Out of every team to win the world cup this English team has the most foreign born players.
A fair few teams have had XI home born players in their international tournament winning teams (WC, Champs Trophy, T20 and the mini world cup):
West Indies 75, West Indies 79, India 83 (though I may be mixing together some subcontinental places for all Asian teams), Australia 87, Pakistan 91, Sri Lanka, 96, India 07, Pakistan 09, Australia 09
Teams that had a foreign born player regardless of how long they lived in the country they played for:
SA 99 Benkenstein and Elworth - Zimbabwe, NZ 00 Twose - England and Styris - Australia
Australia 03 Symonds - England, WI 04 Browne - England, Aus 06 Symonds again Aus 07 Symonds, England 2010 Lumb, Kieswetter, Pietersen - South Africa, Morgan - Ireland
What are everyone's thoughts on this? I've heard a fair few arguments either way, namely that it doesn't matter where you are born but where you live now, or who you represented first at a youth national level, or how long they have lived in their host country.
For me personally it hollows England's victory a bit to have a fair few players in the team that represented South Africa and Ireland at different levels. I'm not trying to tear into England here but get a bit of debate going over where this kind of team make-up may be heading in the future. Besides everyone knows that it was the English bowlers who did most of the match winning in the final.