Further notice the England born players are not coming through.

[wfdu_ben91]

First off, Asian communties, although increasing, are still a minority group in England, which I think is a key point. There are players of Asian heritage coming through. Players like Nasser Hussain, Monty Panesar, Ravi Bopara, Samit Patel, Sajid Mahmood and a few others have had International success, no matter how brief. I think it's very much co-incidence that there have been very few world class players of Asian heritage playing for England and Australia. It's the same with black cricketers for England, there hadn't been a black-English Test cricketer for many years (until Carberry), just down to co-incidence as opposed to some far-fetched genetic issue. If it were a matter of Asian players just not being good enough due to some genetic issue, then you wouldn't see some of the worlds best players playing for India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, and they just wouldn't be able to compete with the 'taller and physically stronger' Englishmen, South Africans and Australians.

Due to bigger populations, hence the chances of producing a talented player is much more likely.

 

[King Pietersen]

Well, yeah, that's obvious, and basically answers your question as to why there haven't been many players of Asian heritage perform excellently for England or Australia. British-Asian's make up just 4% of the population in the UK (it's 8% in Australia), so you can't really expect Test quality British/Australian-Asian cricketers to be flooding through with regularity. It's purely down to the fact they're a minority or due to luck/co-incidence rather than some genetic issue.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Well, yeah, that's obvious, and basically answers your question as to why there haven't been many players of Asian heritage perform excellently for England or Australia. British-Asian's make up just 4% of the population in the UK (it's 8% in Australia), so you can't really expect Test quality British/Australian-Asian cricketers to be flooding through with regularity. It's purely down to the fact they're a minority or due to luck/co-incidence rather than some genetic issue.

I don't know about those figures, but I'm pretty sure that there would be a pretty big percentage of Asians that live in Sydney.

 

[King Pietersen]

The first figure was actually enhanced, the 2006 Census found that 6.7% of the Australian population declared they had ancestral background to one of the 3 Asian groupings. You're right about those figures being higher in Sydney though, with 16.88% of the population being of Asian heritage. Still a minority though.

 

[BoyBrumby]

First off, Asian communties, although increasing, are still a minority group in England, which I think is a key point. There are players of Asian heritage coming through. Players like Nasser Hussain, Monty Panesar, Ravi Bopara, Samit Patel, Sajid Mahmood and a few others have had International success, no matter how brief. I think it's very much co-incidence that there have been very few world class players of Asian heritage playing for England and Australia. It's the same with black cricketers for England, there hadn't been a black-English Test cricketer for many years (until Carberry), just down to co-incidence as opposed to some far-fetched genetic issue. If it were a matter of Asian players just not being good enough due to some genetic issue, then you wouldn't see some of the worlds best players playing for India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, and they just wouldn't be able to compete with the 'taller and physically stronger' Englishmen, South Africans and Australians.

I think there's possibly slightly more to the lack of black English cricketers than just coincidence, myself. Going back 15-20 years we had a decent core of Afro-caribbeans playing for us (De Freitas, Small, Malcolm, Lewis & big Syd Lawrence), but since the brief flourishing of Tudor we've had none for nearly a decade. In the meantime we've scarcely seen an English football team without black or mixed-race players in it but no English Asian has ever made the leap to the national side (although I think Chopra played U21s for us). I think the difference in the sporting achievements of the two "communities" (for want of a better word) is so marked it must be more than chance.

I personally think the trends are more likely to be explained by nurture rather than nature (it can't be coincidence all the black cricketers I listed except Syd are West Indian-born, for instance) but equally there looks something there.

 

[SJS]

I don't have a definitive answer to that, but I would suggest that there must be at least some of the former. Simply because signing an experienced Saffer will provide a quicker solution than bringing few a younger and less experienced player from your own ranks. It's not really comparing like with like - of course a guy with lots of FC experience will be better than a 20 year old finding his way in the game.

I agree. Its a bit of both.

 

[Sir Alex]

Genetically I think Asians are allot smaller and physically weaker then what South Africans, Australians and Englishmen are and that's why they produce better performers then what Asians do despite having a smaller population. However because India has a massive population, it sort've evens things up, but because there aren't as many subcontient people in Australia and England, that's why you rarely, if ever see any decent subcontient cricketers come out of Australia or England. Not trying to be racist and I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but that's just the way I see it.

I'd have reported that post had it not been hilariously idiotic.

Physically weak?? Unfit for cricket? You joking son? Sachin Tendulkar has lasted 20+ years and Jayasurya also and these are the typical subcontinental players you were saying are "smaller".. Size has nothing to do with strength mate. You have the Tendulkars on one hand and the Flintoffs in the other.

Also you seem to be limited in your interpretation of subcontinental or Asian. Have ever been to Pakistan? Or have ever seen the Pathans? They are among the most robust and hardy of men in the world.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

I'd have reported that post had it not been hilariously idiotic.

Physically weak?? Unfit for cricket? You joking son? Sachin Tendulkar has lasted 20+ years and Jayasurya also and these are the typical subcontinental players you were saying are "smaller".. Size has nothing to do with strength mate. You have the Tendulkars on one hand and the Flintoffs in the other.

Also you seem to be limited in your interpretation of subcontinental or Asian. Have ever been to Pakistan? Or have ever seen the Pathans? They are among the most robust and hardy of men in the world.

Yeah, I worded wrong. By physically weak, I mean less-likely to be talented. It doesn't mean that Asians can't be big, strong or successful at cricket, but the likelyhood is much less compared to an Aussie, Pom, Protea, American, etc. It's why India is completely obsessed with cricket, but yet they can't dominate much smaller countries like England, Australia and South Africa.

 

[Sir Alex]

Yeah, I worded wrong. By physically weak, I mean less-likely to be talented. It doesn't mean that Asians can't be big, strong or successful at cricket, but the likelyhood is much less compared to an Aussie, Pom, Protea, American, etc. It's why India is completely obsessed with cricket, but yet they can't dominate much smaller countries like England, Australia and South Africa.

Now you are definitely trolling.

 

[King Pietersen]

You checked the ICC rankings recently Ben? India ranked #1 in Tests and #2 in ODi's. I'd say they're doing a pretty handy job of dominating the 'smaller countries' at the minute.

What do you mean by "less likely to be talented" too? Seems to make absolutely zero sense AFAIC. Are you actually trying to get banned?

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Eh, forget it. The more I argue, the more you try to make it sound racist.

 

[Sir Alex]

Eh, forget it. The more I argue, the more you try to make it sound racist.

It IS racist. And a putrid lie at that.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Oh dear, this is a right mess, isn't it?

It is immensely difficult to have conversations about race and ethnicity and keep things civil and insightful, but right now we're doing a really poor job of it. I think I can appreciate the principle behind what Ben is saying, unfortunately he is phrasing himself incredibly badly.

What (I hope) he's trying to look at is genetic predisposition - there is no denying that black/Afro-Caribbean origin contributes to success as a sprinter, but let's think about this - who was the last white guy to win the Olympic 100m? Similarly Kenyan/Ethiopian stock is clearly better suited to middle-distance running. I think I have read that this is due to higher blood cell counts due to altitude - though I guess this doesn't explain the lack of Bolivian 1500m runners.

Whites of British/Caucasian origin are, historically, on average, taller and stronger and in possession of more fast-twitch fibres than those of Asian origin. A quick search suggests Indian males average 1.64m (India Times), whilst in the UK it's 1.77m (NHS). For me, this contributes towards explaining the extra depth in the fast bowling stocks of "white nations" over earlier decades - whilst Asian genetics seem to lend more flexibility and better suit the development of spin bowlers and "wristy" batsmen. Of course weather and pitches also come into the equation. This is one of the great beauties of cricket - a game that can be played in different ways. Saying that, there seems to have been a significant increase in the number of taller, faster bowlers coming out of India lately.

Then we have the question raised by SJS and Brumby about proportional representation in the English teams. We are "over-represented" by Black or Afro-Caribbean players, and "under-represented" by British Asians in football, and vice versa in cricket, if you compare the percentages of the population of a particular ethnicity to the percentage of International sportsmen. I would venture that this is more of a cultural issue, and an interesting discussion as, to give the national side as much success as possible, you do not want cultural divides preventing children from gaining access to sports. I do think, though, that white English boys are still playing and enjoying the game as much (if not more) than I've seen through ten years of working in the grassroots - and white English girls are playing more than ever.

There is no reason why this subject is not one that can be discussed, but we do need to go about it in a more informed manner - let's try and use sources if we can for any potentially controversial claims, and think about how what we say could be interpreted: as well as trying to appreciate how any posters intend their meanings.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Oh dear, this is a right mess, isn't it?

It is immensely difficult to have conversations about race and ethnicity and keep things civil and insightful, but right now we're doing a really poor job of it. I think I can appreciate the principle behind what Ben is saying, unfortunately he is phrasing himself incredibly badly.

What (I hope) he's trying to look at is genetic predisposition - there is no denying that black/Afro-Caribbean origin contributes to success as a sprinter, but let's think about this - who was the last white guy to win the Olympic 100m? Similarly Kenyan/Ethiopian stock is clearly better suited to middle-distance running. I think I have read that this is due to higher blood cell counts due to altitude - though I guess this doesn't explain the lack of Bolivian 1500m runners.

Whites of British/Caucasian origin are, historically, on average, taller and stronger and in possession of more fast-twitch fibres than those of Asian origin. A quick search suggests Indian males average 1.64m (India Times), whilst in the UK it's 1.77m (NHS). For me, this contributes towards explaining the extra depth in the fast bowling stocks of "white nations" over earlier decades - whilst Asian genetics seem to lend more flexibility and better suit the development of spin bowlers and "wristy" batsmen. Of course weather and pitches also come into the equation. This is one of the great beauties of cricket - a game that can be played in different ways. Saying that, there seems to have been a significant increase in the number of taller, faster bowlers coming out of India lately.

Then we have the question raised by SJS and Brumby about proportional representation in the English teams. We are "over-represented" by Black or Afro-Caribbean players, and "under-represented" by British Asians in football, and vice versa in cricket, if you compare the percentages of the population of a particular ethnicity to the percentage of International sportsmen. I would venture that this is more of a cultural issue, and an interesting discussion as, to give the national side as much success as possible, you do not want cultural divides preventing children from gaining access to sports. I do think, though, that white English boys are still playing and enjoying the game as much (if not more) than I've seen through ten years of working in the grassroots - and white English girls are playing more than ever.

There is no reason why this subject is not one that can be discussed, but we do need to go about it in a more informed manner - let's try and use sources if we can for any potentially controversial claims, and think about how what we say could be interpreted: as well as trying to appreciate how any posters intend their meanings.

Allan Wells in 1980. Aided by the Seppos boycott tho, no doubt. That Greek guy who (allegedly) like a drug won a 200m in a world championship tho? Kantaris?

Good post tho.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Oh dear, this is a right mess, isn't it?

It is immensely difficult to have conversations about race and ethnicity and keep things civil and insightful, but right now we're doing a really poor job of it. I think I can appreciate the principle behind what Ben is saying, unfortunately he is phrasing himself incredibly badly.

What (I hope) he's trying to look at is genetic predisposition - there is no denying that black/Afro-Caribbean origin contributes to success as a sprinter, but let's think about this - who was the last white guy to win the Olympic 100m? Similarly Kenyan/Ethiopian stock is clearly better suited to middle-distance running. I think I have read that this is due to higher blood cell counts due to altitude - though I guess this doesn't explain the lack of Bolivian 1500m runners.

Whites of British/Caucasian origin are, historically, on average, taller and stronger and in possession of more fast-twitch fibres than those of Asian origin. A quick search suggests Indian males average 1.64m (India Times), whilst in the UK it's 1.77m (NHS). For me, this contributes towards explaining the extra depth in the fast bowling stocks of "white nations" over earlier decades - whilst Asian genetics seem to lend more flexibility and better suit the development of spin bowlers and "wristy" batsmen. Of course weather and pitches also come into the equation. This is one of the great beauties of cricket - a game that can be played in different ways. Saying that, there seems to have been a significant increase in the number of taller, faster bowlers coming out of India lately.

Then we have the question raised by SJS and Brumby about proportional representation in the English teams. We are "over-represented" by Black or Afro-Caribbean players, and "under-represented" by British Asians in football, and vice versa in cricket, if you compare the percentages of the population of a particular ethnicity to the percentage of International sportsmen. I would venture that this is more of a cultural issue, and an interesting discussion as, to give the national side as much success as possible, you do not want cultural divides preventing children from gaining access to sports. I do think, though, that white English boys are still playing and enjoying the game as much (if not more) than I've seen through ten years of working in the grassroots - and white English girls are playing more than ever.

There is no reason why this subject is not one that can be discussed, but we do need to go about it in a more informed manner - let's try and use sources if we can for any potentially controversial claims, and think about how what we say could be interpreted: as well as trying to appreciate how any posters intend their meanings.

Thank you.

It's like Maori's and Samoan's are genetically stronger then most other races.

Most NBA players are black, because genetically they are more suited to the game. That doesn't mean that white people can't be good at Basketball (because there are some pretty damn good white players in the NBA), but the likelyhood of someone of white descent being as good as someone of black descent is allot lesser, because of genetics. That's the sort've angle that I was trying to come from.

 

[zaremba]

There was a good article on this by Matt Syed in The Times a couple of years back which if anyone is seriously interested in this topic I advise them to read. I don't agree with everything he says but he makes the important point that categorising people as "black" is basically meaningless.

wtf_ben, you need to think long and hard before making comments of the sort that Asians are physically weaker, or, worse, that

By physically weak, I mean less-likely to be talented. It doesn't mean that Asians can't be big, strong or successful at cricket, but the likelyhood is much less compared to an Aussie, Pom, Protea, American, etc.

And having thought long and hard about making those comments, don't. It's rubbish, it's offensive, it's inflammatory, and I imagine it's the sort of thing that's quite likely to get you banned.

 

[zaremba]

Allan Wells in 1980. Aided by the Seppos boycott tho, no doubt.

I'd be very surprised if that's all he was aided by.

 

[King Pietersen]

Thank you.

I agree with Neil's post, it's well worded, includes some actual fact, but he was not making the same point you are. Neil's point basically covered the genetics altering the type of cricketers we see, not how genetics mean that players of Asian Heritage can't make it in England or Australia. Your point was poorly worded, and came across in a very offensive manner, especially the part quoted by Zaremba.

I still believe that the reason we don't have a whole reem of Test class cricketers of Asian heritage in England, is mainly because they're still a minority. You can't expect 4% of the population to be providing heaps of Test class cricketers. It has nothing to do with genetics AFAIC. There have been English players of Asian heritage performing well on the International scene too. Guys like Nasser Hussain, Ravi Bopara, Monty Panesar and Samit Patel have all put in some fine performances in International cricket. The International declines of Bopara, Panesar and Patel was more down to their talent level as opposed to some genetic issue.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

I agree with Neil's post, it's well worded, includes some actual fact, but he was not making the same point you are. Neil's point basically covered the genetics altering the type of cricketers we see, not how genetics mean that players of Asian Heritage can't make it in England or Australia. Your point was poorly worded, and came across in a very offensive manner, especially the part quoted by Zaremba.

I still believe that the reason we don't have a whole reem of Test class cricketers of Asian heritage in England, is mainly because they're still a minority. You can't expect 4% of the population to be providing heaps of Test class cricketers. It has nothing to do with genetics AFAIC. There have been English players of Asian heritage performing well on the International scene too. Guys like Nasser Hussain, Ravi Bopara, Monty Panesar and Samit Patel have all put in some fine performances in International cricket. The International declines of Bopara, Panesar and Patel was more down to their talent level as opposed to some genetic issue.

Yes, just completely ignore the part of my post which is relevant.

 

[King Pietersen]

You mean the part where you've completely changed your argument to add to Neil's point, in order to make you seem like some mis-understood genius?

There was no point replying to that part of the post, as it was arguing a completely different point to the one you were arguing a few posts a go. I'm still replying to your original point. I've not tried to argue that heritage and genetics have an impact on the physical characteristics that make up a person; more your point regarding English, Australian and South African's being genetically superior and suited to the game of cricket, and that being the reason why there have been few Asian heritage successes from those countries.