-
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.
*Official* England\UK off-season 2008/09 \ build-up to 2009 season thread
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
No - it's speculation at this stage. But he played for Sussex the last few weeks of the English season and made a very good impression, and Sussex could do with an extra quick bowler for the first month or two of the season until Arafat arrives, so it makes a lot of sense.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Morkel won't be playing as a Kolpak, presuming he wants to continue his SA career. In signing a Kolpak deal you're in effect becoming an EU citizen, and SA aren't part of the EU. So if he's playing for SA he can't be a Kolpak.
Rana was definately said to be leaving after this season at one point, though so was Deon Kruis, and plans have now been changed there.
Let's wait and see.
TT Boy
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah that is going to happen...
TT Boy
Hall of Fame Member
Who are they?
morgieb
Request Your Custom Title Now!
South African cricket board. LOL @ my typo.
TT if morkel chooses to sign a kolpak contract their is nothing you and your board can do.Just as whether he and his brother wish to play for england south africa doesn't have the resources to top it.
The ECB is much more powerful than the south africa board,and the ECB likes to import a lot of its cricketers.
The ECB is much more powerful than the south africa board,and the ECB likes to import a lot of its cricketers.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
It really doesn't. The counties are automonous entities when it comes to player recruitment. The ECB even out financial penalties in place to discourage counties recruiting carpet-bagging southern Africans.
Financial penaulties.
Is that what you did with kevin peterson.
Allright i will change my words if a county wishes it can offer morkel a lot more than he is earning for south africa,and he can become a kolpak and decide to play for england.
Those penaulties certainly haven't effected kent they came 2nd in their 20/20 comp with kemp,mahmood and mclaren not classified as overseas players.
I am sorry i laugh at this penaulties bullsh*t.
The ECB is complicit in picking these guys they have picked eoin morgan and amjad khan for the english lions and 1 is from denmark and doesnt speak english and 1 has played the world cup for ireland.
The ECB evens out fines
what 10 dollars.
Is that what you did with kevin peterson.
Allright i will change my words if a county wishes it can offer morkel a lot more than he is earning for south africa,and he can become a kolpak and decide to play for england.
Those penaulties certainly haven't effected kent they came 2nd in their 20/20 comp with kemp,mahmood and mclaren not classified as overseas players.
I am sorry i laugh at this penaulties bullsh*t.
The ECB is complicit in picking these guys they have picked eoin morgan and amjad khan for the english lions and 1 is from denmark and doesnt speak english and 1 has played the world cup for ireland.
The ECB evens out fines
what 10 dollars.
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
Kolpaks cannot play for England. End of story
BoyBrumby
Englishman
To be fair to us we haven't picked any players who've previously played for other test nations in tests or ODIs, even when (as with Law, Pothas or Saqlain) there were probably quite sound cricketing reasons for selecting them.Financial penaulties.
Is that what you did with kevin peterson.
Allright i will change my words if a county wishes it can offer morkel a lot more than he is earning for south africa,and he can become a kolpak and decide to play for england.
Those penaulties certainly haven't effected kent they came 2nd in their 20/20 comp with kemp,mahmood and mclaren not classified as overseas players.
I am sorry i laugh at this penaulties bullsh*t.
The ECB is complicit in picking these guys they have picked eoin morgan and amjad khan for the english lions and 1 is from denmark and doesnt speak english and 1 has played the world cup for ireland.
The ECB evens out fines
The fine is £1,100 per player per FC match & a fair bit less (£400 seems to ring a bell) for one dayers, so it's a not inconsiderable amount. I'd personally stick a "0" on the end, but that's me.
Pietersen is, of course, a British subject so there is no way he could be prevented from playing in the UK provided he isn't available for selection for the country of his birth.
& I personally don't like us calling up players from associates, but there's no other way the blokes could play tests so it's understandable they throw their lot in with us.
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
If they wait 4 years then they are no longer Kolpaks.
I am not aware of 1 Kolpak going on to play for England. Im not saying it has not happened or that it never will, just that I cant think of one.
Kolpak has nothing to do with qualifying for England. They would have the same rights as if they had been working in a supermarket.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
OK, a few things:
1, as already pointed-out, Kolpaks cannot play for England - they must qualify for a British passport and become a UK citizen before they can do that. They might be able to play for a county as a Kolpak in the meantime, but the qualification period applies to anyone and everyone, whether they've been playing for a county as a Kolpak in the meantime or not.
2, Azhar Mahmood became a British national by marrying a British woman, and he was of no use to Pakistan anyway as he was a very, very poor international cricketer.
3, the likes of Irishmen and Europeans (like Danes) playing for England is a totally different matter to Kolpaks from South Africa or West Indies playing for England. The former is simply a case of players making the move neccessary to play the best level of cricket available to them; the latter is players switching allegiance.
4, Kevin Pietersen is half British and qualifies not through Kolpak status (the ruling was only made 4 years after his move to the UK) but through his mother's nationality and his residence.
5, as regards players who are currently playing international cricket (like Morne Morkel), if they wish to sacrifice their international careers for their "own" country for the sake of 3 years (at least) on the sidelines to end-up playing for a different country in exchange for a higher wage-packet, that's a whole different decision to make to someone who's never had any prospects of playing for South Africa (or West Indies). So far, only 1 player who had been an international and still had prospects of being one has taken the Kolpak route: Jacques Rudolph.
I know all that just have a dig at the english system where they import players and 2nd playing with TT.
That said yourkshire could offer mornie morkel a kolpak contract higher than what he earns for south africa and in 4 years he could play for england.And the point is their is nothing the icc or the usacb could do about it.
Looking as an australian who don't import,steal or take players like england,whatever you call it,it is a sad state of cricket england take so many players from overseas countries.
That said i still believe kevin pieterson should play for his native south africa as he was born their.
Don't believe in this crossing countries to represent other countries,it seems only england who seem to do it.in cricket.An unfair advantage.
Morally its wrong players from other countries represent another country.
That said ryan mclaren when he finnishes his stint at kent he will be qualified to play for england,the ECB are said to be following his progress.So called policy they discourage overseas players is they pick them.If the ECB was really against it they wouldn't select them.
Now you will respond with kepler wessels that was 30 years ago.He was signed up in world series cricket by kerry packer,and he decided to move to australia.There was no stealing by the ACB then.Kepler wessels was brought into aussie cricket by kerry packer and himself.
Now 30 years ago get over it.
We did try and steal sean ervine but seems england has stolen sean ervine from us,no loss really when you look at the young allrounders coming through.His loss really.
Morally what the counties do is wrong,and i think england is complicit in this.
If they weren't complicit why are they looking at eoin morgan,amjad khan and ryan mclaren as future internationals.
BTW have to laugh the only kolpak to turn his back on england is jacob louw who may make his international debut and he is hopeless.
That said yourkshire could offer mornie morkel a kolpak contract higher than what he earns for south africa and in 4 years he could play for england.And the point is their is nothing the icc or the usacb could do about it.
Looking as an australian who don't import,steal or take players like england,whatever you call it,it is a sad state of cricket england take so many players from overseas countries.
That said i still believe kevin pieterson should play for his native south africa as he was born their.
Don't believe in this crossing countries to represent other countries,it seems only england who seem to do it.in cricket.An unfair advantage.
Morally its wrong players from other countries represent another country.
That said ryan mclaren when he finnishes his stint at kent he will be qualified to play for england,the ECB are said to be following his progress.So called policy they discourage overseas players is they pick them.If the ECB was really against it they wouldn't select them.
Now you will respond with kepler wessels that was 30 years ago.He was signed up in world series cricket by kerry packer,and he decided to move to australia.There was no stealing by the ACB then.Kepler wessels was brought into aussie cricket by kerry packer and himself.
Now 30 years ago get over it.
We did try and steal sean ervine but seems england has stolen sean ervine from us,no loss really when you look at the young allrounders coming through.His loss really.
Morally what the counties do is wrong,and i think england is complicit in this.
If they weren't complicit why are they looking at eoin morgan,amjad khan and ryan mclaren as future internationals.
BTW have to laugh the only kolpak to turn his back on england is jacob louw who may make his international debut and he is hopeless.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
The ECB are not trying to disincentivise players from coming to play for England; the ECB are trying to disincentivise players coming over to play for counties but having no intention of playing for England.
The fact is, the current ICC rules state that all you have to do to play for a country is be a citizen of that country, be that via birth, parentage, residence, marriage or anything else. To earn a UK passport the residence qualification is 3 years, with 183 days per year spent in the country.
The whole issue is nothing to do with any individual board but with qualification rules. Myself, I'm not a fan of country-hopping, not at all. Not any more. Much as I feel anyone has the right to make their home where they want, I feel that international sport is a different matter. Birth and parentage qualification, as I've said, is a load of rubbish IMO - Darren Pattinson isn't British even though he was born here and his parents are British, he's Australian, because he's lived there for 23 years. For me, a suitable residence qualification would be 10 years, regardless of whether you have citizenship of the country in question much sooner than this. And if I had complete control of qualification rules for international cricket that'd be the rule I'd apply (under general circumstances - there must be exceptions for exceptional cases, as some people never spend 10 years in the same country until they turn 20 or even older). This would effectively cut-out nation-hopping.
However, current rules do mean that it's possible for richer countries to incentivise players to switch allegiance - though for some, patriotic pull is sufficient to resist this. There is no way any one board deserves any more blame for this than another. The issue is with each and every board, and it'd be up to all boards combined (ie, ICC) to change the matter.
And this issue is a completely separate one to the Kolpak issue.
The fact is, the current ICC rules state that all you have to do to play for a country is be a citizen of that country, be that via birth, parentage, residence, marriage or anything else. To earn a UK passport the residence qualification is 3 years, with 183 days per year spent in the country.
The whole issue is nothing to do with any individual board but with qualification rules. Myself, I'm not a fan of country-hopping, not at all. Not any more. Much as I feel anyone has the right to make their home where they want, I feel that international sport is a different matter. Birth and parentage qualification, as I've said, is a load of rubbish IMO - Darren Pattinson isn't British even though he was born here and his parents are British, he's Australian, because he's lived there for 23 years. For me, a suitable residence qualification would be 10 years, regardless of whether you have citizenship of the country in question much sooner than this. And if I had complete control of qualification rules for international cricket that'd be the rule I'd apply (under general circumstances - there must be exceptions for exceptional cases, as some people never spend 10 years in the same country until they turn 20 or even older). This would effectively cut-out nation-hopping.
However, current rules do mean that it's possible for richer countries to incentivise players to switch allegiance - though for some, patriotic pull is sufficient to resist this. There is no way any one board deserves any more blame for this than another. The issue is with each and every board, and it'd be up to all boards combined (ie, ICC) to change the matter.
And this issue is a completely separate one to the Kolpak issue.
Yes but richard that wouldn't stop yorkshire from siging as a kolpak for yorkshire for a huge sum,then play for 4 years and then qualify for england.
Their must be something evil in the english cricket system that does this make people change their allegiences for one country rather than another.
Look at ireland being beaten by namibia in their final match,they could do with an eion morgan but he seems determined to play for england,and england seem keen to groome him through the english lions into the english international side.
Now that said ireland is an international side and has official one day status.
Their must be something evil in the english cricket system that does this make people change their allegiences for one country rather than another.
Look at ireland being beaten by namibia in their final match,they could do with an eion morgan but he seems determined to play for england,and england seem keen to groome him through the english lions into the english international side.
Now that said ireland is an international side and has official one day status.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
As I've said, Morgan (and Joyce before him) isn't guilty of switching allegiance. All good Irish (and Scottish) players have always wanted to play in and for England. They have to, in order to play at Test and serious ODI level. Ireland and Scotland shouldn't, in an ideal World, be separate ODI teams. They wouldn't be, indeed, if East Stirlingshire and some Irish county had had a team in the County Championship for the last 80 years, the way Wales have.
Ireland, Scotland and the European countries is an entirely different question to that of South Africans. There is nothing evil specifically in the English system, apart from counties who place the short-term above the long-term, and this disadvantages England rather than advantages them. The only difference between England and elsewhere is that English domestic cricket has much, much higher pay-packets than anywhere else in the cricketing World. And some players follow the money - as they are perfectly entitled to. For a short time, England also had the Kolpak ruling involved, as England is part of the UK which is part of the EU which has the treaty (I forget what it's called) which allowed free rein of labour for all who were involved in this treaty (which includes SA and much of WI). However, the Kolpak ruling has now been overruled and the treaty no longer allows free rein of labour, which will put a stop to any instant qualifications for SAfricans.
If overseas players want to play in England (and do not have British or EU qualification), they will once more have to take 3 years out of the game in order to do so.
However, as I've said before, there have been virtually no serious international prospects who have been lost to South Africa, or West Indies, due to Kolpak contracts. Jacques Rudolph, Ryan McLaren and Pedro Collins are about the only ones. Mostly the issue is with retired and\or second-string players, and this disadvantages England more than the countries who the players have left behind.
Ireland, Scotland and the European countries is an entirely different question to that of South Africans. There is nothing evil specifically in the English system, apart from counties who place the short-term above the long-term, and this disadvantages England rather than advantages them. The only difference between England and elsewhere is that English domestic cricket has much, much higher pay-packets than anywhere else in the cricketing World. And some players follow the money - as they are perfectly entitled to. For a short time, England also had the Kolpak ruling involved, as England is part of the UK which is part of the EU which has the treaty (I forget what it's called) which allowed free rein of labour for all who were involved in this treaty (which includes SA and much of WI). However, the Kolpak ruling has now been overruled and the treaty no longer allows free rein of labour, which will put a stop to any instant qualifications for SAfricans.
If overseas players want to play in England (and do not have British or EU qualification), they will once more have to take 3 years out of the game in order to do so.
However, as I've said before, there have been virtually no serious international prospects who have been lost to South Africa, or West Indies, due to Kolpak contracts. Jacques Rudolph, Ryan McLaren and Pedro Collins are about the only ones. Mostly the issue is with retired and\or second-string players, and this disadvantages England more than the countries who the players have left behind.