Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

Top Contributors
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

mas cambios;393093 said:
It would be wise to remember that cricket has always had slightly blurry boundaries when it comes to nationalities. A large part of that stems from the fact that the game was spread as part of the British empire.

Most test playing nations have benefitted from players not born or raised within their borders, wrongly or rightly. Likewise other sports equally share this problem - how many Brazillians have become naturalised Spainiards for example or Africans who have become French. Again, largely due to past colonisations, which either meant that people moved to these countries whilst retaining birth rights elsewhere or travelled and had children with access to dual nationality.

I doubt the ICC will be in any rush to stop it but the simple way is to follow the lead of other sports. For example, one parent must be a national of that country (by birth) and if born overseas the players serves a period of qualification. You can also add in a stipulation that representative age cricket in a meaningful competition (world cup, world cup qualifying or tests between countries with senior test status) means they are bound to that country when it comes to senior cricket.

However, the players are simply acting within the rules as they stand and I can't begrudge the likes of Morgan too much as the only way of reaching the pinnicle of the sport (which for me is tests) was by playing for England.

Finally, we should also ask ourselves what nationality actually means? Is it by blood or boundary, better known as ethnic nationality or is more to do with an identification towards a culture, country, location (civic nationality)? Who would you rather have fighting by your side? Someone who is there because it is expected of them or someone there because they want to be; in that they are passionate for the cause?
Click to expand...

Spare us, please.

We are not talking about fighting in a war, we are talking about a game of cricket.

I notice Geoff Boycott has come out and said that it should be a 10 year qualification period rather than a 4 year.

Morgan seems destined to be ODI player for most of his career, I think most people are concentrating on the likes of KP, Trott and Kieswetter when it comes to discussing this issue.

Boycott was pretty strong in his cricinfo piece - as he usually is.
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

The cross nationality is not the real problem. It's the fact that south africa is producing an international team and a half and england are producing less than one very average one. How is english cricket that poor when it is the home of cricket with so much more infrastructure in place than anywhere else?
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

LIONS then DAYLIGHT;393730 said:
Spare us, please.

We are not talking about fighting in a war, we are talking about a game of cricket.

I notice Geoff Boycott has come out and said that it should be a 10 year qualification period rather than a 4 year.

Morgan seems destined to be ODI player for most of his career, I think most people are concentrating on the likes of KP, Trott and Kieswetter when it comes to discussing this issue.

Boycott was pretty strong in his cricinfo piece - as he usually is.
Click to expand...

I feel the same when I have to read your Australian biased drivel but I have the grace to respect your opinion. Sport is the closest thing to war, the two have been linked since the inception of the Olympics back in Ancient Greece and maybe even before. There is a parallel to be drawn but you won't see that through your gold and green tinted shades.

Most sports, as I have repeatedly said, have issues with nationality. The world is not an isolated place any more and it will only get smaller and further linked in the future. Countries have multiple links with one and another, immigration is rife.

The issue is not so much that these players are in the team but how to make sure you preserve the essence of the side. The 10 year rule is a sound one but I reckon you would have to have a concession where a player became home qualified after 5 years, although not eligible for national selection.
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

10 year rule effectively ends any sporting career so it is the same as saying you can't play for that country. Multiply linked countries such as the commonwealth often have close ties but fierce rivalries in sport meaning that there is the perceived idea that this person is to cliché it bat for the other team in the only hostility between the two countries which are otherwise peaceful.

It's true that sport and war are similar in theory but modern day sport and the perception of it has become closer to entertainment that warfare and with the peace movement this has become part of our society.

I have no problem with it but some people see it as a critical part of society.
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

The way that Boycott explains the rule is that it is there to encourage early adoption of the country. The idea is that the player would be schooled and educated in said country, therefore taking on board some of its culture, history and identity. It is not there for early 20 somethings who have failed to gain a recognition in their native countries.

As for war and sport, whilst both have changed over the years the parallels are still strongly there. Maybe we don't always see it being from Westernised countries but think of the tensions that surround an India/Pakistan series. It goes beyond entertainment and becomes more about national pride and getting one over on the enemy.
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

That's true I hadn't thought of the india pakistan thing still. it's all over the net.
And that makes sense that if they are raised in the country then they should be considered one of them. For instance if an englishman was born in india shouldn't exclude him from playing for england so I think it makes more sense explained like that. Perhaps instead of 10 years say that perhaps 80% of their schooling and life after a certain age to 18/21 needs to be in that country. but that would be hard to regulate.
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

mas cambios;394280 said:
I feel the same when I have to read your Australian biased drivel but I have the grace to respect your opinion. Sport is the closest thing to war, the two have been linked since the inception of the Olympics back in Ancient Greece and maybe even before. There is a parallel to be drawn but you won't see that through your gold and green tinted shades.

Most sports, as I have repeatedly said, have issues with nationality. The world is not an isolated place any more and it will only get smaller and further linked in the future. Countries have multiple links with one and another, immigration is rife.

The issue is not so much that these players are in the team but how to make sure you preserve the essence of the side. The 10 year rule is a sound one but I reckon you would have to have a concession where a player became home qualified after 5 years, although not eligible for national selection.
Click to expand...

I disagreed with your notion that war has parallels to sport, especially your analogy about who you would want fighting by your side. I don't see how what team I support has to do with that.

I said the same when Steve Waugh took the team to Gallopi in 2001 before the Ashes. I felt uncomfortable with it, and still do.

Many people feel uncomfortable with the current situation England are in with regards to overseas born players, Michael Vaughan and Boycott have made their views known.

Immigration is rife, but a heap of other teams don't have the issue England has at the moment - that is mature age players coming over from their country of birth to play for their 'adopted' nation. In some cases, these players have even represented their original nation at under-age level. Hell, Brendon Nash even wore the Australian shirt as a sub fielder against the Windies in 2005.

The question is why are these players leaving their original nation. The answer is basically money and / or opportunity.

In Australia we have a player playing for New South Wales who is a very good batsmen. He will likely play for Australia - if he does he will be the first muslim to play for Australia; he was born in Pakistan. However, he moved here when we was a toddler and grew up in Australia.

I have no problem with that.

Qualification is something that needs to be looked at, I favour a situation where you have to chose your team by the age of 18. Then serving a 5 year qualification period. Therefore, if you are representing South Africa at underage level then that is your team for your cricketing career.
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

It's not very fair to make someone irreversibly select their future team before they're even really an adult.

Ultimately no set of rules is going to be satisfactory because nationality is such a nebulous concept. You want players playing for the country they feel the strongest affinity and connection to. That is not necessarily going to correspond to where they were born, where they grew up, or even how long they've lived in a particular place.
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

Why isn't it fair?

I believe FIFA has a similar rule.

Once you represent your nation at underage level, then that is it.

By all means, if your young and you switch countires then fair enough. But a line has to be drawn at some point where you say, well, what is your decision?
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

FIFA regulations stipulate that naturalised players must reside 5 years in the country after the age of 18, and not be cap-tied to another country.

Youth caps usually don't cap-tie duel citizens, but they do prevent you becoming naturalised after you've been capped and then switching allegience. There are however some complicated rules around it, and most situations can be appealed for determination on a case-by-case basis. For instance, prior to an appeal to FIFA there was some uncertainty about whether Tim Cahill would be eligible for Australia after being capped by Samoa at a junior level.
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

As I said, I don't like it when players like Nash go and play for the West Indies after playing cricket in Australia for a number of years.

You have to draw a line somewhere, and I think many would agree that at the moment the ICC don't have it quite right with regards to national qualification.

It's not just be bashing England either, I said the Nash is in the same boat.
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

LIONS then DAYLIGHT;394323 said:
As I said, I don't like it when players like Nash go and play for the West Indies after playing cricket in Australia for a number of years.

You have to draw a line somewhere, and I think many would agree that at the moment the ICC don't have it quite right with regards to national qualification.

It's not just be bashing England either, I said the Nash is in the same boat.
Click to expand...

Why? Nash is nowhere near good enough to play in the Australian side so what would be the point of barring him from playing for another country, and one which his parents have ties to? If Nash is eligible for the Windies then good luck to him, it's every cricketer's dream to play test cricket and if he can do that playing for West Indies then so be it.
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

LIONS then DAYLIGHT;394537 said:
I agree, good luck to Nash.

However, I disagree with the principle and the current qualificaition rules as they stand.
Click to expand...

Why, may I ask?
 
Re: Michael Vaughan, what have you become?

As I said, I think there has to be a line drawn at some stage - I'm sure you'd agree.

I'd prefer that line to be at 18 - the ICC says "right, which country do you want to play for".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top