The Least 'National' World Cup Winning Team

[Sir Alex]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

I don't necessarily feel comfortable we're taking the cream of associate nations (and, in the cases of Joyce and Amjad Khan, quickly disgarding them too) but they are playing in our domestic competition as non-overseas players, but if we were to arbitrarily say we weren't going to pick them based on mildly dodgy conceptions of who is or isn't a "proper" national we'd be doubly hamstringing ourselves. Not only would these players be unavailable, but they're also filling a place that would otherwise be occupied by a "real" pom, however one wishes to define that.

yes, I don't think England is necessarily at fault here. They are after all as Athlai said making best use of talent available to them, and they aren't breaking any rules or regulations. I don't have issues with Morgan either. He has brilliant talent, and if he thinks he can be successful if he plays for England, nothing wrong with that either.

My only issue is then why Ireland has Associate status and receiving seperate funding from ICC. Because in net effect it is favoring a nation more (here England), by letting one of her "talent pools" compete at near the highest level, and thus make better players, only to be "employed" by the England team.

It defeats the purpose of classifying Ireland as an Associate Nation in the first place. Because ultimate aim of ICC and all this program is to make more nations, including Ireland play test cricket. Right now, they are more of a glorified "English Lions team", whose players have access to English county system, and unlike Lions team, actually can compete at the highest level, play World cups etc, but whose best talent is ultimately used by England.

All this calls for a look at the motive and justification behind Ireland being considered an independent ODI playing country and an Associate. Because the situation where a player can turn out for one country in April, and then another in May is imho farcical. In this case considering it will invariably arrest the development of Ireland as a cricketing team on it's own, ICC as may well de-recognise them as associates, and ask English Board to do their funding. They have solid talent, but the numbers are limited. So the best can always come up through the English system without complexities like these. Alternatively they can impose the 3(4?) year "cooling off" period which is now applicable for Full members, and thus England can justify themselves having spotted the talent, and "developed" it entirely via it's own system, before using that resource in an international match.

I don't believe in this SA born argument. KP etc have done justice to his selection by completely cutting off from South Africa, emigrating to England, doing the hard grind in English county cricket for 3-4 years, qualified himself as a British citizen and then only was considered for national selection. For me from cricketing pov he is as English as a Sidebottom or a Broad.

One counter argument for Morgan would be that he has too been doing the hard grind in County cricket since 2006. But then he always had the extra advantage of turning out in the Irish colors, play cricket at the top level, taken care of by the ICC directly, and thus a distinct advantage of other Middlesex players.

Anyway for now Irish cricket's future looks very bleak.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Sir Alex

yes, I don't think England is necessarily at fault here. They are after all as Athlai said making best use of talent available to them, and they aren't breaking any rules or regulations. I don't have issues with Morgan either. He has brilliant talent, and if he thinks he can be successful if he plays for England, nothing wrong with that either.

My only issue is then why Ireland has Associate status and receiving seperate funding from ICC. Because in net effect it is favoring a nation more (here England), by letting one of her "talent pools" compete at near the highest level, and thus make better players, only to be "employed" by the England team.

It defeats the purpose of classifying Ireland as an Associate Nation in the first place. Because ultimate aim of ICC and all this program is to make more nations, including Ireland play test cricket. Right now, they are more of a glorified "English Lions team", whose players have access to English county system, and unlike Lions team, actually can compete at the highest level, play World cups etc, but whose best talent is ultimately used by England.

All this calls for a look at the motive and justification behind Ireland being considered an independent ODI playing country and an Associate. Because the situation where a player can turn out for one country in April, and then another in May is imho farcical. In this case considering it will invariably arrest the development of Ireland as a cricketing team on it's own, ICC as may well de-recognise them as associates, and ask English Board to do their funding. They have solid talent, but the numbers are limited. So the best can always come up through the English system without complexities like these. Alternatively they can impose the 3(4?) year "cooling off" period which is now applicable for Full members, and thus England can justify themselves having spotted the talent, and "developed" it entirely via it's own system, before using that resource in an international match.

I don't believe in this SA born argument. KP etc have done justice to his selection by completely cutting off from South Africa, emigrating to England, doing the hard grind in English county cricket for 3-4 years, qualified himself as a British citizen and then only was considered for national selection. For me from cricketing pov he is as English as a Sidebottom or a Broad.

One counter argument for Morgan would be that he has too been doing the hard grind in County cricket since 2006. But then he always had the extra advantage of turning out in the Irish colors, play cricket at the top level, taken care of by the ICC directly, and thus a distinct advantage of other Middlesex players.

Anyway for now Irish cricket's future looks very bleak.

It's 4 years.

ICC eligibility.

[Jono]

Does not bother me in the slightest.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by Athlai

That one player was arguably the most valuable English player throughout.

Pietersen and Swann say hi, and I believe Stuart Broad popped his head round the corner too, Sidebottom wants a word as well, and Tim Bresnan....

[superkingdave]

If they change the eligibility criteria for associate nations, then young players would be faced with a choice to either(say for Ireland), play for their country and sacrifice not only the possibility of a test career down the line, but probably any chance to play for a county and earn a decent living as a cricketer, or alternatively never play for their home country. Players who play for their associate nation would become ineligible to play for England so any county which selects them would receive less money from the ECB and so it won't in most cases happen.

Someone like Morgan, who was in the county system from an early age...would he have played for Ireland at U19 level if he'd probably had lost his chance at Middlesex?

[King Pietersen]

Didn't the '92 WC Final side consist of 6 'foreign' born players?

No way Morgan was our most important player either. Pietersen and Swann provided far more, especially Pietersen.

[Jayzamann]

Personally, as long as they've satisfied the protocols in place to become English citizens, and are for all intents and purposes, English citizens, where they came from is irrelevant when considering them for LO selection.

The question really is the motivation behind the transition. Obtaining a foreign citizenship to progress your cricketing career really is no different to legions of other people immigrating to other countries to further their respective career prospects. But I can see how it would rile people up when career progression means representing a different country from where you come from. Some people are just more parochial than others.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by HeathDavisSpeed

It's not like England bought these players off the street, or stole them away from the safe clutches of South African sporting academies. Pietersen, Lumb and Morgan were developed, trained and raised by the English sporting system. Kieswetter is a bit different as he played for Yarpie U-19s, but I have no problem with Pietersen, Lumb, Morgan, Strauss or Prior.

Just sour grapes from other teams that keep bringing this up all the time.

Kieswetter might have played for South Africa U19s, but he finished his schooling in England and has only played FC cricket in England.

Pietersen and Kieswetter both have one British parent, moved to England when they were young and did the 4 years hard graft in the county system in order to qualify. It makes absolutely no difference to me that they were born and raised in South Africa.

Morgan has moved countries in order to play at the highest level and has done his 4 years qualifying.

[pskov]

I agree with the general sentiment in this thread - if someone puts the four years hard work in to qualify for a nation then I have no problem with them playing for that country. Likewise, if some 18 year old hotshot second xi cricketer in England with an Aussie mother wanted to move to Sydney to chance his arm at a baggy green I'd have no problem with that eiher.

The big thing that does need reform is requalification for associates as others have pointed out. Perhaps the rule should be that to switch back to an associate nation that you were previously qualified for you would need to spend only 1 year qualifying, and after that it also resets your qualification for the Test nation so you'd have to start the 4 year process again with them.

[tooextracool]

Im so sick and tired of hearing this, both in commentary and in discussions. I am not sure why being 'foreign born' makes someone a citizen of another country. All these players were British enough to be awarded British passports and at the end of the day if you we are going to criticize anything it should be the naturalization laws that have been created that have granted people like Kevin Pietersen, Eoin Morgan etc the right to UK citizenship.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

Im so sick and tired of hearing this, both in commentary and in discussions. I am not sure why being 'foreign born' makes someone a citizen of another country. All these players were British enough to be awarded British passports and at the end of the day if you we are going to criticize anything it should be the naturalization laws that have been created that have granted people like Kevin Pietersen, Eoin Morgan etc the right to UK citizenship.

Don't think Morgan has UK citizenship, he qualifies because he's been in the County system for years.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber

Some incredibly sour grapes in here.Love it.

In fact, rather to my surprise, that's not the case at all. The standard of discussion has been pretty good.

Absolutely loved Goughy's call on Gordon Greenidge.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Don't think Morgan has UK citizenship, he qualifies because he's been in the County system for years.

Yup, still travels on an Irish passport (as does Joyce FWIW). However, although the ICC don't insist on it, the ECB only allow UK & Irish passport holders to play and, in the case of those born away from blighty, only then after the four year residence qualification, also not demanded by the ICC (although necessary in Kieswetter's & Trott's cases as they'd played U19s for yer yarps).

[pskov]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Yup, still travels on an Irish passport (as does Joyce FWIW). However, although the ICC don't insist on it, the ECB only allow UK & Irish passport holders to play and, in the case of those born away from blighty, only then after the four year residence qualification, also not demanded by the ICC (although necessary in Kieswetter's & Trott's cases as they'd played U19s for yer yarps).

Yep, I remember that by ICC rules, Pietersen was eligible to play for England as soon as he stepped off the boat, but it was the self-imposed ECB regulations that made him wait out the 4 years.

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by zaremba

In fact, rather to my surprise, that's not the case at all. The standard of discussion has been pretty good.

Absolutely loved Goughy's call on Gordon Greenidge.

Gordon Greenidge's father, a local resident here in the Royal County, told me, years ago, that he (Gordon that is) chose to play for WI because he didn't want to open the batting with Geoff Boycott - I thought he was kidding (although he maintained an impassive inscrutable look on his face)

So then a few months ago I had cause to meet Gordon's younger brother - not surprisingly he was a decent cricketer in his youth as well so we had a chat about the game - I made the throwaway comment "shame Gordon didn't play for England" and got the response he couldn't face batting with Boycs - face betrayed nothing again