• 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.

What shoul SA do when their ENG exports come running back to SA?

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Harsh lumping Wessels in with the other guys. Right when he first played FC cricket, SA were booted out world sport. If he wanted to play Tests, what else was he supposed to do?
 

jboss

Banned
Hmm perhaps someone misunderstood me as thinking of Strauss as South African whn I do not. I am more talking about those that grew up here, were coached by our system, will probably mover back here when they retire and probably support our rugby team.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Harsh lumping Wessels in with the other guys. Right when he first played FC cricket, SA were booted out world sport. If he wanted to play Tests, what else was he supposed to do?
Play them for England, obv. :ph34r:

Actually, does anyone know why he went to Oz for test cricket rather than England? Lifestyle or was it because he's an Afrikaner rather than an Anglo?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Went there to play WSC, like several other SAfricans, and stayed there afterwards.

As for what was he supposed to do, well, the same thing as Tony Greig, Robin Smith or Allan Lamb - he had to go somewhere else to play if he wanted to. Doesn't change the fact that he moved abroad of his own choice to play for a team representing a different country to his own. Brendan Nash had no chance of playing Test cricket in Australia either, so he moved to Jamaica to give himself a (it turns-out successful) shot at doing so. The reasons were totally different, but the outcome was the same.

In each case the player felt that their chances would be best served by switching allegiances. The rules allow such a thing, so fair play to them. But I'm not sure I'd allow such rules if I were in charge.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Hmm perhaps someone misunderstood me as thinking of Strauss as South African whn I do not. I am more talking about those that grew up here, were coached by our system, will probably mover back here when they retire and probably support our rugby team.
All 2 of them 8-)
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Hmm perhaps someone misunderstood me as thinking of Strauss as South African whn I do not. I am more talking about those that grew up here, were coached by our system, will probably mover back here when they retire and probably support our rugby team.
Perhaps the misunderstanding arose from posts like this:

It is not impossible to say that an england team one day could very well be just SA born players.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
Went there to play WSC, like several other SAfricans, and stayed there afterwards.

As for what was he supposed to do, well, the same thing as Tony Greig, Robin Smith or Allan Lamb - he had to go somewhere else to play if he wanted to. Doesn't change the fact that he moved abroad of his own choice to play for a team representing a different country to his own. Brendan Nash had no chance of playing Test cricket in Australia either, so he moved to Jamaica to give himself a (it turns-out successful) shot at doing so. The reasons were totally different, but the outcome was the same.

In each case the player felt that their chances would be best served by switching allegiances. The rules allow such a thing, so fair play to them. But I'm not sure I'd allow such rules if I were in charge.
Mystifies me as to why anyone would care. Can't say I'd bear any animosity if someone like Brad Hodge or Phil Jaques decided to move to NZ or England to try and play internationals. Where someone came from is so much less important than where they choose to be.

Certainly any Australian objecting to such a move would be a rank hypocrite given our propensity to throw residency at anyone who's got an outside chance of winning us a medal at the next Olympics.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
AWTA. Never bothered me that Dipak Patel or Roger Twose chose to emigrate from England to NZ to pursue their careers there. Didn't make me think any less of them, or of the NZ teams that they played for. I can't believe anyone feels any ill-will towards either of them, and I'm sure that when they come back to England they are warmly welcomed.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Mystifies me as to why anyone would care. Can't say I'd bear any animosity if someone like Brad Hodge or Phil Jaques decided to move to NZ or England to try and play internationals. Where someone came from is so much less important than where they choose to be.

Certainly any Australian objecting to such a move would be a rank hypocrite given our propensity to throw residency at anyone who's got an outside chance of winning us a medal at the next Olympics.
I certainly don't think any less of someone for switching allegiances nor bear animosity to one who should do so, but I do think that any allegiance switch should be long-term before someone is allowed to play international sport for where they've chosen to be. Personally I'd have a residence qualification of 10 years before someone is allowed to play top-level sport - which basically rules-out most people from having extended careers in cricket if they've not been brought-up somewhere.

"Being from" somewhere is, to me, what international sport is about; the fact that you have to be qualified and cannot just be signed whenever you fancy as you can at club level.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
I'd say the current level is too long - makes it too hard. I'd change it to two years myself.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
I certainly don't think any less of someone for switching allegiances nor bear animosity to one who should do so, but I do think that any allegiance switch should be long-term before someone is allowed to play international sport for where they've chosen to be. Personally I'd have a residence qualification of 10 years before someone is allowed to play top-level sport - which basically rules-out most people from having extended careers in cricket if they've not been brought-up somewhere.

"Being from" somewhere is, to me, what international sport is about; the fact that you have to be qualified and cannot just be signed whenever you fancy as you can at club level.
That qualification of being from somewhere surely provided by residency or citizenship. What does waiting for years prove?
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
I certainly don't think any less of someone for switching allegiances nor bear animosity to one who should do so, but I do think that any allegiance switch should be long-term before someone is allowed to play international sport for where they've chosen to be. Personally I'd have a residence qualification of 10 years before someone is allowed to play top-level sport - which basically rules-out most people from having extended careers in cricket if they've not been brought-up somewhere.
Too inflexible. Some people spend their childhoods moving all over the place - perhaps they have parents whose work takes them overseas - and to exclude them from playing anywhere until they have lived there for 10 years would be wrong.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Yup - that point was raised the last time I discussed the matter. Our own Kev Goughy points-out that his own kids fit such a bill.

However such people are, relatively speaking, unusual. Exceptions would need to be made for exceptional cases such as they, but by-and-large that rule would cause few problems.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I'd say the current level is too long - makes it too hard. I'd change it to two years myself.
So you're basically happy for international cricket to be a free-for-all where talent is shared around and those who want it most can get it?

Obviously that's your opinion and it's a fair enough one to hold, but I don't agree at all. I think international cricket is what it is because you have to qualify. 2 years' qualification is pretty straightforward - all you need for that is a bit of patience.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
That qualification of being from somewhere surely provided by residency or citizenship. What does waiting for years prove?
I don't like citizenship and international eligibility being linked TBH. Citizenship is about so much and there are so many good reasons to deserve it, virtually none of which apply to playing international sport.
 

jboss

Banned
My experience is not so pleasant on these matters and here is what I have to say.

I am a saffa married to a Norwegian and I find most of europe has a two faced policy when it comes to immigration. I have now been married for 3 years to her and due to the nature of her work, we are required to travel abroad regularly. I am not allowed to live in Norway freely unless i prove every single time that I am married to her, despite having gone through the same visa process 3 times alread. Yet, I still get treated like a new applicant each time and I only see myself getting citizenship in 10 years time, despit by then I would have been married for 10 years. Now why is it so easy for sportd people to get such rights for the sake of playing a sport but so difficult for other in a more needing situation to get the same rights? The other thing is that half of the population playing cricket in Aus, NZ and SA have roots in Europe and I am sure that all of them could legally get a Europian passport of some sort and most probably that passport would be british. What would then happen if all the cricket players from these countries chose to represent Eng as apposed to theri country of birth? The reason why this mostly affect SA is because
1)We now have the ability to travel to the UK (a right denied to us for many years due to sanctions)
2)Quotas
3)Many people find the grass is greener in other countries due to some deeper issues I will not discuss here.

I guess the only statement I was trying to make is from a point of view of the sport and not the players. If this continues for SA then SA will lose fans to the game and risk a decrease in attracting young fans to the sport.

So again, why is the ICC who are trying to salvage Test match cricket, allowing some countries to gain the talenst from development in other countries and allowing countries with more money to woo more players of quality to their team?

Imagine if FIFA allowed countries to handpick/pay for better talents to represent a country as apposed to mandating that players must play for their countries of birth?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
As I've said before, forcing players to play for the country of their birth is nonsense IMO. What matters - AFAIC - is where someone is brought-up, not born.

And of course as I say some are brought-up as citizens of Earth rather than one country.
 

Top