SA tour of Australia, Oct 22-Nov 28

[sussexpob]

Divine intervention seems to be keeping these two in at the moment

[rich1uk]

Divine intervention seems to be keeping these two in at the moment

shamsi must be wondering what he has to do to get his first wicket after that delivery last over missed everything

[rich1uk]

cracking innings by khawaja today, SA will be doing well to keep the lead to under 100 runs, so thats a pretty strong position for australia

[alfie]

Fine day for the home team. Khawaja really stood up and has given them a big of a grip on this game ; though they'll want the tail to get that lead up over 100 tomorrow.

Only Handscomb of the new boys really performed , though Renshaw showed some determination and did at least take the edge off the SA new ball attack.

Abbott overwhelmingly the best of the bowlers. Could have done with better support from the spin section : Shamsi can certainly spin the ball but he bowls far too much rubbish for my liking. With the pace attack they have I really think SA would have done better to stick to the more reliable Maharaj...though I guess if Australia end up chasing 150 to win on the last morning he might prove that theory wrong...

I won't call this one yet. SA have already shown they should never be written off; but is the motivation as sharp in this dead rubber ? Tomorrow should make the picture clearer.

[GarlicJam]

To be honest, I have never quite understood why we give more weight to the location that a player was born and lived as a child/teenager (something they have no control over) compared to the positive choices they have made as an adult. An adult has decided to come and live and work in the country, gain citizenship and commit themselves to that country. Shouldn't that count for more than an accident of birth?

Good words.....

People should determine their own identity, not have it set out for them.

I don't give a rats for where someone is born - but where they are raised is a different matter. There is argument about affecting their character, their makeup, but that is a moot point, imo.

Where they learn their cricket, where they develop their skills is a different matter though - as well as that, there is the matter of a cricket association investing considerable monies and efforts into this particular player, rightfully expecting that if this player were to make it to the top, the association would get some return on their investment.

Sure, a player shouldn't necessarily be bound to and by this, but they should (imo) be hampered by it, should they wish to ply their trade elsewhere, and play at the very highest level.

"Positive choices"? Yep, THAT really works out well for Fijian, Samoan and Tongan Rugby, doesn't it? Nationalities being bought by the highest bidders.

Going to be interesting in the next decade or so moving on when you see the effects of increased migration between Australia and UK.

Lots of Aussies in England, and now an Englishman in the Aussie team. Are we going to start to see bidding wars from boards to get young talent?

Huh?

That doesn't fit with your earlier post....

[rich1uk]

just being devil's advocate again for the sake of discussion

whats your cut-off point GJ to make sure people are treated fairly ?

are you saying a kid who went to australia as a 13-14 year old, was cricket mad, joined a club and came up thru the state system shouldn't be allowed to play for australia even tho they become an australian citizen and have no intention of going back to the country they were born in and grew up in ?

what about a 16-17 year old ?

are you going to tell them "sorry kid but because you spent the first 14 years of your life in england you cant play for us" ?

[GarlicJam]

No Rich, I think that anyone should be able to play anywhere, if they really want to. So no cut-off point - but a qualification timeframe. We have one now. and obviously they should be citizens of the country they wish to play for.

What's the current qualification period for someone wanting to change countries?

I am not too much in disagreeance with BFL and SP on this, but not just willy nilly.



Take, as an example, the situation of a bub born in England and is shifted out to Aus at 2 years old. Knows nothing of the Old Country, never been there. Gets Aus citizenship, but also has a Brit passport. What is to stop this talented youngster being picked to play for England without having been there for 22 years?

[rich1uk]

No Rich, I think that anyone should be able to play anywhere, if they really want to. So no cut-off point - but a qualification timeframe. We have one now. and obviously they should be citizens of the country they wish to play for.

What's the current qualification period for someone wanting to change countries?

I am not too much in disagreeance with BFL and SP on this, but not just willy nilly.



Take, as an example, the situation of a bub born in England and is shifted out to Aus at 2 years old. Knows nothing of the Old Country, never been there. Gets Aus citizenship, but also has a Brit passport. What is to stop this talented youngster being picked to play for England without having been there for 22 years?

someone will correct me if i am wrong but afaik if they take up residency in england before their 18th birthday they have to be resident for 4 years before they can play for england, if its after their 18th birthday they have to wait 7 years

thats regardless of whether they hold a UK passport or not

[sussexpob]

[ That doesn't fit with your earlier post....

Its far easier to illustrate the main point I was making by using that terminology of Renshaw being "English". In hindsight, had I thought about it, saying "dual passport holders" are in both sides would have acheived the same. I was simply using the example to say there is an emergence of this being an "equal" problem for both boards, and that regardless of what a player considers themselves, money and influence from the top can sway people into accepting to play for a team they dont necessarily want to.

[GarlicJam]

someone will correct me if i am wrong but afaik if they take up residency in england before their 18th birthday they have to be resident for 4 years before they can play for england, if its after their 18th birthday they have to wait 7 years

thats regardless of whether they hold a UK passport or not

OK. That interesting. And good - although the 7 years seems a bit extreme.


Some strings were pulled, then, in the case of Fawad Ahmed. Three years after arriving in Australia, he played for T20 team

[GarlicJam]

........... there is an emergence of this being an "equal" problem for both boards, and that regardless of what a player considers themselves, money and influence from the top can sway people into accepting to play for a team they dont necessarily want to.

At least with this situation, neither side is greatly disadvantaged as the flow is both ways. Rugby, on the other hand....

Watching the France/Aus match the other day, it was noted that all four wingers WERE (are?) Fijian, and a couple were cousins, but playing for opposing teams. I think that there were 9 Fijians on the field. Admittedly there is the development, training and opportunities that the big countries have given the Pacific Islanders, but wouldn't it be great for world Rugby if the three main Rugby nations in the Pacific got a fair selection of their players?



One of the reasons I like the accent test, which of course is nothing that can offically be applied - but I can form an opinion!

[Dr Cricket]

Those rules only actually apply to england, Garlic jam they changed it to stop the likes of trott, pietersen, kieswetter etc coming to country cricket to play for England.
Fawad ahmed was a bit different since he was applying as a refugee and if anything it was because of his cricket ability that made him get accepted in the first place, think he was still a refugee asylum seeker during 2012/13 and CA/ Fans were basically pushing the government to accept him just so he can play for Australia.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-30/d ... ne/5225808

Basically they were not that keen on SA under 19 players playing for England since ECB didn't really like the bad press, they changed it during the times when 8 players had links abroad although linking Prior, Strauss, Stokes etc was harsh.
basically ECB really wanted majority of the players in England to be brought up through the ECB academy/ county academies which is why it is harder for under 19 players to make the jump and play for england.

[Dr Cricket]

........... there is an emergence of this being an "equal" problem for both boards, and that regardless of what a player considers themselves, money and influence from the top can sway people into accepting to play for a team they dont necessarily want to.

At least with this situation, neither side is greatly disadvantaged as the flow is both ways. Rugby, on the other hand....

Watching the France/Aus match the other day, it was noted that all four wingers WERE (are?) Fijian, and a couple were cousins, but playing for opposing teams. I think that there were 9 Fijians on the field. Admittedly there is the development, training and opportunities that the big countries have given the Pacific Islanders, but wouldn't it be great for world Rugby if the three main Rugby nations in the Pacific got a fair selection of their players?



One of the reasons I like the accent test, which of course is nothing that can offically be applied - but I can form an opinion!

agree with the fiji coach that Fiji/Samoa etc need a super rugby side so the best players don't need to play club rugby abroad at the moment they getting brought to play rugby overseas and then play rugby for other nations.
quite sad really since how long can fiji/Samoa produce players when the national team hardly keeps the players, massive worry if they don't qualify for the world cup or do well in the world arena, will rugby just die in the region.
Super rugby would be a very good idea, especially now when Argentina and Japan got a team.

plus was a joke the players only got paid £500 each to play against England last week and the English players got millions for it.
that a mockery really.
Scrap that Fiji board got 500 pounds and the players got about £60, with the England players pocketing 22,000 each.

[GarlicJam]

plus was a joke the players only got paid £500 each to play against England last week and the English players got millions for it.
that a mockery really.
Scrap that Fiji board got 500 pounds and the players got about £60, with the England players pocketing 22,000 each.

You'll have to explain this far better, Bhavesh. I am confused.


But, I will take this to the Rugby thread.....

[GarlicJam]

My comment has nothing to do with his brief innings last night (it was a bloody good ball), but came to me when I heard of him being selected. (maybe I wouldn't be posting this if he had a blinder last night tho.......)

I know/knew too little about Handscomb and Renshaw to form an opinion on their selections, but I was not pleased with Maddinson's. Hopefully I will be proven wrong, but I don't think that Maddinson is a test player. The shorter versions of the game, maybe, but his temperament at the crease is far too Maxwellian for my liking. After all, what is his 1st class average, mid-high 30's? Hardly a figure that screams "pick me!".