Play them for England, obv.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?
Packer.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?
Ah, makes sense. Was he part of the WSC?Packer.
All 2 of themHmm 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: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.
It is not impossible to say that an england team one day could very well be just SA born players.
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.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.
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.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.
That qualification of being from somewhere surely provided by residency or citizenship. What does waiting for years prove?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.
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.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.
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?I'd say the current level is too long - makes it too hard. I'd change it to two years myself.
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.That qualification of being from somewhere surely provided by residency or citizenship. What does waiting for years prove?