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.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 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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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?
But he opted out of fighting to make S.A and qualified to play for a non-test playing nation case closed.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 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.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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?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?
Fairly certain you're allowed to switch nations up to a certain point in football.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.
Way ahead of you: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.
By all means criticise, but do the theory the courtesy of reading it properly.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.
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.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.
ten Doeschate's nowhere near good enough to play for South Africa, but if he was, I reckon he would have by now.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.