do the amount of 'foreigners' in the england team spoil it for you?

the reason I ask this question is there is a debate going on in football at the moment as there is a possibility that a player from another country could play for England in the future.  Some in the press have been saying this should not happen and have cited cricket as an example where the amount of England 'foreign' players spoil it for the England fans.

I personally have no problem with the situation currently I was just wondering what your views were on the topic, does it spoil your enjoyment as an England fan?

Pietersen and Trott you mean? Tbh, I would rather have a home grown or/and a player who was brought up in this country like Prior, and Strauss were. That said, it's not something that keeps me awake at night.

Nope not at all. They're (KP, Trott, Prior etc.) not foreign anyway, considering they think themselves to be English, and under the rules they are deemed to be English. The majority of England's so-called "foreign import" have lived in this country from a young age anyway.

No problem.

The comparison with Januzaj (if that's what the op is talking about), is somewhat invalid. As far as I'm aware he, unlike Trott, KP, Prior, Strauss etc. has no English heritage and would qualify purely on grounds of residency. English football has chosen players born abroad but brought up from an early age in England before (John Barnes, for example), and have picked players born and brought up abroad, but to English parents (Owen Hargreaves). So English cricket isn't really doing anything that English football hasn't.

As far as I'm concerned making the choice to represent a country probably means you feel as part of that country as anyone.

The only "foreigner" I take issue with in the England side is Morgan (and now Rankin I guess) because of the way the system works (and like Januzaj eventually will they qualify only on residency criteria, not on heritage). The difference is that they didn't really choose to play for England, they chose to play a higher form of the game (it so happened that England was the test country they were settled in). I don't completely blame them for that (although the pressure put on Rankin was disgraceful obviously).

You could make similar arguments for Gerain Jones playing for PNG, or Di Venutto for Italy I guess.

In football for example they couldn't simply have switched allegiances from one country to the other the following day, as they could in cricket (one way, but not the other of course).

It's worth restating at this point that parts of the media and some fans like to make ridiculous amalgamations which suggest that for example the Strauss situation is in any way equivalent to the KP one.

We also have to accept that in the modern world with immigration as it is, nationals from varying countries and in particular the most prosperous ones will have different heritages and occasionally "confused" origins - to take an example I was born in France of an Aussie dad and English mum, with German grandparents thrown in there. With that in mind what makes someone "English" or not is hard or impossible to define, but as far as I'm concerned choosing to play for one country over another is probably as close to a definition as you can get (for what it's worth I would consider myself more French than anything, but not particularly a national of any one country).

Wheelchair

It's not actually a new debate in football - a few years ago there was the suggestion of Arteta and Almunia representing England based on residency (although it turned out on further checking the rules that Arteta would not have been able to because he had represented Spain at U21 level). Other nations do it - I recall Poland having a very decent black African cente forward a few years ago, and Spain have just registered Costa as eligible for them despite him being Brazilian by birth and ancestry.

One thing that has to be remembered when discussing 'England' as a cricket team is that it is actually the team of England and Wales, plus is the only Test match level team in Europe and so represents the one opportunity for players from Ireland, Scotland, Netherlands etc (France if Mike unearths some real gem...) to play cricket at the highest level. My favourite story in this regard is that Shane Warne was potentially England-eligible because his mother was born in the Netherlands. Because top level international cricket (and rugby, which has similar issues) is not played across many nations, there is a significant difference from football, where all international teams are considered to be of equal status.

In an absolutely ideal world, I would like the England cricket (and rugby, where there is a similar debate) to be comprised of players who are either English / British by birth or who moved to this country while children and so whose skills were developed through the systems in place in this country. As such, Strauss and Prior are for me more English than South African, because they learnt the game here. Similarly, the likes of Manu Tuillagi and the Vunipola brothers representing England rugby don't bother me in the slightest (well, other than the fact that Mako Vunipola played his school rugby in Wales   ).

Still a pity that the England cricket selectors in the 70s weren't as on the ball as they are now regarding eligibility - imagine an opening partnership for England of Geoffrey Boycott and Gordon Greenidge  

However we live in a real and increasingly complicated world, and with increased international mobility there are far more people like Mike above who have reasonably close ties to multiple countries (my neice was born in Zurich to a Yorkshire father and an originally East German mother). Parental connection to a country obviously does have an influence over where you feel some attachment to. I believe KP and Trott both have British parents, so have some ties here. Also, KP's case is unique anyway because he originally moved to England because the quota system in South African cricket was limiting his opportunities to get games as a spin bowler, so he came over to Nottinghamshire who played a big part in converting him from a bowler who could bat a bit into a very high quality England batsman.

My big concern with the 'eligibility by residence' rules is with sportsmen who move solely for reasons of a professional sporting contract. It is an issue I have with a few of the England rugby selections (Fourie, Vainikolo, Botha to a lesser extent as he came over initially as a student) - cricket could get bogged down in this, particularly because of the Kolpak ruling which makes quite a lot of South African players in particular England-eligible through Dutch ancestry, but so far it isn't a huge issue. Football could become an absolute minefield in this regard though, with players moving around the world from being about 15 years old onwards.

The way I see it is if a player leaves SA before having represented his country he by virtue of leaving intimates he is no longer available for his country he has left.

I am talking specifically about players that left SA as young men (school kids are a different story altogether as they leave with their parents)

If a guy does what KP has done as an example, he left because he couldn't see a way forward for his career, he is therefor no longer committed to SA and therefor I see him as being available for his new country if they chose to select him.

No it doesn't, any more than the number of white players of clearly European origin in the S African team spoils it for me. Both my statement and the title of this article are ridiculous and facile non-arguments (nb I'm having a pop at the idea, not the author of this thread himself).
 
I couldn't care less what sections of the press feel about non-English born footballers possibly qualifying to play for England, and would be fascinated to see the empirical evidence to back up the claim that "the amount of England 'foreign' players [ie in the England cricket team] spoil it for the England fans". 11 English-speaking British passport holders qualified to play for England will do for me.

Not every scenario is the same. KP felt like he was being unfairly hindered (quite wrongly imo - he left SA a spinner, and Imraan Khan is a better batsman than KP is a spinner), while Strauss is as English as anyone else in that team, African bead necklace aside (or is that KP). Trott basically just ended up playing for Eng. It was a very organic process.... If I was English, Id find it very difficult to "love" KP, because I think deep down, everyone knows he'd rather wear crickets other, less famous bagggy green. Thats not to say he doesnt give his best for England, far from it.

My reaction to this debate is zzz to be honest.

However, as the point has been raised...

- The precedent for a player playing internationally for more than one country was set in 1881, when Billy Midwinter first played in a Test for 'England', having played for 'Australia' previously. He later again played for 'Australia'. As a side-note it should be said that the categorisation of many of these matches as 'Tests' is highly questionable - they were generally matches between a home representative side and a private touring XI and not always recognised as 'Tests' at the time.

- From the very beginnings of 'Test' cricket players born outside the country they were representing [albeit something they might not have recognised at the time in some early matches] featured. Six of the 1877 'Australians' were born outside Australia - four in England, one in India (though in Dacca, now in Bangladesh), and one in Ireland.

- There are, broadly speaking, four categories of current/ recent non-England born players:

1/ Those born overseas but who moved very early in life (e.g. Strauss, Prior, Hussain, Stokes) - Hardly relevant to the discussion but still dragged in by those wanting to make a point. It would be curious for them to have played for anybody other than England.

2/ Those coming to England for education, though perhaps with a conscious thought to playing cricket here (e.g. Jordan, Meaker) - Again not particularly relevant.

3/ Those coming over with cricketing ambitions in mind, often qualifying through a combination of residency and family links (e.g. Pietersen, Trott, Kieswetter) - The most controversial category. There is a valid argument that it is disappointing that the English system has worked in such a way that these have emerged among our best players. However, once they've qualified and committed to England, it would be absurd to them leave them out on purity grounds...

4/ Those growing up in Associate nations who have switched for cricketing reasons (e.g. Amjad Khan, Morgan, Rankin) - Given the current 'rules of the game' (i.e. that it's impossible for them to play Tests, or regular top-level ODIs) it is easy to understand why they wish to play for England. However, as Mike says, it is not particularly ethical for pressure to be placed on them to switch - as, apparently, was the case with Rankin.

Coming back to the original question - does it 'spoil' the England team for me? No, not really. All of them are England qualified and, whilst kingraf is probably right to say that KP's SA heritage makes him more difficult to feel an emotional connection to, it would be absurd (and arguably racist) to exclude them on such grounds. And leaving your best players out in the name of purity would spoil the England team for me more than the fact that they don't all have blue blood...

Dummy and Shelsey have made very sensible posts which reflect the situation fairly accurately IMO.

Without resorting to unnecessary nationalism I think it is also fair to say that with regards to immigration England is an attractive destination so it is in some sense only natural that their sporting teams reflect that.

A couple of brief points from me:

Shelsey93 wrote:

3/ [...]There is a valid argument that it is disappointing that the English system has worked in such a way that these have emerged among our best players.

A possibly equally valid argument could be made that it is worthy of praise that the English system gets the best of these players where systems of other countries have failed for whatever reason. It was in England and not in his formative South Africa that KP's potential with the bat was recognised and developed.

Shelsey93 wrote:
4/ Those growing up in Associate nations who have switched for cricketing reasons (e.g. Amjad Khan, Morgan, Rankin) - Given the current 'rules of the game' (i.e. that it's impossible for them to play Tests, or regular top-level ODIs) it is easy to understand why they wish to play for England. However, as Mike says, it is not particularly ethical for pressure to be placed on them to switch - as, apparently, was the case with Rankin.

I should make it clear that despite the odd mumbling to the contrary I mostly don't blame the players much. It is natural when you are a competitor to wish to ply your trade at the highest level possible. I would still like to believe in things like loyalty towards the country which has produced you and for which you were originally selected, but recognise that in today's modern world and especially when your livelihood is your passion (were all the countries amateurs it would be different of course) then perhaps this is unrealistic. Indeed if pushed, if a player I coach ever got to that position, if I'm honest with myself I would probably tell him to go for it.

My gripe which has been well documented is with the system, and I think there are enough posts both old and recent of my moaning about the unfairness of it all without needing to repeat myself here.

Re Rankin, the pressure was not on him to switch (at least not directly), it was on him to give up his Ireland career to get a new contract at Warwickshire - which afterall is his livelihood, so not much of a choice at all. Having said that, Rankin had previously stated his ambition was to play for England, so the decision was probably not all that difficult anyway, particularly as the director of cricket at Warwickshire who allegedly played a big part in that pressure was... Ashley Giles, current manager of the England ODI team... That whole episode for me left a really bad taste.

Mike

With regard to the eligibility of players from Associate and Affiliate nations, I think it is just a case that common sense needs to be applied allowing greater flexibility, so that the likes of Morgan and Rankin are available for their home nation whenever they are not required to play a 'higher' level of cricket for England.

The one time where there is an issue is with World Cup tournaments, when Ireland are potentially playing at the same level as England. I guess under those circumstances the player should ahve the right to select which team they want to be part of - clearly England will pay a lot more than Ireland, so for professional reasons they are almost inevitably going to choose England in spite of national loyalty.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/23069482

The link above is what rankin's father had to say about the choice his son was placed with. Basically for associates it is down to earning potential and money, which for guy's who have a short career it only makes sense for them to go with the highest bidder. So i think most guys who support associate countries understand why their players make the choice they do. However I think many get a little frustrated and would like one to make a stand, to show that you can have a career in cricket playing internationally for an associate and domestically for a county/region.
Also re Rankin: Ashley Giles' behaviour to the situation was disgraceful in my opinion

As Mike says, the major problem with associate players playing international cricket for a test nation is the system itself that allows this to happen: 1) that countries can't play one form of cricket simply due to their historical placing in cricketing circles 2) that test nations have much more to benefit from it than associates

Lastly Ireland have supplied 1 touring player for the last 3 ashes tours, who do people think will be the selected irishman in 2017?

I think with Pietersen it is the starkly South African name that puts off most people.

The fact that 50% of his very being is English makes him more England qualified than a handful of others team mates. If he had taken his mothers maiden name he'd be widely championed as an all English hero.

Fists of Fury wrote:I think with Pietersen it is the starkly South African name that puts off most people.

The fact that 50% of his very being is English makes him more England qualified than a handful of others team mates. If he had taken his mothers maiden name he'd be widely championed as an all English hero.

I think most would see him as one, if he hadn't sent a text to an opponent slagging off our captain. Not the best thing to have done. On the field, he is a great player, and good team man though.

Shelsey - Like I said, KP gives his best in English colours, everytime he comes on. But the I honestly think he would rather be in Saffer colours than English, just my opinion.

I suppose it doesnt really matter, but national teams = national pride. And that means that this is a relevant and important question.

kingraf

I'm not convinced KP would be any more committed to SA than he is to England. While he is South African by birth and upbringing, he was (or at least perceived that he was) driven out because of the political situation around the sport, and has subsequently found a home in England.

Obviously he will have some old friends who are now in and around the South African international setup, but he will also have friends in the England squad and increasingly in the Indian squad and elsewhere around the world because of his time in the IPL

I think he may have preferred to represent A South Africa, but just not quite THIS South Africa (if that makes sense...)

Dummy it makes sense, mate. Like I said, I dont think he ever gives less than 100% playing for Eng, so his commitment playing for SA cant be greater than his current commitment to Pomland. KP has grown up a lot, now. His loss to South African cricket was due to coaching errors, not politics. The Natal coaches didnt rate him as a batsman, and Gulam Bodi was a better batsman than he is a bowler... Anyone who has seen KP bowl should realise that. Also, a little-known fact - due to the fact that Bodi was born in India, and raised there, he would not have qualified as a quota player. Same with Imran Tahir.