The Burden of Nationality

[f.b.m]

Okay, long time no serious thread. I had to write this since my anarchic ways of thinking have eventually crept over into cricket. There's one notion that seems to be taken for granted that is particularly strange in my opinion. When we think of the pinnacle of cricket, the highest achievement that a budding cricketer can aspire to, it seems to be to play the 5 day game for his/her country. While the first assertion has a lot of questioning and answering behind it, the second goes completely unquestioned. It almost seems a moral duty that for a person to do the people residing within his national borders proud and that choosing something else is an act of betrayal to his mother/father-land. Now lets take the case of Jonathan Trott. Here's a man who surely has the talent and determination to deserve a chance at the highest level of the game. He is for all intents and purposes, a South African and even the English will admit that his claims to Englishness are laughable. I can't claim to know the reasons why he didn't play for South Africa but one thing is for certain: The mere possibility that he was denied or disadvantaged due to a combination of traits in which he had no choice in (i.e. A combination of nationality and ancestry/race) should alarm every one us. I would argue that it would have been cricket's as well as his personal loss if he didn't become a mercenary. Having said that, let me be clear on this: This doesn't exactly condone the non-Englishness of the ECB XI. If just one country decides to ignore nationality as a criterion for selection, it puts them at an unfair advantage. If more countries decided to follow suit then Bangladesh would axe Ashraful and put in some of our reserve batsmen and we could simply buy better fast bowlers from England and so on. But equally, we need to ask ourselves the question of what we want as the pinnacle of the sport. I would argue that there are only a few things that we (should) care about: The highest quality of batting, bowling a fielding and a balance between bat and ball. Other things such as the format of the game, crowds, etc simply follow from this. The counter arguments probably will take this form: 'But.. but.. but .. this is outrage! It's such a long tradition!!' And it's completely true. Its tradition, but I want you to ask yourselves the question: What is tradition? If it is doing something simply because it has been done, in other words mindless repetition, it sure isn't worthy of any sort of respect. Such thoughtless slavery to one's past can never be. Another reason why I want want to question the 'nationalizing' of cricket is that it inhibits the growth of the sport. Lets look at the case of Steve Tikolo, the man who was supposedly the best player never to play a test match. Not only were his ambitions ruined by a trait in which he had no choice (his nationality) but a whole potential fan-base never took shape since he couldn't play the game at its highest level. Instead of investing billions and billions into 'spreading' the game to other countries, maybe allowing people from the other 190 odd countries (most of the world) to play at the top level might achieve some degree of success in the promotion of the game. Also, under the current system not only is one at the mercy of one's passport but also of the cricketing bureaucracy of the area. If you are talented and determined but have the misfortune of being born in the Caribbean or Pakistan, you are simply condemned to a life of misery, fighting and corruption. One can't be chosen to be born a 'West Indian' or a Pakistani for the most part, nor can a deserving player choose not to be born to have the peaks of their careers coincide with the peaks of the players who are better than them (Brad Hodge). I just want to finish by saying that I don't pretend to have alternatives. I simply want to question the current structure and its weaknesses.

[fineleg]

Good thread with alternative ideas, but one thing is there is immense feeling of pride and joy when 'your country' wins in a sport. That pride and joy is hard to translate to words, and this is why International matches between countries are so passionately followed. Ofcourse, England has now adopted the mercenary approach to form the United Nations XI, but hopefully it is only an anomaly.

[Fontaine]

Good thread. Yes it's not a perfect system, but the introduction of T20 cricket and the various domestic leagues attributed to it that allow for a free market movement gives plenty of opportunity for any type of talent no matter now nominal. So in this case the conditions/traditions are certainly not as rigid as in the past. However, just like life, there have to be degrees of the extreme and test match cricket by it's definition is and very much should be the extreme pinnacle of cricket. From that basis it is and should be survial of the fittest and no quarter should be given to the unlucky, unfortunate etc.

[Fontaine]

As far as the England situation, well it's not ideal but they're taking advantage of a situation that is afforded to them within the rules of the game. A far more short sighted and in my opinion blatantly stupid development is the short sightedness of boards like the BCCI who never look beyond their own borders for talent and go so far as to limit our own players from learning cricket from other domestic competitions like county cricket. Take Murali Karthik who is a very worthy spin option especially considering how India will be touring England in a 6/7 months. Will he even merit consideration even though he is Indian and more experienced and maybe even more talented than any current spinner we have except for Harbhajan? No probably not. And it's purely due to the stupidity of a board of politicians/civil servants that haven't actually played international cricket.

[cowboysfan]

I dont see any problem with developments.South Africa have already got their "outsider" and Pakistan will probably follow suit with some players from Afghanistan.I am fine with it as long as they have satisfied the ICC rules .

[fineleg]

Take Murali Karthik who is a very worthy spin option especially considering how India will be touring England in a 6/7 months. Will he even merit consideration even though he is Indian and more experienced and maybe even more talented than any current spinner we have except for Harbhajan?

Add to it - Murali Kartik's experience includes playing quite a bit in the English circuit, so that will come in handy. But Cheeka and co. seem to have decided MK will get no consideration.

[f.b.m]

Take Murali Karthik who is a very worthy spin option especially considering how India will be touring England in a 6/7 months. Will he even merit consideration even though he is Indian and more experienced and maybe even more talented than any current spinner we have except for Harbhajan? No probably not. And it's purely due to the stupidity of a board of politicians/civil servants that haven't actually played international cricket.

Well according to your own logic, he's unlucky and unfortunate. So test cricket has no place for him. Anyway do you think its fair that Murali Karthik hardly gets a chance but Paul Harris/ Doherty/Beer does? Is this what its means to be at the pinnacle of the sport? Because test cricket is the extreme pinnacle, people should NOT be limited by accidents of birth like race or nationality but only by talent and determination. And at least by the replies so far, you guys seem to be buried in the notion that test cricket can only be played for countries and for nothing else. This is exactly the notion that I want to question.

[Fontaine]

Well according to your own logic' date=' he's unlucky and unfortunate. So test cricket has no place for him. Anyway do you think its fair that Murali Karthik hardly gets a chance but Paul Harris/ Doherty/Beer does? Is this what its means to be at the pinnacle of the sport?[/quote'] I know what you're saying but the premise of your argument was based on nationality. Karthik's exclusion from the test squad is not based on nationality but his personality and honest interviews where he's not been afraid to question his exclusion before. Our need for a quality second spinner confirms this. Whereas any quality spinner in Australia during Warne's reign, yes was genuinely unlucky and not much can be done about that in regards to test cricket and like I said in my opinion shouldn't. I don't want to see the 2nd or 3rd best spinner play for Australia. I want to see that absolute best in test match cricket.

Because test cricket is the extreme pinnacle, people should NOT be limited by accidents of birth like race or nationality but only by talent and determination. And at least by the replies so far, you guys seem to be buried in the notion that test cricket can only be played for countries and for nothing else. This is exactly the notion that I want to question.

Yes absolutely because the passion and loyalty by fans, administrations, players (current and ex) is based completely upon nationality when it comes to test cricket. It isn't the perfect system, I agree, but it is a system that's commonly found across almost every sport and one that has worked very well in engaging fans and getting the best out of players. I do think there is logic in your argument though, and test cricket itself is subject to a kind of natural selection or survival of the fittest vs ODI/T20 cricket. Already we are seeing cricketers who are going after lucrative T20 contracts rather than seeking out test selection so in a round about way the notion of playing test cricket for your country only is having to compete and compete hard against other formats. Ultimately, like all sport, fan support and the money that follows it is the driving force (not notions of honor and tradition as much as ICC/ECB/BCCI etc would like you to believe). So in the end IF there is enough demand for something like a test match cricket league based upon clubs (like the IPL for tests) then it will be done based upon consumer interest.

[Fontaine]

fbm, what I will say though, is that if a player desperately wants to play test match cricket and the talent and ability is there, then they'll find a way. Take Imran Tahir's example who's going to be playing as a naturalized citizen for SA. His desire to play cricket exceeded his loyalty to play for Pakistan only so if there are cases where other players feel the same way then there will be ways and avenues. I mean take England for example. They are probably 5/6 deep in their fast bowling attack with Anderson, Broad, Trem, Onions, Finn, Bresnan etc. That's a pretty deep bowling lineup so for any new guy to have aspirations to bowl for England, he'll be facing very long odds behind those guys, how difficult would it be for that guy to live in India and sign up for domestic cricket for a couple of seasons and I have no doubt given our shortage of fast bowlers he would be fast tracked for the Indian side? Or even a young uncapped west indian fast bowler who would rather play for the number 1 side instead of a dysfunctional West Indian cricket team? But that's not happening. Ultimately you cannot manufacture desire, it's either there or it's not and by the numbers that desire seems to be most attached with playing for country.

[The Outsider]

Good post! Personally, I would not mind at all seeing teams being formed and playing across nationalities. My biggest reservation is with regards to organizations who have spent a lot of time and money in the development of the players at a young age getting their fair share. It's not ideal even today, but at least the local boards get some trickle down benefits from the BCCI or the national board. How would it work if India poached some phaassht bowler from another country? Also, some kinds of salary caps would have to be introduced so that the richest board does not end up with the best players. It will require huge structural and mindset changes, but personally I don't see anything wrong in the best sides and talent playing instead of being limited by geography.

[The Outsider]

fbm, what I will say though, is that if a player desperately wants to play test match cricket and the talent and ability is there, then they'll find a way. Take Imran Tahir's example who's going to be playing as a naturalized citizen for SA. His desire to play cricket exceeded his loyalty to play for Pakistan only so if there are cases where other players feel the same way then there will be ways and avenues.

Huh? Imran Tahir is able to play for South Africa because he married a South African and went through a qualifying period after that. You don't expect anyone wanting to play for another team to first get married to someone from there to get citizenship, are you?

[f.b.m]

Yes absolutely because the passion and loyalty by fans, administrations, players (current and ex) is based completely upon nationality when it comes to test cricket. It isn't the perfect system, I agree, but it is a system that's commonly found across almost every sport and one that has worked very well in engaging fans and getting the best out of players.

All you're saying here is that it is the way it is. It doesn't say why there should be a country based test system. Also, nationality matters when it comes to silly selection issues. Some countries are worse (or even corrupt) with their selection than others. A Pakistani player who didn't bribe the selector won't be happy that he's Pakistani. If this was something like a club system, he would simply go to another club/franchise that would be happy to pick him. End result: Cricket, its players and its spectators win for watching and playing the highest quality of cricket.

Ultimately you cannot manufacture desire, it's either there or it's not and by the numbers that desire seems to be most attached with playing for country.

The desire only comes from growing up watching the national team instead of clubs or franchises. Its not some inherent ambition that people are born with. They see the best cricket being played between countries so they want to represent theirs. As I said before if the quality of cricket is high, the rest (ambition, money, fan following, etc) follows

what I will say though, is that if a player desperately wants to play test match cricket and the talent and ability is there, then they'll find a way.

This is putting in a hurdle just for the sake of it and no other purpose. This hurdle wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the country based structure in place. People shouldnt have to choose between what they care about more. Again in a freer world, selection would be purely merit based and will not depend on silly accidents of birth like race or nationality.

[Fontaine]

Huh? Imran Tahir is able to play for South Africa because he married a South African and went through a qualifying period after that. You don't expect anyone wanting to play for another team to first get married to someone from there to get citizenship, are you?

Come'on dude you know what I mean. Play domestic cricket for a two seasons and if the guy has genuine talent and the need is there then rules are always bent to favor them. Happens in sports all the time.

[Fontaine]

All you're saying here is that it is the way it is. It doesn't say why there should be a country based test system. Also, nationality matters when it comes to silly selection issues. Some countries are worse (or even corrupt) with their selection than others. A Pakistani player who didn't bribe the selector won't be happy that he's Pakistani. If this was something like a club system, he would simply go to another club/franchise that would be happy to pick him. End result: Cricket, its players and its spectators win for watching and playing the highest quality of cricket. The desire only comes from growing up watching the national team instead of clubs or franchises. Its not some inherent ambition that people are born with. They see the best cricket being played between countries so they want to represent theirs. As I said before if the quality of cricket is high, the rest (ambition, money, fan following, etc) follows This is putting in a hurdle just for the sake of it and no other purpose. This hurdle wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the country based structure in place. People shouldnt have to choose between what they care about more. Again in a freer world, selection would be purely merit based and will not depend on silly accidents of birth like race or nationality.

You don't understand. The motivation and driving force behind a player doing his absolute best in test cricket is there for the passion and pride of playing for your country. If that wasn't there and selection was based on merit then it simply would not be top level cricket. It would be motivated by the next greatest factor which traditionally is self gain (money, fame etc). And THAT has usually done more harm than good. Would someone like Kallis risk playing through a very painful injury to his side if he wasn't playing for SA but rather a club test side where it was a pure contract for money? I doubt it. Would fast bowlers do their best in batting friendly conditions when there was no motivation to do your best for your country? Maybe, but probably not. More often you would have money/fame coming into the equation where players would be looking out for themselves rather than the team.

[The Outsider]

Come'on dude you know what I mean. Play domestic cricket for a two seasons and if the guy has genuine talent and the need is there then rules are always bent to favor them. Happens in sports all the time.

The player would need citizenship to play for that country - that's the minimum ICC mandate. I don't know about other sports, but can you tell me when has a government fast tracked someone's citizenship process so they can play cricket?

[Fontaine]

The player would need citizenship to play for that country - that's the minimum ICC mandate. I don't know about other sports, but can you tell me when has a government fast tracked someone's citizenship process so they can play cricket?

Don't know about cricket but happens all the time in football. Haven't seen a lot of movement in terms of cricketers changing nationalities but it would be interesting to know Imran Tahir's process.

[The Outsider]

^ Tahir fell in love with a South African and they later got married. He subsequently emigrated to South Africa, got citizenship, went through some qualifying period and is now eligible to play.

[Ram]

This is a situation very unique to cricket. Most global sports have extremely competitive leagues in addition to the games between national sides, whether it be football, basketball, golf etc. Cricket, specifically test cricket doesn’t lend itself to a protracted, season long championship kinda format. In that aspect, ICL, not IPL, was the pioneer in trying to introduce the franchize based, league format into cricket (maybe world series cricket was too, in some sense). But we will NEVER have a situation where test cricket is played between 8-10 sides that are evenly matched. That has never happened in the history of the sport and will never happen. With regards to the issue non-native English nationals playing for England, England has copped too much of unfair criticism. We shouldn’t forget that the rules that have been set in place weren’t formulated with the aim of poaching talented South African cricketers. If anything, they were done to facilitate the flow of talented labor into England. Whether that talent comes in the form of a outstanding academic or an exceptional cricketer, it is pretty immaterial. Most importantly, it the cricketers who chose to make the move to England. No one of forces them to do anything. It doesn’t matter how you look or how you speak. What matters is what you sign-up for and these cricketers signed up to play for England.

[King Tendulkar]

^ Tahir fell in love with a South African and they later got married. He subsequently emigrated to South Africa' date=' got citizenship, went through some qualifying period and is now eligible to play.[/quote'] More importanly was his wife a gori and are there any pics??

[f.b.m]

You don't understand. The motivation and driving force behind a player doing his absolute best in test cricket is there for the passion and pride of playing for your country. If that wasn't there and selection was based on merit then it simply would not be top level cricket. It would be motivated by the next greatest factor which traditionally is self gain (money, fame etc). And THAT has usually done more harm than good. Would someone like Kallis risk playing through a very painful injury to his side if he wasn't playing for SA but rather a club test side where it was a pure contract for money? I doubt it. Would fast bowlers do their best in batting friendly conditions when there was no motivation to do your best for your country? Maybe, but probably not. More often you would have money/fame coming into the equation where players would be looking out for themselves rather than the team.

This is simply an assumption. Obviously no one has tried anything else so how would anyone know that patriotism is the only motivation? And such patriotism is meaningless anyway if you are a class player sitting on the bench for years or are from non test countries. And yes companies/franchises/clubs will reward you for being a team player and shun you if there are ego/laziness/attitude issues. So a guy who doesn't give his all wouldn't play as often or get paid as much as a hard working one. Besides, rivalries develop and genuine passion grows once clubs are established. I remember Fabregas limping on despite a knee injury to play on for Arsenal just for the 11th man advantage and not being able to run properly. And as for the money: Players should be payed for what they're worth. And again, if its obvious that they aren't team players they won't get a big paycheck.