Chris Cooke has been in England for 10 years and he has a UK passport and as well his age he's primarily a wicket keeper batsman and we're not short of them.
That's fair but the wait for citizenship is less for cricket than in Football which seemingly is very hard now since they crackdown on the grand parent rule which being very honest was tenuous at best. But we do seem to have many players play for lesser teams because they stand no chance of playing for any of the bigger nations. Surely it can't be that lucrative playing for a small nations but maybe having the ability to say you've played for a nation is better (but never mention who).
So duel nationals can play for a national side but there doesn't need to be any naturalisation process? We are talking about one side whether or not there is a family link.
How long was his naturalisation process?
I might be a bit wrong here but the naturalisation period was increased to something like 7 years after that era, when I think it became clear that England were very reliant on players from South Africa. It was then slashed to three years so Jofra Archer could play in the World Cup.
When you hit bottom there is only one way to go.
Is this not administered by the ICC, seven years is fine but in Cricket you can play upto aged 40.
It is, but I think ECB had their own rules for a short time, then when we needed Jofra we decided to follow the ICC regulations.
They also need 4 more ducks to tie the record for most Test ducks in a year.
If you're going to be bad, be record-breakingly bad.
Thanks, it has cleared up the matter. So, if these are binding regulations how (if it still goes on) are countries able to shorten the naturalisation process. I would agree being in receipt of a valid passport means the correct procedure has been followed like the citizenship test (which every migrant takes) but it does seem a little tenuous and maybe the ICC are not productive enough in applying the rules (or are they guidelines)It is, but I think ECB had their own rules for a short time, then when we needed Jofra we decided to follow the ICC regulations.
You've made me look up the actual ICC regulations
- at the date of submission of the relevant information to the ICC, the Player is able to demonstrate (by his/her possession of a valid passport issued by the relevant country) that he/she is a national of the country whose domestic cricket governing body is the National Cricket Federation; or
- 2.1.3 at the date of submission of the relevant information to the ICC, the Player is a Resident of the country whose domestic cricket governing body is the National Cricket Federation. For the purposes of this Article, a Player will be deemed to be a ‘Resident' of a particular country if the Player has had his/her primary and permanent home in the relevant country for the immediately preceding three years, and Residence and Residency shall be construed accordingly
Obviously qualifying for a passport and actual citizenship might vary by each country but I expect a board/club would encourage a player to apply if it made life easier (van Buuren, although he has a British spouse, had to play as an overseas player last season, Thilan Wallawalita had similar issues last season despite having lived in the UK for 10 years). The UAE team, for example, is largely just foreign workers who never get citizenship.
Is it okay to advise and remind that this country is made up of former criminals from the East end of London?
