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

[cnerd123]

hmm nah. ymmv, but despite feeling sentimental towards the places ive lived i know absolutely which nz province holds my allegiance* despite having no desire to live there again any time soon. i cant really imagine a huge number of cricketers feeling attached to half the countries of the world. you ask any kiwi living in london for 10-20 years who they'd represent and it'd be nz and not even close.

*(its not hamilton)

You speak from your experiences, I speak from mine. At the end of the day, people are going to have different feelings on a topic like this, and that's why the rules governing this shouldn't take sentiment into consideration IMO.

Let those who feel strongly about their home walk the talk, and let the others play for the highest bidder. Why try to control their choices with some arbitrarily enforced criteria.

 

[mr_mister]

Because there'd be an uneven dispersion of talent flocking to England. Think of it like the salary cap in some sports. How are the Windies meant to regain ground on their rivals when a homegrown potential superstar in Jofra Archer says 'catch ya later, thnx 4 the mmrs' to his native region

 

[harsh.ag]

There are lots of other factors obviously, but sheer popular culture knowledge of Britain, and London especially, makes it much more easy for people of other nationalities to think of it as home than, say, Estonia.

 

[mr_mister]

Of course. But how is that fair to the less developed nations who only produce a star player every blue moon. I'm thinking of a competitive world scene for the sport

 

[cnerd123]

Because there'd be an uneven dispersion of talent flocking to England. Think of it like the salary cap in some sports. How are the Windies meant to regain ground on their rivals when a homegrown potential superstar in Jofra Archer says 'catch ya later, thnx 4 the mmrs' to his native region

If England's immigration policies are set up to encourage people from around the word to move back and benefit them, then you can hardly blame them for succeeding because of it. That's kind of the point. USA cricket has benefited massively from Indian and West Indian cricketers coming over and gaining citizenship, and have just won ODI status on the back off that. That's perfectly in line with the USA as a whole gaining a lot of success thanks to immigrants. I get the frustration, but sport reflects life in many ways. This is one of them.

There is plenty that West Indies, SA, NZ etc can do to stem the loss of talent. They can govern the sport better. Grow the game. Get better facilities and more money into it, so they can then offer a competitive package to players. If they're so afraid of British passport holders leaving them, then they can just choose not to select them in their developmental programs. The fact is many of these countries are happy when these dual nationality guys rock up for them, but don't do enough to keep them around. They're well aware this player might leave them if they get good enough, and yet use them for short term success, rather than focusing on players who can only play for their country. That's a risky decision to make, but they make it, and should accept the consequences as a result. Associates do this all the time and they're fine with it, because in the world of associate cricket short term results are essential for funding and long term survival.

Ultimately, we don't actually hear cricket boards complaining about how things work. They get that this is the way the world and modern sports functions.

I get that it's not fair, but a lot of things are not fair. Kohli having more talent than Chris Martin is not fair. I don't see why this is something where the ICC has to get involved.

 

[Bolo]

If England's immigration policies are set up to encourage people from around the word to move back and benefit them, then you can hardly blame them for succeeding because of it. That's kind of the point. USA cricket has benefited massively from Indian and West Indian cricketers coming over and gaining citizenship, and have just won ODI status on the back off that. That's perfectly in line with the USA as a whole gaining a lot of success thanks to immigrants. I get the frustration, but sport reflects life in many ways. This is one of them.

There is plenty that West Indies, SA, NZ etc can do to stem the loss of talent. They can govern the sport better. Grow the game. Get better facilities and more money into it, so they can then offer a competitive package to players. If they're so afraid of British passport holders leaving them, then they can just choose not to select them in their developmental programs. The fact is many of these countries are happy when these dual nationality guys rock up for them, but don't do enough to keep them around. They're well aware this player might leave them if they get good enough, and yet use them for short term success, rather than focusing on players who can only play for their country. That's a risky decision to make, but they make it, and should accept the consequences as a result. Associates do this all the time and they're fine with it, because in the world of associate cricket short term results are essential for funding and long term survival.

Ultimately, we don't actually hear cricket boards complaining about how things work. They get that this is the way the world and modern sports functions.

I get that it's not fair, but a lot of things are not fair. Kohli having more talent than Chris Martin is not fair. I don't see why this is something where the ICC has to get involved.

Liked this post before I got to the last paragraph. Then I read your treacherous words on Chris Martin and unliked

 

[Beamer]

In response to Flem's point about home. I wish it were that simple but it's more mercenary than that.

Archer is s good example. He decided to play for England because he didn't get into the Windies under 19 world cup squad. It's as simple as that. Nothing to do with home.

I'm fact he freely admits Barbados is his home. He said how hard it was to not be able to go home as often as he wanted during his qualification period.

It is a complex issue and ultimately his choice. I wish him well, ultimately it's still a west Indian doing well in international cricket.

 

[cpr]

The sentiment that England is too welcoming to immigrants and does everything to promote their inclusiveness is so heartwarming

 

[Beamer]

The sentiment that England is too welcoming to immigrants and does everything to promote their inclusiveness is so heartwarming

Certainly the UK has a progressive view of multiculturalism that extends to sports .

 

[AndrewB]

He says he was prepared to wait. West Indies tried to get him back but he wasn't interested.
Also it is his stepfather who is English.

AFAICT (from checking online) it's his biological father who is English.

 

[trundler]

I do not understand the insistence that Rashid is Pakistani. Too good a fielder for that.

 

[Red]

The guy literally posted that some people shouldn't be allowed to play for England because of their race.

What else is it. Muppet.

Yeh, cool. The guy did not, however, post anything that resembled he held an opinion that one race is superior to another. So whatever it is, it's not racism. Muppet.

 

[cpr]

Yeh, cool. The guy did not, however, post anything that resembled he held an opinion that one race is superior to another. So whatever it is, it's not racism. Muppet.

No, but he singled out two English born players as being not English, based on their race, and stated that they shouldn't be playing for England for that reason.

Racism doesn't have to be 'were better than you because <race>', saying 'you can't do/be/act like X because <race>' is racist. Rather surprised at anyone holding a higher threshold on what constitutes racism TBH.

 

[Flem274*]

cbf reading zoraxs newest wall of text so i'll take a cheap shot at his support for 17649 countries instead by saying no surprises he supports players with less loyalty than a gold digger

In response to Flem's point about home. I wish it were that simple but it's more mercenary than that.

Archer is s good example. He decided to play for England because he didn't get into the Windies under 19 world cup squad. It's as simple as that. Nothing to do with home.

I'm fact he freely admits Barbados is his home. He said how hard it was to not be able to go home as often as he wanted during his qualification period.

It is a complex issue and ultimately his choice. I wish him well, ultimately it's still a west Indian doing well in international cricket.

to me this undermines the whole point of international sport

if you're not representing the place you call home, in a format designed for players to represent home, then what even are you?

 

[cnerd123]

We're all from mother Earth at the end of the day

 

[Red]

No, but he singled out two English born players as being not English, based on their race, and stated that they shouldn't be playing for England for that reason.

Racism doesn't have to be 'were better than you because <race>', saying 'you can't do/be/act like X because <race>' is racist. Rather surprised at anyone holding a higher threshold on what constitutes racism TBH.

Or maybe he just naively assumed that they were born where he said because on appearance that'd be a reasonable assumption? Perhaps misguided, not PC, but not totally inconceivable.

But of course, it's easier for everyone to start virtue-signalling and crying "racism". Instead of actually asking him what he meant.

'you can't do/be/act like X because <race>' is racist

- FWIW, this is just a flat out straw-man. No one said this. The original point was that people born o/seas maybe shouldn't be able to represent a different nation. That's VASTLY different to what you're inferring, and it's a lazy way to try and make the original poster seem a lot worse than he actually was.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Seriously who cares. If England as a country/sports team have the appeal for people to want to move there and represent them then they've earned it. If a South African wants to move to England because they'll have a better life there, or a West Indian wants to play for England because of financial benefit then it's because England are better in those aspects than their home countries, in which case they've earned their loyalty afaic.

 

[Smudge]

No one knows where NZ is tbf. The only culture there is in the yoghurt.

An Australian trying to question the culture in New Zealand. Next he'll be trying to lecture us on indigenous relations.

 

[harsh.ag]

if you're not representing the place you call home, in a format designed for players to represent home, then what even are you?

Hooman

 

[cpr]

Or maybe he just naively assumed that they were born where he said because on appearance that'd be a reasonable assumption?

No, it absolutely wouldn't be a reasonable assumption. You're making a disparaging comment about someone in a public forum, and you don't know the facts behind it, you research it first. You don't just presume. Especially when those comments are linked to nationality and you're just assuming based on skin colour. It might not be intentionally racist, but it is racist.

FWIW, this is just a flat out straw-man. No one said this. The original point was that people born o/seas maybe shouldn't be able to represent a different nation. That's VASTLY different to what you're inferring, and it's a lazy way to try and make the original poster seem a lot worse than he actually was.

No, its not a straw man as it's nothing to do with the original post, it's me calling you out in the post I quoted, where you say because he didn't say one race is superior to another, it can't be racism. I'm giving you what should be a rather entry level definition of what racism is. It had nothing to do with the original poster, but your frankly weird benchmark on racism.