Question aboug Cricket development in England?
Why do they have to rely so much on migrants to make up their best XI despite of the fact they originated the game?
abouT* ~ i'm multi tasking at the moment so pls excuse the typo mistakes :P
- Anonymous8 years agoFavorite Answer
To expand on what HDB said, my missus is South African.
With us it happened the other way. She moved over here and we had a son in the United Kingdom. So if one day my little boy was good enough and he grew up to be a cricketer, he might feasibly have a choice between nations. I would hope that he would choose England. But if he chose South Africa because that's part of his make up then I would still wish him good luck anyway. Even though he has not been there yet, some of that aspect of his background will be imparted to him naturally by his mother and will live on in him.
It's nothing to do with the natives not being good enough, it's about identity. Many of us are in mixed race relationships, so if we all live and work in a certain area should we not all have the same rights, responsibilities and privileges? Otherwise that raises the ugly question of whether governments can dictate who we fall in love with and who we can sleep with. Personally, I wouldn't stand for that.
I have some sympathy for other contributors views when such as Bill P have made points in the past about individuals moving to another country late in their development in order to seek out a better offer, or because a player has fallen out with the management in his native country. If however the nation which a player is born in doesn't want a player, then he should be free to play for another country if he takes up residence and meets the criteria and his new country wants him. In both cases though there should be, and is, a qualifying period of residence before a player can play for England.
That also gives those who were born here an opportunity to hone their skills and get into the team before the new arrival qualifies, making a mercenary move more unattractive for insincere cricketers. The native born players have still got a head start and it effectively gives them a few years notice that they have a potential rival from abroad for a place in the national team, giving them a certain amount of protection and thus keeping some sort of a level playing field for them.
Sometimes though I just don't understand the logic of the detractors. If England refuse to play the migrants and people from ethnic minorities then they would quickly be labelled as racists, yet when they do play them they are labelled opportunists! So which is it?
There is of course also the question of legal rulings within the EU which HDB has raised. If a player who met the residence criteria was refused a place in the team and he and his legal advisors felt that they could prove a case of discrimination, based upon ethnicity or nationality, then we could conceivably see a case where the games authorities and/or the government could be taken to the European Court of Human Rights, potentially making the country a laughing stock.
It also has to be understood that England is, and always has been, a multi racial society. Formally, we are are Celts, Angles, Jutes, Romans, Normans and Vikings amongst others. Latterly, we are Africans, Asians and Eastern Europeans as well. You cannot expect a society that is constantly changing its genetic make up not to reflect those changes.
When France won the football World Cup in 1998 with the help of players from it's former African colonies nobody batted an eye lid, and nor did they when the Dutch won the European Championships with more than a little help from Ruud Gullit, who was born in Suriname and quite rightly so. Why therefore should it be any different for the English cricket team?
England have given opportunities to foreign born players for nearly a 100 years, did you know that? Here is a list of players from India who have played for England in the past:
You can also read a little bit more about England's policy of diversity and some of the history behind it in my answer to TJ's question:
When all has been said and done though, there is another thought that has to be considered, and it is this: if England's policy is so wrong, then why has it only recently become such a big issue? Since it's demonstrably the same as it has been for such a long period of time then why wasn't any of this an issue when they were regularly getting thrashed? Why wasn't it mentioned around the turn of the century before Zimbabwe and Bangladesh came along and they were the lowest ranked Test nation in the world, yet they still had foreign born players in the team?
- Half Drawn BoyLv 78 years ago
To be fair most of the 'migrants' in the England team do actually have roots in England. Take Prior for example, his dad moved to South Africa for work and married a South African chick. They had a baby and then moved back to England and people claim that he is South African. Most of the 'migrants' have similar stories and you can tell from their surnames that they are English. There are a few obvious exceptions though such as Pietersen, Kieswetter, Dernbach and Morgan, you couldn't get more Afrikaans or Irish surnames.
You can blame the Kolpak ruling for these guys getting to play for England. By European law we have to let guys from the EU and associate countries of the EU work and settle in the UK. They pretty much have all the rights of British citizens in these cases and because of that many sportsmen move to Britain and apply for citizenship which makes them eligible for national selection.
EDIT: Actually I made a mistake about Dernbach, he moved to England with his family when he was a child and learnt all his cricket in England. "I don't owe anything to South Africa. I was just born there, did a bit of schooling there, my whole cricket career has been based in the UK, and UK is my home. I want to give everything I can to England cricket, that's the country I love and that's the country that has given me everything I have now." Was just reading about him on Wikipedia and thought I should post a correction.
- 8 years ago
Hahaha. Actually, South African players playing for England have roots in England they say, not quite sure about the Ireland players. If you have a look at associate teams, you'd be surprised to know that most of them are filled with Indians.
- Anonymous8 years ago
Hi, Nice to meet you . How do you think about Age Gap Relationships / Friendships .If you not mind, I want to recommend to you Agegapmatch.com . Younger women looking for older men dating website...They verify all members,Verify Photos,Verify Education,Verif y Occupation .It is a serious& safe dating site, the best site for older men younger women dating /Older women younger men dating. If you have free time, check it out.Source(s): Agegapmatch.com #1 age gap dating website for younger women seeking older men , older men looking for younger women.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- ⌚ ₯ℓηℓℸℏ ⌨Lv 78 years ago
Fairly most of the migrants in English team do obviously have roots there. Take many examples, Some of the dads of players has moved to Southern Africa for jobs and fell in love to African *******.. They had babies and came back to England and some stupids called them as Africans! Many of those migrants have similar lifestyles and we know from their surnames that they are of course English. Btw there are a few exceptions such as Petersen and Ian Morgan, You cannot find more African or Celtic surnames.
:)Source(s): Drawn answer in half.
- ?Lv 78 years ago
South Africa is supporting their batting and fast-bowling. India is supporting their spin department. From here what we can see is that Migrants are better performer than their local population.
- kaustav_whoamiLv 58 years ago
They don't have sufficient skills to make a team on their own. [:D]
- ♫Sanga the King♫Lv 68 years ago
they have english roots -
hope it helped