Eoin Morgan

[GIMH]

Yeah, makes sense actually. Though the thought of having an Australian nephew reduces me to tears.

 

[wpdavid]

Yeah, maybe it wasn't as clear written out as it was in my head.

I think basically upbringing is the key: guys like Wilf Slack, Devon Malcolm, Chris Lewis, Gladstone Small, etc I'd consider English because, despite all being (I think) caribbean-born, they moved to the UK with their folks for non-cricket reasons. Whereas blokes like Allan Lamb, the Smiths & the Greigs are South African because they moved over here as adults to pursue careers in cricket.

Or something...

I think some of the white Saffers had an English parent which has some relevance somewhere in the mix. Whereas D'Oliveira, to whom I'm instinctively more sympathetc, didn't. I can sort of cope with the career move as long as they haven't represented somewhere else post-puberty - so TT's point about Trott & the Somerset keeper is very well made imo. However, the thought of our national side being largely made of expat Saffers doesn't thrill me at all.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think some of the white Saffers had an English parent which has some relevance somewhere in the mix. Whereas D'Oliveira, to whom I'm instinctively more sympathetc, didn't. I can sort of cope with the career move as long as they haven't represented somewhere else post-puberty - so TT's point about Trott & the Somerset keeper is very well made imo. However, the thought of our national side being largely made of expat Saffers doesn't thrill me at all.

I think any way of determining just one nationality for chaps who're dual-qualified is going to be ultimately arbitrary, but I thought the "nephew rule" was a nice riposte to Mr Tebbit's rather odious "cricket rule" when I first read it. I'd always get a bit irked when morons used to talk disparagingly of "West Indians" playing for England when most of our black players were raised here from quite an early age.

Ultimately tho wanting to play for us for whatever reason is half the battle. Robin Smith was my fav player growing up and KP's clearly our best bat by the length of something quite long indeed, so slap three lions on them and I'm good, really.

 

[wpdavid]

I think any way of determining just one nationality for chaps who're dual-qualified is going to be ultimately arbitrary, but I thought the "nephew rule" was a nice riposte to Mr Tebbit's rather odious "cricket rule" when I first read it. I'd always get a bit irked when morons used to talk disparagingly of "West Indians" playing for England when most of our black players were raised here from quite an early age.

Ultimately tho wanting to play for us for whatever reason is half the battle. Robin Smith was my fav player growing up and KP's clearly our best bat by the length of something quite long indeed, so slap three lions on them and I'm good, really.

Ditto Greig when I first followed the game. Those three certainly make a nonsense of the idea that the 'imports' aren't as committed as the home-grown lads.

My views are rather mixed tbh. I'm 100% fine with our side being a cricketing version of the British Lions. And I can just about accept the idea that test cricket should be available to all, not just those who were lucky enough to be born & bred in the countries that play it.

 

[James_W]

Ditto Greig when I first followed the game. Those three certainly make a nonsense of the idea that the 'imports' aren't as committed as the home-grown lads.

My views are rather mixed tbh. I'm 100% fine with our side being a cricketing version of the British Lions. And I can just about accept the idea that test cricket should be available to all, not just those who were lucky enough to be born & bred in the countries that play it.

Certainly, but players should qualify for test-playing countries by playing in the FC game, and NOT playing for their country of birth. If they play for their country, they should have to wait 4 years to qualify for any other nation.While players good enough to play test cricket (although I can't think of any examples, perhaps RTD or Tikolo? Maybe Joyce?) undoubtedly raise the standard of associate sides, what's the use of developing these players and giving them experience in international cricket only for a test-team to take them with a hasty snap of their fingers? Even if the likes of Morgan and Joyce refuse to play for Ireland as they wish to qualify for England without waiting the likes of 4 years, sure it'll reduce the standard of our team but at least we can replace them with someone who could be a viable long-term option, who won't be nabbed off us, unless of course said player waits 4 years.

 

[Richard]

Certainly, but players should qualify for test-playing countries by playing in the FC game, and NOT playing for their country of birth. If they play for their country, they should have to wait 4 years to qualify for any other nation.While players good enough to play test cricket (although I can't think of any examples, perhaps RTD or Tikolo? Maybe Joyce?) undoubtedly raise the standard of associate sides, what's the use of developing these players and giving them experience in international cricket only for a test-team to take them with a hasty snap of their fingers?

Ryan ten Doeschate is the precise opposite of a Tikolo. He's a cricketer who found himself, at the outset of his career, not good enough to play First-Class cricket in his own (Test-playing) country, so moved elsewhere to take advantage of his heritage of convenience and play for an associate team. ten Doeschate is not Dutch, he's South African.

And if he'd not had his Dutch heritage he'd a) have had to win his spurs before finally breaking into a South African province's team or b) have drifted out of the game completely like so many SAfricans do if they've not made province cricket by their early-20s.

RtD is comparable to Kevin Pietersen - Pietersen being, clearly, rather better.

 

[James_W]

I know RTD is South African, I was saying perhaps he is an accosciate player who chould play Test Cricket. Have no idea what that had to do with anything you said TBH.

 

[Richard]

Just that he isn't, really, an associate player. He's a Test-playing-country player who's taken advantage of his heritage to be eligible for associate cricket.

 

[andruid]

I know RTD is South African, I was saying perhaps he is an accosciate player who chould play Test Cricket. Have no idea what that had to do with anything you said TBH.

But he opted out of fighting to make S.A and qualified to play for a non-test playing nation case closed.

Just that he isn't, really, an associate player. He's a Test-playing-country player who's taken advantage of his heritage to be eligible for associate cricket.

Just like many other players who have taken advantage of that heritage of qulaifying to play for one Test nation as opposed to the one they were born in. Hardly revolitionary, or evil, or even unique to cricket.

The thing is they jumped through several qualification hurdles (passports, residence, not coming straight out the other nations First XI... etc) to make it happen whilst Eoin Morgan's case could well have been a transfer window signing, given how quickly he looks to have moved from Ireland's team to England.

You may talk about his commitment to Middlesex, and that is valid, he is playing county cricket and so are numerous other Internationals (even test standard ones). If Eoin Morgan gets to play for England so soon after playing for Ireland, what grounds are there to say (for example) England cannot select Stuart Clark and Philip Hughes for the ashes on the grounds that they have been playing in England. They may not want to play for England, as Eoin Morgan does, but one cannot allow a precedent of allowing a player to turn up in a different national kit everuy other day of the week.

Hope I am not muddying the waters here.

 

[GIMH]

I know what you're saying, but the rules clearly state you can't play for one full-member within four years of playing for another. There is no such protection for associates.

 

[andruid]

I know what you're saying, but the rules clearly state you can't play for one full-member within four years of playing for another. There is no such protection for associates.

There should be!!!!

 

[stumpski]

I know RTD is South African, I was saying perhaps he is an accosciate player who chould play Test Cricket. Have no idea what that had to do with anything you said TBH.

Just that he isn't, really, an associate player. He's a Test-playing-country player who's taken advantage of his heritage to be eligible for associate cricket.

There's presumably no reason why South Africa couldn't take ten Doeschate if they wanted him - not that they're short of all-rounders - and if he wanted to represent them, but it would be a trickier decision for him than it has been for Morgan because it could mean ending his Essex career as well as his regular ODIs for Holland.

 

[Furball]

Ok.

Imagine you were born in Australia (horrific thought, I know, but stay with me). Let's then have two different scenarios:

1) You and your younger brother move to the Wirral at three and four. You become a international cricket and your kid bro becomes an accountant (say). Assuming your brother doesn't emigrate abroad for work his son (your nephew) will be English, so by the nephew rule in this scenario you're English;

2) You and your brother are raised in Wagga Wagga and you, taking advantage of your UK passport, move to England independently of your folks at 19 to play for Lancashire. Here, your non-migratory bro has stayed in Oz so his son (your nephew) will be Australian, so in the second scernario you're Australian.

Any clearer?

So what happens if Mart's brother leaves Wagga Wagga for Sydney, works for a big multinational and transfers to Jo'burg, meets a South African woman, marries and raises his family there?

Completely nonsense rule.

 

[Furball]

The comparison with football is actually quite funny in this case.

The Republic of Ireland has been poaching young players from Scotland and Northern Ireland for years.

 

[Furball]

The ICC could easily curtail such incidents from ever happening. Simply apply the FIFA method and whilst that means the likes of Eoin Morgan won’t play test cricket, it is a simple case of tough ****. George Weah never played in a World Cup.

Jonathan Trott and Craig Kieswetter both played U19 WC cricket for South Africa yet, illogically both men are able and want to represent England. It shouldn’t be on.

Fairly certain you're allowed to switch nations up to a certain point in football.

Certainly 10 years ago, the Ivory Coast lost out on players that would have been useful because they'd represented France U21s when they were younger.

 

[BoyBrumby]

So what happens if Mart's brother leaves Wagga Wagga for Sydney, works for a big multinational and transfers to Jo'burg, meets a South African woman, marries and raises his family there?

Completely nonsense rule.

Way ahead of you:

The best way of determining nationality I heard was the "nephew" rule, can't recall where I first saw it, but it's roughly this: imagine any player has a brother, one year younger than him, who's not an international sportsman and hasn't emigrated for work as an adult. This brother has a son and this hypothetical nephew's nationality determines his uncle's. So Strauss, born in SA but moved to England with his folks as a nipper, is English, because if he had a brother he would have also emigrated with him, but KP is a Yarp, as he moved to England aged about 19 or 20 without his parents.

By all means criticise, but do the theory the courtesy of reading it properly.

 

[Richard]

Just like many other players who have taken advantage of that heritage of qulaifying to play for one Test nation as opposed to the one they were born in. Hardly revolitionary, or evil, or even unique to cricket.

Yup. And I begin to wonder, increasingly, whether this should be the case. In many ways I'd prefer long-term residence qualifications to be the only way to qualify for a country.

 

[Richard]

There's presumably no reason why South Africa couldn't take ten Doeschate if they wanted him - not that they're short of all-rounders - and if he wanted to represent them, but it would be a trickier decision for him than it has been for Morgan because it could mean ending his Essex career as well as his regular ODIs for Holland.

ten Doeschate's nowhere near good enough to play for South Africa, but if he was, I reckon he would have by now.

 

[Chemosit]

Though i would never do it personally, it is not so much the jumping ship that makes me sick but the inequality. Especially as there is no need for it to happen. Easy solution would be to follow the same process the ICC have used for WC qualification to qualify for Test status.

There are already too many Test teams (8 sits about right to me). Introduce a promotion/relegation system for the top Associates to play off vs the bottom test sides every 4 years at the end of the FTP cycle. Thus EVERY international team (and through that, every international cricketer) does have the chance to play Test cricket if they prove themselves good enough.

Bring in a blanket rule that EVERY player must wait 4 years before they can represent a second country (either to move from Associate to Test or vica versa). Having this work one way but not the other is pure b*llocks.

On a separate issue, i think England's continual selection of the top Associate players is a cynical way to keep them down. I do not believe for one minute it is because the selectors think Morgan (or Joyce for that matter) is the best possible selection. as many have said, there are plenty of other county players who could fit the same position.

If I was an England supporter it would tick me off that my own country's development was being harmed simply to stop another nation getting stronger. not cricket at all and piss poor form imo.

 

[Andre]

It's kind of a case where the ICC's hands are tied, IMO.

While the 4 year residency thing in theory is a great idea. I don't see it working with associates. Any half decent player from an associate nation would not bother playing for their country (think Morgan, Porterfield, Rankin, RtD, etc.) because they would, and quite correctly, prefer to have a stab at playing Test cricket for the nearest Test country.

This, effectively, cripple associate cricket, robbing it of any players who are at a decent enough standard to compete on a world stage because they would want to play Test cricket, hence they wouldn't play for their country of birth.

So in theory for associate cricket to be of a viable standard, players need to be available for the associate country and the 'Test' country. The thing that does confuse me though, is that a player like Morgan can go from Ireland to England one week, but Joyce can't go from England to IReland, that seems a bit odd IMO.

Maybe a solution to the issue could be not to let players from associate countries play for other nations during tournaments that both countries are in? Eg. Maybe Morgan shouldn't have been eligible for England for the Twenty20 WC because Ireland are playing in it and he is able to play international cricket in that certain format, but he should be avaliable to play Test cricket cause Ireland don't play that. So in essence what I'm saying is that because he can play Twenty20 and ODI's for Ireland, he shouldn't be available for England in those formats, but because he can't play Test cricket for Ireland, perhaps he should be available for England in that format.