England tour of South Africa 09/10

[Fatal Shot]

The system is there, and we can't really change it. Instead of showing 'displeasure' for it, he could have tried to become a better batsman while in South Africa to capture the attention of the selectors. While he was with Natal, he never played like he does currently. He was considered an offspinner who could hit the ball a long way down the order. He never did anything to change that. If he showed all that arrogance and posh then, he might have been selected for the team. He wasn't performing in South Africa in his early years, and that's why he didn't get selected. The system probably had some part to play in it, but he should have stood up and cemented his place in the Natal team.

And I'm not jealous. Far from it. If Pietersen was still here, we wouldn't have Amla, De Villers or Duminy. One would have to go, and personally, I'm more than happy with all three. I just think that there should be a limit to the amount of South African players England should be allowed in their squad. Obviously players are going to go to England to play FC Cricket, as there is more pay. So they play County Cricket and after four years, they are eligible to play for England. How is that fair to us. We are not allowed to pick a best XI due to it. I'm especially pissed about losing that wicket keeper. Boucher can't go on forever, and he is a more than cabable replacement, but no... He is going to be England's next keeper. Not too fair on us. We can't compete with the money in County Cricket. But that doesn't mean we should lose players to England because of it.

 

[Ollie_H]

The system is there, and we can't really change it. Instead of showing 'displeasure' for it, he could have tried to become a better batsman while in South Africa to capture the attention of the selectors. While he was with Natal, he never played like he does currently. He was considered an offspinner who could hit the ball a long way down the order. He never did anything to change that. If he showed all that arrogance and posh then, he might have been selected for the team. He wasn't performing in South Africa in his early years, and that's why he didn't get selected. The system probably had some part to play in it, but he should have stood up and cemented his place in the Natal team.

He wasn't picked to play for natal becasue of the racial quota, he was a better player than the lad that got picked ahead of him but because of the quota system he wasn't picked, He clearly isn't a off spinner so he's not gonna get picked as a spinner is he?

My best friend was born in England but claims to be South African, I bet you won't complain if he ever makes it to any form of International. As MUFC1987 said if your not gonna complain about Harris being Zimbabwean, don't complain about who we pick. We have the right to pick anyone with an English passport, so we will.

 

[Highlander999]

Think Cook could be on dodgy grounds if he fails in this series. Only one really good knock in the Ashes and another failure today. With England having so many spare, capable batsmen, he really needs to start scoring with it matters!

 

[Fatal Shot]

What about the four year rule. Any player in the EU who lives in England for four years, can play for England. Like Craig Kieswetter who was even picked for the SA U-19 team, but he still went off to England, and now he will be eligible to play for England in Feb 2010. Where's the justice in that move?

Read my post again. I edited it. (The top one)

Fatal Shot added 1 Minutes and 56 Seconds later...

And there is nothing you can say to that. Any South African player who goes to England and plays County Cricket for four years, becomes eligible to play for England, despite who is parents are... all a bunch of bullshit for us.

And Trott was also picked in the U-19 teams. Any player who has represented any National South African team, should not be allowed to play for any other country. It should be as simple as that.

 

[Ayub 95]

So they play County Cricket and after four years, they are eligible to play for England. How is that fair to us. We are not allowed to pick a best XI due to it. I'm especially pissed about losing that wicket keeper. Boucher can't go on forever, and he is a more than cabable replacement, but no... He is going to be England's next keeper. Not too fair on us. We can't compete with the money in County Cricket. But that doesn't mean we should lose players to England because of it.

TBH Kuhn is an able wicket keeper certainly more experienced then Kieswetter. Living in SA (now), there is a lot of preference to black people in SA no matter what the field is. It's not England's fault that Apartheid happened in the first place anyway. Also guys like Trott and KP. They were born to English parents anyhow, which means they have a valid right to choose between England or South Africa.

 

[BKB1991]

Well I guess you have to put the player perspective in his mind. A player would obviously like to maximize his opportunities at the Test level. I guess they think its better for their careers if they play for England then SA.

 

[Ollie_H]

What about the four year rule. Any player in the EU who lives in England for four years, can play for England. Like Craig Kieswetter who was even picked for the SA U-19 team, but he still went off to England, and now he will be eligible to play for England in Feb 2010. Where's the justice in that move?

Read my post again. I edited it. (The top one)

Fatal Shot added 1 Minutes and 56 Seconds later...

And there is nothing you can say to that. Any South African player who goes to England and plays County Cricket for four years, becomes eligible to play for England, despite who is parents are... all a bunch of bullshit for us.

Okay, every country has a rule like that, it isn't just England, if you live in a country for x years you gain the residency to that country and the right to the citzenship and to be selected for that country. You can't go shifting all the blame on us because that is not just a rule that applies to the UK, that rule is in place all over the world.

In regards to Keiswetter he has also stated that he actually wants to play for England and that is his dream. I think you need to take it up with the players that have a problem with being South African and not wanting to reprsent SA.

 

[Fatal Shot]

TBH Kuhn is an able wicket keeper certainly more experienced then Kieswetter. Living in SA (now), there is a lot of preference to black people in SA no matter what the field is. It's not England's fault that Apartheid happened in the first place anyway. Also guys like Trott and KP. They were born to English parents anyhow, which means they have a valid right to choose between England or South Africa.

I like Kuhn, but I'm just stressing my point. We are losing Kieswetter despite the fact that he has no English trace in his genes, due to that four year eligibility rule.

 

[Ollie_H]

I like Kuhn, but I'm just stressing my point. We are losing Kieswetter despite the fact that he has no English trace in his genes, due to that four year eligibility rule.

As I said in my above post, Keiswetter has expressed his desire to play for England, if you want him, pick him. It's as simple as that.

 

[MUFC1987]

What about the four year rule. Any player in the EU who lives in England for four years, can play for England. Like Craig Kieswetter who was even picked for the SA U-19 team, but he still went off to England, and now he will be eligible to play for England in Feb 2010. Where's the justice in that move?

Read my post again. I edited it. (The top one)

Fatal Shot added 1 Minutes and 56 Seconds later...

And there is nothing you can say to that. Any South African player who goes to England and plays County Cricket for four years, becomes eligible to play for England, despite who is parents are... all a bunch of bullshit for us.

And Trott was also picked in the U-19 teams. Any player who has represented any National South African team, should not be allowed to play for any other country. It should be as simple as that.

It's actually 5 years and has nothing to do with Cricket, it's just that it takes 5 years to apply for permanent residence (i.e. a passport). With Kieswetter though, had he stayed in South Africa, where would he be now? Playing cricket at amateur level trying to gain a pro contract. His career will only be 10-15 years, why shouldn't he be able to go and play somewhere else and make something out of his career? Is it fair if he sits in the system for another 10 years only to be passed over? This is life for these players, this is their chance to earn the money to set them up for life, to make something of themselves within the game, not just to please some fan sat on the sideline.

 

[Fatal Shot]

Okay, every country has a rule like that, it isn't just England, if you live in a country for x years you gain the residency to that country and the right to the citzenship and to be selected for that country. You can't go shifting all the blame on us because that is not just a rule that applies to the UK, that rule is in place all over the world.

In regards to Keiswetter he has also stated that he actually wants to play for England and that is his dream. I think you need to take it up with the players that have a problem with being South African and not wanting to reprsent SA.

In other countries the Kolpak rule doesn't exist, so while they can gain eligibility it takes much longer than four years. It can take up to 8-10 in various countries, thus players obviously won't wait that long, and rely on that to make some other National team.

 

[Ollie_H]

And I'm not jealous. Far from it. If Pietersen was still here, we wouldn't have Amla, De Villers or Duminy. One would have to go, and personally, I'm more than happy with all three....We are not allowed to pick a best XI due to it.

Contradiction much?

holdenator added 0 Minutes and 59 Seconds later...

In other countries the Kolpak rule doesn't exist, so while they can gain eligibility it takes much longer than four years. It can take up to 8-10 in various countries, thus players obviously won't wait that long, and rely on that to make some other National team.

Then the general rule is actually 5 years and as MUFC stated, thats what it is.

holdenator added 2 Minutes and 34 Seconds later...

Our two year anniversary of living in Australia has been officialised by an application to become Australian citizens. This is an opportunity open to permanent residents after living in Australia for two years. What the change of status means is that as members of the Australian community, we have the same rights as Australians; we can vote, have a passport, receive social security payments, work in the public service or serve in the armed forces if we want to do so.

Apparently, it's only 2 in Australia.

 

[Fatal Shot]

Gaining residency to a country varies depending on many things. My aunt who lives in the US, has been living there for 10 years, and is married to an American citizen, but she just recently got her green card. The Kolpak ruling allows sports players, (especially Cricket and Rugby) to gain residency in that short amount of time. Also Kieswetter wasn't just there in South Africa wasting his time. He was picked for the U-19 team, meaning that the selectors obviously saw something in him, so that makes your point invalid about him just 'sitting' there. I'll stress this point again. If a player is picked for any National team. (U-19, A Team, or the National Team itself) they then should not be allowed to play for any other country. When they are selected for such teams, they are then in the fray for selection, like Kieswetter was, but he used the Kolpak ████ to pretty much double cross us.

Fatal Shot added 3 Minutes and 58 Seconds later...

Contradiction much?

holdenator added 0 Minutes and 59 Seconds later...



Then the general rule is actually 5 years and as MUFC stated, thats what it is.

holdenator added 2 Minutes and 34 Seconds later...



Apparently, it's only 2 in Australia.

It's going to hurt us in the future. Have you seen the list of Kolpak players in the County teams? We are losing out on so much talent because of it.

As for Australia, I don't know. Like I said, it varies for every country. It also depends on what you are doing. For example I know for a fact that if you are studying in a university in New Zealnad or Australia, you can gain citizenship quite easily, but if you are just sort of living there, I'm sure it won't be as easy.

Fatal Shot added 2 Minutes and 25 Seconds later...

As I said in my above post, Keiswetter has expressed his desire to play for England, if you want him, pick him. It's as simple as that.

Graeme Smith himslef asked Kieswetter to come back but he said that he wants to play for England.. So Smith basically said we want to pick you, please come back, but he denied. We can't really force a player to play for us, now can we? If that Kolpak rule wasn't there, he wouldn't have skipped off to England in the first place and would have gladly played for us.

 

[Ollie_H]

Gaining residency to a country varies depending on many things. My aunt who lives in the US, has been living there for 10 years, and is married to an American citizen, but she just recently got her green card. The Kolpak ruling allows sports players, (especially Cricket and Rugby) to gain residency in that short amount of time. Also Kieswetter wasn't just there in South Africa wasting his time. He was picked for the U-19 team, meaning that the selectors obviously saw something in him, so that makes your point invalid about him just 'sitting' there. I'll stress this point again. If a player is picked for any National team. (U-19, A Team, or the National Team itself) they then should not be allowed to play for any other country. When they are selected for such teams, they are then in the fray for selection, like Kieswetter was, but he used the Kolpak ████ to pretty much double cross us.

The Kolpak ruling actually means that they rule themselves out of selection for their home country. It doesn't mean they sit in England and get years reduced, technically they disown their country and go and play in England as a non-overseas player. Rudolph did it half way through his career, techinally he stuck two fingers up to South Africa and became a kolpak player thus giving up all rights to play for South Africa in that period of time. Ryan Mclaren did the same thing, he became a kolplak player so he could play in England as a non-overseas player, he then gave up his kolplak status and now plays for S.A.

You are shooting yourself in the foot, you keep blaming England for picking their best XI possible when actually it is the South African's themselves who want to play for England.
You also make it sound like you can just walk in and gain Kolpak status, you actually have to not have played cricket for your country for a certain amount of time to be able to gain the right to become a kolplak player.

I'm just going to go and check something out about the kolpak ruling before I post wrong information.

EDIT: This was the information I was looking for:

Being a Kolpak does not mean that a player is qualified to play for England; The main requirement for qualification for England is that the player must be a British or an Irish citizen and, if he was not born within England or Wales, he must complete a four-year residence period.

Being a Kolpak player, doesn't give you a right to English citzenship, it just gives you a right to work/play cricket in England. But it does prove that it is just a 4year period.

 

[Fatal Shot]

The Kolpak ruling actually means that they rule themselves out of selection for their home country. It doesn't mean they sit in England and get years reduced, technically they disown their country and go and play in England as a non-overseas player. Rudolph did it half way through his career, techinally he stuck two fingers up to South Africa and became a kolpak player thus giving up all rights to play for South Africa in that period of time. Ryan Mclaren did the same thing, he became a kolplak player so he could play in England as a non-overseas player, he then gave up his kolplak status and now plays for S.A.

You are shooting yourself in the foot, you keep blaming England for picking their best XI possible when actually it is the South African's themselves who want to play for England.
You also make it sound like you can just walk in and gain Kolpak status, you actually have to not have played cricket for your country for a certain amount of time to be able to gain the right to become a kolplak player.

I'm just going to go and check something out about the kolpak ruling before I post wrong information.

It's not them wanting to play for England, but more of them wanting the money. Like I have already stated, we can't compete with the money that is available in County Cricket. The players here can't support theur money soley on the money through Cricket. It's very difficult. Also after the four years are done for eligibility, they are technically English citizens, so wouldn't they have to gain South African citizenship to play for South Africa again, since they chose British citizenship over the South African citizenship?