• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Group D - West Indies, England, Ireland

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Actually, the rain may have come to England's assistance this time....
:cool:
To paraphrase Colly, nine times out of ten 120 would lose you a game.
Nice try... it all depends on the conditions and the opposition and with the greatest of respect to Ireland, I think England were favourites to defend 120 on that pitch. I'd love Ireland to have had the chance to chase them, though.
 

Pothas

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Nah, get rid of Durham. Last in, first out and all that, and nobody would be too upset. :ph34r:
Agree with that, they can become an international side if they want, will stop Scaly moaning about them not getting picked for England.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Agree with that, they can become an international side if they want, will stop Scaly moaning about them not getting picked for England.
Perhaps the Durham players should just lower their sights and seek selection for their home country, Scotland
 

Sir Alex

Banned
It's not like Morgan came into the setup as the complete article. I really don't see the problem with an associate player wanting to develop and further his career as much as possible. I actually really hope he won't be the last. I know it's a loss for Irish cricket, but it's probably also a gain in terms of youngsters, it gives the very best young Irish players a definite career path that may well keep them in the game.
But at what cost? Ireland permanently remaining an Associate? In other words individuals over country?

As BoyBrumby said, it's dubious to say the least.

Or remove Ireland from the Associates list and instead make them a part of county cricket. Because IIRC, Ireland gets some money from ICC for being an Associate. What's the use if such money is used to manufacture players for a particular country? Surely there is nothing to suggest that future Morgans won't opt to play for England.
 

AaronK

State Regular
I just noticed tomarrow it is Pakistan vs England..

It will be an interesting match to look forward..
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
But at what cost? Ireland permanently remaining an Associate? In other words individuals over country?

As BoyBrumby said, it's dubious to say the least.

Or remove Ireland from the Associates list and instead make them a part of county cricket. Because IIRC, Ireland gets some money from ICC for being an Associate. What's the use if such money is used to manufacture players for a particular country? Surely there is nothing to suggest that future Morgans won't opt to play for England.
It's a free world, man. No way should anyone be restricted from moving countries to further their careers just because it's a sport and the fans will be upset. It's a job, after all and if someone is able to pay better and attract stronger talent, as in any other job, that's business (and life).

I mean, forget career aspirations, what if Morgan just feels like living in England or Australia over Ireland? What if he reckons the schools are better for his kids or the chicks are hotter? If he then qualifies to play for his adopted country, so be it. Cricket's a profession like anything else.The bigger moral (and legal) crime in this instance would be restraint of trade.
 
Last edited:

Cruxdude

International Debutant
I am all for players moving countries. But there should be the same gap for moving from an associate country to a test country as it is for the reverse direction. Look at nannes. He played 6 months back for Netherlands and suddenly there he is for Australia. Make the 4 year gap mandatory.
 

GraemeSmith

School Boy/Girl Captain
But at what cost? Ireland permanently remaining an Associate? In other words individuals over country?

As BoyBrumby said, it's dubious to say the least.

Or remove Ireland from the Associates list and instead make them a part of county cricket. Because IIRC, Ireland gets some money from ICC for being an Associate. What's the use if such money is used to manufacture players for a particular country? Surely there is nothing to suggest that future Morgans won't opt to play for England.
But how is forcing players to play for their home countries fair to the players in question? Ireland is going to be an associate team for the foreseeable future. Morgan is what 24 yrs old? He has about 12 years left in his career, Ireland probably is not going to have test status during the lifetime of his career, so why should he have to sacrifice his career for some abstract notion of developing irish cricket.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
I am all for players moving countries. But there should be the same gap for moving from an associate country to a test country as it is for the reverse direction. Look at nannes. He played 6 months back for Netherlands and suddenly there he is for Australia. Make the 4 year gap mandatory.
I daresay if that rule were enforced then you'd see fewer players with full aspirations playing for the associate country to be honest.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
It's a free world, man. No way should anyone be restricted from moving countries to further their careers just because it's a sport and the fans will be upset. It's a job, after all and if someone is able to pay better and attract stronger talent, as in any other job, that's business (and life).

I mean, forget career aspirations, what if Morgan just feels like living in England or Australia over Ireland? What if he reckons the schools are better for his kids or the chicks are hotter? If he then qualifies to play for his adopted country, so be it. Cricket's a profession like anything else.The bigger moral (and legal) crime in this instance would be restraint of trade.
TBF it's only in cricket that anyone would ever try to make a point like this. No one is suggesting stopping a player from moving to another country if he's so inclined, where he's free to get any job he likes. Letting someone change their nationality so they can play for a more successful country isn't the same thing. If it's a legal crime then football could potentially have itself a hell of a lot of court cases on its hands in the near future. Or would you suggest that the whole concept of country vs. country sport is unworkable?
 

GGG

State Captain
It's a free world, man. No way should anyone be restricted from moving countries to further their careers just because it's a sport and the fans will be upset. It's a job, after all and if someone is able to pay better and attract stronger talent, as in any other job, that's business (and life).

I mean, forget career aspirations, what if Morgan just feels like living in England or Australia over Ireland? What if he reckons the schools are better for his kids or the chicks are hotter? If he then qualifies to play for his adopted country, so be it. Cricket's a profession like anything else.The bigger moral (and legal) crime in this instance would be restraint of trade.
Thats bad luck, thank god it isn't a "free world" as you put it, New Zealands population would explode as would Australias.
 

Top