Player eligibility

[Dasa]

Have absolutely no issue with dual or multi-internationals. In my view, cricket is a profession and no other profession I know would impose such arbitrary rules as 'once you've reached the top level, you can't do that job for any other country'. I don't care that it's sport, frankly.

I say, let any player move to any country at any time in their life and qualify under the rules that country imposes on them if they want to play international cricket. I can't see a defensible reason why this shouldn't be allowed. Their ethnicity, birthplace, etc. shouldn't come into it, as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, exactly.

 

[Craig]

Richard, you know my story, where would I fit in terms of eligibility as I have nearly been here for ten years?

 

[Richard]

I've always thought of you as a Kiwi, and I'm sure if you wanted to play for New Zealand you'd be more than happy to move back there for a few years in order to do it.

 

[Richard]

Have absolutely no issue with dual or multi-internationals. In my view, cricket is a profession and no other profession I know would impose such arbitrary rules as 'once you've reached the top level, you can't do that job for any other country'. I don't care that it's sport, frankly.

I say, let any player move to any country at any time in their life and qualify under the rules that country imposes on them if they want to play international cricket. I can't see a defensible reason why this shouldn't be allowed. Their ethnicity, birthplace, etc. shouldn't come into it, as far as I'm concerned.

If you view cricket purely as a profession then that's absolutely 100% right - and I myself took this view completely until pretty recently.

The issue is whether sport is different to other professions. In some ways it unquestionably is - cricket does not exist primarily for its proprietors to make money, it exists because it's something people love watching and being involved with. It's a question of how far do you take these differences. Ethnicity and birthplace are indeed totally irrelevant for my money. But some form of long-term residence, as I say, is an idea I'm increasingly becoming in favour of.

 

[Uppercut]

I've always thought of you as a Kiwi, and I'm sure if you wanted to play for New Zealand you'd be more than happy to move back there for a few years in order to do it.

No! If he considers himself a Kiwi, he has as much right to be in the NZ side as anyone else. Your nationality is more than where you've been living recently. Who's to know what would happen in that few years? He could move back and continue to play domestically for two and a half years, the break his leg and never be able to play cricket at the highest level again.

Also, does your option only apply to test-playing countries? Because in a lot of places, cricket is amateur. Basically, you're telling those cricketers from an unfashionable country playing first-class cricket to either find a new profession or never play for their country again. Not good for the spread of cricket, realistically.

I'm in favour of "once you've played for one country, there's no changing". Other than that, it's preferable that the rules be too loose than too strict.

 

[Top_Cat]

If you view cricket purely as a profession then that's absolutely 100% right - and I myself took this view completely until pretty recently.

The issue is whether sport is different to other professions. In some ways it unquestionably is - cricket does not exist primarily for its proprietors to make money, it exists because it's something people love watching and being involved with. It's a question of how far do you take these differences. Ethnicity and birthplace are indeed totally irrelevant for my money. But some form of long-term residence, as I say, is an idea I'm increasingly becoming in favour of.

None of that makes cricket in any way different from other professions. Pilots, for example, earn a lot of money but I think you'll find there aren't many pilots who don't love what they do yet fly in many countries. Of course, we're talking private industry here and they don't represent a country per se (some airlines do, less than there used to be though) but I think that's not really that important a distinction.

The only way in which sport differs from other professions is surely that of the fans/pundits/spectators. And, if I was a player, I'd obviously take the views of those people into consideration but the ultimate decision for how my career goes would be up to me. Let any country impose any qualification rules they want, sure, but if any player was prepared to throw their hats in another country's ring, there should be no restriction on them from doing so as there isn't with most other professions. Certainly, no player should be subject to some arbitrary rule(s) imposed by misty-eyed nostalgiacs just because it isn't confluent with their cricketing worldview.

The whole 'it devalues the meaning of international cricket if players can country-hop' reminds me of the argument used against gay marriage, that allowing gay people to be married devalues the sanctity of the marriage institution. In the same way that there are plenty of heterosexual couplings which do that (Brittney's right to 24-hour-long marriage to that guy in Vegas must be sanctified, after all), there are plenty of examples of guys playing for their country of birth who do their level best to devalue the 'institution' of international cricket.

When it comes to corrupt or unethical behaviour, whether you're playing for your country of birth has no bearing and forcing people to pick a side and stick to it, conversely, does nothing to guarantee the protection of the institution, only instilling a false sense of security if anything. Hansie Cronje would be the archetypical example of what I'm talking about, really; well-liked, professional, talented, corrupt beyond belief. Not that I'm a fan of the institutionalism or nationalism associated with international cricket but I just find such an argument to be specious.

 

[_Ed_]

Relatively few players have ever played for 2 countries and none that I can think of in the last 15 years.

Clayton Lambert, Anderson Cummins, Gavin Hamilton, Dougie Brown.

All only played for one Test team, admittedly.

 

[andyc]

For a while, I've been thinking this - birth qualification is absolute bull****. It doesn't matter a jot for mine where you were born. If you've lived somewhere since you were 6 years old (as Pattinson did in Australia there or thereabouts, and as Andrew Strauss coincidentally enough did in reverse with South Africa and the UK) you've no right playing for anyone other than them.

Rubbish. I know people that are American as you can get, but have lived in China since they were kids. A lot of people move around a lot with their parents as kids, or even as part of their work, but you'll find that most of them still identify with their country as birth as being their 'home country.'

 

[zaremba]

Clayton Lambert, Anderson Cummins, Gavin Hamilton, Dougie Brown.

All only played for one Test team, admittedly.

You're quite right. I meant Test teams.

The last I can think of are Wessels and Traicos, and I've no idea who before that. Hick almost qualifies but when he played for Zimbabwe they didn't play Tests.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The whole 'it devalues the meaning of international cricket if players can country-hop' reminds me of the argument used against gay marriage, that allowing gay people to be married devalues the sanctity of the marriage institution. In the same way that there are plenty of heterosexual couplings which do that (Brittney's right to 24-hour-long marriage to that guy in Vegas must be sanctified, after all), there are plenty of examples of guys playing for their country of birth who do their level best to devalue the 'institution' of international cricket.

It's an interesting analogy, certainly. Conjures up images of same-*** unions being held in front of a packed MCG with attendant cries of "no ball" as the controversial Sri Lankan lesbian takes her mark...

I don't think it quite holds water tho, because national sporting teams represent a particular country & its sporting hopes whereas gay people who marry are (one supposes) generally representing nothing more than their love & commitment to each other.

I can't help but feel that some safeguards should be put in place for the make-up of international teams. Without any we could quite feasibly have (say) a UAE test team composed entirely of top-notch foreigners flying flags of convenience, which somehow seems to mock the concept of sporting competition between nations. There's nothing morally objectionable about it in itself, of course (aside from sixth-form gripes about the nature of capitalism, obv), but personally I feel representing a country is different to representing a club/state team within a country. Any limit one imposes on non-natives is going to be arbitrary (as is how one defines a non-native, frankly) but test cricket should be about more than who can afford to pay for the best players

 

[Goughy]

I can't help but feel that some safeguards should be put in place for the make-up of international teams. Without any we could quite feasibly have (say) a UAE test team composed entirely of top-notch foreigners flying flags of convenience, which somehow seems to mock the concept of sporting competition between nations.

Well they are doing it in other sports (track and field, swimming etc) so why not cricket?

Does a player have to be a product of a system to represent it or just choose to live there?

 

[GIMH]

I think track & field is different, and swimming. Though we all swell up with pride when we see "our" athletes striking gold, they are, on the most part, individual sports. Cricket is a team sport and this does make a difference IMO.

 

[Goughy]

I think track & field is different, and swimming. Though we all swell up with pride when we see "our" athletes striking gold, they are, on the most part, individual sports. Cricket is a team sport and this does make a difference IMO.

I actually think it is far worse in individual sports. All they change is the vest or the cap. Makes no diference to their surroundings or training or lifestyle. In a team sport they are part of a national team and surrounded by people from that country.

Its a far greater change and greater commitment to a country.

 

[GIMH]

I don't actually disagree with you regarding the difference, but for me that's why it doesn't matter. It doesn't really affect much, whereas a team can improve itself through enticing foreign players to come over and naturalise themselves. Whether it's right or wrong is up to the individual to make their own mind up on but I think it affects a nation more when it happens in team sports. At the end of the day it wasn't "USA" that won those 8 golds it was Michael Phelps. This is the distinction for mine.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Well they are doing it in other sports (track and field, swimming etc) so why not cricket?

Does a player have to be a product of a system to represent it or just choose to live there?

The answer to your question in your second paragraph is either or neither, of course. My point is tho that if players can change their nationalities without let or hinderence then test cricket would become no more than another EPL style oligarchy, with the richest countries hoovering up the best talent. If you see nothing wrong with that, then fair play & I think one can make a solid case that sporting competition between nations is an outdated concept. Personally tho I think something would be lost if the next series to be served up was Ricky Ponting's India facing Graeme Smith's England.

 

[Goughy]

The answer to your question in your second paragraph is either or neither, of course. My point is tho that if players can change their nationalities without let or hinderence then test cricket would become no more than another EPL style oligarchy, with the richest countries hoovering up the best talent. If you see nothing wrong with that, then fair play & I think one can make a solid case that sporting competition between nations is an outdated concept. Personally tho I think something would be lost if the next series to be served up was Ricky Ponting's India facing Graeme Smith's England.

Id have issues with that. But I dont see it going that way. Few young players will choose another country early for money. Those that will go are those 2nd tier players that are not good enough for their home country and are looking to cash in. Obviously players cant move after playing Test cricket without a long qualification.

ie a David Sales turning out for UAE.

No issues there as long as he chose to make a life there and was counted as an overseas player in CC.

 

[SJS]

These things cant be looked at in purely emotional strain. In today's world the dynamics of moving populations across national boundaries make that kind of thinking completely archaic. We have to be practical. If one is eligible for a country's passport, for example, he should be eligible to play for them too.

Someone mentioned citizenship and paying taxes etc. These are more or less same kind of thought processes. What we need to curb is complete chaos where a person can keep hopping from country to country as a footballer does between clubs.

As for the county (or equivalent for other countries) goes, a two year residential qualification, a work permit kind of a regulation (for those who are forced to move to a county for professional reasons) and a student permit (for those studying in Schools/Coleges in particular counties can be thought of. Again the idea is to frame regulations that are fair in the modern context without leaving too much by way of lopholes to be exploited by 'fair-weather-birds'.

Its not possible to have any regulation which will please all or which will be completely free of loopholes. One has to try and get the best workable one.

But no regional or nationalistic jingoism in todays context will work.

PS : And yes, once having played for a country, changing countries should be very very difficult indeed and only very special circumstances should allow for that and the qualification criteria should be far stricter.

 

[GIMH]

Id have issues with that. But I dont see it going that way. Few young players will choose another country early for money. Those that will go are those 2nd tier players that are not good enough for their home country and are looking to cash in. Obviously players cant move after playing Test cricket without a long qualification.

ie a David Sales turning out for UAE.

No issues there as long as he chose to make a life there and was counted as an overseas player in CC.

Hmm, wouldn't Eu law get in the way of that? Not sure what would happen re his British national status

 

[Goughy]

Hmm, wouldn't Eu law get in the way of that? Not sure what would happen re his British national status

As far as I know (and there are lots of examples) you cant play as a Euro national whilst playing International cricket for a Test nation.
But I could certainly be wrong see David Hemp

 

[BoyBrumby]

Hmm, wouldn't Eu law get in the way of that? Not sure what would happen re his British national status

There's been a few cases of British citizens (Symonds & Jaques off the top of my head) having to play as overseas players because they were registered as "local" in Australia too & were unwilling to give up their chance of playing in the baggy green. Actually I think that's why Ryan Harris (another UK passport holder) had to give his Sussex gig away too, QLD wouldn't offer him an overseas contract.

Legally speaking tho, I think if the ECB were taken to court they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Clear restraint of trade.