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

[Richard]

Originally Posted by zaremba

Well technically you're right, but it's important to recognise that the point you're making itself involves an artificial dissection of Prior's record. You have left out of account the '09 Ashes (and for good measure you're not even credited that with being evidence of significant improvement). It reminds me of "Apart from 2004, Steve Harmison has always been crap", or perhaps "Apart from 708 specific deliveries, Shane Warne has never been a penetrative Test bowler". Yes these things are true, but the things you choose to leave out can tend to make the subsequent discussion quite misleading.

I don't think so. My very first post on the matter, and in fact several subsequent ones, have said that it is possible that Prior is improving (\has improved) and that if he has, great, because he's apparently a pretty damn good batsman, and if he can\has become an acceptable Test wicketkeeper, England have a very useful player indeed on their hands.

All I'm saying is that those who think he's never been all that bad really are kidding themselves. Prior in the summer of 2009, against both West Indies and Australia, did indeed keep wicket quite acceptably. But one summer's work alone is not enough to convince me of improvement. That is not to say there has certainly not been any, because there may yet have been. All I'm doing is urging caution and not jumping to over-excited premature conclusions - Prior may indeed have improved, but last summer may also have been a flash-in-the-pan; we must wait to see, we do not yet know which is the case.

Part of the urging caution is pointing-out how until last summer Prior was awful. And I take issue with someone who suggests that he was not awful until last summer. It's something that always gets on my nerves TBH. The way, sometimes, when someone becomes good \ very good \ excellent, people will say that they were never that bad ITFP. Well, some people were, and Prior is certainly one of them.

BTW it's "apart from a few months in early 2004", not "apart from the entire 2004" for Harmison, oh yes siree.

[Langeveldt]

I hope England pay for their reliance on overseas talent for many years to come, but I don't see it happening.. If nothing else matters you just have to look at the economic situation of being a professional sportsman in Africa as opposed to England, there will always be a steady stream I think.. As for what should SA do, well why would it ever be a problem?

[aussie]

Fact is the amount of foreign players we have in our does make ENG a bit of laughing stock to other nations & it further highlights the underying factor that our youth system is weak here. England aren't producing enough local talent right now & i'm not how that problem can be fixed in the coming years.

[Langeveldt]

Originally Posted by aussie

Fact is the amount of foreign players we have in our does make ENG a bit of laughing stock to other nations & it further highlights the underying factor that our youth system is weak here. England aren't producing enough local talent right now & i'm not how that problem can be fixed in the coming years.

Thats obvious by watching school sports in either country in the space of a few years.. The difference is scary..

[Richard]

Originally Posted by aussie

Fact is the amount of foreign players we have in our does make ENG a bit of laughing stock to other nations

Foreign-raised players maybe, but foreign-born merely makes a laughing-stock of those who might attempt to laugh at it. The UK is a popular destination of migration and someone who's lived in England from the age of 6 having been born in South Africa (such as Andrew Strauss) is no more or less British than someone born there. Foreign-born, UK-raised players playing cricket for England has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the cricket system and everything to do with the country at large.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Richard

Foreign-raised players maybe, but foreign-born merely makes a laughing-stock of those who might attempt to laugh at it. The UK is a popular destination of migration and someone who's lived in England from the age of 6 having been born in South Africa (such as Andrew Strauss) is no more or less British than someone born there.

Yea anyone who doesn't call who doesn't call him English is an ass. Thats like saying Hussain & Cowdrey are Indian. KP, Morgan, Trott fall into this category.

Originally Posted by Richard

Foreign-born, UK-raised players playing cricket for England has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the cricket system and everything to do with the country at large.

It is a part of our culture yea. But foreigners see it as "England got to depend on immigrants to come in for them to get talent in their sports" & its true. As i've said before, cricket for example is seen soo much as posch sport, black people are not interested & majority of the Asians dont want to represent us. Added to fact that coaching at youth level is way below the standards of other countries.

So i can see us plucking immigrants for a while yet, unless we improve our grassroots.

[morgieb]

Why do people call Strauss and to a lesser extent Prior "South African"? They are English, they just were born in South African.

However, Trott & Pietersen playing for England is a farce.

[Richard]

No more than Kepler Wessels playing for Australia was, or Sammy Guillen and Grant Elliott for New Zealand, or Brendan Nash for West Indies, or several other cases. There has always been the odd instance of a player making a conscious decision to switch his allegiances.

Whether this should be allowed, and whether much longer residence qualifications should be imposed, is a moot point and one that can be questioned for a long while, but there's no good reason to single-out England in terms of "imports". It's not even a case of any one team importing players - the players make their own choices of where they want to go.

[morgieb]

Originally Posted by Richard

No more than Kepler Wessels playing for South Africa was, or Sammy Guillen and Grant Elliott for New Zealand, or Brendan Nash for West Indies, or several other cases. There has always been the odd instance of a player making a conscious decision to switch his allegiances.

Whether this should be allowed, and whether much longer residence qualifications should be imposed, is a moot point and one that can be questioned for a long while, but there's no good reason to single-out England in terms of "imports". It's not even a case of any one team importing players - the players make their own choices of where they want to go.

\_/ about his appearences for Australia - he's South African.

Whilist I can see where you are coming from, the big question is, would Pietersen play for England if it wasn't for apartheid? (and yes, I know he's a recent player, but racial quotas may have well not been added if it wasn't for apartheid).

[Richard]

If it wasn't for Apartheid the whole of South African history of the last 60 years would be completely and totally different and whether Kevin Pietersen would have switched allegiances is a minor matter to the point of complete irrelevance. It'd be far more appropriate to say merely "but for racial quotas".

Either way it's important to note that Pietersen may lay the blame for his failure to kick-on in South Africa squarely at the door of racial quotas but I don't quite believe that. Certainly they played a part, but he's not the first nor last seriously promising batsman to be ignored and only selected as a fingerspinner - that even, briefly, happened to Jean-Paul Duminy in the national side. Sometimes it seems South African coaches and selectors just struggle initially to identify a special talent. If anyone had realised how good Pietersen was going to become when he went to England, there is no way anyone would have failed to accommodate him. People just did not realise how good he was.

[Top_Cat]

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]

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.

[Matt79]

Why would you care?

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

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.

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?

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Play them for England, obv.

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?

Packer.