Contra wrote: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.
With regards to Kepler Wessels and Fawad Ahmed, I think you missed the point I was trying to make. What I was trying to get at was that no matter how unpleasant or unusual the circumstances were, the Australian team still benefited from the presence of these players. Wessels could've chosen to stay in South Africa and play provincial cricket (which paid wages good enough that numerous county cricketers played there during English winters to supplement their income) and represent South Africa against rebel touring teams, like the vast majority of South African cricketers who could've gone in the same direction as Wessels, Lamb, Tony Greig, Robin Smith and a handful of others; Mike Procter had qualified to play for England by 1980, but didn't and captained South Africa during the first rebel tour in 1982.
As far as Australia goes, the comparison isn't as straightforward as you make it seem. Firstly, Australian cricket operates an entirely different way to English cricket; the domestic system is far more concentrated with six state teams compared to eighteen county teams. It's difficult to find data on the internet about the makeup of grade cricket with regards to countries of origin. Secondly, it doesn't account for political and geographical factors; things like dual nationalities, the Commonwealth and the fact that patterns of immigration to the two places are entirely different.
I'd love to have the word "poaching" banned from any cricket discussion.
nah Contra on the whole i see your point and what your getting at and to a large extent you are right but England are still subtlely being the convenient 'shoulder to lean on' guy who pops up at the right time when the chicks is fighting with her man. They know what their doing.
Cricinfo profile of the 'James Bond' of cricket:
FULL NAME: Angus James Mackay
BORN: 13 June 1967, Harare
KNOWN AS: Gus Mackay
ZIMDOGGY wrote:nah Contra on the whole i see your point and what your getting at and to a large extent you are right but England are still subtlely being the convenient 'shoulder to lean on' guy who pops up at the right time when the chicks is fighting with her man. They know what their doing.
As I said before, it's not a calculated attempt to steal players or damage cricket in other places. Many players hold British passports, and the Kolpak ruling prevents the ECB from being able to refuse a player's right to play on the basis of nationality if they hold an EU passport. So they're not really doing anything, it's just how it is.
The influence of overseas-born players in English cricket is actually vastly, vastly overstated. Those who play for England have close ties to England (often dual citizenship and family ties) and have lived there for many years (usually moving to England as children, much like Khawaja and Symonds for Australia, or Flower for Zimbabwe, for example) as well as being county stalwarts. Those that don't fall into that category generally don't get anywhere near the international team. I'm not accusing anyone here of doing this, but it's become a perfect justification for people to criticise England cricket without really understanding the circumstances, or considering that just about every single Full Member has done it at one time or another.
On a whole the Associates profit more from the ICC's eligibility rules than they loose. In the ongoing match between Ireland and the Netherlands we have players born in: Durban, London, Woolongong, Johannesburg, Woolongong again, Christchurch, Vanderbiljpark, and again Johannesburg.
And then there's that kid Doram from Sint Maarten, a real find for the Dutch. 5-fer on FC debut at 15 years of age. And the first time in living memory that the Dutch reap the cricketing benefits of their Carribean territories.
ZIMDOGGY wrote:nah Contra on the whole i see your point and what your getting at and to a large extent you are right but England are still subtlely being the convenient 'shoulder to lean on' guy who pops up at the right time when the chicks is fighting with her man. They know what their doing.
The influence of overseas-born players in English cricket is actually vastly, vastly overstated. Those who play for England have close ties to England (often dual citizenship and family ties) and have lived there for many years (usually moving to England as children, much like Khawaja and Symonds for Australia, or Flower for Zimbabwe, for example) as well as being county stalwarts. Those that don't fall into that category generally don't get anywhere near the international team. I'm not accusing anyone here of doing this, but it's become a perfect justification for people to criticise England cricket without really understanding the circumstances, or considering that just about every single Full Member has done it at one time or another.
Interesting you mentioned the bolded.
I distinctly remember all the newspaper articles making a big deal about how england tried to poach symonds as a een then an early 20s playern but he said no bothtimes. The country was applauding his decision as he was a then unknown player turning down what alan mullally, martin mccague and the hollioakes (all aussies) didnt- represent england. The poms very much tried to poach this man in every sense of the word. Yes he was born in england, and this supports your 'ties to england' theory.... but it was an aggressive attempt regardless.
Thing is, if you meet andrew symonds, you will realise he is more aussie than vegemite. He fishes in the kakadu, is a staunch qld cane toads and broncos supporter (rugby league) and has that vibe about him.
But it didnt stop england having a go.
Cricinfo profile of the 'James Bond' of cricket:
FULL NAME: Angus James Mackay
BORN: 13 June 1967, Harare
KNOWN AS: Gus Mackay
So, this "finding greener pastures" is a phenomenon you see everywhere. Just that it is more glaringly visible in England's case, due to all those reasons pointed out by many already in this thread...
ZIMDOGGY wrote:nah Contra on the whole i see your point and what your getting at and to a large extent you are right but England are still subtlely being the convenient 'shoulder to lean on' guy who pops up at the right time when the chicks is fighting with her man. They know what their doing.
The influence of overseas-born players in English cricket is actually vastly, vastly overstated. Those who play for England have close ties to England (often dual citizenship and family ties) and have lived there for many years (usually moving to England as children, much like Khawaja and Symonds for Australia, or Flower for Zimbabwe, for example) as well as being county stalwarts. Those that don't fall into that category generally don't get anywhere near the international team. I'm not accusing anyone here of doing this, but it's become a perfect justification for people to criticise England cricket without really understanding the circumstances, or considering that just about every single Full Member has done it at one time or another.
Interesting you mentioned the bolded.
I distinctly remember all the newspaper articles making a big deal about how england tried to poach symonds as a een then an early 20s playern but he said no bothtimes. The country was applauding his decision as he was a then unknown player turning down what alan mullally, martin mccague and the hollioakes (all aussies) didnt- represent england. The poms very much tried to poach this man in every sense of the word. Yes he was born in england, and this supports your 'ties to england' theory.... but it was an aggressive attempt regardless.
Thing is, if you meet andrew symonds, you will realise he is more aussie than vegemite. He fishes in the kakadu, is a staunch qld cane toads and broncos supporter (rugby league) and has that vibe about him.
But it didnt stop england having a go.
Cricket team in "wanting good players to represent them" shocker.
We've got people complaining that England field too many players not born in England, and then when they try to field a player who was born in England, apparently that's wrong too. Symonds was an England-qualified player! They were absolutely within their rights to approach him to play, just as Zimbabwe were in their rights to approach Goodwin. I imagine the reason Mulally and McCague (both born in England also) took the opportunity to play for England was because at the time, the Australian side was so strong that the chances of either of them being selected for Australia were akin to my chances of being selected for the Equatorial Guinea curling team.
If we want to talk about "aggressive attempts", in 1987 New Zealand approached Graeme Hick to qualify for them despite him not being a resident of New Zealand, and having played very little cricket there. They've actually fielded more players who have played domestic and age group cricket outside of New Zealand than England in the past couple of years. Why doesn't someone start a thread bleating about what aggressive, cheating bastards they are?
I guess no cares about NZ because they just take the 'second rate' players who can't get a start in their own country e.g. Wagner, Ronchi, Elliott, Van Wyk, Brownlie etc. Opposed to England who have ended up with a much better group e.g. Pietersen, Trott, Prior, Dernbach, Morgan, Rankin, Ballance etc.
As i said before if NZ keep recruiting these second rate players they will get second rate results but England on the other hand are in a very strong position due to the strong squad they have assembled.
I know everyone has players from other countries but it just seems its mostly the associates picking up average players looking for a chance to play international cricket, whilst England end up ( I wont say recruit just for you contra ) with the better players. e.g. Ireland lost Morgan and Rankin to England but have scored Tim Murtage and Trent Johnston from England and Australia ..... look at the comparison niether Murtage or Johnston are anywhere near the English team or Australian teams I don't even think Johnston has played 1st class cricket here !!!! I know Murtage is having a good domestic season but lets be real if the selectors told him he was half a chance of making the pommies team he wouldn't have changed alligances, where as Rankin was obviously told by Giles " Hey you would make the English team ".
Not saying it makes a difference but thats why people are more critical of England
