• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Player eligibility

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
could perfectly easily qualify for at least 3 different countries by the current or any rules, should they all be cricket-playing teams.
Yeah and? Their lives dont fit litle cookie cutter stereotypes.

They are part a lot of things. Id never dream of asking them as children to choose a direction, a heritage or a country. As its a part of them, then they should be allowed to follow any path they chose rather than have draconian laws forced upon them at a young age.

Im not even going to address the County issue as it is a non-issue
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Maybe I would feel more allegiance to Chad (Chaddish? Chaddian? I should have picked a less awkward country...). The only person who could tell you what nationality i truly was would be me. Therefore it would be reasonable for me to expect to be able to say which country I'd like to play for.
Indeed it would. The point is that there's the expectation that if you felt such allegiance there, you'd have moved back when you could. Say at the age of 20, a 10-year qualification would mean you required just 2 years of Irish residence before becoming eligable for them.
Relatively, by your reckoning Andrew Symonds would be playing for England. They asked him to play for them early in his career, and he replied: "Nah thanks, mate. I'm an Aussie, fair dinkum." (Whatever that means).
He wouldn't, though. Symonds is precisely the sort of case I'm referring to - he was born in Birmingham, but lived almost all his early life in Australia - so hence he felt, and qualified for, Australia.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Yeah and? Their lives dont fit litle cookie cutter stereotypes.

They are part a lot of things. Id never dream of asking them as children to choose a direction, a heritage or a country. As its a part of them, then they should be allowed to follow any path they chose rather than have draconian laws forced upon them at a young age.
That was, you know, precisely the point I was making - and that exceptions would perhaps need to be made for exceptional cases.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I really think it's a non-problem though, Richard.

Yes, it's relatively easy to choose a team to play for. It's another thing to get them to select you. Moreover once you've chosen that team, you're more or less stuck with it. Relatively few players have ever played for 2 countries and none that I can think of in the last 15 years.

Saqlain, for instance, is England-qualified but no-one thinks for a minute he'd play for England, even though we're crying out for a spinner of his class.
So far, the problem has indeed been minimal. Had Saqlain been selected for England (and it certainly wasn't an idea that was dismissed without question - never mind what'd have been the case had his form of the last 3 years been more compelling than it has), there'd have been not a little amount of complaint. There was exactly that when Pattinson was selected for England. If Rudolph, McLaren and maybe one or two others end-up playing for England they'll basically have been doing it because they fancied it rather than SA - neither have any British background whatsoever, not even birth (like Dawid Malan) or half-parentage (like Pietersen). I don't think this really fits the idea of international sport, myself.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Richard's managed to remove two of my nationalities. Yay! :dry:
What are your ties to Romania and the US of A BTW? (Apologies if I've guessed at the wrong ones, you seem to have a new "nationality" every time I look)
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Indeed it would. The point is that there's the expectation that if you felt such allegiance there, you'd have moved back when you could. Say at the age of 20, a 10-year qualification would mean you required just 2 years of Irish residence before becoming eligable for them.
Not necessarily. I may prefer living in Chad, I'll move to Manchester soon and I may prefer living there. Preferring to live in another country doesn't change my nationality. I'll still feel Irish, an Irish person living in Manchester is still an Irish person. Saying I'd need to move back to Ireland and live there for two years as a "qualification period" is an insult.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
So far, the problem has indeed been minimal. Had Saqlain been selected for England (and it certainly wasn't an idea that was dismissed without question - never mind what'd have been the case had his form of the last 3 years been more compelling than it has), there'd have been not a little amount of complaint. There was exactly that when Pattinson was selected for England. If Rudolph, McLaren and maybe one or two others end-up playing for England they'll basically have been doing it because they fancied it rather than SA - neither have any British background whatsoever, not even birth (like Dawid Malan) or half-parentage (like Pietersen). I don't think this really fits the idea of international sport, myself.
I don't think anyone would have been too fussed about him being picked if he had had a few spectacular seasons behind him rather than twelve games, or if he'd taken 7 or 8 wickets. I think because it was such a random selection that wasn't overly productive (though it's worth remembering he didn't stink the place out :ph34r:) the fact that he had grown up in the antipodes was just thrown in there
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
So far, the problem has indeed been minimal. Had Saqlain been selected for England (and it certainly wasn't an idea that was dismissed without question - never mind what'd have been the case had his form of the last 3 years been more compelling than it has), there'd have been not a little amount of complaint. There was exactly that when Pattinson was selected for England. If Rudolph, McLaren and maybe one or two others end-up playing for England they'll basically have been doing it because they fancied it rather than SA - neither have any British background whatsoever, not even birth (like Dawid Malan) or half-parentage (like Pietersen). I don't think this really fits the idea of international sport, myself.
But by your reckoning neither birth nor parentage is at all relevant:

No birth; no parentage or heritage. Residence should be the only way to qualify for a team for mine, and not just because you fancied it, but because you've been brought-up there.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Romania and Scotland. Dad's Romanian, Mum's Scottish. I've lived in neither.
Well you know my position on Scotland\Wales\England - all part of the UK anyway. You're British, to my mind, same as I'm English to Dale Brumby's mind despite the fact I'm Welsh to my own. If you want to be Romanian, that's your choice, and you can feel as Romanian as you like, but I don't think you should be eligable for Romania without having lived there.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
But by your reckoning neither birth nor parentage is at all relevant:
No, it's not - by my reckoning. By mentioning Rudolph and McLaren I'm merely pointing to the most extreme of the extremes. Malan and Pietersen are both South African as well - though I don't have any objection to Pietersen playing for England, because that's the way things are now.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I don't think anyone would have been too fussed about him being picked if he had had a few spectacular seasons behind him rather than twelve games, or if he'd taken 7 or 8 wickets. I think because it was such a random selection that wasn't overly productive (though it's worth remembering he didn't stink the place out :ph34r:) the fact that he had grown up in the antipodes was just thrown in there
Nah - as influential and respected a commentator as Jonathan Agnew was saying he should never have played because he's Australian. There were loads of others who said the same thing, though perhaps few if any on CW.
 

Jamee999

Hall of Fame Member
I do agree re: my Britishness FWIW. I'd say I'm British, but I'm also Romanian. And Scottish. And sort of English. I'm not really sure. But British first, yeah. What makes someone eligible for Scotland atm, out of interest?
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
It's a delicate issue. I mean, I don't really have a conflict as such in that I'm English by birth, upbringing & parentage, but by rugby union's grandparent rule I am actually eligible for Ireland because my mum's dad was born there. I don't feel Irish to any meaningful degree, but would I throw my lot in with them should the opportunity arise? In a heartbeat.

I personally feel grandparent is a generation too far & no such eligibility exists in cricket anyway, but I would have no issue with players representing the countries of their mothers' or fathers' births if they so wished. In fact I think England's insistence on the 4-year residency even for overseas-born British subjects is a bit of an anachronism that isn't actually demanded by the ICC anyway (witness Brendan Nash's rapid promotion into the Windies squad after just one season in their domestic scene). If someone is British enough to live, vote & pay taxes in the UK they should be able to represent our cricket team.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
It's a delicate issue. I mean, I don't really have a conflict as such in that I'm English by birth, upbringing & parentage, but by rugby union's grandparent rule I am actually eligible for Ireland because my mum's dad was born there. I don't feel Irish to any meaningful degree, but would I throw my lot in with them should the opportunity arise? In a heartbeat.

I personally feel grandparent is a generation too far & no such eligibility exists in cricket anyway, but I would have no issue with players representing the countries of their mothers' or fathers' births if they so wished. In fact I think England's insistence on the 4-year residency even for overseas-born British subjects is a bit of an anachronism that isn't actually demanded by the ICC anyway (witness Brendan Nash's rapid promotion into the Windies squad after just one season in their domestic scene). If someone is British enough to live, vote & pay taxes in the UK they should be able to represent our cricket team.
Totally agree with this, it's ludicrous that Pietersen had to qualify. Has English blood FFS.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Dont you class yourself as a Yorkshireman?

The 'Taffy Tyke' despite being born in neither :laugh:

You have a strange mind.
I do indeed have a strange mind, haven't ever denied that. FWIW, I was actually born in Wales, to a Welsh mother. But my first memories come from Yorkshire - I was just 3 months old when we moved there, and had I been born a little later I'd be Yorkshire by birth. Yet my fondest memories almost all come from Tyneside.

I've always classified myself as three separate things really - Welsh by parentage (and birth - not that I care about that), Yorkshire by early years, and Geordie (and this remains what I feel the strongest allegiance to) by raising. I feel the least allegiance to the place where I've spent now over half my life, the last 12 years - Devon.

None of these are relevant in sporting terms, however. If I played sport, I'd play it as a Brit - which no-one would ever have any case for me not being.
 

Top