England is number 1 cuz they poached the best players from other countries not fair

[Burgey]

There’s also an understandable element of people wanting to play their sport at the highest level, and if they have options as opposed to one option to do that, you can’t blame them for having a crack at it by taking an opportunity.

 

[GIMH]

There’s also an understandable element of people wanting to play their sport at the highest level, and if they have options as opposed to one option to do that, you can’t blame them for having a crack at it by taking an opportunity.

Yes, hence the list of Aussies Brumby posted earlier who opted for England

 

[Dendarii]

Why do people focus on England for picking foreign-born players when they're not the worst offenders? In the last match the Netherlands played, they had eight players born in other countries. And since the Netherlands are one of the leading Associate nations they're definitely benefiting from the foreign players, so for consistency shouldn't they also be criticised?

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Of course Jofra Archer is an Englishman, and a famous one at that.




Not only is he a decent opening bowler, but Jofra is also a decent novelist, former MP, and one time guest of her Majesty (as Stokes should've been)

 

[Second Spitter]

Jofra Archer is to the West Indies, what the Elgin Marbles are to Greece.

 

[ImpatientLime]

Yeah I'm not a fan of the Archer types but it is pretty infuriating when people try to say Ali and Rashid aren't English.

not only that, it also makes you come across a massive racist. he's basically saying those two can't be english due to the colour of their skin.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

not only that, it also makes you come across a massive racist. he's basically saying those two can't be english due to the colour of their skin.

That is shockingly racist to say that about the two spinners. The same thing is frequently said about 3rd generation NZers in the All Blacks of Samoan/Tongan/Fijian etc. heritage.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If that Wikipedia list is correct I'm quite surprised how small it is. You take out the Welsh who qualify as of right, the likes of Dexter and Cowdrey etc who's parents just happened to be abroad and other's who came over in their formative years and the list goes down considerably. Then remove the dross that wouldn't have played for their home nation in a million years and those who chose England for their own convenience (Greig, Lamb, Smith x2 etc), the actual "poaching" of quality players is quite minimal. I don't particularly agree with it.
But besides all that England are Number 1 because they stepped out of the dark ages and started playing aggressive cricket.

 

[Burgey]

Yes, hence the list of Aussies Brumby posted earlier who opted for England

You’re missing the point, which is that players who can’t make the other countries they’re eligible for choose England because they’re so desperate to try and put a decent side together for a change

 

[Pom_in_SA]

all due to colonialism. steal wealth, make life in england great, make other countries poor.

And in return we gave you cricket, the toilet and the knife and fork...so it wasn't all bad.

 

[mr_mister]

And in return we gave you cricket, the toilet and the knife and fork...so it wasn't all bad.

Geez

 

[Pom_in_SA]

Geez

and of course righteous indignation...

 

[stephen]

I always wonder what would have happened without the frontier war in Australia. What if the white invaders had made peace with the aborigines from the start and not driven them from their homelands. Would I even exist?

I mean at the end of the day nobody can change the past and hopefully we've learned from our mistakes, so asking "what if" is pretty pointless. The further back you go in your own ancestry the more likely you are to find rapists, murderers and horrible people of all types.

So while I don't mind joking about convicts and whatnot, I really don't like the idea that someone isn't a nationality based on where they were born or their family history. It's arbitrary. The main difference between countries is not genetics but politics and culture.

 

[mr_mister]

I mean let's not pretend the Archer situation(likely the reason for this thread being created) is some kind of contentious issue. It's pretty dumb that he's playing for England. It's setting a pretty silly precedent.

 

[Pom_in_SA]

I mean let's not pretend the Archer situation(likely the reason for this thread being created) is some kind of contentious issue. It's pretty dumb that he's playing for England. It's setting a pretty silly precedent.

I really cannot see what the issue is with Archer. His father is English.

Are we really suggesting that blood/genetics should not be a factor and only the physical location of the particular sod of earth you were born upon should be considered when deciding upon qualification characteristics?

I am not saying go all Irish football team of the 90's and go back 8 generations to find some 'qualifying blood', but as a Pom who happens to have had two sons born in South Africa, I would be gutted if a) they chose to play for SA instead of England and b) they were not allowed to play for England.

Luckily they are both rubbish so its not gonna happen anyway (they will probably have to only play for SA), but hopefully you get my drift?

 

[mr_mister]

A lot of people in Commonwealth nations have an english born parent/grandparent. I do. It seems silly that in a sport with ten competitive nations all the benefits of this rule are funneling toward one nation

 

[cnerd123]

I personally think that as long as a player has met all the necessary qualification criteria to represent a country at a sport (or any professional competitive sphere), then that's where the discussion ends. There is no room for sentiment. No questioning their heritage or how strongly they feel for a country.

We live in a different world now. Nationality is fluid, more people than ever before come from mixed heritages and cultural backgrounds, and being an athlete is a profession just like anything else. No one questions if a Doctor in England feels English or if an actor in Hollywood actually learnt how to act in the USA. I understand sport is a different thing and loyalty to a patch of land is always going to be a part of it, but that's increasingly becoming just a small factor in what drives global sport. How many Manchester United fans have even been to Manchester, let alone have any real ties to the region?

As long as the player has done what is required of him to represent a country, then he belongs to that country, fair and square.

 

[Test_Fan_Only]

May as well add that White and Mullally were born in England and McCague in Ireland while you're at it.

I just went with the two I knew off the top of my head.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think there feels a difference in players coming to play for a quote-unquote "stronger" cricketing nation than those defecting to "weaker" ones.

All due respect to the various Anglo-Aussies who've taken the Queen's shilling over the years, but none of them were in any serious contention for a baggy green. Those that were or are (Symonds, Renshaw, Pattinson minor, Harris and even Steve Smith) all waited for the Kangaroo to call.

Whereas the likes of Archer and Morgan would unquestionably improve the playing stocks of their respective "home" countries.

I'm not sure one could definitely say Eoin was poached as, at the time, the only test route open to him was England. Young Jofra though was seemingly actively courted to some extent, what with Jordan recommending him to Sussex on the strength of his UK passport. Not to mention the ECB re-writing their qualification rules to ensure he was very conveniently available for the home world cup.

As an England fan I'm chuffed he's ours, but stepping back to look at the wider picture, there has arguably been some parochial self interest to get him into the team. Would a talent of his magnitude really have been prepared to wait another four years for international cricket?

 

[Daemon]

I personally think that as long as a player has met all the necessary qualification criteria to represent a country at a sport (or any professional competitive sphere), then that's where the discussion ends. There is no room for sentiment. No questioning their heritage or how strongly they feel for a country.

We live in a different world now. Nationality is fluid, more people than ever before come from mixed heritages and cultural backgrounds, and being an athlete is a profession just like anything else. No one questions if a Doctor in England feels English or if an actor in Hollywood actually learnt how to act in the USA. I understand sport is a different thing and loyalty to a patch of land is always going to be a part of it, but that's increasingly becoming just a small factor in what drives global sport. How many Manchester United fans have even been to Manchester, let alone have any real ties to the region?

As long as the player has done what is required of him to represent a country, then he belongs to that country, fair and square.

All well and good but this discussion has veered more towards how the qualification criteria is decided in the first place.