International Cricket's National Identity Crisis

For part of my uni course, I've had to write a magazine feature on any chosen subject. Unsurprisingly, I went for cricket, and specifically, the growth of 'foreign imports' in international cricket. It's set a couple of weeks ago so some of the dates are a little out, but it's all still fairly relevant. It's aimed mostly at those who are vaguely interested in cricket, but not massive fans, but I thought I'd put it up here anyway just so people can have a look if they're interested. Enjoy! Will

This week has seen the start of the qualifiers for the World T20 cricket tournament – a chance for cricket’s less-established nations to gain entry to the sport’s most lucrative tournament. These smaller nations lack the resources and infrastructures of cricket’s elite, so many are looking for any loophole in the rules in order to give them a competitive edge, including pushing laws on eligibility to their limits. Nations are spending a lot of time scouting and picking the best talent available – including players who aren’t actually from that country itself. Italy have won three of their five games whilst playing a team that consists of four Australians, four South Africans, one New Zealander and only two Italians, which begs the question, what makes international cricket a battle between the best of two nations?

The ICC (international cricket’s governing body) state that if a player is a citizen of a nation, he is allowed to play international cricket for them. While this normally means that only those born and raised in a country can play for them, there are ways of getting around the rules. If a person has just one grandparent from that nation, that is enough to gain citizenship, and a passport is granted if a term of residence is served. The cricketing administrations of these countries are fully aware of the loopholes in the laws, and are using the flexibility of certain people’s nationality to their advantage to improve their teams.

One nation that’s seen both sides of the coin is Ireland. Thanks to investment at grass-roots level, Ireland have been able to produce plenty of world-class talent, which has made them competitive at international level. However, without the lure of test cricket, Ireland have lost some of their brightest talents, with Ed Joyce switching to English colours in 2006, Eoin Morgan in 2009, and Boyd Rankin, Paul Stirling and George Dockrell all reportedly on the brink of changing allegiances. To counter this, Ireland has looked to the best of the English county scene whose chance at international level seemed to have passed them by, with former England Under-19 bowler Tim Murtagh being picked for the first time for this tournament after he successfully applied for an Irish passport. And to confuse things further, Ed Joyce is now back playing for Ireland after being dropped from the English team, with ICC rules permitting players to switch back and forth as and when they choose.

Supporters of Irish cricket would argue that ‘stealing’ players from England is the only way they’re able to compete, as England have been poaching their best and brightest talents for years. And some would argue that Tim Murtagh playing for Ireland is a non-story, as with three Irish grandparents it makes him as eligible as any. Tim himself is excited at the thought of playing for Ireland. “Through my grandparents I do have Irish blood in me. I’m coming up to my 30th birthday so realistically if I was going to play for England then that would have happened by now, so the chance of playing an international tournament is massive for me. Cricket Ireland got in touch and offered me the chance to play, and I jumped at it”.

Irish cricket expert Sinead Farelly, however, isn’t so keen on ‘plastic Paddys’ like Tim representing her nation. “It all boils down to one simple thing, your nationality is part of who you are. In Ireland we are very much into supporting the area you grew up in; the area that you call home. We love seeing players who came through our own training systems performing well on a national or international stage, and while we do delight in the presence of Trent Johnston [former captain, born in Australia] being in our sides; truth is, any time that we play, the Irish fans would always prefer to see an Irish player take to the stage”. 

But how should we define nationality anyway? The case of Geraint Jones is a curious one. Born and raised in Papua New Guinea to two Welsh parents, he moved to Australia when he was 12, and then to England when he was 22. Qualifying for England through his Welsh parents (the England team is officially the English and Welsh Cricket Team), Geraint became England’s most capped Welshman despite never having lived in Wales. After being dropped by England in 2006 and with his international career seemingly over, he was selected by Papua New Guinea for this World T20 qualifying tournament.  So who should Jones play for? PNG, the country of his birth? Australia, the country that he went to school and learnt cricket in? Or England, the country of his parents?

The question of nationality in international cricket is certainly an emotive one, and an issue that’s unlikely to go away. In today’s multicultural and multinational society, it’s very difficult legally to stop players from switching between nations as and when it suits them. But does players representing countries that aren’t their own go against everything international cricket stand for? Sinead certainly thinks so: “Cricket overcomes divides in our country – it’s a celebration of all things Irish be it Catholic or Protestant. When we play we stand together as a nation. I feel that some of that is lost, no matter which country, when imports are used to make up the numbers”. The fickle nature of fans, however, means that for most, blind eyes are turned as long as results are good, and the ruthless nature of the cricket boards, combined with the constant relaxation of citizenship laws worldwide, means that international cricket will continue to be a very international affair for a long time to come.

Rankin for England?

A piece of cricket news that has slipped under the radar for many today has been the addition of Warwickshire's Boyd Rankin into the England Lions squad for the rest of their One Day series against Sri Lanka A. On the surface, this may seem a trivial piece of news, but when you realise that this is the same Boyd Rankin who's gone to two World Cups and played 32 ODIs for Ireland, then it suddenly gets a bit more interesting.

Boyd, the big fast bowler from Derry, has had quite a bit of international success so far in his career. Ireland's leading wicket taker at the seminal 2007 World Cup and the leader of the attack in 2011, Rankin is a massive (quite literally, standing at 6ft 8ins) part of the Irish team who have made huge strides in international cricket over the past few years. However, he's been on England's radar for the past couple of years, and it looks as though he's about to follow fellow ex-Irish internationals Eoin Morgan and Ed Joyce in turning out for England. A country he isn't from.

I've written before just how much I sympathise with Irish cricketers. Any cricketer, anywhere in the world, wants to play test cricket, and sadly at the moment that's something that isn't offered to Irish cricketers. It's been well publicised that both Joyce and Morgan repatriated themselves in the search for test cricket (Morgan made it, Joyce didn't), and it appears that Rankin is following the same path. However. They'd be representing England despite not being from England, and while hoping to play test cricket certainly is a noble goal, I'd like to play football for Brazil, but as I am not from Brazil, I am not going to realise this ambition. (And it's not because I'm not good enough, because I am...)

The issue of non-English people playing for England is a sticky one. As great as it is that England are flying so high in world cricket at the moment, the fact that Pietersen, Trott, Kieswetter, Dernbach, Morgan and Lumb have got us there does make the whole thing slightly hollow. While I can understand that the lure of test cricket as well as a much more professional structure in English cricket would tempt Boyd Rankin, his would be another name on the list of foreign imports into the English team. Which doesn't quite sit with me.

It's a tough one, and without wanting to sound all David Starkey about it, it shouldn't really be allowed. People have the fortune, or the misfortune, to be born in certain parts of the world, and as such, should represent that nation in international sport. Otherwise it's hardly inter-national, is it? At a time where Ireland could be on the brink of achieving some great things (and as such, need all of the talent they have), Boyd could be turning his back on them to chase his test dream. Ireland are a team who could be on the verge of something big, but how can they progress if their brightest talents abandon them as soon as England flutter their eyelids? On the 25th August, England travel over to Stormont for an ODI against Ireland. It's not inconcievable that with Rankin being named in the Lions squad (effectively a reserve international team) and England's first choice bowlers potentially being rested after a tough Indian test series that Rankin gets picked by England. With test cricket potentially beckoning, if Ireland are able to tempt him to stay with them, it will show the massive strides being made by Cricket Ireland. If they can't, it could open the floodgates for the likes of Stirling, Dockrell and plenty of other young Irish talent who rightly or wrongly fancy a craic at playing for England.


And a quote to show Irish fans that not all of their players want to cross the Irish Sea... Kevin O'Brien: "Play for England? You must be joking! I'm Irish, I want to play for Ireland!"

Ireland and Holland

Ireland and Holland play each other today, in their final games of this World Cup. While they've only mustered one win from their 10 games not against each other, they can look back at a World Cup where some of their players came of age.

Ryan ten Doeschate, if the world hadn't heard of him already from his numerous spells in T20 sides worldwide, have certainly heard of him following his two World Cup centuries. Paul Stirling's big hitting feats have also seen him catapulted to stardom, as well as his spinning exploits alongside the excellent George Dockrell. William Porterfield's captaincy has been up there amongst the best in the tournament, and he's won many plaudits with the way he's handled himself and his team throughout the World Cup. And of course, the star of the show for the Associates this World Cup has obviously been Kevin O'Brien, with his astonishing 100 against England unlikely to be forgotten in a hurry.

The Group B "minnows" Ireland and Holland have both been far more competitive than their Group A counterparts. Ireland have given really good games to Bangladesh, India and the West Indies (and of course beat England) whereas Holland have at times been the better side in a few of their games. However, in some of those close games, they've lacked the experience and know how of big games to get over the line - something the bigger sides knew how to do (except England, obviously).

It's often spoken that a "golden generation" will happen every now and again with the minnows, before they drift off into obscurity. A prime example of this is seen in Kenya - semi-finalists in 2003 but massively struggling in this edition. The main reason for that - a lack of regular games against top class opposition. These Irish and Dutch sides could also be classed as a golden generation, but they will need to play regular matches against the big boys in order to keep match sharp, and to improve their skills.

Both of these teams are in Europe - only a short hour long flight away from England. This summer, Sri Lanka and India will visit English shores for test and ODI series. Wouldn't it make perfect sense for Ireland or Holland to become involved in these games? We've seen in the seven-match borefest between Australia and England that bi-lateral ODI series can get slightly dull after a while, so why not introduce an associate side for a tri-series?

Administrators should enjoy it, as Ireland and Holland would bring plenty of vocal fans, as well as getting rid of the unneccessary dead rubbers that often finish series. It benefits the players of the test sides involved, as they are able to motivate themselves to play against new, different opposition, rather than groundhog day against the guys they've been slogging away against all summer. And it benefits the associates more than anyone else, as they are given the much needed experience of regular top-class cricket, where skills can be practiced and developed. And it attracts their players to remain in green or orange colours, instead of trying for moves to bigger sides. Surely this is a great idea for everyone?

This Ireland side could certainly be seen as a golden generation. They've got a young captain, young bowlers and a youthful batting line up. If allowed to develop and grow, they could really create some shockwaves in world cricket over the next few years. However, if not, they could fall apart, and not even be competitive (see here Kenya '11). If the ICC are serious about the development of the associate nations, they have to include teams like Ireland and Holland (and even Kenya, Canada, Scotland, USA, UAE, Italy and the Vatican City) in regular games against the regular countries. Yes, the fixture list is congested, but if pointless fifteen match ODI series between New Zealand and West Indies is changed to a five match tri-series including Afghanistan, then surely the benefits will be far greater than the few extra dollars from Star Sports. We've seen at this World Cup that the minnows are ready to take on the big boys - and don't forget Sri Lanka won the World Cup in 1996 only a few years after being considered minnows themselves.

National Identity Part Three

OK, third time lucky. I've already written two blogs in a matter of minutes about nationality and such, and missed the point I wanted to make. So this time, I'm definitely going to mention it.

In doing my research for the one of the earlier blogs about George Dockrell (yes, I do research sometimes), I stumbled across this. "Birth Country No Bar at the CWC". I suggest you read it, as it's far more interesting than anything you'd read on this site.

The nations at the World Cup can be (and have been, many times) split into two camps - the Big Boys and the Minnows. Players will want to play for the Big Boys, because it increases their chance of success, and for associate players, increases their chance of playing in tests. (As well as a heap of other reasons, seen in the second of my three-parter) And every nation will want to best players at their disposal to play for them.

So Big Boys England have recruited Trott and Pietersen (as well as Irish Joyce and Morgan turning out for them as well). South Africa have got Imran Tahir in. And New Zealand got Grant Elliot (must be gutted that Tendulkar doesn't have a second-cousin in Dunedin). They are able to attract players who are good enough to be playing internationally for their nations of birth for whatever reason to play for them.

The Minnows, however, have it differently. As seen with the Morgan / Joyce / Dockrell issue, the associates will struggle to keep hold of their best and brightest. So they will look to find anyone with even the slightest heritage of the nation, or the slightest inclination to live in their country for an allotted time. Hence the Indian and Pakistani Canadian side, South African heavy Dutch, and antipodean Irish team.

While I, and plenty others don't like it, it's in the ICC rules for players to move around, so countries are well within their rights to get in the foreign legion. It shouldn't be, but that's by the by.

Of course it must be difficult for Ireland and the rest to see their best players being lured away by the bright lights of test cricket. So with smaller player pools and their best local talents being lost, no wonder they're turning overseas. Add on top of that the advantages that having good experienced imports can bring.

Cricket Ireland's Barry Chambers said

"In Ireland's case, the players have helped to take Irish cricket to a new level... The players brought a professionalism to the game which has rubbed off on the younger players coming through. Ireland keep producing real gems - Eoin Morgan before he switched to England"

.

And Dutch Ed van Neirop said players from overseas had lifted the standard of cricket "enormously".

While this could be stopping local talent from emerging, it could also be improving the skills of the guys around and helping them compete. It's a difficult situation. The Minnows want to keep their best players, and their best players want to play for the Big Boys.

There are three groups of adopted nation-ites. Group 1 - the foreign national brought in to improve a side (see here Trott, Pietersen, Trent Johnston). Group 2 - the associate player who wants more (see here Morgan, Joyce). And Group 3 (the "have your cake and eat it" bunch) - the guys from the big nations who aren't picked for their country, but try and get picked at home. (see here Dirk Nannes playing for Holland in the 2009 T20 World Cup before playing for Australia). Were I in charge of the ICC, I'd immediately outlaw all of 1, 2 and 3, but sadly I'm unlikely to become president in the next few years, so the situation will continue. The foreign legion in cricket is a growing problem, and ultimately devalues the notion of "inter-nation" cricket.

I don't really know what to say about this anymore, I've been writing about players applying for new passports solidly for a few hours now, and I have nothing else to add. So there's my conclusion - inter-nation cricket should be between the people of one nation and another. Not people of various countries all wearing one shirt, facing off against a team of players for other disparate countries wearing another.

Why would George Dockrell want to be English?

OK, I just wrote this. I had a go at Ireland's George Dockrell for saying he wants to play for England, and for the rules being in place that could allow him to do so. (And have already seen Ed Joyce and Eoin Morgan flip-flop merrily between the two nations).

But I'll be fair, and look at why 81 year old 18 year old George (I liked that nickname so much I'm using it again) may want to turn in his shamrock for the three lions.

Well, the first and most obvious draw is test cricket. The pinnacle of world cricket. Everyone who's ever dreamed of playing professional cricket has dreamed of scoring the winning runs in a test. Nobody dreams about playing in the Associate Division Three. (I don't know if that league exists, I just made it up). Put simply, England play tests, and Ireland don't. And don't look like playing it in the next couple of years. So it would only be natural to try and get to play test cricket, even if it means starting afresh in a new country. It's a gamble. Ed Joyce didn't make it. Eoin Morgan did. George Dockrell would only make the switch if he felt that he has a chance to play in tests. But he would feel that it's a gamble worth taking (assuming, of course, that he does decide to hand in his Irish passport and apply for a British one).

There are other factors. Tests aside, England are just a bigger team than Ireland. They will have better facilities. The players will be better looked after off-field. And England are more likely to go out and win some things in some big competitions. As much as Irish cricket has grown over recent years, that too is something that can't be offered to Dockrell if he stays green. If he gets into the England squad, he'll be playing against, and training alongside the best players in the world week-in, week-out. He'll be able to hone his game and improve as a player. Other than the odd world tournament every couple of years, Irish cricket can't offer that either.

Dockrell has moved to Somerset on a couple of years contract. He may marry an English lady (or feller, given today's news) and have some kids who consider themselves to be English. And in time, he may to be belting out "God save the Queen" rather than "Ireland's Call" at the rugby. He may put up a St Georges flag on his roof, and get the three lions tattooed on his arm. He may eat fish and chips, washed down with cups of tea, before going on long walks through the country with his beagles. He could go home to watch the tennis, and applaud politely as Britain's number one gets knocked out in the first round. He might even induldge in a bit of binge drinking. But whatever his passport may say, George Dockrell will always be Irish, which is why as much as he may want all of that, he shouldn't be allowed to play for England.

And the same goes to any player, of any nation, who fancies swapping shirts.

Wanting A New Country.

Ahead of the England - Ireland game, stories like this were always going to happen. At one stage, we could have seen Eoin Morgan line up for Ireland, 4 years after lining up for Ireland against them. And we will see Ed Joyce bat for the Irish, 4 years after playing for his adopted nation.

I've spoken literally days ago about players representing nations that aren't their own, and a bit longer ago about players chopping and changing their nation depending on the path their careers have taken.

And once more, with the big clash tomorrow between the respective "Rest of the World XIs" (harsh) the issue of playing for a different country than ones passport suggests has reared it's ugly head once more.

George Dockrell, the 81 year old 18 year old (because he has grey hair), who is Irish, has come out and said that he fancies playing for England. This is the same George Dockrell who is about to take on that said England side tomorrow. Well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em...

...
..
.

That would be quite a simplistic place (and a nice snappy ending) on which to finish this blog. But I want to say something more profound (and controversial) about this issue. Eoin Morgan should not be playing for England. Ed Joyce should never have played for England. And George Dockrell should never play for England.

The whole issue of nationality in cricket is a pretty murky one, and we've seen players like Jonathan Trott, Kevin Pietersen, Craig Kieswetter (to name but four) play for England recently after previously being bona fide South Africans. We've also had Aussie Brendan Nash playing for the West Indies, Pakistani Imran Tahir and Zim Paul Harris represent South Africa, and Saffer Grant Elliot getting games for New Zealand. And that's just to name a small example from the test playing nations. And doesn't include the Strauss / Prior brigade of being born in a country but growing up somewhere else. Or the associates.

That's one side of the coin. The guys who for one reason or another, whether political, personal or cricketing grounds decide to chance their arm in another country, apply for a passport, and hope for selection. But the other side are the guys who play for one nation, realise that they'd prefer to play for another team, and move on. I'm looking at Dirk Nannes, Eoin Morgan and Ed Joyce. Ryan ten Doeschate and Alexei Kervezee have both come out in the last week fluttering their eyes at other nations, and now Dockrell's said he fancies a move away.

What a remarkable lack of loyalty to the nation you're representing on the biggest stage in world Cricket! Yes, I can see there are clear advantages to playing for South Africa ahead of Holland, or England ahead of Ireland, but as soon as a player pulls on the jersey of one nation, that should be their nation. While the ICC's laws about qualification for a nation do need to be reviewed (the large amount of players I listed as examples off the top of my head is testament to that), they certainly need to outlaw the flip-flopping of players picking and choosing which passport they fancy using at any given time. Were I an Irish fan (by which I mean a 100% one rather than being a plastic Paddy), I'd be livid at Dockrell for basically coming out and shunning my nation, but I'm afraid they'd be more resigned to the fact that their brightest talents will always leave them.

Part One

Things the World T20 has given us - Day One

This may be a regular feature, and it may not. But here are some observations I had from what I watched of the first day of the T20 Worlds.

Things the World T20 have given us:

West Indies wearing the worst cricket shirt since England had that light blue one
Nathan McCullum giving us a free ticket to the gun show
William Porterfield having the best accent to ever exist
The Guyanese cheerleaders refusing to dance when Shiv got out
Dinesh Ramdin dancing and singing to Sean Kingston without realising the camera was on him
Shiv getting a rather homo-erotic massage as the West Indian wickets fell
A 17 year old with grey hair
A really close game
Not a very close game


Would you find these in the IPL?