup cricket during the English off season, with talk of Nick Compton qualifying for Zimbabwe at one time a couple of seasons ago whilst playing for Mashonaland.

With regards to Gary Ballance, this goes back to cricket as a professional sport. Zimbabwe cricket is by all accounts in a bad way financially and administratively, and playing in England is a more reliable and safer option. I also remember reading on here about him having grown up on a farm that was violently repossessed (if anyone could confirm or deny this for me, that would be much appreciated) so I would guess that he's understandably reluctant to represent a country that has told him in fairly uncertain terms that he's not welcome. As harsh as it sounds, if Zimbabwe doesn't want to lose players then they need to take a good look at the way they treat them, because a great many do seem to disappear without a trace.

[jaybro]

Just using Zimbabwe and Ballance as an example there are a many more lets not go into specifics but the point I'm making is the smaller nations or associates get no advantage out of having these talented players for a small portion of time

As for these English players coming to Zimbabwe to play 1st class cricket I don't see any advantage for Zimbabwe having players like Ben Slater and Peter Burgoyne playing. It would be different if Pietersen or Cook or Anderson came to play the local Zimbabwe players could learn a lot off class internationals like them and you would think they coul generate some interest and money for the game. If Compton qualified an d played for Zimbabwe then they would have benefited a great deal but as far as I can see Slater ad Burgoyne have got themselves some good experience overseas and that's it.

Now lets just say for arguments sake things improve in Zimbabwe and there is some money to be had I believe there will be an influx of South Africans and English players will head over for a chance to play test cricket much like what is happening in NZ. If this were to happen I would be disappointed.

[ZIMDOGGY]

Firstly, nobody's being recruited and I'm getting really quite sick of having to go over this over and over again when it really isn't difficult for people to comprehend. Secondly, Australia are doing that and have done in the past. I don't know what countries you think Fawad Ahmed and Kepler Wessels are from but they're not Australia.

I have to disagree here for a few reasons.

One is Kepler couldnt play for his homeland iat the time even if he wanted, and Fawad is a refugee from pakistan like a billion before him.

The second point is out of the ten member nations there is only TWO countries that people would want to move to, England and Australia. Tempted to include NZ as it is a nice place but the reality is NZ is really a big country town with high costs of living and low employment opportunities and millions of kiwis flock overseas to get a go, so they cant be included. The other 7 countries have their qualities but the common man generally wont move there.

So that said...Australia and England have the benefit of being able to lure talent from the unfortunate continents with ease, and if you compare the number of poms born and raised elsewhere to australias 2, and the home grown setup of the sheffield shield......then you'll see Australia have been f*ckin ANGELS in regards to ethical poaching.

[jaybro]

@ ZIMDOGGY

Thanks mate glad to see some one agrees with me

[eugene]

You wouldn't want to live in Bangladesh, Zimdoggy?