English Ringers, mate!

[wpdavid]

What grates to some extent with me is the extent to which people are allowed to change nationality on a whim. For me, it should be something that takes a long time to do.

Yup. On a whim is probably over-stating it, but I agree that it's far too easy. Especially when players have represented another country at under 19 level: at 18, they should be treated as being able to make a mature decision about which country they chose to represent. So for me, KW's Scottish parent becomes an irrelevance once he's agreed to play for SA at a resaonably senior level. KP's different insofar as he never represented SA, and the fact that he may have been good enough to play for their under 19's is also irrlevant imo. Bottom line is he didn't, so he has the right to make a choice once he's in that position, especially with the English parent. Not that I entirely view him as English, and I don't believe for a minute that he grew up wanting to represent England, but his situation is not identical to Trott & KW.

Going back to Vaughan, the point about KP not representing SA means that he'snot being inconsistent if his main point was about Trott & KW changing allegiance. Beyond that. I wouldn't actually have a huge problem with him changing his views now not he's not in the side. People do that from time to time, and if anything his views now carry more weight than when he had a vested interest in matters. And as I said earlier, I certainly don't understand why he should 'stfu' to quote one charmless post on the previous page. There's an intelligent debate to be had on the matter, and I'd say that Vaughan's views are worth hearing, even if he does have the temerity to differ with the prevailing consensus.

 

[Richard]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it grates, but it could become an issue down the line if native poms become a minority in the side.

My concerns aren't related to this country. The rules are the same everywhere, even if they're being utilised to different extents in some places than others. It is every bit as possible for an Indian to decide he wants to go and play in New Zealand as it is for a SAfrican to decide he wants to go play in England or an Australian to go play in Jamaica. Only difference is it's yet to happen.

Personally I'd just be in favour of a tightening-up of ICC regulations about who can represent who, with being a country national made irrelevant and the only consideration being number of years of residence. The old rule of seven, even, is not something that sits too well with me - ten, as I've said before, would be my favoured number. That'd make it almost impossible for the cases David mentions above - 18-year-olds who make a conscious, deliberate decision to go and play somewhere else - to do that. The only way you'd be able to represent a country would be if you were, to some extent, brought-up there. I'm happy enough with the original cut-off age of 14 there, too.

 

[Richard]

On a whim is probably over-stating it

Possibly, but 3 half-years - which is the residence qualification required to gain a British passport and thus qualification to represent England - seems to me to be nowhere near stringent enough. I don't consider that spending 183 days per year in a country over 3 years makes someone, for the purposes of international sport, "from" that country.

 

[wpdavid]

Possibly, but 3 half-years - which is the residence qualification required to gain a British passport and thus qualification to represent England - seems to me to be nowhere near stringent enough. I don't consider that spending 183 days per year in a country over 3 years makes someone, for the purposes of international sport, "from" that country.

Yes, completely agree: it's probably at least half of what it should be. Plus the proviso of having not represented another country at any post-puberty level.

EDIT
I've just read your previous post in response to Brumby - and agreed with every word.

 

[GIMH]

I think if someone is a national of ours then they should be allowed to play; I'd be somewhat uncomfortable about any rule change tbh. If 'proper' English people want to play for the side, they should get better.

 

[BoyBrumby]

My concerns aren't related to this country. The rules are the same everywhere, even if they're being utilised to different extents in some places than others. It is every bit as possible for an Indian to decide he wants to go and play in New Zealand as it is for a SAfrican to decide he wants to go play in England or an Australian to go play in Jamaica. Only difference is it's yet to happen.

Brendan Nash rather disproves your point there, being exactly that. & Grant Elliott is the first into the national side, but a few other SA-born players seem to be in the process of qualifying for NZ.

We're uniquely vulnerable to the carpetbaggers tho because of out membership of the EU, the amount of FC counties, our summer and being the "mother" country for the Anglo Commonwealth nations.

I think if someone is a national of ours then they should be allowed to play; I'd be somewhat uncomfortable about any rule change tbh. If 'proper' English people want to play for the side, they should get better.

See my AFL hypothetical tho; difference in being a British "national" and a Brit, IMHO.

 

[Goughy]

Possibly, but 3 half-years - which is the residence qualification required to gain a British passport and thus qualification to represent England - seems to me to be nowhere near stringent enough. I don't consider that spending 183 days per year in a country over 3 years makes someone, for the purposes of international sport, "from" that country.

You have a link that details the British citizenship process as above? I dont know the process so I could be wrong but Im calling you on in. I dont think what you have written is correct.

Also, regarding the majority of foreign born England players, they were British passport holders in their country of birth. They didnt have to become one.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

It's basically a problem of a post-national, globalised world coming into conflict with a sport built on the structure of the old world. The two are incompatible. Why should you only be able to play for a sports side because you were born or grew up in that country? Trying to determine whether someone has the right to play for England by setting a numerical qualification just doesn't seem right, really.

Self-definition FTW.

 

[Athlai]

NZ has a fair few players who will be close to the national team in the next few years from South Afirca.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Both actually.

Wonder how much personal invovement MPV has with these camps. Had a quick flick round the site and the one reference I found to coaching standards was "UKCC2 with experience" - something I would be far overqualified for. We are missing the point here, dwelling on either Vaughan's comments or questioning whether someone uprooting themselves to move halfway round the world should be prevented from representing England in favour of Johnny Sheltered from Guildford.

The real issue is why we aren't, as Counties, producing good enough cricketers, and I would suggest that any number of the following reasons may have something to do with it:

* Insufficient exposure to hardball cricket at an early enough age, resulting in spoiled techniques and fear of the ball.
* Overplay of pairs cricket and too much letting everyone bat rather than letting kids realise from the off that if you play a stupid shot then you sit and watch for the next two hours.
* Restriction of youth play through health and safety culture in manifestation of fast bowling directives and increasing red tape blocking boys from playing adult cricket.
* Too many exams and tests that fill boys' summers with needless stress, nagging and revision and ultimately make no difference to their lives.
* Players playing too long at too low a level whether in school, youth or village competition leading to lazy techniques and adaptation to pitches and bowling totally alien to senior cricket.

There are probably a lot more...

 

[stumpski]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it grates, but it could become an issue down the line if native poms become a minority in the side.

Simple solution isn't there? The selectors need to start operating a quota system.

I'm sure KP would be able to tell them how that works.

 

[Richard]

Brendan Nash rather disproves your point there, being exactly that.

Umm... I used his case to say that such things had happened.

 

[Richard]

I think if someone is a national of ours then they should be allowed to play

I don't, TBH - I have no objection to immigration laws and those about becoming UK citizens, as having the right to call the country home is something that sits fine with me. I have several places I consider home (all within the one country, but the point stands) and would have it no other way.

International sport, however, is essentially about the premise that only one place is home.

 

[Richard]

You have a link that details the British citizenship process as above? I dont know the process so I could be wrong but Im calling you on in. I dont think what you have written is correct.

UIMM, residence qualification requires three consecutive years of spending half the year or more in the country.

Would be interested to hear otherwise, if otherwise.

 

[Goughy]

UIMM, residence qualification requires three consecutive years of spending half the year or more in the country.

Would be interested to hear otherwise, if otherwise.

So just to clarify, you are talking about getting a British passport and 3 years (of > 50% residency) is all that is required. If that is the case then Id like you to show me evidence and I dont think it is the case.

 

[Langeveldt]

I don't consider that spending 183 days per year in a country over 3 years makes someone, for the purposes of international sport, "from" that country.

If the case, that is ridiculous

 

[wpdavid]

Wonder how much personal invovement MPV has with these camps. Had a quick flick round the site and the one reference I found to coaching standards was "UKCC2 with experience" - something I would be far overqualified for. We are missing the point here, dwelling on either Vaughan's comments or questioning whether someone uprooting themselves to move halfway round the world should be prevented from representing England in favour of Johnny Sheltered from Guildford.

The real issue is why we aren't, as Counties, producing good enough cricketers, and I would suggest that any number of the following reasons may have something to do with it:

* Insufficient exposure to hardball cricket at an early enough age, resulting in spoiled techniques and fear of the ball.
* Overplay of pairs cricket and too much letting everyone bat rather than letting kids realise from the off that if you play a stupid shot then you sit and watch for the next two hours.
* Restriction of youth play through health and safety culture in manifestation of fast bowling directives and increasing red tape blocking boys from playing adult cricket.
* Too many exams and tests that fill boys' summers with needless stress, nagging and revision and ultimately make no difference to their lives.
* Players playing too long at too low a level whether in school, youth or village competition leading to lazy techniques and adaptation to pitches and bowling totally alien to senior cricket.

There are probably a lot more...

Read with interest as I'll be managing my son's U8 side this summer.
My immediate thought is that 3 & 5 are the biggest factors from that particular list.
Plus the fact that the harder-nosed kids may well spend their time elsewhere.

 

[Furball]

UIMM, residence qualification requires three consecutive years of spending half the year or more in the country.

Would be interested to hear otherwise, if otherwise.

You're confusing what it takes to qualify to represent the English Cricket team.

I'm fairly certain that you need at least 5 years residence in the UK before you start applying for a UK passport.

 

[Furball]

UK Border Agency | Who can apply for British citizenship and other forms of British nationality?

As suspected, Richard is wrong on 2 counts.

 

[Goughy]

You're confusing what it takes to qualify to represent the English Cricket team.

I'm fairly certain that you need at least 5 years residence in the UK before you start applying for a UK passport.

Yeah and the 183 days a year residency he mentions is also wrong.

"have not spent more than 450 days outside the United Kingdom during the five year period; and
have not spend more than 90 days outside the United Kingdom in the last 12 months of the five-year period"