The thing is there are probably 3x as many professional positions in English domestic cricket than any other country in the world – paying as competitive wages as any.
Cricket isn’t that popular in England and the amateur and junior standard is significantly less than that of SA and AUS means that it’s significantly easier for a SA or Aus to make it here.
This coupled with EU rules allowing free movement of labour + related EU Kolpak rules.
And that the English season runs by and large non concurrent to any other first class system.
Plus the historical link Britain has with its former colonies means many still have family members who live or lived in the UK + many children with wealthy parents get sent to English public schools because of the reputation of these schools
Even if the ECB wanted to stop the players coming they couldn't
It’s inevitable that England will attract players from everywhere; the counties don’t need to groom the players, the players are jumping at the opportunity. More counties, more fixtures, lower standard all means more opportunities
Once they are here and have served their time and their passport says they're british they are for all intents and purposes british.
Would it be nice if there were more home based players produced? Yes sure but cricket is slowly dying here. Many sports are struggling especially at the early developmental years outside of public schools. It is sad that there aren't more English players that come through the whole english system.
The ECB have done what they can. Spending lots of money on trying to keep grassroots game going. They incentivize playing young english players by giving out money to counties for selecting english u26s. Plus an extended 7 year qualification period (more than any other country). The EU has amended the Kolpak rule so it's harder for non EUs to come and play. But there are still loads of playerrs with EU passports who can turn up and the ECB by law can't turn them away.
Not that they should because generally they have a positive effect. Players like Madsen, Goodwin, McKenzie, Prince, Thomas aren't going to play for England but they strengthen the counties and there are only a small number of these players who aren't going to play for England even if they're good enough. The rest players like Robson, Pietersen, Trott, Ballance, Kieswetter are the slightly more unsavoury ones as they had a large part of their development overseas and it is unfair on Zimbabwe or South Africa or whoever. But when people talk about how good SA would be with KP and Trott in the team I just laugh. Both were struggling to make it in SA when they left; what justification do people have to say they would have turned out like they have if they had stayed in SA? The english county system isn't perfect but it is professional and you can play a lot of cricket on differing surfaces against different players. They gave the players a chance; the system gave them the opportunity that wasn't available elsewhere. Why should Ballance go back to Zimbabwe and play for them once he becomes good enough
Rather than complain about the loss of talent from SA, ZIM, AUS maybe those nations should think about how they need to change their system to keep the players they develop. Aus have made a start. The problem will still be hard to counter because as I've said the English game has some qualities which will still be attractive to many. i.e with the lower entry standard, competitve wages, eu labour laws.
And finally players like Stokes, Rafiq, Prior, Dernbach, Meaker, (Khawaja) shouldn't even come into this kind of debate. They all moved at a young age with their families to Britain (or Aus) looking for a better life. It wasn't their decision or promoted by the ECB it was a decision made by their families. They've embraced their new country and should be applauded for so quickly adjusting to their new lifes and making a positive contribution to their new country.
", and the like. Try to put some imagination into it you boring *****.
.