HIERDIE GELUKKIGE RAS

Chris Barrett makes an entirely fair call. Right, Malcolm Conn?

England's world XI

THANK goodness for the rain. England was oh so close to challenging for unprecedented status in world cricket - being ranked No. 1 in Tests, one-day internationals and Twenty20. A downpour at Edgbaston drowned those ambitions for now - even victory over Australia at Chester-le-Street today and then Old Trafford won't be enough to steal top spot on the one-day international ratings and complete the collection. But as we bemoan the thought of eventually handing England the ultimate bragging rights it is worth noting its success isn't entirely home grown. Here is an England XI of players who have represented the country in the past three years but hail from outside its borders.

Comments

[m0nty]

KP "left South Africa in protest at the racial quota system"? I didn't know that. More should be made of it.

[M. Patard]

What did Conn say?

Two Ozzies in there I'd never heard of and look like quite a loss to our future prospects.

AMJAD KHAN

Born in Copenhagen, the Sussex paceman represented the Danish national team at the age of 17 and subsequently earned a trial at Kent. He spent his formative years at KB Boldklub, a club more famous for producing Danish football great Michael Laudrup,...

What a loss to Danish cricket and soccer. I wonder if he's related to Andrew Bolt, or if their families know of each other.

Re the number of South Africans, imagine what a champion team SA could field if they ever had all their talent available, disregarding their racial quota system. The same goes for Union where the likes of Pocock and James O'Connor, and many many more, have made their way to the UK and Australia to play at the highest levels. Pretty incredible sporting nation South Africa when you think about it.

Magilla did the right thing boycotting Zimbabwe and it's probably time we did the same with SA, given the 300,000 plus white farmer murders since the end of apartheid.

[M. Patard]

Oh sorry, Danish Dutch, got that mixed up. They all look alike to me.

[Tony]

Malcolm is always taking pot shots at the Pomgolians for having a team full of South Africans.

I could handle us playing a South African team comprised of KP, Joosty Trott and the rest, but an England full of foreigners offends me.

[M. Patard]

It's a sensitive subject this "identity" thing, but what is national identity these days anyway?

For example, can anyone quibble with Monty Panesar being English? I mean, going back a century ago they may have quibbled, but not these days. It's like that old racist term WASP. Why can't the Whites just be accepted as Anglo-Saxons, just like Monty P? Why must be draw these distinctions between White Anglo-Saxons and thereby non-White Anglo-Saxons? And then for good measure draw religious distinctions. It's thoroughly confusing.

I say you should be able to play for any country you want to play for, just like the Rugby League World Cup.

[M. Patard]

Ah, just worked out the post. Excellent. Well done!

Ons min, ons gelukkig min, ons band van die broers.

[Cultural Commisar Cameron]

It's the same with the Olympics. You hire an African to do you sprints, an Asian to do your gymnastics etc etc

But don't get any funny ideas fellas, ALL RACES ARE EQUAL!!!

As the good ship Patard says, nationhood is worthless. Citizenship is a piece of paper.

[Cameron]

btw, is there any chance we can send the gay 'marriage' supporting, Mugabe apologist David Pocock BACK to Zimbabwe?

[M. Patard]

Don't forget Carbon Dioxide Tax loving:

Wallabies captain David Pocock: ''Climate change is one of the biggest challenges of our time and to finally see government taking action is a bit of a turning point. The important thing is that we are taking action.''

Can we trade Pocock for KP please?

[Cameron]

Good idea.

Pocock seems a thoroughly brainwashed little Cultural Marxist. It wouldn't surprise me if he volunteered for a bit of 'wealth redistribution' back home in Rhodesia during the off season.

Back to topic: Papua New Guinean Will Genia for Australian Rugby captain!

[Lou]

That Conn article is really playing to the peanut gallery. I don't care if The Age goes to subscription if they are going to be putting out that type of tabloid shit.

[Tony]

There should be more parochial articles. I like that Conn takes swipes at the non-Poms. But he did not write that article; that honour went to Chris Barrett.

[Carrot]

Much of that XI are hardly overseas recruits. If you emigrated with your family as a child, you can't really be called mercenary, and I agree that this ends up being a bit of a non-article.

That said, I do have an issue with people like Trott and Pieterson. They are very clearly the product of an overseas set-up, and it's evident in their techniques as much as their CVs. They are South African, and bat like it, too. To that extent, the English team is less English by virtue of their inclusion, and I don't think that's right. It's got nothing to do with nationality per se, but everything to do with where they've spent their formative years. If a player has grown up, trained, honed his skills and then played several years of representative and first-class cricket in South Africa, then he doesn't represent all that is good about English cricket, does he? On that basis, England don't deserve to have him in their side.

Clearly the ECB agree with me though, because they've just recently lengthened the period that foreign nationals can qualify for the English team to eight years (I think it was four when Pieterson first played).

[Sid Smith]

"If a player has grown up, trained, honed his skills and then played several years of representative and first-class cricket in South Africa, then he doesn't represent all that is good about English cricket, does he?"

Yes. Well put, Carrot. As a supporter of a successful team, you get your jollies from the (delusional) reflected glory. "I'm a fat pasty-faced sofa-surfer -- but I'm part of the country that produced this team."

That's obviously weakened if some of the players weren't produced here.

As a Pom, I'm glad that Eng are at last doing well ... but I'm quietly pleased that Bell has successfully replaced KP in this ODI series.

[Sid Smith]

At the Oval last week, the Oz supporters were singing, "You've got the whole world in your team."

But the louder Poms drowned them out with a gleeful, "We've got the whole world...etc."

So clearly the winning was all that mattered.

[Lou]

Ok, so it's not Conn.

I don't agree with that about KP. He came over here fairly young and he was mainly a spin bowler. You can't tell me that SA turned him into a top-flight batsman, the County game did that.

Trott is possibly a bit hazy but he's lived in England for years and one of his parents is English. This eight years qualifying period sounds like a pile of nonsense. Does any other sport have something that ridiculous? It should be illegal.

I have more problems with England taking Irish players than Saffers. As Ireland are weakened whenever that happens. Trott and KP weren't weakening SA by leaving.

[Big Ramifications]

I was Googling to find the last time England fielded an "all England" team.

No luck, but I can report that the spirit of Spanky is alive and well. In my search I spied quite a few articles along the lines of "b-b-but Australians do it too" and "immigration yaaay!"

[Big Ramifications]

I followed a Twitter link up top, Tony [something about your Photoshop skills] and spent way too much time mulling over your post and The Age link before I realised they were both over 5 years old.

Murder! No, wait. Not murder. Yeah, that's it. Not murder.

Check this clip from an African British stand up comic. She travels from London to experience her African roots and finds the experience so scary she decides her roots are back in London. There's a bit where she describes the murder solving abilities of Nigerian police.... I couldn't help but be reminded of the Woolmer not-murder. Starts at 4:09.

[Carrot]

Lou, I don't think that's actually true - yes, he started as an offspinner, but I can't imagine that he was taken on by Gloucestershire (I think) as anything other than as a very exciting young batsman. Even if that's not absolutely the case, you only need to look at his technique - am I the only one who thinks that it screams "South African"? There's no way that he's a product of the English game, any more than Mike Hussey is.

I'm not sure of the specifics of the qualifying period - it might be six from four, or eight from six. It might even have been implemented to align with Home Office policy. Either way I applaud it, because the Pieterson and Trott situation could have set a pretty dangerous precedent. It completely undermines the integrity of the county system if a board can essentially cherry-pick players from other countries on the basis of them holding British passports. There has to be some sort of hoops to jump through, and players that are genuinely products of the English game should find it easier, not harder, to get to the top of the pile.

You only need to look at how embarassing the KP situation has become to appreciate that a few people in the ECB are probably regretting selecting him in the first place. Yes, he's scored a few runs, but this is a man for whom just about everyone cried "foul" when he got selected, and now he's proving just how much he loves his "country" by retiring from ODIs and Twenty20 three months out of a major global tournament defence, because he wants to prioritise the IPL over national commitments. He's been on no-one's side but his own from the word go, and it wouldn't surprise me if the ECB are attempting to inject a little more integrity into their dealings almost on the back of his example alone.

Asides from which, you can't really expect the British public to get excited by player after player coming through that isn't actually English. It's nothing new mind you, but for the most part the Graeme Hicks, Robin Smiths and Eoin Morgans of this world couldn't/can't actually play for the own country anyway. I don't think the English cricket fan is stupid though - they know the difference between political isolation/non-Test status and opportunism, and this is very much the latter. In my experience, people like Sid's uneasiness with KP is pretty universal, and I don't think it helps English cricket to have more of him coming along.

[Carrot]

Biggie, I once "asked Steven" of cricinfo when the last all-English born Test XI was fielded, and he came back with an Ashes Test in 1989. It was a long time ago that I asked - during the 2001 Ashes if I remember correctly - but I think it probably still stands if you think of the English sides since then. I'm pretty sure that since 2001 England will have fielded sides with at least one of Andy Caddick (NZ), Nasser Hussein (India), Andrew Strauss (RSA), Geraint Jones (PNG), Keven Pietersen (RSA), Matt Prior (RSA), Jonathan Trott (RSA) and Eoin Morgan (ROI) at some point. There will undoubtedly be a few players that I've missed, but hopefully they won't be necessary to complete the chain.

[M. Patard]

Coincidentally, Kenyan rider Christopher Froome now riding as British, won last night's stage after lead out work by two Ozzies, and protecting Wiggins, who is British by birth.

Sport becoming professional has undermined national distinctions, just as "free trade" has undermined national economies.

I'm not sure why people would be bothered that the English team be constructed of overseas born players when the concept of being English itself is no longer rooted in an ethnic cultural identity. With no defining ethnic basis to nationality, what does place of birth matter?

What is happening in sport is merely an extension of what has happened to our nations and economies. It's no different to what has happened to national sports like Ozzie Rules or League where the local team is now rarely made up of locals.

We hold to these distinctions when it comes to national competition without realising that we threw the baby out with the bathwater long ago.

[M. Patard]

"If a player has grown up, trained, honed his skills and then played several years of representative and first-class cricket in South Africa, then he doesn't represent all that is good about English cricket, does he?"

As per my comment above, all that "is good about English cricket" was constructed by ethnically English people. As soon as the concept of English is deconstructed in theory, and in practice by immigration, and mandated by "anti-racism" (read anti-White) laws, then yours and Sid's problems with South African born players playing for England falls over. As I say, what does it matter given the concept of a national team (nation is defined as a unique ethnic group within a geographic boundary) has been criminalised?

For example, the team last night had Bopara and Patel, both England born, yet obviously not of the traditional English ethnic type. Now, such a thought as that is today criminalised as an anachronism of racist thinking, and the meme generated has so infected our minds that we ignore the obvious and get up tight about ethnically similar, yet born overseas players playing for someone else's national team.

I would suggest that there was something far more profound going on when the English celebrated Andrew Flintoff's achievements. Here was a big, strong, blonde haired blue eyed son, dominating the world. Say he were named Amjad Khan, and was tall, wiry, black haired, brown eyed and tan, and achieved similar feats, being locally born, would the English be as proud?

[M. Patard]

As an example of the confused way we have of thinking about these things:

do have an issue with people like Trott and Pieterson. They are very clearly the product of an overseas set-up, and it's evident in their techniques as much as their CVs. They are South African, and bat like it, too. To that extent, the English team is less English by virtue of their inclusion, and I don't think that's right. It's got nothing to do with nationality per se, but everything to do with where they've spent their formative years.

An English type of cricket that has "nothing to do with nationality per se"? Well, where did the English type of cricket come from if it has "nothing to do with nationality per se"?

If a South African plays like a South African, as opposed to an Englishman, how did that come about? Climate change?

Not that I have any beef with anyone here at all, I understand the need to be circumlocutious, dodging and weaving about a subject that we all feel intuitively is not being dealt with honestly. But, the honest truth is that the concept of national sport is undermined when the definition of *nation* itself has no validity anymore.

[Tony]

What's the qualifying criteria in soccerball?

[Russ]

"Wiggins, who is British by birth."

Wiggins was born in Ghent, which wasn't even British when Henry VIII was swanning around attacking various places.

In any case, I don't mind where players make their nationality as long as they are actually committed to the place they are representing; so not the various Dutch imports who'd drop them for Australia or South Africa given half a chance. Pietersen I don't mind, although clearly it gives England a big advantage to have a lot of foreigners in county cricket.

Lou had it right when he said poaching Irish players is a bigger problem. It increases inequality and is bad for the game. Not least because they are taking advantage of the unequal status that they themselves put in place. Worth noting too, that the 8-year qualification remains four for associate players. Obviously they have their eye on Kervezee, Stirling, Rankin and Dockrell. Would be a disgrace if they played them. Remains a disgrace that Morgan has been dropped from the test side, but is now their ODI player and not Ireland's.

[Russ]

Tony, off the top of my head: 4 year residential qualification or citizenship, only able to play for one nation at senior level.

Worth noting that the Irish football team was largely comprised of Brits in the 90s, even though Irish players always play in England. Although Australia has lost players in both directions, when there is no status-driven inequality, players tend to go towards weaker teams where opportunities abound, not the reverse.

[Cameron]

'Bradley Marc' are two rather odd Christian names for a Belgian. Bradley's father Gary Wiggins was an Aussie. I'd suggest the Wiggins family's (paternal line at least) was British back when Henry was divorcing his wives and the Pope.

[M. Patard]

Wiggins was born in Ghent

Yes, right you are. Wikipedia says "The son of a professional cyclist, Gary Wiggins, Bradley Wiggins was born in Ghent, Belgium and spent his childhood in Kilburn, London with his mother Linda, stepfather Brendon and younger brother, Ryan."

Born on the road it seems, British by birth still stands, though you are correct, born in Belgium. He lives in Belgium now I believe.

[Cameron]

He made a massive deal about "growing up in London" in a pre-Tour interview which probably through you off.

Russ-sorry I thought you were implying he wasn't British.

[M. Patard]

Lou had it right when he said poaching Irish players is a bigger problem. It increases inequality and is bad for the game.

Not really a problem at all. All the Irish need do is import more cricketers from other nations. Much like our skilled migration programme, if the Irish were to want to develop a strong presence in cricket they could scout Pakistan and India, also South Africa and Zimbabwe and offer incentives to play in Ireland.

It's only a problem if one equates national team identity with an ethnic identity. As we know, such thinking is racist so you may as well go the whole hog and throw it open to all comers. What benefit Ireland would gain by having a strong cricket presence I don't know, but, people seem to like that sort of thing.

[M. Patard]

Russ-sorry I thought you were implying he wasn't British.

No, Russ wasn't implying it, he was stating it. To Russ, being British by birth means to be born only in the lands of Britain. So, for Russ, should a Pakistani be bron in Britain he's British, whereas a Brit be born in Belgium he's Belgian and not British born.

Likewise, should Pakistan invade England and make it a territory of Greater Pakistan, then those born in England are now Pakistani.

[Cameron]

Pat, adding to your comments I'd say that the journos use these types of storys to engage in a bit of dog whistle Nationalism and throw the home supporters a bit of red meat. eg "the other lot are a pack of mercenaries compared to our blood and soil team". Of course you take the argument to it's logical conclusions and if they were to do that they may lose there jobs. That or they're just pc morons who don't know how to flesh their arguments out.

[M. Patard]

What's really funny Cambro is that if the English team were clearly of an English set-up, that is their techniques, approach, demeanour, attitudes etc are traditionally English, then this team would be going on to glorious defeat.

That it is successful is very un-English, and very much South African. Dunkirk like failure is the English way. Holding trophies in every aspect of the game is very un-English.

It's the success that rankles. Oh for the days when Kepler Wessels ruled Ozzie cricket.

[Tony]

Funny that when England was last all-England (1989) they were rubbish.

[Tony]

If you play underage representative soccerball for one country, does that disqualify you from playing any representative soccerball for another country? I seem to recall the odd Aussie ethnic playing at our Institute of Okayness and maybe for our Olly Roosters, and then scarpering to the wilds of Croatia, etc.

[M. Patard]

The rule of International Soccerball is that you play for the nation that pays the most for your services.

The rule of International League is that you play for whoever pays the most and will have you, in descending order.

[Cameron]

Tim Cahill played 2 games for Samoas U20's as well, so there must be some get out. Maybe it's the "fuck I go ok, maybe I can get a run for a half decent team" clause.

[Russ]

Pat, if you are going to redefine what "born" means I suspect this conversation is a bit pointless. Wiggins is Belgian born, he is British/English bred, a Belgian resident, and eligible for Belgian/British/Australian citizenship. I don't care which of those he races for, or whether he calls himself British, Belgian or whatever - nor Froome who qualifies for Kenya, South Africa and England under various criteria. But 1) do keep your definitions clear: "born" is not "bred" and neither ought to be the only criteria for playing under a nation's flag, and 2) don't go telling me what I believe. I made no statement regarding whether Wiggins was British only his place of birth.

The ICC defines four different classes of nationalism for males: born, passport-carrying citizen, four-year resident and seven-year resident; and three different classes of development criteria: played domestic cricket (50% of games in 3 of previous 5 seasons); 100 days of development (working/playing/coaching) cricket in previous 5 years; or representative (played u-19 or above). Under ICC rules in associate competitions teams can only play two 4-year resident players and two players with U-19 experience or above in full members. All players need to qualify under one class of nationalism AND one class of development criteria.

Needless to say, full members need not satisfy either the four-year qualification period to shift a player from an associate, nor the development criteria to keep teams from being stacked with ex-pats. I'm not opposed to full members being kept to the same criteria as the rest of the ICC, the same as I'm not opposed to access to ICC competition being decided on merit across the board.

With regard to your other strange example, if Britain ceased to exist, then in sporting terms, yes they'd be Pakistan-born. More often though, it has been the opposite, persons born in one nation have been offered the choice of representation after secession. Thus, Alex Kervezee was born in South Africa, in the part that is now Namibia, grew up in the Netherlands (who he plays for), and qualifies for England under four-year residency. In theory he can play for any of the four.

You also don't seem to get Ireland's problem at all. Ireland can import players aplenty, but they are - logically - not going to be good enough to play for full member nations; by contrast, the players they lose to "opportunity" will be good enough to play for full members. And that is a problem, not for your race-driven nationalism, but because unlike Irish soccer, whose side is improved by globalisation of talent, Irish/Danish/Scottish/Dutch cricket is inevitably weakened. It is flat out bad for competition.

[M. Patard]

Britain and being British is more than a geographic boundary, it's a concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law

I'm not being pernickity, nor redefining what the British themselves say of the subject, in fact, you are. To say one is British born does not necessarily equate to being born in the lands of Britain as currently formulated.

Sincerely Russ, you have obviously missed the gist of the matter: national identity if not rooted in ethnic identity is meaningless. The only arbiter would be bureaucracy and money.

not for your race-driven nationalism My race driven nationalism? It's the dictionary definition mate. I didn't make it up. What's you definition of a nation, something written in the ICC's by laws?

FFS man, who gives a road killed wombat for the Irish playing cricket? They obviously don't, so why should you? Bad for competition you say, whose competition I say?

National sport is meaningless. The Yanks won the war. Britain lost the empire. End of story.

[M. Patard]

I made no statement regarding whether Wiggins was British only his place of birth.

Right, so you agree he is British born and bred. If I'd said he was English born and bred, perhaps that would be another matter.

Hark, it cometh to me now, the words of Common Book of Prayer Bob Menzies, the gilded one, "Robert Gordon Menzies was born to James Menzies and Kate Menzies (née Sampson) in Jeparit, a town in the Wimmera region of northwestern Victoria, on 20 December 1894." yet famously declared himself "British to the bootstraps". How could that be, was he British born and bred, and if not, how does he make that claim?

[M. Patard]

if Britain ceased to exist, then in sporting terms, yes they'd be Pakistan-born.

Exactly my summation of what you were asserting.

If Greater Pakistan decided to rename itself Laputia, you'd be extracting sunbeams from cucumbers, barracking for the Laputian National 11, and complaining about all the Lilliputians playing in your squad.

Whatever floats your boat. It's meaningless to me.

[Russ]

Pat, did you read that link? You might want to do so again, particularly the part detailing the difference between lex soli and lex sanguinis. Wiggins was not born in Britain, he is not British-born. He is a Brit, if he chooses to call himself that, but that is a different thing.

Menzies was born a British subject, not least because in 1894 Australia wasn't yet a nation, though he might classify himself as a Victorian by birth, but also because his birth predates various acts that separated Australia from Britain (notably the Statute of Westminster of 1931). Australian passports didn't stop saying Britain until 1949 after all. What Menzies, who died before the Australia Act was passed thought of himself isn't really relevant is it?

But you knew that anyway. Quit trolling rubbish. What happens to Irish cricket is a lot more important on a cricket blog than a history of Australian and British nationalism.

[M. Patard]

What are you talking about me trolling? I'm not trolling, I genuinely believe in nation, not whatever is the latest lesson on channel 99 and the Life and Times of R J Berger.

You missed the second sentence: "The law is complex because of the United Kingdom's historical status as an imperial power."

British born is a concept as I said, and exactly what Menzies thought of himself as. I don't, never have, and never will. It's probably closer to your heart than mine, though I don;t know what your ethnic background is. I assume it is British.

What happens to Irish cricket is a lot more important on a cricket blog than a history of Australian and British nationalism. Now that IS arrant nonsense. You don't care about *Irish* cricket, you only care about a team called Ireland playing cricket.

You stick to your Boparas, Panesars, and Hussains or whatever you imagine your national side to be, and just let the Irish be Irish. They don;t need cricket to determine their nationality.

[M. Patard]

Btw Russ, "HIERDIE GELUKKIGE RAS" translates as "This happy breed". Funny term that, breed. I wonder what Shakespeare meant by it?

[Cameron]

This is how you do it Russ:

M. Patard, YOU'RE A RACIST!!!

Argument won, job done, that was easy, I'm off to the pub.

[Sid Smith]

I've no problem with Strauss or Nasser Hussein playing for England: both came here as kids and have shown no alliegances elsewhere. (Believe it or not, Petard, I'm quietly pleased about Hussein: pretty flattering to this country that he got to be Eng skipper, I think, just like Obama is America's biggest achievement since the Moon landings.)

That's the nationality issue.

As for the playing issue, I'd stick with Carrot's original point: success for a national team should be about the whole of that nation's cricket set-up. It isn't for the likes of KP and Morgan.

"national identity if not rooted in ethnic identity is meaningless"

That way lies madness. Before you know it you've got Angles arguing with Saxons (which they undoubtedly once did). That kind of talk always sounds like fear to me: a circle-the-wagons terror about who's inside and who's not.

[Cameron]

Sid, Diversity IS Strength!!!

[M. Patard]

Fair enough Sid, at least you're honest enough to admit that kith and kin is meaningless to you. When you've finished throwing your mum under the bus, just leave the lights on for the rest of us to settle in.

But, your lack of familial loyalty aside, what do you mean by "success for a national team should be about the whole of that nation's cricket set-up."

I take it that should the English (and I don't simply mean WASPs here, I mean NWAS?s - non-White Anglo-Saxon any religionists) embark upon a world wide scheme of national scouting, with outposts in Oz or SA, or India or the America's, then it should be thoroughly imbued with a "national cricket set-up" being what exactly? What's a national cricket set-up without a defined nation?

Is this corporate speak? What is the English "national cricket set-up" you wish to instill? A stiff upper lip? Disdain for commoners? Aloof indifference to suffering? What, prithee, is this "national cricket set-up" that is devoid of national distinction (as employed by the Oxford Dictionary)?

[Sid Smith]

Yikes, Patard, this really isn't complicated.

A national cricket set up means everything from a toddler taking throw-downs in the back garden, thro schools, clubs, counties/states to the national side. The more that a player participates in all that, the more he is representative of a country's 'cricket set-up'.

[Tony]

I love Australian cricket (and Aussie Rules) precisely because I was an Australian cricketer. I never played Test cricket (obviously - although if it was not for that bonehead Hilditch I would have been picked as a 45 year old) but they played in my comps, streets, schools. Aussies who play cricket associate closely with Australian Test cricketers; at least, they used to.

[M. Patard]

Then what the hell is your problem with South Africans dominating your English team's set up?

What, you thonk the Boers didn't do "throw-downs in the back garden"? Ok, it was probably on the veldt, BUT, that is their back garden.

So they transplanted that garden to your first eleven. What's you problem with it?

[M. Patard]

"Thonk" is Boer for "think". You'll get used to it.

[M. Patard]

Tones, your last comment was cryptic as always. What do you mean man, be precise!

I love Aussie Rules too (in a paternalistic condescending sort of way) but I too want it to be played by Australians.

Oh, look, a distress signal 50 nautical miles off Indonesia! Good luck for us then, more Australian's to play Aussie Rules!!

[Tony]

I have an organic connection to Rules and cricket because I played it fanatically. I don't mind watching League, Union, Soccerball, etc, but I don't have them in my bones because I never played them.

[Sid Smith]

Sorry, Patard, you're starting to sound wilfully obtuse.

Before I leave you to slowly baste in your own spittle, let's have one last single-syllable explanation:

For me, a national side needs to be a reflection of the quality of cricket in that nation. If a player is parachuted in as an adult then it doesn't.

[M. Patard]

I see, even now basting in my spittle I can understand at last: for you it's all a matter of timing.

[M. Patard]

Quintessentially English of you I must say, Sir Sid. (though that metaphor is meaningless these days, I must admit)

[Tony]

On a slight tangent. I was just in the kitchen railing to the wife about gambling in sport (she has a rewarding life listening to me rail about sport) and quoted the Sportsbet slogan "don't just watch it". I walked into the next room with a plate of very Australian lasagne to be regaled by Gideon Haigh railing against gambling in sport by way of the very same slogan on John Clarke's Sporting Nation.

Pity Gideon jumped my gun, because I was working up a long and really quite interesting treatise on said slogan, which contains layer upon layer of nuance on sport and the human condition, as well as the essential vicarious nature of spectator sports.

[Tony]

"a national side needs to be a reflection of the quality of cricket in that nation"

Tick. VG.

[M. Patard]

but I don't have them in my bones because I never played them.

Yes, I see. And concur.

One must feel it in the bones, like religion, or family. Family you are born with, friends you acquire. On your death bed, those who remain are kin.

I read a good post the other day by an atheist I admire - and won't reveal as I have done enough damage to my reputation already - and he said he just doesn't feel religion. He respects it, can see its utility, but he just doesn't *feel* it.

I think that's the way with sport, though it very much depends on what you are born into.

[Cameron]

Yes Tony, but there is something deeper at play here. Most people want men who look like them and, secondly, think like them representing THEM in THEIR national side. It doesn't matter what nation it is. I imagine Jamaicans were underwhelmed when that tool Nash played for the Windies.

There's nothing wrong with it either, as you timidly state, you want to associate with the players in YOUR team. Primarily this is through RACE, race being but an extension of FAMILY.

Culture, of course, is important and mostly an extension of race but it does have a crossover element. For an example of fans following a cultural icon look at the Tebow effect upon Evangelical Christians (black and white) in the US.

I'll take Sid and Lou at their word, maybe they only give a shit about winning and a players involvement in the 'national structure', but it seems a rather emotionless way to go about your sports viewing. If Australia goes and buys an Asian gymnast to win gold, fucked if I'd care.

[M. Patard]

Look, I don't intend to be obtuse, and I don't think I am, but am aware that this must come across as annoying, yet: "a national side needs to be a reflection of the quality of cricket in that nation" is a meaningless sentence unless one applies the dictionary definition of nation.

In this sentence you mean country, not nation. A country is an arbitrary term, whereas a nation is not. A nation applies to common ethnicity within a geographic border, with a common language. Nation is here being misapplied and should not be bandied about easily as if it were interchangeable. It is the interchangeability of national sport allegiance that prompted this post and objection, is it not? And so, we should stick to the dictionary definition of the word nation.

So, to say "a national side needs to be a reflection of the quality of cricket in that nation" would be to first observe the first requirement of nationhood, as defined in the dictionary. Not just an objection to Johnny-come-latelys because they annoy you for being so untimely.

[Tony]

Kasumi Takahashi, anyone?

Dale Begg-Smith?

[M. Patard]

Sportsbet slogan "don't just watch it"

That slogan appeals to a certain nationality personality. I bet Sportsbet spent hours and dollars researching just who and whom it would appeal. I also am willing to have a sportsbet that Sportsbet know their demographic, very well.

[M. Patard]

Don't forget Australian weightlifter, Daniel Koum

[Cameron]

lol, the 'bread and circuses' brigade.

I love how these tools are so rigidly quantitative in their approach to sports but when it comes to say, oh immigration policy as realtaed to IQ, it's pin the tail on the donkey time.

[M. Patard]

Vis a vis, the success of State of *Origin*, and now the Indigenous All Stars vs the NRL All Stars (http://www.nrl.com/indigenous-all-stars-v-nrl-all-stars-preview/tabid/10874/newsid/65740/default.aspx)

People want their own representing them. Their own in an ethnic, that is familial, sense. If you don't believe me, or think I'm a racist, just ask the NRL and its market researchers.

[Cameron]

That link is dead....possibly because your basting in your spittle.

[Tony]

I reckon the people setting up the Big Bash are operating along broadly race-related lines; especially here in Mel Bourne, where they want traditional cricket fans to associate with the Stars and, for keep it short and stereotype, wogs to associate with the Renegades.

[M. Patard]

I'll take Sid and Lou at their word, maybe they only give a shit about winning and a players involvement in the 'national structure', but it seems a rather emotionless way to go about your sports viewing.

But the weird thing is, Sid said:

At the Oval last week, the Oz supporters were singing, "You've got the whole world in your team."

But the louder Poms drowned them out with a gleeful, "We've got the whole world...etc."

So clearly the winning was all that mattered.

So, it's not the winning that matters to him, it's something else, something else we're yet to grasp.

What is it Sid, what exactly do you mean by "national set up"? A team devoid of Catholics, is that what you mean?

[Cameron]

When a dollars at stake, market researchers quickly see the world how it is. If only Sid Smith could brainwash, sorry lecture, these RACISTS! to see the world how it SHOULD be.

[M. Patard]

This just sank in: Obama is America's biggest achievement since the Moon landings

Crikey!

[Sid Smith]

"A nation applies to common ethnicity within a geographic border, with a common language."

Then please name me a single nation on the planet. Nepal? Certainly not Oz or the UK.

But I'm not much interested in this word-play. Or, to put it another way, I'm a pragmatist: I feel less empathy with some tattooed member of the British National Party than with my (non-white) wife and with my dear pal Kenny Amadi, with whom I've rattled around London for 30-odd years.

Like I said above, any other position is hopeless. It's been tried. You throw all those damned Angles out of the stockade, then some damn Commies start complaining so you throw them out, then your missus goes all liberal on you, and next thing you're all alone with a couple of other haters, and then they start going, "Well, you know, maybe we've been a bit hasty..."

[M. Patard]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxNAPqGDwCo

[Cameron]

lol, yes, "We've got the whole world...SANS Tykes!...in OUR team".

Go read Sid's wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Smith_%28writer%29

Typical 'invade the world, fuck the catholics' pommy protestant cunt. That's why he went the "basting in my spittle". Irish-Australian-Catholics need not apply for argument with SR SID! But he's not BIGOTED ladies and gents, hating Irish Catholics is the national sport for pommy anglican 'elite journos'. Fuck, have a look at Simon Barnes.

[M. Patard]

Sid, mate, Kenny Amadi may well be top bloke, and your mrs a good sport, but that doesn't require me to accept her as mine. Doesn't mean I want to kill them either, if that's what you're thinking.

Look, when we beat Engerland, I want to beat the English. When we beat India, I want to beat Indians. When we beat Pakistan, I want to beat Pakistanis. And I'm sure the same holds for them in reverse. If it doesn't, then what the hell's the point of the whole exercise?

I won't go into "any other position is hopeless. It's been tried." as this is getting as hairy as my old lady's balls already.

[Cameron]

Your 'country' is fucked Smith. But you already know this living where you do, your just a baby boomer coward.

You'll be lucky if your entire mixed race family isn't murdered living in Islington. Baby Boomer Cultural Marxists like YOU have brought this situation on yourselves.

[Tony]

Subtle as ever, Cam.

[Carrot]

Jeez. I knew there was a good reason I bailed out of this awhile earlier, and the last few comments have confirmed it!

[Cameron]

Remember the 'London Riots'? I know they happened over a year ago but I reckon you 'bread and circuses' types might have a vague memory of them.

Next one I'm gonna enjoy. I'll imagine Smith there shitting himself in his Islington flat, probably thinking "...at least we taught those tykes a lesson!"

[Sid Smith]

"Typical 'invade the world, fuck the catholics' pommy protestant cunt."

Assuming for the moment that you're not insane, care to explain why you think I hate Catholics?

[Cameron]

"Assuming for the moment that you're not insane..."

Great preface, then th olde "...cough, cough, what ME a bigot?".

Don't worry you only hate WHITE Catholics. That doesn't count these days champ.

[Tony]

Where did you find all these things Sid hates?

[M. Patard]

Jeez. I knew there was a good reason I bailed out of this awhile earlier, and the last few comments have confirmed it!

Genuinely Carrot, what were you expecting to discuss? The post is about national sporting identity and national sporting qualification, and that is all that has been discussed, except for some vitriol here and there from many parties of differing perspectives in the discussion. We all accept that things may tend to hyperbole, as in the image of me basting in my spittle for example. We can all take it in our stride. We share a common acceptance born of shared culture. These things are natural.

It would be better were you to explain your position, and apparent offense, at the opinions you find disagreeable rather than shame the thread into silence. Come now, are we not men? Please do unload what has unsettled your mind.

[Cameron]

When did YOU become such a fence sitter?

He's a pc, multiculti, pommy protestant cunt, journalist, named Smith. As they say in the classics: 'stereotypes save time'.

[Sid Smith]

"He's a pc, multiculti, pommy protestant cunt, journalist, named Smith."

All true. But why do you think I hate Catholics?

[the villian.]

Winston SMITH is the hero of Orwell's 1984 and 'O'Brien' is the villain. Interesting that. Then again Orwell and me are on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to the Spanish Civil War.

[M. Patard]

Where did you find all these things Sid hates?

I presume that Cam is confused as to what specifically Sid objects to about South Africans playing for England. Let's be honest, Sid has clouded the matter with contradictory statements, so the confusion is real and shared by me. In that confusion, an attempt to clear the matter led to brain storming ideas as to what it could be. So far, the main objection seems to be the Irish playing for England, on the pretense that it's all about strengthening Irish cricket.

As any good Irishman knows, Poms (no matter how ethnically devoid of prejudice they claim to be) always associate the Irish with Catholicism, hence the assertion about fear of Catholics.

Objectively, Sid has no problem with Patels, Hussains or any non-Protestant non-White, a slight annoyance with South Africans, but objects to the Irish playing for England. Even though genetically the British are mostly Celt, and the early Brits were in fact Celts, the Anglo-Saxons a mighty minority that came to hold sway over empire. So, it's confusing and these are attempts to find common ground of understanding in the matter.

[Tony]

I hate Catholics because they used to beat me up in school footy, which would not have been noteworthy, except that it was U15s and they wore moustaches, beards and drove their parents to the game.

[M. Patard]

except that it was U15s and they wore moustaches, beards and drove their parents to the game.

Ah, yes, that would have been Maronite Lebanese. Good blokes, if you stay onside.

[Lou]

Pretence about it weakening the Irish? Ok my explanation is, I don't like the way the ICC is set-up, I think it's corrupt in a number of ways and the opportunity for test-playing nations to skim the Associates is one of those ways.

I wouldn't feel any happier if the Aussies were doing it with an Associate nation. But the system is what it is, the money behind the system is where it is and it isn't going to change anytime soon.

[M. Patard]

I hope Gabriel Gaté does a recipe for basting oneself in one's own spittle tonight. Sounds delicious!

[Carrot]

Pat, I have not taken offence, although I suspect that Sid might have (or at least should have). My remark was intended to convey that whilst the discussion for the most part has been level-headed and articulate, it has taken on YouTube-esque proportions in the last half hour or so, which for the most part is not a place that one can indulge in intelligent debate.

By the way, you said something above that I definitely agree with -

"Not that I have any beef with anyone here at all, I understand the need to be circumlocutious, dodging and weaving about a subject that we all feel intuitively is not being dealt with honestly."

I think we can all agree that the ideas of nationality, cricketing culture, national "set-ups", associates versus Test nations via identifiably South African batting technique are issues that are all far too hard to define to make any sort of proper conclusion about how and when a player should be able to jump ship and play for another country. That's why the debate has got so vitriolic as you say. But you put it very well by saying that the Kevin Pietersen situation is just one that a good deal of us felt was just taking the piss, and was not being dealt with honestly. We all knew instinctively that he really couldn't give a damn about English cricket, he just in it ultimately for whatever he could get, which struck us all as opportunistic, selfish, and not really in the spirit of what Test cricket was all about.

Funnily enough, I feel much less that way about Trott, much though his story is very similar.

[Sid Smith]

"Sid has no problem with Patels, Hussains or any non-Protestant non-White, a slight annoyance with South Africans, but objects to the Irish playing for England."

I said that a national side should be representative of the national scene. Parachuted players detract from that. Don't give a damn where they parachute from.

I don't want to put words in mouths, but I think Carrot and Tone agreed with me. And I suspect you do as well.

[Russ]

Pat, your problem is you are equating your nation with your national cricket team. As any amount of historical or current evidence should make plain that is a crock of shit. The Australian cricket team are representatives of Cricket Australia - having previously been representatives of the ACB, and before the players themselves, but going under the name "Australians". Similarly, the English cricket team are representatives of the ECB, having previously been representatives of the toffs of the MCC.

Thus their representations of the strength of cricket in the nation, is more precisely representatives of the strength of cricket in the hierarchy of cricket organised under the auspices of Cricket Australia. Having been part of that hierarchy I have no particular issues with that; and therefore issues of representations are not issues of nationality, but bureaucratic understandings of "representatives of a cricket organisation".

Ireland is a particularly good example of this, being the controller of cricket in both the Republic or Ireland and the quasi-state of Northern Ireland. Best to keep your notions of nationhood as far from that arrangement as possible.

[Tony]

"I said that a national side should be representative of the national scene."

Yes, with that I agree.

"that would have been Maronite Lebanese."

No, with that I disagree. Irish Jesuits.

[M. Patard]

Irish Jesuits? They must have been false beards, and they talked your parents out of the keys to their own car, while their kids got loaded into the boot.

[M. Patard]

Trust me. I know Jesuits.

[M. Patard]

Pat, your problem is you are equating your nation with your national cricket team.

At last, we have consensus.

Now, if we can just discuss the equating as being a crock of shit.

[M. Patard]

Very good Carrot (sidenote: your alias is a racial neg these days, what with the anti-ranga hate fest given approval in the MSM. Makes one wonder what they mean by "anti-racism" when slagging off gingers and blueyies is acceptable), the thing is when one listens to the grief laden wailing of Emma West, and compare it to the ululations of the Barmy Army, and then wrap it up with protests about "national set-up", one can see that what we have here is a very discombobulated bunch of people. Who aren't a people anymore.

These people, complaining about the closest related people, being included as their people, whilst any other distant related people get a pass mark, if not robust defence to the point of police prosecution if you point out some, er, inconsistency.

Remember when ice hockey USA vs USSR was a big deal? It really was a national battle for demonstrating superiority. Like the space programme as linked above.

We feel the need to assert and defend our national sympathies instinctively. But this insinct is subverted, and utilised against us. The funniest laff out loud thing is to see English "racist" skinheads with their soccerball team shirts, threatening all and sundry whilst they support a team made up of all sorts of international mercenaries.

They'll kill ya you know, if you slag off Man U, or Chelsea! Just laugh when you're well clear.