14 Feb 2005 21:10:21
CiL
246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "

++++++++
What an entrance. Kevin Pietersen, in his first 11 one-day
internationals, averages 139 with a strike rate of just over 100. But
has he gone through the wrong door?
There are 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor". "Hansie
Cronje traitor" brings up only 56. As Pietersen has been an
international cricketer only since the end of November, that is pretty
impressive.

He has a record of pissing people off. Jason Gallian, his captain at
Nottinghamshire, threw his kit bag out of the window. His team-mates
did not shed many tears when he left to go to Hampshire for the
forthcoming season. His reaction to being sledged while playing
against South Africa A was to denigrate the opposition as being
"barely able to speak English" and he left the three lions on his
helmet struggling for breath after a vigorous kissing session when he
scored his first international century at Bloemfontein.


Read on at

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricket/comment/0,10070,1412301,00.html



CiL
++++ Graeme Smith +++++++
He has pointed to the quota system as his reason for leaving South
Africa. Do you have any sympathy with that argument?

I get disappointed when I read these things. He ran out when things
got tough. If he didn't want to be here then we don't want him here.
We all know that South Africa went through a transformation that was
important for our country. We had to come from apartheid and move on.
There was always going to be a difficult stage. We all went through it
and some fantastic cricketers have emerged. We are working well
together. All the guys you see involved now are there on merit. They
know they can perform to a standard and that makes for a much stronger
team. I think it's fantastic the way the team has developed
+++++++++


14 Feb 2005 15:56:04
max.it
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "

CiL <cricketislife@rediffmail.com >

> All the guys you see involved now are there on merit. They
>know they can perform to a standard and that makes for a much stronger
>team.

I think Pietersen could replace about half the South African team.

max.it


14 Feb 2005 21:33:59
CiL
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:56:04 +0000 (UTC), max.it@tea.time (max.it)
wrote:

> CiL <cricketislife@rediffmail.com>
>
>> All the guys you see involved now are there on merit. They
>>know they can perform to a standard and that makes for a much stronger
>>team.
>
>I think Pietersen could replace about half the South African team.
>
>max.it

maybe but Pietersen can replace the entire English team

-
Graeme Smith


14 Feb 2005 17:16:40
max.it
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "

CiL <cricketislife@rediffmail.com >

>On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:56:04 +0000 (UTC), max.it@tea.time (max.it)
>wrote:
>
>> CiL <cricketislife@rediffmail.com>
>>
>>> All the guys you see involved now are there on merit. They
>>>know they can perform to a standard and that makes for a much stronger
>>>team.
>>
>>I think Pietersen could replace about half the South African team.
>>
>>max.it
>
>maybe but Pietersen can replace the entire English team
>
>-

He certainly can, if he is up for it.
He's in the England team on merit.

Politics and quotas selecting a national team,
your bound to get a few disgruntled talents.
It is not fair in sport, and it will cause problems.
The Pietersen problem very nearly if it already hasn't,
just plain exposes the political fingers in the South African cricketing pie.


I'm assuming Pietersen is playing for England because of
either:

Sa quota system or his attitude ?

max.it






14 Feb 2005 18:47:42
Luke Curtis
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:16:40 +0000 (UTC), max.it@tea.time (max.it)
wrote:

> CiL <cricketislife@rediffmail.com>
>
>>On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:56:04 +0000 (UTC), max.it@tea.time (max.it)
>>wrote:
>>
>>> CiL <cricketislife@rediffmail.com>
>>>
>>>> All the guys you see involved now are there on merit. They
>>>>know they can perform to a standard and that makes for a much stronger
>>>>team.
>>>
>>>I think Pietersen could replace about half the South African team.
>>>
>>>max.it
>>
>>maybe but Pietersen can replace the entire English team
>>
>>-
>
>He certainly can, if he is up for it.
>He's in the England team on merit.
>
>Politics and quotas selecting a national team,
>your bound to get a few disgruntled talents.
>It is not fair in sport, and it will cause problems.
>The Pietersen problem very nearly if it already hasn't,
>just plain exposes the political fingers in the South African cricketing pie.
>
>
>I'm assuming Pietersen is playing for England because of
>either:
>
>Sa quota system or his attitude ?
>
>max.it


Or maybe he is playing for England because he is half English?
--
ButIstillneedtoknowwhat'sinthere!Thekeytoanysecurity
systemishowit'sdesigned!Thatdependsonwhyitwasdesigned!
Ihavetoknowwhatwhoeverdesigneditwastryingtoprotect!
(Blakes 7, City on the Edge of the World - Vila in typical panic mode)


14 Feb 2005 20:47:29
Prior
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


"max.it" <max.it@tea.time > wrote in message
news:4210da12.27662870@news.btopenworld.com...
> CiL <cricketislife@rediffmail.com>
>
>>On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:56:04 +0000 (UTC), max.it@tea.time (max.it)
>>wrote:
>>
>>> CiL <cricketislife@rediffmail.com>
>>>
>>>> All the guys you see involved now are there on merit. They
>>>>know they can perform to a standard and that makes for a much stronger
>>>>team.
>>>
>>>I think Pietersen could replace about half the South African team.
>>>
>>>max.it
>>
>>maybe but Pietersen can replace the entire English team
>>
>>-
>
> He certainly can, if he is up for it.
> He's in the England team on merit.
>
> Politics and quotas selecting a national team,
> your bound to get a few disgruntled talents.
> It is not fair in sport, and it will cause problems.
> The Pietersen problem very nearly if it already hasn't,
> just plain exposes the political fingers in the South African cricketing
> pie.
>
>
> I'm assuming Pietersen is playing for England because of
> either:
>
> Sa quota system or his attitude ?
>
> max.it
>


Good on Kevin Pieterson... he had a fantastic series and it was a pleasure
watching him (as well as seeing Andrew Hall bowl him out yesterday!), he is
an excellent cricketer in anyones books no matter who he plays for.

Look at:

Tony Grieg (played for England)
Alan Lamb (Played for England)
Basil De Olivera (Played for England)
Kepler Wessels (Played for Australia and SA)
Andrew Strauss (SA Born...Plays for England)
Duncan Fletcher (Coaches England)
Eddie Barlow (Coached Bangladesh)

Because we were shut out, Graeme Pollock, Barry Richards et al never got the
chance to have a proper international career, whereas the top 4 in the list
above did. Can we blame them? Perhaps reverse politics did the same for KP.





14 Feb 2005 11:24:14
Bob Dubery
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


max.it wrote:

> Politics and quotas selecting a national team,
> your bound to get a few disgruntled talents.
> It is not fair in sport, and it will cause problems.
> The Pietersen problem very nearly if it already hasn't,
> just plain exposes the political fingers in the South African
cricketing pie.

A lot of people are saying things along these lines. But the facts
paint a different picture.

Gerald Majola took the top spot in the UCB in January 2001 - during the
SL/SA series of 2000/1. Majola is widely rumored to have been elected
on a political agenda - to promote non-white talent and make the
national team "representative".

Including that series, during Majola's reign:
* 38 players have played in ODIs for SA - 10 of them non-white
* 36 players have played Tests for SA - 10 of them non-white.

THAT is the extent of the quota system as regards the national team.

Pietersen, I think, tells only part of the story. He made it all the
way to FC cricket despite being so discriminated against. His main
problem seems to have been that his figures were hardly screaming
"future international star". OK... he was young, and possibly Clive
Rice had seen something that the Natal coaches (Forde and Eldine
Baptiste IIRC) hadn't because they had him batting at 9 and bowling
finger spin.

White players who were his contemporaries or are younger have made it
into the national side - one of them is even captain.



14 Feb 2005 20:03:52
Mike Holmans
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "

On 14 Feb 2005 11:24:14 -0800, "Bob Dubery" <megapode@gmail.com >
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>
>max.it wrote:
>
>> Politics and quotas selecting a national team,
>> your bound to get a few disgruntled talents.
>> It is not fair in sport, and it will cause problems.
>> The Pietersen problem very nearly if it already hasn't,
>> just plain exposes the political fingers in the South African
>cricketing pie.
>
>A lot of people are saying things along these lines. But the facts
>paint a different picture.
...
>
>Pietersen, I think, tells only part of the story. He made it all the
>way to FC cricket despite being so discriminated against. His main
>problem seems to have been that his figures were hardly screaming
>"future international star". OK... he was young, and possibly Clive
>Rice had seen something that the Natal coaches (Forde and Eldine
>Baptiste IIRC) hadn't because they had him batting at 9 and bowling
>finger spin.
>
>White players who were his contemporaries or are younger have made it
>into the national side - one of them is even captain.

Part of what has motivated Pietersen since his emigration is the
desire to prove he made the right decision. He wouldn't have had that
driver if he'd stayed in SA, and would therefore probably not have
become as good as player as he apparently has.

He may well have felt he was being discriminated against in SA
cricket, but that was probably more to do with him being an
objectionable little git than the colour of his skin - it's true
nearly everywhere that teenagers who upset important committee men can
find it difficult to make their way.

I don't think you can read anything more into the Pietersen story than
that a determined young man decided that he personally had a better
chance of cricket success if he changed countries and seems to have
made a go of it. What he may have said in order to bluster his way
through interviews about what would otherwise sound a revoltingly
selfish and overweeningly arrogant decision is to me just blarney.

Cheers,

Mike



14 Feb 2005 20:49:34
max.it
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "

Luke Curtis <mfll78@dsl.pipex.com >

>On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:16:40 +0000 (UTC), max.it@tea.time (max.it)
>wrote:
>
>> CiL <cricketislife@rediffmail.com>
>>
>>>On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:56:04 +0000 (UTC), max.it@tea.time (max.it)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> CiL <cricketislife@rediffmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>> All the guys you see involved now are there on merit. They
>>>>>know they can perform to a standard and that makes for a much stronger
>>>>>team.
>>>>
>>>>I think Pietersen could replace about half the South African team.
>>>>
>>>>max.it
>>>
>>>maybe but Pietersen can replace the entire English team
>>>
>>>-
>>
>>He certainly can, if he is up for it.
>>He's in the England team on merit.
>>
>>Politics and quotas selecting a national team,
>>your bound to get a few disgruntled talents.
>>It is not fair in sport, and it will cause problems.
>>The Pietersen problem very nearly if it already hasn't,
>>just plain exposes the political fingers in the South African cricketing pie.
>>
>>
>>I'm assuming Pietersen is playing for England because of
>>either:
>>
>>Sa quota system or his attitude ?
>>
>>max.it
>
>
>Or maybe he is playing for England because he is half English?

His mother is English. He is more English than me then.

max.it

>--
>ButIstillneedtoknowwhat'sinthere!Thekeytoanysecurity
>systemishowit'sdesigned!Thatdependsonwhyitwasdesigned!
>Ihavetoknowwhatwhoeverdesigneditwastryingtoprotect!
>(Blakes 7, City on the Edge of the World - Vila in typical panic mode)



15 Feb 2005 06:53:52
alvey
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "

CiL wrote:
> ++++++++
> What an entrance. Kevin Pietersen, in his first 11 one-day
> internationals, averages 139 with a strike rate of just over 100. But
> has he gone through the wrong door?
> There are 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor". "Hansie
> Cronje traitor" brings up only 56. As Pietersen has been an
> international cricketer only since the end of November, that is pretty
> impressive.

I wonder how many hits you'd get using a phonetic operator?


14 Feb 2005 20:54:50
max.it
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "

"Bob Dubery" <megapode@gmail.com >

>
>max.it wrote:
>
>> Politics and quotas selecting a national team,
>> your bound to get a few disgruntled talents.
>> It is not fair in sport, and it will cause problems.
>> The Pietersen problem very nearly if it already hasn't,
>> just plain exposes the political fingers in the South African
>cricketing pie.
>
>A lot of people are saying things along these lines. But the facts
>paint a different picture.

What I read was not too detailed, sort of had to come to England
due to the system, but doing well now....type of thing.
I might have seen it on the kp website.

>
>Gerald Majola took the top spot in the UCB in January 2001 - during the
>SL/SA series of 2000/1. Majola is widely rumored to have been elected
>on a political agenda - to promote non-white talent and make the
>national team "representative".
>
>Including that series, during Majola's reign:
>* 38 players have played in ODIs for SA - 10 of them non-white
>* 36 players have played Tests for SA - 10 of them non-white.
>
>THAT is the extent of the quota system as regards the national team.
>
>Pietersen, I think, tells only part of the story. He made it all the
>way to FC cricket despite being so discriminated against. His main
>problem seems to have been that his figures were hardly screaming
>"future international star". OK... he was young, and possibly Clive
>Rice had seen something that the Natal coaches (Forde and Eldine
>Baptiste IIRC) hadn't because they had him batting at 9 and bowling
>finger spin.
>
>White players who were his contemporaries or are younger have made it
>into the national side - one of them is even captain.
>

Somewhere along the way he seems to have picked up
a work ethic. A few years too late for a SA place though.

max.it


14 Feb 2005 14:18:17
FRAN
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


Given the history of South Africa, and the role cricket played in the
struggle over apartheid, it seems to me that some sort of quota system,
if that's what has happened, is entirely justified. That's not to say
that it's the best way to go, but that surely, is a reasonable thing
for people to consider.

On the other hand, it seems to me that anyone ought to be able to play
for anyone who is interested in having them. What's wrong with that?

Fran



14 Feb 2005 22:22:36
Robbert ter Hart
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


"CiL" <cricketislife@rediffmail.com > schreef in bericht
news:i9h111p637l56cc55l4toppgaguqg8hr3k@4ax.com...
> ++++++++
> What an entrance. Kevin Pietersen, in his first 11 one-day
> internationals, averages 139 with a strike rate of just over 100. But
> has he gone through the wrong door?
> There are 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor". "Hansie
> Cronje traitor" brings up only 56. As Pietersen has been an
> international cricketer only since the end of November, that is pretty
> impressive.
>

If you'd actually look at those entries, you'd find that about 242 of those
say something like "Pietersen not bothered by 'traitor' tag"

Cheers,

RtH




14 Feb 2005 22:41:20
max.it
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "

"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com >

>
>Given the history of South Africa, and the role cricket played in the
>struggle over apartheid, it seems to me that some sort of quota system,
>if that's what has happened, is entirely justified. That's not to say
>that it's the best way to go, but that surely, is a reasonable thing
>for people to consider.

It is reasonable. I'm from northern Ireland so I have some first hand
experience of segregated communities. There is a certain "over balancing"
that causes problems (I can't spell animosity).
>
>On the other hand, it seems to me that anyone ought to be able to play
>for anyone who is interested in having them. What's wrong with that?
>
I'm sure RH will answer that question, if he is on the go.

We have an Australian and a South African on our national team.
Our National coach is from South Africa, he is a genius.
We have beaten West Indies (twice) Zimbabwe, Sa in 1928 at cork,
and all contenders at U13/15 are welcome.

max.it

>Fran
>



14 Feb 2005 14:53:02
Andrew Mc
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "

In article <i9h111p637l56cc55l4toppgaguqg8hr3k@4ax.com >, CiL says...
>
>There are 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor". "Hansie
>Cronje traitor" brings up only 56.

I suspect googling for "hansie cronje cheat" will yield considerably more.



15 Feb 2005 04:48:25
CiL
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "

On 14 Feb 2005 11:24:14 -0800, "Bob Dubery" <megapode@gmail.com >
wrote:

>White players who were his contemporaries or are younger have made it
>into the national side - one of them is even captain.


He seems to have upset even the likes of Haysmen n Manthorp

++++++ Mike Haysman +++++++++
let me state how disappointed I am by his attitude. Why does he, at
every opportunity, appear to go out of his way to snub South Africa
and most things associated with it? He has definitely ‘walked the
talk’ but does he not realise that when you are an international
standard sportsman and when you have achieved something exceptional,
which he did in Bloemfontein, that you simply let your talent do the
talking. There is no need for inciteful behaviour and the sooner one
of his talented, mature team mates tell him as much, the better off he
will be.

Sport has a particularly nasty habit of chopping anyone down to size
who gets too big for his boots and Kevin appears to be setting himself
up for a fall. I certainly do not begrudge him his decision in life to
relocate to England and his obvious desire in life to represent his
adopted country. In fact I also congratulate him on that
accomplishment. However, he is not the only person in the world who
has had to make a life altering decision.

He has also succeeded, in a short space of time, in developing a
reputation that will result in him being a marked man in international
cricket. Surely that can only make things more difficult for him. I
can imagine one or two Australians will already be plotting his
downfall should his form warrant selection during the upcoming Ashes
series.

Let’s hope, for Kevin’s and cricket’s sake, his ‘over the top’ style
is simply an initial expression of emotion and we can all soon sit
back and enjoy his talent without all the histrionics
++++++

+++++++++ Manthorp ++++++++++=
Pietersen has upset several members of the South African team - and
not by accident. His provocations haven't always been limited to the
mutually accepted battle ground contained within the boundary ropes,
either. Next time he's feeling hostile, angry or provocative he would
do well to remember his captain's approach to adversity - confront it
honestly and with an open mind.

And he'd do equally well to remember what Prince did with that stump.


---------
With the Zimbabwe series only a week away Prince would have heard the
whispers about young players being given a chance, about senior
players like Jacques Kallis and Makhaya Ntini being rested and about
those who had failed to deliver being dropped.

So it was with exhuberant relief that he scored the winning runs at
Supersport Park, that he 'closed the deal' and finally made all the
hard work pay off. His feverish running between the wickets, his
determination to maintain the team's scoring rate in the quiet, middle
overs of the innings and his cool, calm head under pressure had
finally resulted in him winning a game.

Imagine the joy as he grabbed a souvenir stump from his biggest game
in national colours, the thoughts of having it signed by his team
mates and placing it proudly amongst his collection of provincial
awards and other souvenirs.

Then imagine what he felt when a breathless Kevin Pietersen, having
sprinted 80 metres from the longest boundary on the ground, arrived by
his side to find no stumps remaining. Prince looked at his foe, looked
briefly at the stump and thought of their respective innings. And
handed it over.

He then ran to the other set of stumps only to see Ashley Giles
removing the last one to commemorate his highest score (41) and his
seventh wicket century stand with Pietersen (116).

Half way back to the pavilion, someone handed Prince a stump. It
wasn't Pietersen and it wasn't Giles, but someone else also knew the
right thing to do.

http://www.supercricket.co.za/default.asp?id=3520&des=sportstalk
+++++++




15 Feb 2005 13:50:10
Andrew Dunford
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


"max.it" <max.it@tea.time > wrote in message
news:42110d61.40799737@news.btopenworld.com...
> Luke Curtis <mfll78@dsl.pipex.com>
>
> >On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:16:40 +0000 (UTC), max.it@tea.time (max.it)
> >wrote:
> >
> >> CiL <cricketislife@rediffmail.com>
> >>
> >>>On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:56:04 +0000 (UTC), max.it@tea.time (max.it)
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> CiL <cricketislife@rediffmail.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>> All the guys you see involved now are there on merit. They
> >>>>>know they can perform to a standard and that makes for a much
stronger
> >>>>>team.
> >>>>
> >>>>I think Pietersen could replace about half the South African team.
> >>>>
> >>>>max.it
> >>>
> >>>maybe but Pietersen can replace the entire English team
> >>>
> >>>-
> >>
> >>He certainly can, if he is up for it.
> >>He's in the England team on merit.
> >>
> >>Politics and quotas selecting a national team,
> >>your bound to get a few disgruntled talents.
> >>It is not fair in sport, and it will cause problems.
> >>The Pietersen problem very nearly if it already hasn't,
> >>just plain exposes the political fingers in the South African cricketing
pie.
> >>
> >>
> >>I'm assuming Pietersen is playing for England because of
> >>either:
> >>
> >>Sa quota system or his attitude ?
> >>
> >>max.it
> >
> >
> >Or maybe he is playing for England because he is half English?
>
> His mother is English. He is more English than me then.

Were you offered a place in the England team?

Andrew




14 Feb 2005 17:10:38
FRAN
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


max.it wrote:
> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com>
>
> >
> >Given the history of South Africa, and the role cricket played in
the
> >struggle over apartheid, it seems to me that some sort of quota
system,
> >if that's what has happened, is entirely justified. That's not to
say
> >that it's the best way to go, but that surely, is a reasonable thing
> >for people to consider.
>
> It is reasonable. I'm from northern Ireland so I have some first hand

> experience of segregated communities. There is a certain "over
balancing"
> that causes problems (I can't spell animosity).
> >

There are two aspects to the problem as I see it -- rather like the
problem facing courts. First you must do actual justice to people
(whatever most people think that means) and then you must be SEEN to do
justice, and in a place like South Africa, (and one assumes, Northern
Ireland) with such a long history of both actual and symbolic abuse and
inter-communal animus, this is an explosive question.

Quotas often don't serve any good pragmatic purpose, and even when they
do, the good often diminishes over time and starts to become an
irritant to those who run foul of it. But in the end, goodwill is not
something to ignore, and one must endeavour to weigh these matters
carefully when deciding on whether one ought to attempt such a regime,
and if so, for how long and in what form.

> >On the other hand, it seems to me that anyone ought to be able to
play
> >for anyone who is interested in having them. What's wrong with that?
> >
> I'm sure RH will answer that question, if he is on the go.
>
> We have an Australian and a South African on our national team.
> Our National coach is from South Africa, he is a genius.
> We have beaten West Indies (twice) Zimbabwe, Sa in 1928 at cork,
> and all contenders at U13/15 are welcome.
>
> max.it
>


Fran



15 Feb 2005 14:13:49
Andrew Dunford
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


"Mike Holmans" <mike@jackalope.demon.co.uk > wrote in message
news:v60211h6ov8spatd9bhac8gaqctt23j9vm@4ax.com...
> On 14 Feb 2005 11:24:14 -0800, "Bob Dubery" <megapode@gmail.com>
> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
> >
> >max.it wrote:
> >
> >> Politics and quotas selecting a national team,
> >> your bound to get a few disgruntled talents.
> >> It is not fair in sport, and it will cause problems.
> >> The Pietersen problem very nearly if it already hasn't,
> >> just plain exposes the political fingers in the South African
> >cricketing pie.
> >
> >A lot of people are saying things along these lines. But the facts
> >paint a different picture.
> ...
> >
> >Pietersen, I think, tells only part of the story. He made it all the
> >way to FC cricket despite being so discriminated against. His main
> >problem seems to have been that his figures were hardly screaming
> >"future international star". OK... he was young, and possibly Clive
> >Rice had seen something that the Natal coaches (Forde and Eldine
> >Baptiste IIRC) hadn't because they had him batting at 9 and bowling
> >finger spin.
> >
> >White players who were his contemporaries or are younger have made it
> >into the national side - one of them is even captain.
>
> Part of what has motivated Pietersen since his emigration is the
> desire to prove he made the right decision. He wouldn't have had that
> driver if he'd stayed in SA, and would therefore probably not have
> become as good as player as he apparently has.
>
> He may well have felt he was being discriminated against in SA
> cricket, but that was probably more to do with him being an
> objectionable little git than the colour of his skin - it's true
> nearly everywhere that teenagers who upset important committee men can
> find it difficult to make their way.

Kevin Pietersen = Andrew Caddick.

> I don't think you can read anything more into the Pietersen story than
> that a determined young man decided that he personally had a better
> chance of cricket success if he changed countries and seems to have
> made a go of it. What he may have said in order to bluster his way
> through interviews about what would otherwise sound a revoltingly
> selfish and overweeningly arrogant decision is to me just blarney.

It should not be forgotten that Pietersen was born a British citizen, and
has presumably been a dual national his whole life. I see nothing wrong in
him exercising his right to throw in his lot with the country other than
that in which he was born and grew up.

I shall be very disappointed if my children choose not to take up the
opportunities their British passports afford them.

Andrew




14 Feb 2005 17:14:22
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


FRAN wrote:
> Given the history of South Africa, and the role cricket played in the
> struggle over apartheid, it seems to me that some sort of quota
system,
> if that's what has happened, is entirely justified. That's not to say
> that it's the best way to go, but that surely, is a reasonable thing
> for people to consider.
>

Not so sure about that. It's a difficult one. At the end of the day, it
is preferable to select a team on ability, but of course if some
disadvantaged groups are never given a leg up, it'll take much longer
for them to reach the level of those more advantaged.
Conversely, people who think they aren't getting a fair go because the
quota of advantaged players has already been filled may well up and go.

> On the other hand, it seems to me that anyone ought to be able to
play
> for anyone who is interested in having them. What's wrong with that?
>
> Fran

Again, I'm not so sure.

I can see the logic of Hick/Wessells/Lamb etc moving off shore, because
there was absolutely zero chance of them getting Test cricket whilst
they were SAfrican.
But I'm uncomfortable with players like Pietersen, who've learnt their
skills and developed in SA suddenly upping and going and effectively
selling their skills to another country.
It's the same with Rathbone the rugby player who came here to Aus (and,
who, in a similar vein, has dissed SA, proclaimed how great it is over
here and done the equivalent of kissing the cap. The only difference
seems to be in his acceptance over here. Australians, by and large,
seem to have adopted him as 'one of us' and can't understand the
problems with SA claiming him as one of theirs. Of course, look out for
cries of 'not a proper Englishman' directed at Strauss and KP if they
play in the Ashes).

In club cricket, a wealthy team can buy a star batsman or bowler to
fill a perceived weakness or put bums on seats (like Qld with Iron
Bottom-IIRC, the gates increased hugely), they're in essence, a
commercial enterprise. I don't have a problem with that.

International cricket, it seems to me, shouldn't be like that, you
shouldn't be able to buy players to fill gaps.
Though I agree it's a very fine line with players holding dual
nationality. In these days of increased international mobility, it's
quite likely that many players will be eligible for two, or even more,
countries.

Higgs



14 Feb 2005 17:17:12
FRAN
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


Andrew Mc wrote:
> In article <i9h111p637l56cc55l4toppgaguqg8hr3k@4ax.com>, CiL says...
> >
> >There are 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor". "Hansie
> >Cronje traitor" brings up only 56.
>
> I suspect googling for "hansie cronje cheat" will yield considerably
more.


In fact, 34 spelled "hanse" and 722 spelled "hansie"

Fran



15 Feb 2005 14:30:07
Andrew Dunford
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


<kenhiggs8@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1108430062.075832.217930@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> FRAN wrote:
> > Given the history of South Africa, and the role cricket played in the
> > struggle over apartheid, it seems to me that some sort of quota
> system,
> > if that's what has happened, is entirely justified. That's not to say
> > that it's the best way to go, but that surely, is a reasonable thing
> > for people to consider.
> >
>
> Not so sure about that. It's a difficult one. At the end of the day, it
> is preferable to select a team on ability, but of course if some
> disadvantaged groups are never given a leg up, it'll take much longer
> for them to reach the level of those more advantaged.
> Conversely, people who think they aren't getting a fair go because the
> quota of advantaged players has already been filled may well up and go.
>
> > On the other hand, it seems to me that anyone ought to be able to
> play
> > for anyone who is interested in having them. What's wrong with that?
> >
> > Fran
>
> Again, I'm not so sure.
>
> I can see the logic of Hick/Wessells/Lamb etc moving off shore, because
> there was absolutely zero chance of them getting Test cricket whilst
> they were SAfrican.
> But I'm uncomfortable with players like Pietersen, who've learnt their
> skills and developed in SA suddenly upping and going and effectively
> selling their skills to another country.
> It's the same with Rathbone the rugby player who came here to Aus (and,
> who, in a similar vein, has dissed SA, proclaimed how great it is over
> here and done the equivalent of kissing the cap. The only difference
> seems to be in his acceptance over here. Australians, by and large,
> seem to have adopted him as 'one of us' and can't understand the
> problems with SA claiming him as one of theirs. Of course, look out for
> cries of 'not a proper Englishman' directed at Strauss and KP if they
> play in the Ashes).
>
> In club cricket, a wealthy team can buy a star batsman or bowler to
> fill a perceived weakness or put bums on seats (like Qld with Iron
> Bottom-IIRC, the gates increased hugely), they're in essence, a
> commercial enterprise. I don't have a problem with that.
>
> International cricket, it seems to me, shouldn't be like that, you
> shouldn't be able to buy players to fill gaps.
> Though I agree it's a very fine line with players holding dual
> nationality. In these days of increased international mobility, it's
> quite likely that many players will be eligible for two, or even more,
> countries.

There's a big difference between the Pietersen and Rathbone cases.
Pietersen is presumably a British Citizen by Descent (since birth) and on
top of that lived in the UK for four years (or at least the best part of
four years, the ECB finding it convenient to bend their own rules a bit).
Rathbone OTOH qualified to play for Australia by having an Australian
grandparent and didn't (to my knowledge) have to complete a residential
qualification. In that respect cricket has its house in order to a much
greater extent than rugby.

The ECB has taken care in recent years to word its eligibility criteria
(which are stricter than required by the ICC) in such a way that they try to
avoid players being eligible for two or more countries (where one of the
'countries' is England) at the same time.

Andrew




14 Feb 2005 17:43:21
FRAN
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


kenhig...@hotmail.com wrote:
> FRAN wrote:
> > Given the history of South Africa, and the role cricket played in
the
> > struggle over apartheid, it seems to me that some sort of quota
> system,
> > if that's what has happened, is entirely justified. That's not to
say
> > that it's the best way to go, but that surely, is a reasonable
thing
> > for people to consider.
> >
>
> Not so sure about that. It's a difficult one. At the end of the day,
it
> is preferable to select a team on ability, but of course if some
> disadvantaged groups are never given a leg up, it'll take much longer
> for them to reach the level of those more advantaged.
> Conversely, people who think they aren't getting a fair go because
the
> quota of advantaged players has already been filled may well up and
go.
>

see my response to "max.it" below.

> > On the other hand, it seems to me that anyone ought to be able to
> play
> > for anyone who is interested in having them. What's wrong with
that?
> >
> > Fran
>
> Again, I'm not so sure.
>
> I can see the logic of Hick/Wessells/Lamb etc moving off shore,
because
> there was absolutely zero chance of them getting Test cricket whilst
> they were SAfrican.
> But I'm uncomfortable with players like Pietersen, who've learnt
their
> skills and developed in SA suddenly upping and going and effectively
> selling their skills to another country.

That may be so, but I think people remain the custodians of their own
talents, even if others (such as the state) have contributed. The main
problem I have with formal restraints is that players who want to play
at the top level, and have the skills, can't be considered on merit as
long as a formal barrier stands. There are many players who have played
far fewer test matches than they might have, either because they ran
foul of admin, were misperceived as inferior to other players, were
good when their competitors were too good to drop or were perceived as
"standing in the way of younger players" or whatever. In the end, such
restrictions both deny players a bona fide opportunity to pursue their
career, and rob the cricketing public of a potentially higher quality
contest.

If, for argument's sake, Jamie Siddons or Darren Lehmann, or Michael
Bevan had been able to answer their critics on the field with
performances against the best teams in the world, they might,
conceivably have been able to force their way back. And in any event,
although we don't regard the requirement of being English to get
selected for England as a "quota" it's kind of the flipside -- an
exclusionary policy based on ethnicity.


> It's the same with Rathbone the rugby player who came here to Aus
(and,
> who, in a similar vein, has dissed SA, proclaimed how great it is
over
> here and done the equivalent of kissing the cap. The only difference
> seems to be in his acceptance over here. Australians, by and large,
> seem to have adopted him as 'one of us' and can't understand the
> problems with SA claiming him as one of theirs.

Yes, we aussies will claim anyone from here who does well as one of
ours, even if they are from some place else. Well known Aussies like
Russell Crowe, Helen Reddy, Clarrie Grimmett, Phar Lap, Kepler Wessels,
that Tatyana Grigorieva, etc ... One of our slogans is: send us your
talented fleeing masses yearning to help Australia's international
image.


Of course, look out for
> cries of 'not a proper Englishman' directed at Strauss and KP if they
> play in the Ashes).
>

I doubt it. That would be hard to say with a tubfull of beer. All jokes
aside, most people will just see him as one of the other side. By
comparison, despite all the sledging of Murali, I wasn't aware until
quite recently that he was a Tamil.

> In club cricket, a wealthy team can buy a star batsman or bowler to
> fill a perceived weakness or put bums on seats (like Qld with Iron
> Bottom-IIRC, the gates increased hugely), they're in essence, a
> commercial enterprise. I don't have a problem with that.

Nor I ...

>
> International cricket, it seems to me, shouldn't be like that, you
> shouldn't be able to buy players to fill gaps.

No, I disagree, especially if there is little realistic prospect of the
player in question playing anytime soon for his "home" team, or, for
ethical reasons, he doesn't want to. Had there been no Gleneagles, I'd
have supported a SA player playing for someone else. Ditto Zimbabwe at
the moment. One can imagine some Sri Lankans not wanting to associate
themsleves with Sinhala chauvinist policies pursued by their
governments at times. Pakistan is governed by a regime which most of us
here in the west would not want to represent. And here in Australia,
and in Britain, there is the both governments have backed the Iraq war
and the atrocities that went with it. It seems to me that one should
not be compelled to choose between one's sport and whatever ethical
standards one feels are appropriate.


> Though I agree it's a very fine line with players holding dual
> nationality. In these days of increased international mobility, it's
> quite likely that many players will be eligible for two, or even
more,
> countries.
>
> Higgs

I say it's all too hard to fathom. Junk the restrictions and let the
chips fall where they may. In Sheffield Shield, and ING you can play
for anyone, and the result has been a stronger competition and better
data on the abilities of players on the fringes of selection at the top
level.

Fran



15 Feb 2005 14:54:21
Aditya Basrur
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


"Andrew Dunford" <adunford@artifax.net > wrote in message
news:42114cd4$1@clear.net.nz...

> I shall be very disappointed if my children choose not to take up the
> opportunities their British passports afford them.

Indeed, but if you want them to study there and pay domestic fees, you'll
need to move to the UK for their last three years of high school. This would,
of course, mean they avoid the NCEA debacle and you get to activate your MCC
membership. So can we expect you to head back in about ten years time?

Aditya




14 Feb 2005 18:36:17
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "

Aditya Basrur wrote:
> "Andrew Dunford" <adunford@artifax.net> wrote in message
> news:42114cd4$1@clear.net.nz...
>
> > I shall be very disappointed if my children choose not to take up
the
> > opportunities their British passports afford them.
>
> Indeed, but if you want them to study there and pay domestic fees,

I think he simply wants them to play one day cricket for
England against New Zealand, not study there.

Arvind
(who moved to America to improve his chances of getting into
a national cricket team)



14 Feb 2005 18:42:06
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


Andrew Dunford wrote:
> <kenhiggs8@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1108430062.075832.217930@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > FRAN wrote:
> > > Given the history of South Africa, and the role cricket played in
the
> > > struggle over apartheid, it seems to me that some sort of quota
> > system,
> > > if that's what has happened, is entirely justified. That's not to
say
> > > that it's the best way to go, but that surely, is a reasonable
thing
> > > for people to consider.
> > >
> >
> > Not so sure about that. It's a difficult one. At the end of the
day, it
> > is preferable to select a team on ability, but of course if some
> > disadvantaged groups are never given a leg up, it'll take much
longer
> > for them to reach the level of those more advantaged.
> > Conversely, people who think they aren't getting a fair go because
the
> > quota of advantaged players has already been filled may well up and
go.
> >
> > > On the other hand, it seems to me that anyone ought to be able to
> > play
> > > for anyone who is interested in having them. What's wrong with
that?
> > >
> > > Fran
> >
> > Again, I'm not so sure.
> >
> > I can see the logic of Hick/Wessells/Lamb etc moving off shore,
because
> > there was absolutely zero chance of them getting Test cricket
whilst
> > they were SAfrican.
> > But I'm uncomfortable with players like Pietersen, who've learnt
their
> > skills and developed in SA suddenly upping and going and
effectively
> > selling their skills to another country.
> > It's the same with Rathbone the rugby player who came here to Aus
(and,
> > who, in a similar vein, has dissed SA, proclaimed how great it is
over
> > here and done the equivalent of kissing the cap. The only
difference
> > seems to be in his acceptance over here. Australians, by and large,
> > seem to have adopted him as 'one of us' and can't understand the
> > problems with SA claiming him as one of theirs. Of course, look out
for
> > cries of 'not a proper Englishman' directed at Strauss and KP if
they
> > play in the Ashes).
> >
> > In club cricket, a wealthy team can buy a star batsman or bowler to
> > fill a perceived weakness or put bums on seats (like Qld with Iron
> > Bottom-IIRC, the gates increased hugely), they're in essence, a
> > commercial enterprise. I don't have a problem with that.
> >
> > International cricket, it seems to me, shouldn't be like that, you
> > shouldn't be able to buy players to fill gaps.
> > Though I agree it's a very fine line with players holding dual
> > nationality. In these days of increased international mobility,
it's
> > quite likely that many players will be eligible for two, or even
more,
> > countries.
>
> There's a big difference between the Pietersen and Rathbone cases.
> Pietersen is presumably a British Citizen by Descent (since birth)
and on
> top of that lived in the UK for four years (or at least the best part
of
> four years, the ECB finding it convenient to bend their own rules a
bit).
> Rathbone OTOH qualified to play for Australia by having an Australian
> grandparent and didn't (to my knowledge) have to complete a
residential
> qualification. In that respect cricket has its house in order to a
much
> greater extent than rugby.
>

I'm not sure that's true.
Perhaps it is in certain countries only.


> The ECB has taken care in recent years to word its eligibility
criteria
> (which are stricter than required by the ICC) in such a way that they
try to
> avoid players being eligible for two or more countries (where one of
the
> 'countries' is England) at the same time.
>
> Andrew

Yes, but what about other countries?

Further, whilst England would appear to have the strictest requirements
of all, it's usually the country cited for playing imports in the
cricket team!

Higgs



15 Feb 2005 16:02:14
Aditya Basrur
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


<cricdabbler@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1108434976.980306.138180@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> Arvind
> (who moved to America to improve his chances of getting into
> a national cricket team)

What a shame. One state north, and you might have landed in the right
country.

Aditya




15 Feb 2005 15:56:51
Andrew Dunford
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


"Aditya Basrur" <sandaas_rocks@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1ycQd.1478$1S4.153641@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
> "Andrew Dunford" <adunford@artifax.net> wrote in message
> news:42114cd4$1@clear.net.nz...
>
> > I shall be very disappointed if my children choose not to take up the
> > opportunities their British passports afford them.
>
> Indeed, but if you want them to study there and pay domestic fees, you'll
> need to move to the UK for their last three years of high school.

Which is fair enough.

That's what I did (reside for three years, then go to university). In those
days, one was even paid for the privilege. I didn't plan it that way, but
that's how things turned out.

> This would,
> of course, mean they avoid the NCEA debacle and you get to activate your
MCC
> membership. So can we expect you to head back in about ten years time?

Depends on whether NZ can find any fast bowlers who don't break down.

Andrew




14 Feb 2005 19:11:20
Bob Dubery
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


Andrew Dunford wrote:

> > Part of what has motivated Pietersen since his emigration is the
> > desire to prove he made the right decision. He wouldn't have had
that
> > driver if he'd stayed in SA, and would therefore probably not have
> > become as good as player as he apparently has.
It's been quite apparent that he was fuelled by a need to prove
something to somebody. I think part of that "something" might have been
that he truly is committed to England and not just playing under a flag
of convenience.

Maybe the RHs of the world have got to him.

> It should not be forgotten that Pietersen was born a British citizen,
and
> has presumably been a dual national his whole life. I see nothing
wrong in
> him exercising his right to throw in his lot with the country other
than
> that in which he was born and grew up.
Neither do I really. It's just that he's been put in a position where
he has to justify that decision and has taken a line that rather got up
people's noses. It may be, as Mike says, that he has had to play up one
motive to draw the attention away from another. Coming from SA, of
course, he has a nice convenient excuse.

Mike's right on another point though. It's just a load of Blarney and
should be regarded as such.



15 Feb 2005 16:20:35
Andrew Dunford
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


<kenhiggs8@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1108435326.589607.257290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Andrew Dunford wrote:
> > <kenhiggs8@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1108430062.075832.217930@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > FRAN wrote:
> > > > Given the history of South Africa, and the role cricket played in
> the
> > > > struggle over apartheid, it seems to me that some sort of quota
> > > system,
> > > > if that's what has happened, is entirely justified. That's not to
> say
> > > > that it's the best way to go, but that surely, is a reasonable
> thing
> > > > for people to consider.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not so sure about that. It's a difficult one. At the end of the
> day, it
> > > is preferable to select a team on ability, but of course if some
> > > disadvantaged groups are never given a leg up, it'll take much
> longer
> > > for them to reach the level of those more advantaged.
> > > Conversely, people who think they aren't getting a fair go because
> the
> > > quota of advantaged players has already been filled may well up and
> go.
> > >
> > > > On the other hand, it seems to me that anyone ought to be able to
> > > play
> > > > for anyone who is interested in having them. What's wrong with
> that?
> > > >
> > > > Fran
> > >
> > > Again, I'm not so sure.
> > >
> > > I can see the logic of Hick/Wessells/Lamb etc moving off shore,
> because
> > > there was absolutely zero chance of them getting Test cricket
> whilst
> > > they were SAfrican.
> > > But I'm uncomfortable with players like Pietersen, who've learnt
> their
> > > skills and developed in SA suddenly upping and going and
> effectively
> > > selling their skills to another country.
> > > It's the same with Rathbone the rugby player who came here to Aus
> (and,
> > > who, in a similar vein, has dissed SA, proclaimed how great it is
> over
> > > here and done the equivalent of kissing the cap. The only
> difference
> > > seems to be in his acceptance over here. Australians, by and large,
> > > seem to have adopted him as 'one of us' and can't understand the
> > > problems with SA claiming him as one of theirs. Of course, look out
> for
> > > cries of 'not a proper Englishman' directed at Strauss and KP if
> they
> > > play in the Ashes).
> > >
> > > In club cricket, a wealthy team can buy a star batsman or bowler to
> > > fill a perceived weakness or put bums on seats (like Qld with Iron
> > > Bottom-IIRC, the gates increased hugely), they're in essence, a
> > > commercial enterprise. I don't have a problem with that.
> > >
> > > International cricket, it seems to me, shouldn't be like that, you
> > > shouldn't be able to buy players to fill gaps.
> > > Though I agree it's a very fine line with players holding dual
> > > nationality. In these days of increased international mobility,
> it's
> > > quite likely that many players will be eligible for two, or even
> more,
> > > countries.
> >
> > There's a big difference between the Pietersen and Rathbone cases.
> > Pietersen is presumably a British Citizen by Descent (since birth)
> and on
> > top of that lived in the UK for four years (or at least the best part
> of
> > four years, the ECB finding it convenient to bend their own rules a
> bit).
> > Rathbone OTOH qualified to play for Australia by having an Australian
> > grandparent and didn't (to my knowledge) have to complete a
> residential
> > qualification. In that respect cricket has its house in order to a
> much
> > greater extent than rugby.
> >
>
> I'm not sure that's true.
> Perhaps it is in certain countries only.

The (cricket) rules are a bit stricter than they once were. Mind you, so
are the eligibility requirements for rugby, just in a different way (a
player can represent just one country).

A cricketing Clyde Rathbone wouldn't have been able to get near the
Australian side in the way Rathbone represented Australia at rugby. Let's
compare the two codes, using the rules of the respective governing bodies
(ICC, IRB), whilst noting that the rules are stricter for ICC Full Members
than Associate or Affiliate Members:

Cricket:
must be a national of the country, or born in the country, or has resided in
the country for a minimum of four years (183 days per year)

Rugby:
must have been born in the country, or has one parent or grandparent who was
born in the country, or has resided in the country for the 36 months
immediately preceding selection.

So, Rathbone wouldn't have been able to walk into the Australian cricket
team because (a) he wasn't an Australian citizen, (b) he wasn't born there,
and (c) he hadn't lived there for long enough. Oh, and (d) because he'd
already represented South Africa at under-21 level, another point on which
cricket is tougher than rugby.

The one area in which rugby sets a tougher stance than cricket is in its
definition of residency. One can see that the ICC's notion that spending
183 days in a country each year counts as 'resident' could allow a player to
qualify for two countries at once (which I imagine is why the ECB, in its
own rules, bumps the figure up to 210 days).

> > The ECB has taken care in recent years to word its eligibility
> criteria
> > (which are stricter than required by the ICC) in such a way that they
> try to
> > avoid players being eligible for two or more countries (where one of
> the
> > 'countries' is England) at the same time.
> >
> > Andrew
>
> Yes, but what about other countries?

Yes, it could happen. NZ has been keen in the past to snap up e.g. Graeme
Hick and Ben Smith, who were spending southern hemisphere summers here
whilst really living in England. The same was very much true of Dipak Patel
and Roger Twose, who were classified as 'locals' in England through most or
all of their qualifying period for NZ. We're not very fussy here: anyone
mad enough to show an interest would be snapped up before you can say "Jamie
Salmon".

> Further, whilst England would appear to have the strictest requirements
> of all, it's usually the country cited for playing imports in the
> cricket team!

Yes, well the two things aren't entirely unrelated.

Andrew




14 Feb 2005 19:28:01
Bob Dubery
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


FRAN wrote:
> Given the history of South Africa, and the role cricket played in the
> struggle over apartheid, it seems to me that some sort of quota
system,
> if that's what has happened, is entirely justified. That's not to say
> that it's the best way to go, but that surely, is a reasonable thing
> for people to consider.
The need for a redress of past wrongs is played down or just plain not
acknowledged in certain circles. And, of course, every white SAn one
meets is an expert on the history of non-white cricket in SA. Much as
they used to be - and as some still are - completely au fait with the
bell curve, the black man's sexual habits and his inclination, or lack
thereof, towards hard work and honesty.

It gets damn depressing I can tell you. I spent a rather unpleasent
evening on Sunday listening to a tirade from an otherwise reasonable
and generous man about why Pietersen was right to leave and how blacks
have no history of cricket in SA and shouldn't be playing it now. Said
tirade included the observation that the reason that Gibbs and Ntini
don't play in England in the off-seasons is that they're not good
enough to play FC cricket anywhere and also fundamentally lacking in
the discipline and fitness required to play cricket 5 or 6 days a week
for a season.

As long as you cling to those kind of notions then you can argue that
the UCB are evil racists.

There is a quota in place in the makeup of the provincial squads.
Whether or not there is one at national level (apart from Ali Bacher's
late remembered promise to a dead man who wasn't around to corroborate
that there would be 5 non-white players in the 2003 CWC squad) is less
clear.

My own gut feel is that some kind of measure does need to be taken,
though what form that should take I find harder to say. I certainly
wouldn't want to see it entrenched in law or the UCB's constitution
because it would be there forever and there would be problems going
forward. The UCB has run into trouble with the government for saying
that they don't need a quota system, that non-white players can and do
make it all the way without such assistance.



14 Feb 2005 19:31:52
Bob Dubery
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


Bob Dubery wrote:

> Gerald Majola took the top spot in the UCB in January 2001 - during
the
> SL/SA series of 2000/1. Majola is widely rumored to have been elected
> on a political agenda - to promote non-white talent and make the
> national team "representative".
>
> Including that series, during Majola's reign:
> * 38 players have played in ODIs for SA - 10 of them non-white
> * 36 players have played Tests for SA - 10 of them non-white.

Having reconciled the two lists the overall picture is 45 players have
represented SA in or since the 2000/1 series against Sri Lanka, and 12
of them have been non-white.



14 Feb 2005 19:43:33
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


Andrew Dunford wrote:

snip

>
> The (cricket) rules are a bit stricter than they once were. Mind
you, so
> are the eligibility requirements for rugby, just in a different way
(a
> player can represent just one country).
>

For cricket or rugby?

Wessells did represent two countries at cricket, but that was a while
back.

Tiaan Strauss and Patricio Noriego have recently represented two
countries at rugby (though not at the same time).

> A cricketing Clyde Rathbone wouldn't have been able to get near the
> Australian side in the way Rathbone represented Australia at rugby.
Let's
> compare the two codes, using the rules of the respective governing
bodies
> (ICC, IRB), whilst noting that the rules are stricter for ICC Full
Members
> than Associate or Affiliate Members:
>
> Cricket:
> must be a national of the country, or born in the country, or has
resided in
> the country for a minimum of four years (183 days per year)
>

Can they have represented another country earlier?

> Rugby:
> must have been born in the country, or has one parent or grandparent
who was
> born in the country, or has resided in the country for the 36 months
> immediately preceding selection.
>

ie possibly never even been to that country

> So, Rathbone wouldn't have been able to walk into the Australian
cricket
> team because (a) he wasn't an Australian citizen, (b) he wasn't born
there,
> and (c) he hadn't lived there for long enough. Oh, and (d) because
he'd
> already represented South Africa at under-21 level, another point on
which
> cricket is tougher than rugby.
>

I thought that there is some concession for less than full
International status.

> The one area in which rugby sets a tougher stance than cricket is in
its
> definition of residency. One can see that the ICC's notion that
spending
> 183 days in a country each year counts as 'resident' could allow a
player to
> qualify for two countries at once (which I imagine is why the ECB, in
its
> own rules, bumps the figure up to 210 days).
>

I'd have thought that lots of players, both cricket and rugby, might
exceed this, given tours and away games.

> > > The ECB has taken care in recent years to word its eligibility
> > criteria
> > > (which are stricter than required by the ICC) in such a way that
they
> > try to
> > > avoid players being eligible for two or more countries (where one
of
> > the
> > > 'countries' is England) at the same time.
> > >
> > > Andrew
> >
> > Yes, but what about other countries?
>
> Yes, it could happen. NZ has been keen in the past to snap up e.g.
Graeme
> Hick and Ben Smith, who were spending southern hemisphere summers
here
> whilst really living in England. The same was very much true of
Dipak Patel
> and Roger Twose, who were classified as 'locals' in England through
most or
> all of their qualifying period for NZ. We're not very fussy here:
anyone
> mad enough to show an interest would be snapped up before you can say
"Jamie
> Salmon".
>

Twose was the one I was thinking of.

Has all this been tightened up?
Or can it still happen?

> > Further, whilst England would appear to have the strictest
requirements
> > of all, it's usually the country cited for playing imports in the
> > cricket team!
>
> Yes, well the two things aren't entirely unrelated.
>
> Andrew

How so?

Higgs



15 Feb 2005 18:18:45
Andrew Dunford
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


<kenhiggs8@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1108439012.996815.250250@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Andrew Dunford wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >
> > The (cricket) rules are a bit stricter than they once were. Mind
> you, so
> > are the eligibility requirements for rugby, just in a different way
> (a
> > player can represent just one country).
> >
>
> For cricket or rugby?

Rugby is the strict one in that regard. Once you have played for one
country, that's it. Players such as Tiian Strauss and Patricio Noriega
pre-date that regulation.

> Wessells did represent two countries at cricket, but that was a while
> back.
>
> Tiaan Strauss and Patricio Noriego have recently represented two
> countries at rugby (though not at the same time).
>
> > A cricketing Clyde Rathbone wouldn't have been able to get near the
> > Australian side in the way Rathbone represented Australia at rugby.
> Let's
> > compare the two codes, using the rules of the respective governing
> bodies
> > (ICC, IRB), whilst noting that the rules are stricter for ICC Full
> Members
> > than Associate or Affiliate Members:
> >
> > Cricket:
> > must be a national of the country, or born in the country, or has
> resided in
> > the country for a minimum of four years (183 days per year)
> >
>
> Can they have represented another country earlier?

Yes, but there is a four-year stand-down period. Craig Spearman and Nic
Pothas are example of players who have either recently become or will soon
become eligible to play cricket for England, having previously represented
NZ and South Africa respectively.

> > Rugby:
> > must have been born in the country, or has one parent or grandparent
> who was
> > born in the country, or has resided in the country for the 36 months
> > immediately preceding selection.
> >
>
> ie possibly never even been to that country

Yes, but the same is also true of cricket. By the ICC's regulations,
England would have been allowed to select Pietersen even if he'd never been
to the UK, by dint of the passport he inherited. It just so happens that
the ECB applies stricter criteria.

Rugby eligibility regulations were a bit of a joke 15 years ago, when
Stephen Bachop played for Western Samoa one year and the All Blacks the
next. An even sillier case was that of Frank Bunce, who IIRC basically
played for Western Samoa at the 1991 World Cup because the coach asked him
to. AFAIK he wasn't eligible in any way. Still, neither was Shane Howarth
to play for Wales.

> > So, Rathbone wouldn't have been able to walk into the Australian
> cricket
> > team because (a) he wasn't an Australian citizen, (b) he wasn't born
> there,
> > and (c) he hadn't lived there for long enough. Oh, and (d) because
> he'd
> > already represented South Africa at under-21 level, another point on
> which
> > cricket is tougher than rugby.
> >
>
> I thought that there is some concession for less than full
> International status.

Nope: the rule applies down to representing the national team at Sevens. In
practice there is an exceptional circumstances clause which allows a nation
such as New Zealand to pick a Steve Devine and then say "oh, sorry, we
didn't know he wasn't eligible".

> > The one area in which rugby sets a tougher stance than cricket is in
> its
> > definition of residency. One can see that the ICC's notion that
> spending
> > 183 days in a country each year counts as 'resident' could allow a
> player to
> > qualify for two countries at once (which I imagine is why the ECB, in
> its
> > own rules, bumps the figure up to 210 days).
> >
>
> I'd have thought that lots of players, both cricket and rugby, might
> exceed this, given tours and away games.

My point is that one cannot spend 210 days per year in the UK and also
reside in another country for at least 183 days i.e. qualify for two
'nations' (one of which is England) at the same time.

Exceed which?

>
> > > > The ECB has taken care in recent years to word its eligibility
> > > criteria
> > > > (which are stricter than required by the ICC) in such a way that
> they
> > > try to
> > > > avoid players being eligible for two or more countries (where one
> of
> > > the
> > > > 'countries' is England) at the same time.
> > > >
> > > > Andrew
> > >
> > > Yes, but what about other countries?
> >
> > Yes, it could happen. NZ has been keen in the past to snap up e.g.
> Graeme
> > Hick and Ben Smith, who were spending southern hemisphere summers
> here
> > whilst really living in England. The same was very much true of
> Dipak Patel
> > and Roger Twose, who were classified as 'locals' in England through
> most or
> > all of their qualifying period for NZ. We're not very fussy here:
> anyone
> > mad enough to show an interest would be snapped up before you can say
> "Jamie
> > Salmon".
> >
>
> Twose was the one I was thinking of.
>
> Has all this been tightened up?
> Or can it still happen?

A Twose case is less likely to happen now. The ECB regulations were
tightened following the Symonds case, which was just late enough for Twose
to slip through the net. For at least the first couple of years of his
four-year 'residency', Twose was in New Zealand for the cricket season and
playing for Warwickshire as a 'local' during the northern summer.

> > > Further, whilst England would appear to have the strictest
> requirements
> > > of all, it's usually the country cited for playing imports in the
> > > cricket team!
> >
> > Yes, well the two things aren't entirely unrelated.
> >
> > Andrew
>
> How so?

England has county cricket, bringing with it a much greater number of
opportunities for overseas players to gain employment for a substantial
portion of the year during a period which is the off-season for the southern
hemisphere nations. Without tight regulation, England could have any number
of Twoses. Most of the so-called 'imports' who have played for England are
at least committed to the UK in a long-term manner.

Andrew




15 Feb 2005 15:26:44
Calvin
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


> <kenhiggs8@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> > Tiaan Strauss and Patricio Noriego have recently represented two
> > countries at rugby (though not at the same time).

To represent two countries at the same time would indeed be a remarkable
achievement.

cheers,
Calvin






15 Feb 2005 00:17:44
Bob Dubery
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


Prior wrote:

> Because we were shut out,
"shut out?". We were "shut out" because we had a government that
discriminated against it's own citizens on the basis of race to the
extent that it denied non-white South Africans an equal sporting
opportunity or even the chance of national honours if they were good
enough, and because that government sought to interfere with the
selection of visiting teams.

As for your "et al" does that include (for example) Dik Abed, Owen
Williams, Baboo Ebrahim, and Basil D'Oliveira who, in his prime, would
certainly have played for a Springbok team picked on merit?

Richards got 4 tests, Graeme Pollock played enough to show that he was
an absolutely top-class batsman. That's a better portion of
international cricket than a lot of South Africans would have been
allowed by the government of the day.



15 Feb 2005 09:37:18
max.it
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "

"Andrew Dunford" <adunford@artifax.net >

>
>"max.it" <max.it@tea.time> wrote in message
>news:42110d61.40799737@news.btopenworld.com...
>> Luke Curtis <mfll78@dsl.pipex.com>
>>
>> >On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:16:40 +0000 (UTC), max.it@tea.time (max.it)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> CiL <cricketislife@rediffmail.com>
>> >>
>> >>>On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:56:04 +0000 (UTC), max.it@tea.time (max.it)
>> >>>wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> CiL <cricketislife@rediffmail.com>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> All the guys you see involved now are there on merit. They
>> >>>>>know they can perform to a standard and that makes for a much
>stronger
>> >>>>>team.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>I think Pietersen could replace about half the South African team.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>max.it
>> >>>
>> >>>maybe but Pietersen can replace the entire English team
>> >>>
>> >>>-
>> >>
>> >>He certainly can, if he is up for it.
>> >>He's in the England team on merit.
>> >>
>> >>Politics and quotas selecting a national team,
>> >>your bound to get a few disgruntled talents.
>> >>It is not fair in sport, and it will cause problems.
>> >>The Pietersen problem very nearly if it already hasn't,
>> >>just plain exposes the political fingers in the South African cricketing
>pie.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>I'm assuming Pietersen is playing for England because of
>> >>either:
>> >>
>> >>Sa quota system or his attitude ?
>> >>
>> >>max.it
>> >
>> >
>> >Or maybe he is playing for England because he is half English?
>>
>> His mother is English. He is more English than me then.
>
>Were you offered a place in the England team?

No way, England is a foriegn country :)

max.it

>
>Andrew
>
>



15 Feb 2005 10:57:06
DAVID LEWIS
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


"Bob Dubery" <megapode@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1108438312.190229.325800@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bob Dubery wrote:
>
> > Gerald Majola took the top spot in the UCB in January 2001 - during
> the
> > SL/SA series of 2000/1. Majola is widely rumored to have been elected
> > on a political agenda - to promote non-white talent and make the
> > national team "representative".
> >
> > Including that series, during Majola's reign:
> > * 38 players have played in ODIs for SA - 10 of them non-white
> > * 36 players have played Tests for SA - 10 of them non-white.
>
> Having reconciled the two lists the overall picture is 45 players have
> represented SA in or since the 2000/1 series against Sri Lanka, and 12
> of them have been non-white.

I suppose the other question is how many of those 12 owed their selection to
non-cricketing criteria. I don't know enough about the oneday side, but at
test level, I think we're only looking at Ontong and, probably, Tsolekile,
neither of whom has played many games anyway. I know that the regional
sides are another matter, but AFAICS the existence of quotas at
international level has been vastly overstated by some folks.

Cheers

David




15 Feb 2005 08:11:54
Maxx
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


Andrew Mc wrote:
> In article <i9h111p637l56cc55l4toppgaguqg8hr3k@4ax.com>, CiL says...
> >
> >There are 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor". "Hansie
> >Cronje traitor" brings up only 56.
>
> I suspect googling for "hansie cronje cheat" will yield considerably
more.

A few hundred. Thousands for "hansie cronje legend"



15 Feb 2005 08:26:01
Don Miles
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "

In message <1108431801.789730.201660@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >, FRAN
<fran_beta@hotmail.com > writes
>Yes, we aussies will claim anyone from here who does well as one of
>ours, even if they are from some place else. Well known Aussies like
>Russell Crowe, Helen Reddy, Clarrie Grimmett, Phar Lap, Kepler Wessels,
>that Tatyana Grigorieva, etc ... One of our slogans is: send us your
>talented fleeing masses yearning to help Australia's international image.

And conversely (?) I could quote from the women's side of the game Mel
Jones, just yesterday selected for Australia for the World Cup in SA in
a month's time. (Though she did leave England aged about 3 and now does
reside in Aus - I guess 20 years+ residence is an acceptable
qualification .....). Of course I consider her English .... on the same
basis as you've chosen above <g >

Don
--
Don Miles
For Women's Cricket on the Web : www.webbsoc.demon.co.uk
Last Updated 2005 Feb 14


15 Feb 2005 08:15:17
Don Miles
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "

In message <1108430062.075832.217930@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
kenhiggs8@hotmail.com writes
>I can see the logic of Hick/Wessells/Lamb etc moving off shore, because
>there was absolutely zero chance of them getting Test cricket whilst
>they were SAfrican. But I'm uncomfortable with players like Pietersen,
>who've learnt their skills and developed in SA suddenly upping and
>going and effectively selling their skills to another country. It's the
>same with Rathbone the rugby player who came here to Aus (and, who, in
>a similar vein, has dissed SA, proclaimed how great it is over here and
>done the equivalent of kissing the cap. The only difference seems to be
>in his acceptance over here. Australians, by and large, seem to have
>adopted him as 'one of us' and can't understand the problems with SA
>claiming him as one of theirs. Of course, look out for cries of 'not a
>proper Englishman' directed at Strauss and KP if they play in the Ashes).

I have chipped in on this debate before (and basically against any form
of selection other than on merit) but the thought occurred to me about
the huge number of people these days who study in one country and go
practice elsewhere in all sorts of walks of life. For instance I reached
the age of around 55 before I had a dentist who wasn't Australian (and
there must be a string of about 10 names if I could remember them) and
my current guy is Turkish. An Englishman has never looked at my teeth!

Now I doubt the Australians missed their nationals (is there a huge
shortage in Aus?) but some might argue the Turk should be back home on
the basis they are probably (and I might be completely wrong here!)
short of people with his skills.

Has anyone thought of the KP incident in the light of what you might
think of morally (though probably not legally) as 'restraint of trade'?
The whole problem becomes if you do think of things in that light that
maybe anyone can play for anywhere....

Now I am even more confused than when I started typing ...

Don
--
Don Miles
For Women's Cricket on the Web : www.webbsoc.demon.co.uk
Last Updated 2005 Feb 14


15 Feb 2005 08:39:18
Don Miles
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "

In message <1108438081.368619.88110@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >, Bob
Dubery <megapode@gmail.com > writes
>It gets damn depressing I can tell you. I spent a rather unpleasent
>evening on Sunday listening to a tirade from an otherwise reasonable
>and generous man about why Pietersen was right to leave and how blacks
>have no history of cricket in SA and shouldn't be playing it now. Said
>tirade included the observation that the reason that Gibbs and Ntini
>don't play in England in the off-seasons is that they're not good
>enough to play FC cricket anywhere and also fundamentally lacking in
>the discipline and fitness required to play cricket 5 or 6 days a week
>for a season.

It may hearten you a little to know that the England captain, Clare
Connor, and one of her Sussex team mates, Charlotte Burton (known of
course to all as 'menswear') spent a few weeks in an area near Cape Town
coaching black South African kids during this last (your) summer. The
money to do this was raised by contributions from the Sussex Women's
team and the generous help of British Airways who provided the flights
free. Also involved in the project were Charlton Athletic football team
and I think there's something on their web site about it.

Our team (I am a Sussex selector and VP) collect cash during the year
for this cause, including the traditional 'fines' - mine last year was
for attempting to enter the women's quarters at the County championships
where I chose the wrong house in a long terrace .... I was billeted
next door! (I claim it should have been for failing but that's another
story <g >).

Hopefully, if more effort is applied in this regard by others, even the
idea of quotas will go away as they will simply not be necessary.

We'll continue with more coaching I am sure and the credit goes to our
coach Terry Burton who, while shopping for a house in SA, realised the
problem these kids faced and decided that even if we could do little, we
had to do what little we could.

Don

PS some of the Sussex girls, Clare herself and Rosalie Birch, will be in
South Africa shortly playing in the women's World Cup. All games are in
the Pretoria area so if you live in those parts why not take one in. The
full schedule is available at ...

www.webbsoc.demon.co.uk/prog2005.htm
--
Don Miles
For Women's Cricket on the Web : www.webbsoc.demon.co.uk
Last Updated 2005 Feb 14


15 Feb 2005 21:18:29
Prior
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


"Bob Dubery" <megapode@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1108455464.942601.214340@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Prior wrote:
>
>> Because we were shut out,
> "shut out?". We were "shut out" because we had a government that
> discriminated against it's own citizens on the basis of race to the
> extent that it denied non-white South Africans an equal sporting
> opportunity or even the chance of national honours if they were good
> enough, and because that government sought to interfere with the
> selection of visiting teams.
>
> As for your "et al" does that include (for example) Dik Abed, Owen
> Williams, Baboo Ebrahim, and Basil D'Oliveira who, in his prime, would
> certainly have played for a Springbok team picked on merit?
>
> Richards got 4 tests, Graeme Pollock played enough to show that he was
> an absolutely top-class batsman. That's a better portion of
> international cricket than a lot of South Africans would have been
> allowed by the government of the day.


Oh get off the political high horse Bob - I was illustrating a point.




16 Feb 2005 09:25:24
Andrew Dunford
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


"Maxx" <maxx@starmail.co.za > wrote in message
news:1108483914.704655.30500@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Andrew Mc wrote:
> > In article <i9h111p637l56cc55l4toppgaguqg8hr3k@4ax.com>, CiL says...
> > >
> > >There are 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor". "Hansie
> > >Cronje traitor" brings up only 56.
> >
> > I suspect googling for "hansie cronje cheat" will yield considerably
> more.
>
> A few hundred. Thousands for "hansie cronje legend"

'legend' probably isn't a very useful key word: "shane warne legend" returns
53,000 results. Even "grant bradburn legend" gives almost 4,000, although
none of the few I viewed appeared to be using the word about the man
himself.

Andrew




15 Feb 2005 13:11:04
Bob Dubery
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


Prior wrote:

>
> Oh get off the political high horse Bob - I was illustrating a point.
As was I. I'm not sure what your point is though, because Graeme
Pollock certainly had enough of a career to make his mark before SA was
frozen out of international cricket.

23 Tests over 7 seasons. 7 100s, 11 50s and 2256 runs at an average of
60.97. 2 tons in his first Test series (in Australia, in 63/4).
Pollock's place in the cricketing firmanent is fixed.



15 Feb 2005 15:00:20
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


Don Miles wrote:
> In message <1108430062.075832.217930@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> kenhiggs8@hotmail.com writes
> >I can see the logic of Hick/Wessells/Lamb etc moving off shore,
because
> >there was absolutely zero chance of them getting Test cricket whilst

> >they were SAfrican. But I'm uncomfortable with players like
Pietersen,
> >who've learnt their skills and developed in SA suddenly upping and
> >going and effectively selling their skills to another country. It's
the
> >same with Rathbone the rugby player who came here to Aus (and, who,
in
> >a similar vein, has dissed SA, proclaimed how great it is over here
and
> >done the equivalent of kissing the cap. The only difference seems to
be
> >in his acceptance over here. Australians, by and large, seem to have

> >adopted him as 'one of us' and can't understand the problems with SA

> >claiming him as one of theirs. Of course, look out for cries of 'not
a
> >proper Englishman' directed at Strauss and KP if they play in the
Ashes).
>
> I have chipped in on this debate before (and basically against any
form
> of selection other than on merit) but the thought occurred to me
about
> the huge number of people these days who study in one country and go
> practice elsewhere in all sorts of walks of life. For instance I
reached
> the age of around 55 before I had a dentist who wasn't Australian
(and
> there must be a string of about 10 names if I could remember them)
and
> my current guy is Turkish. An Englishman has never looked at my
teeth!
>
> Now I doubt the Australians missed their nationals (is there a huge
> shortage in Aus?) but some might argue the Turk should be back home
on
> the basis they are probably (and I might be completely wrong here!)
> short of people with his skills.
>
> Has anyone thought of the KP incident in the light of what you might
> think of morally (though probably not legally) as 'restraint of
trade'?
> The whole problem becomes if you do think of things in that light
that
> maybe anyone can play for anywhere....
>
> Now I am even more confused than when I started typing ...
>
> Don
> --
> Don Miles
> For Women's Cricket on the Web : www.webbsoc.demon.co.uk
> Last Updated 2005 Feb 14

But these dentists aren't representing Australia (or Turkey) in some
sort of international competition.

They've, usually, benefited from education & training in Australia and
then, for one reason or another, decided to sell their skills abroad.
It's more like the guy who plays good vricket in Australia and then
goes and plays county cricket. User pays, bums on seats etc.

I don't see international sport that way.

Higgs



15 Feb 2005 15:29:44
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


FRAN wrote:
snip

>
> > > On the other hand, it seems to me that anyone ought to be able to
> > play
> > > for anyone who is interested in having them. What's wrong with
> that?
> > >
> > > Fran
> >
> > Again, I'm not so sure.
> >
> > I can see the logic of Hick/Wessells/Lamb etc moving off shore,
> because
> > there was absolutely zero chance of them getting Test cricket
whilst
> > they were SAfrican.
> > But I'm uncomfortable with players like Pietersen, who've learnt
> their
> > skills and developed in SA suddenly upping and going and
effectively
> > selling their skills to another country.
>
> That may be so, but I think people remain the custodians of their own
> talents, even if others (such as the state) have contributed. The
main
> problem I have with formal restraints is that players who want to
play
> at the top level, and have the skills, can't be considered on merit
as
> long as a formal barrier stands. There are many players who have
played
> far fewer test matches than they might have, either because they ran
> foul of admin, were misperceived as inferior to other players, were
> good when their competitors were too good to drop or were perceived
as
> "standing in the way of younger players" or whatever. In the end,
such
> restrictions both deny players a bona fide opportunity to pursue
their
> career, and rob the cricketing public of a potentially higher quality
> contest.
>

Possibly. But the precedents are worrying.

If this were the case, players from the top country who didn't quite
make it into the national team could go and play for someone else. eg
Lehmann, who was blocked from selection for many years, might have
thrown in his lot and moved to England to play for them. As might have,
say, Wayne Daniels.


> If, for argument's sake, Jamie Siddons or Darren Lehmann, or Michael
> Bevan had been able to answer their critics on the field with
> performances against the best teams in the world, they might,
> conceivably have been able to force their way back. And in any event,
> although we don't regard the requirement of being English to get
> selected for England as a "quota" it's kind of the flipside -- an
> exclusionary policy based on ethnicity.
>
>

Which is basically what national selection is all about.

> > It's the same with Rathbone the rugby player who came here to Aus
> (and,
> > who, in a similar vein, has dissed SA, proclaimed how great it is
> over
> > here and done the equivalent of kissing the cap. The only
difference
> > seems to be in his acceptance over here. Australians, by and large,
> > seem to have adopted him as 'one of us' and can't understand the
> > problems with SA claiming him as one of theirs.
>
> Yes, we aussies will claim anyone from here who does well as one of
> ours, even if they are from some place else. Well known Aussies like
> Russell Crowe, Helen Reddy, Clarrie Grimmett, Phar Lap, Kepler
Wessels,
> that Tatyana Grigorieva, etc ... One of our slogans is: send us your
> talented fleeing masses yearning to help Australia's international
> image.
>
>

Oh, I'm not against immigration, and if these people want to come here,
they should be welcome. But I have a problem with them rocking up and
walking straight into the national team.

> Of course, look out for
> > cries of 'not a proper Englishman' directed at Strauss and KP if
they
> > play in the Ashes).
> >
>
> I doubt it. That would be hard to say with a tubfull of beer. All
jokes
> aside, most people will just see him as one of the other side. By
> comparison, despite all the sledging of Murali, I wasn't aware until
> quite recently that he was a Tamil.
>

I think you're wrong.
There will be numerous mentions mentions of his place of birth, IMO.

> > In club cricket, a wealthy team can buy a star batsman or bowler to
> > fill a perceived weakness or put bums on seats (like Qld with Iron
> > Bottom-IIRC, the gates increased hugely), they're in essence, a
> > commercial enterprise. I don't have a problem with that.
>
> Nor I ...
>
> >
> > International cricket, it seems to me, shouldn't be like that, you
> > shouldn't be able to buy players to fill gaps.
>
> No, I disagree, especially if there is little realistic prospect of
the
> player in question playing anytime soon for his "home" team, or, for
> ethical reasons, he doesn't want to. Had there been no Gleneagles,
I'd
> have supported a SA player playing for someone else. Ditto Zimbabwe
at
> the moment. One can imagine some Sri Lankans not wanting to associate
> themsleves with Sinhala chauvinist policies pursued by their
> governments at times. Pakistan is governed by a regime which most of
us
> here in the west would not want to represent. And here in Australia,
> and in Britain, there is the both governments have backed the Iraq
war
> and the atrocities that went with it. It seems to me that one should
> not be compelled to choose between one's sport and whatever ethical
> standards one feels are appropriate.
>
>

Well, that's a sticky one. I don't know that playing for your country
automatically illustrates your support for your government.
Are all the current Australian players therefore Howard supporters?
Would they all stand down if Howard lost the next election?

If a player isn't good enough for his home team, that's basically his
bad luck.
Though I suppose if he is prepared to move to another country and
undergo a reasonably lengthy naturalisation process, that's fair
enough.

> > Though I agree it's a very fine line with players holding dual
> > nationality. In these days of increased international mobility,
it's
> > quite likely that many players will be eligible for two, or even
> more,
> > countries.
> >
> > Higgs
>
> I say it's all too hard to fathom. Junk the restrictions and let the
> chips fall where they may. In Sheffield Shield, and ING you can play
> for anyone, and the result has been a stronger competition and better
> data on the abilities of players on the fringes of selection at the
top
> level.
>
> Fran

National and International competitions are, IMO, a different bag

Higgs



16 Feb 2005 09:55:48
Calvin
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


<kenhiggs8@hotmail.com > wrote in

> But these dentists aren't representing Australia (or Turkey) in some
> sort of international competition.

I'm sure I've heard of the Denatl Olympics...

cheers,
Calvin




16 Feb 2005 09:56:59
Calvin
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


<kenhiggs8@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1108510184.717003.150640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> FRAN wrote:

> > I say it's all too hard to fathom. Junk the restrictions and let the
> > chips fall where they may. In Sheffield Shield, and ING you can play
> > for anyone, and the result has been a stronger competition and better
> > data on the abilities of players on the fringes of selection at the
> top> > level.

Indeed. Eligibility rules can only reduce the pool of talent available.

> National and International competitions are, IMO, a different bag

Not saying I disagree, but why?

cheers,
Calvin




15 Feb 2005 18:44:49
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


Calvin wrote:
> <kenhiggs8@hotmail.com> wrote in
>
> > But these dentists aren't representing Australia (or Turkey) in
some
> > sort of international competition.
>
> I'm sure I've heard of the Denatl Olympics...
>
> cheers,
> Calvin

I'm sure you have too.

Care to tell us what they are and what they have to do with this
thread?

Higgs



15 Feb 2005 19:01:11
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


Calvin wrote:
> <kenhiggs8@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1108510184.717003.150640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > FRAN wrote:
>
> > > I say it's all too hard to fathom. Junk the restrictions and let
the
> > > chips fall where they may. In Sheffield Shield, and ING you can
play
> > > for anyone, and the result has been a stronger competition and
better
> > > data on the abilities of players on the fringes of selection at
the
> > top> > level.
>
> Indeed. Eligibility rules can only reduce the pool of talent
available.
>

Is that a problem?

Besides, often the 'eligibility' practised by the wealthier clubs
simply means that the smaller clubs have a smaller pool available.

> > National and International competitions are, IMO, a different bag
>
> Not saying I disagree, but why?
>
> cheers,
> Calvin


I've outlined my reasons in previous posts, and they are varied, but
basically because it isn't about buying the best team you can get your
hands on, it's more to do with selecting players who come from a
country, or at least have a fairly large investment in that place.
I'm not happy with players simply turning up in a country and a few
months later they're playing for them.
I'm aware of varying circumstances of individuals, and any attempt at a
definitive set of rules will invariably throw up a problem that either
isn't covered by them, or else will come across as grossly unfair.

Otherwise, what's to stop, say, Michael Clark in 3 or four years time
(say Australia slip down the world rankings and Clarke genuinely does
become an established star, rather than a ball of hype) turning out for
whoever is top dog, simply because he wants to be on a winning team (or
they offer him lots of money to do so).

Would anyone be happy with that (except, I guess, Clark and the team
who hired him)?

Higgs



15 Feb 2005 19:31:28
Bob Dubery
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


Calvin wrote:
> <kenhiggs8@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1108510184.717003.150640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > FRAN wrote:
>
> > > I say it's all too hard to fathom. Junk the restrictions and let
the
> > > chips fall where they may. In Sheffield Shield, and ING you can
play
> > > for anyone, and the result has been a stronger competition and
better
> > > data on the abilities of players on the fringes of selection at
the
> > top> > level.
>
> Indeed. Eligibility rules can only reduce the pool of talent
available.

Maybe there's another issue at stake?

Who "owns" a national team? Who are the stakeholders?

How would you feel if your own kid was a good player, had been through
school cricket, the various regional age sides, fought his way into FC
cricket and was doing well and then the national board goes and signs
some SAn who learned his cricket in SA, is known to be a very good
player and who hasn't, for whatever reasons, been contracted by the SA
board?

Would you feel that your son had been deprived of something that was
his right? Would you feel differently if said SAn had to come to your
country, sign with a club and play a stipulated number of seasons of FC
cricket first? There's a line somewhere, and countries have a right to
draw that line and maybe the citizens of a country have a right to a
say in the drawing of that line.

I believe that even if the ICC opens the whole thing up, says, in
effect, that anybody can play for any country that will have them, that
the various countries have the right to impose their own criteria in
order to create a situation where the national team can reasonably be
considered as representative of the nation.

Regional sides are a different matter. Let them have a freeer hand in
the interest of developing a stronger pool of talent that the national
side can be picked from.



15 Feb 2005 20:17:24
FRAN
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


kenhiggs8@hotmail.com wrote:
> FRAN wrote:
> snip
>
> >
> > > > On the other hand, it seems to me that anyone ought to be able
to
> > > play
> > > > for anyone who is interested in having them. What's wrong with
> > that?
> > > >
> > > > Fran
> > >
> > > Again, I'm not so sure.
> > >
> > > I can see the logic of Hick/Wessells/Lamb etc moving off shore,
> > because
> > > there was absolutely zero chance of them getting Test cricket
> whilst
> > > they were SAfrican.
> > > But I'm uncomfortable with players like Pietersen, who've learnt
> > their
> > > skills and developed in SA suddenly upping and going and
> effectively
> > > selling their skills to another country.
> >
> > That may be so, but I think people remain the custodians of their
own
> > talents, even if others (such as the state) have contributed. The
> main
> > problem I have with formal restraints is that players who want to
> play
> > at the top level, and have the skills, can't be considered on merit
> as
> > long as a formal barrier stands. There are many players who have
> played
> > far fewer test matches than they might have, either because they
ran
> > foul of admin, were misperceived as inferior to other players, were
> > good when their competitors were too good to drop or were perceived
> as
> > "standing in the way of younger players" or whatever. In the end,
> such
> > restrictions both deny players a bona fide opportunity to pursue
> their
> > career, and rob the cricketing public of a potentially higher
quality
> > contest.
> >
>
> Possibly. But the precedents are worrying.
>
> If this were the case, players from the top country who didn't quite
> make it into the national team could go and play for someone else. eg
> Lehmann, who was blocked from selection for many years, might have
> thrown in his lot and moved to England to play for them.

I'm not sure why that would have been wrong, for him persoanlly, for
cricket in Australia, or cricket in general. He would have played more
test matches. If he'd proven to be any good, Australia could have
invited him back, and he could have returned, phoenix-like from the
Ashes. (Sorry I couldn't resist the pun). If Australia hadn't needed
him, on balance, or he'd got the sulks, then England might have been
more competitive. Instead of arguing about what he might have done, we
could have checked his stats. Indeed, given that he would have been
facing Australia's bowlers, in a series of weak sides, his stats as a
batsman would have had even more credibility than now.

As might have,
> say, Wayne Daniels.
>

Ditto ...


>
> > If, for argument's sake, Jamie Siddons or Darren Lehmann, or
Michael
> > Bevan had been able to answer their critics on the field with
> > performances against the best teams in the world, they might,
> > conceivably have been able to force their way back. And in any
event,
> > although we don't regard the requirement of being English to get
> > selected for England as a "quota" it's kind of the flipside -- an
> > exclusionary policy based on ethnicity.
> >
> >
>
> Which is basically what national selection is all about.

And here was I talking about merit. No really, who the best 6 bats or
the best four bowlers or the best wicketkeeper are/is will always
provide fodder for discussion. But wouldn't it be nice if he had more
data to work with? Wouldn't the old "grudge match" sceanrio play well.
"Rejected by the selectors as not good enough to play for his country
... will X stick it to them? ... watch this Saturday and find out".
Sounds great to me. I've worked in marketing, and let me tell you, I
could sell tickets to that in a flash.

>
> > > It's the same with Rathbone the rugby player who came here to Aus
> > (and,
> > > who, in a similar vein, has dissed SA, proclaimed how great it is
> > over
> > > here and done the equivalent of kissing the cap. The only
> difference
> > > seems to be in his acceptance over here. Australians, by and
large,
> > > seem to have adopted him as 'one of us' and can't understand the
> > > problems with SA claiming him as one of theirs.
> >
> > Yes, we aussies will claim anyone from here who does well as one of
> > ours, even if they are from some place else. Well known Aussies
like
> > Russell Crowe, Helen Reddy, Clarrie Grimmett, Phar Lap, Kepler
> Wessels,
> > that Tatyana Grigorieva, etc ... One of our slogans is: send us
your
> > talented fleeing masses yearning to help Australia's international
> > image.
> >
> >
>
> Oh, I'm not against immigration, and if these people want to come
here,
> they should be welcome. But I have a problem with them rocking up and
> walking straight into the national team.
>

I'm still not sure why. Place of birth is typically an accident. Why
should people be punished for something that's not in their hands to
choose? In any event, if anyone was pushed out by this, they could go
elsewhere under my system, and return as they chose.

> > Of course, look out for
> > > cries of 'not a proper Englishman' directed at Strauss and KP if
> they
> > > play in the Ashes).
> > >
> >
> > I doubt it. That would be hard to say with a tubfull of beer. All
> jokes
> > aside, most people will just see him as one of the other side. By
> > comparison, despite all the sledging of Murali, I wasn't aware
until
> > quite recently that he was a Tamil.
> >
>
> I think you're wrong.
> There will be numerous mentions mentions of his place of birth, IMO.
>

I missed them until quite recently. Maybe I'm just not interested
enough in ethnicity.

> > > In club cricket, a wealthy team can buy a star batsman or bowler
to
> > > fill a perceived weakness or put bums on seats (like Qld with
Iron
> > > Bottom-IIRC, the gates increased hugely), they're in essence, a
> > > commercial enterprise. I don't have a problem with that.
> >
> > Nor I ...
> >
> > >
> > > International cricket, it seems to me, shouldn't be like that,
you
> > > shouldn't be able to buy players to fill gaps.
> >
> > No, I disagree, especially if there is little realistic prospect of
> the
> > player in question playing anytime soon for his "home" team, or,
for
> > ethical reasons, he doesn't want to. Had there been no Gleneagles,
> I'd
> > have supported a SA player playing for someone else. Ditto Zimbabwe
> at
> > the moment. One can imagine some Sri Lankans not wanting to
associate
> > themsleves with Sinhala chauvinist policies pursued by their
> > governments at times. Pakistan is governed by a regime which most
of
> us
> > here in the west would not want to represent. And here in
Australia,
> > and in Britain, there is the both governments have backed the Iraq
> war
> > and the atrocities that went with it. It seems to me that one
should
> > not be compelled to choose between one's sport and whatever ethical
> > standards one feels are appropriate.
> >
> >
>
> Well, that's a sticky one. I don't know that playing for your country
> automatically illustrates your support for your government.
> Are all the current Australian players therefore Howard supporters?
> Would they all stand down if Howard lost the next election?
>

I don't assume that, but I defend the right of others to draw that
conclusion and act according to their consciences. All I assume is that
current Australian players endorse the basic governmental structure of
Australia, or perhaps "Australian society in general" though not in
every particular. On the other hand, if Australia were a bonapartist
state (eg a fascist regime) it follows that they would be supporting
Australian bonapartism or fascism in general (though perhaps not in
every particular), and trying to endorse that with their skills. At
least, that's what some might fairly conclude. Hence my remarks on SA.
Ultimately though, that's an ethical judgement to be made by each
player, because ultimately, they are the ones to put their careers at
lifestyles at risk by their choices.

> If a player isn't good enough for his home team, that's basically his
> bad luck.

You think bad luck should merely be accepted? You don't believe in
"making your own luck"? You think it fair enough that if two players
are roughly equally well qualified for a role in the national team and
one of them looks better in a Meadow Lea commercial, or gets the
benefit of a coin toss, or happens not to be on good terms with one of
the selectors' best friends' next door neighbours he should just cop it
sweet and go into accounting?

> Though I suppose if he is prepared to move to another country and
> undergo a reasonably lengthy naturalisation process, that's fair
> enough.
>

In practice a career at the elite level in cricket is about 15 years at
most. Take out four to six years to cover the "lengthy naturalisation
process and the inertia associated with "I might get back in/I prefer
to play for my country" (some people call that loyalty) and you have a
couple of years at most to salvage something from the wreckage. These
are people's lives and dreams we're discussing. Absent a compelling
reason to become all obsessed with birth certificates and bits of paper
with "residency" on them or where the nearest hospital was to some
bloke's bit of rumpy pumpy in an old Vauxhall nine months earlier in
1953 and it's just an unreasonable restraint of trade, non?

> > > Though I agree it's a very fine line with players holding dual
> > > nationality. In these days of increased international mobility,
> it's
> > > quite likely that many players will be eligible for two, or even
> > more,
> > > countries.
> > >
> > > Higgs
> >
> > I say it's all too hard to fathom. Junk the restrictions and let
the
> > chips fall where they may. In Sheffield Shield, and ING you can
play
> > for anyone, and the result has been a stronger competition and
better
> > data on the abilities of players on the fringes of selection at the
> top
> > level.
> >
> > Fran
>
> National and International competitions are, IMO, a different bag
>
> Higgs

Fran



15 Feb 2005 20:18:43
FRAN
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


Calvin wrote:
> <kenhiggs8@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1108510184.717003.150640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > FRAN wrote:
>
> > > I say it's all too hard to fathom. Junk the restrictions and let
the
> > > chips fall where they may. In Sheffield Shield, and ING you can
play
> > > for anyone, and the result has been a stronger competition and
better
> > > data on the abilities of players on the fringes of selection at
the
> > top> > level.
>
> Indeed. Eligibility rules can only reduce the pool of talent
available.
>
> > National and International competitions are, IMO, a different bag
>
> Not saying I disagree, but why?
>

It was Higgsy who was making this distinction, not I.

Fran

> cheers,
> Calvin



15 Feb 2005 20:57:20
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


FRAN wrote:
> Calvin wrote:
> > <kenhiggs8@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1108510184.717003.150640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > FRAN wrote:
> >
> > > > I say it's all too hard to fathom. Junk the restrictions and
let
> the
> > > > chips fall where they may. In Sheffield Shield, and ING you can
> play
> > > > for anyone, and the result has been a stronger competition and
> better
> > > > data on the abilities of players on the fringes of selection at
> the
> > > top> > level.
> >
> > Indeed. Eligibility rules can only reduce the pool of talent
> available.
> >
> > > National and International competitions are, IMO, a different bag
> >
> > Not saying I disagree, but why?
> >
>
> It was Higgsy who was making this distinction, not I.
>
> Fran
>

Huh?

Higgs

> > cheers,
> > Calvin



15 Feb 2005 21:00:05
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


FRAN wrote:
> kenhiggs8@hotmail.com wrote:
> > FRAN wrote:
> > snip
> >
> > >
> > > > > On the other hand, it seems to me that anyone ought to be
able
> to
> > > > play
> > > > > for anyone who is interested in having them. What's wrong
with
> > > that?
> > > > >
> > > > > Fran
> > > >
> > > > Again, I'm not so sure.
> > > >
> > > > I can see the logic of Hick/Wessells/Lamb etc moving off shore,
> > > because
> > > > there was absolutely zero chance of them getting Test cricket
> > whilst
> > > > they were SAfrican.
> > > > But I'm uncomfortable with players like Pietersen, who've
learnt
> > > their
> > > > skills and developed in SA suddenly upping and going and
> > effectively
> > > > selling their skills to another country.
> > >
> > > That may be so, but I think people remain the custodians of their
> own
> > > talents, even if others (such as the state) have contributed. The
> > main
> > > problem I have with formal restraints is that players who want to
> > play
> > > at the top level, and have the skills, can't be considered on
merit
> > as
> > > long as a formal barrier stands. There are many players who have
> > played
> > > far fewer test matches than they might have, either because they
> ran
> > > foul of admin, were misperceived as inferior to other players,
were
> > > good when their competitors were too good to drop or were
perceived
> > as
> > > "standing in the way of younger players" or whatever. In the end,
> > such
> > > restrictions both deny players a bona fide opportunity to pursue
> > their
> > > career, and rob the cricketing public of a potentially higher
> quality
> > > contest.
> > >
> >
> > Possibly. But the precedents are worrying.
> >
> > If this were the case, players from the top country who didn't
quite
> > make it into the national team could go and play for someone else.
eg
> > Lehmann, who was blocked from selection for many years, might have
> > thrown in his lot and moved to England to play for them.
>
> I'm not sure why that would have been wrong, for him persoanlly, for
> cricket in Australia, or cricket in general. He would have played
more
> test matches. If he'd proven to be any good, Australia could have
> invited him back, and he could have returned, phoenix-like from the
> Ashes. (Sorry I couldn't resist the pun). If Australia hadn't needed

Whaaaat?

So Lehmann goes to England, plays for them, is seen to be really good,
so then he comes back and plays for Australia?

You're taking the piss, right?

Higgs



15 Feb 2005 22:51:50
FRAN
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


kenhiggs8@hotmail.com wrote:
> FRAN wrote:
> > kenhiggs8@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > FRAN wrote:
> > > snip
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > On the other hand, it seems to me that anyone ought to be
> able
> > to
> > > > > play
> > > > > > for anyone who is interested in having them. What's wrong
> with
> > > > that?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fran
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, I'm not so sure.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can see the logic of Hick/Wessells/Lamb etc moving off
shore,
> > > > because
> > > > > there was absolutely zero chance of them getting Test cricket
> > > whilst
> > > > > they were SAfrican.
> > > > > But I'm uncomfortable with players like Pietersen, who've
> learnt
> > > > their
> > > > > skills and developed in SA suddenly upping and going and
> > > effectively
> > > > > selling their skills to another country.
> > > >
> > > > That may be so, but I think people remain the custodians of
their
> > own
> > > > talents, even if others (such as the state) have contributed.
The
> > > main
> > > > problem I have with formal restraints is that players who want
to
> > > play
> > > > at the top level, and have the skills, can't be considered on
> merit
> > > as
> > > > long as a formal barrier stands. There are many players who
have
> > > played
> > > > far fewer test matches than they might have, either because
they
> > ran
> > > > foul of admin, were misperceived as inferior to other players,
> were
> > > > good when their competitors were too good to drop or were
> perceived
> > > as
> > > > "standing in the way of younger players" or whatever. In the
end,
> > > such
> > > > restrictions both deny players a bona fide opportunity to
pursue
> > > their
> > > > career, and rob the cricketing public of a potentially higher
> > quality
> > > > contest.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Possibly. But the precedents are worrying.
> > >
> > > If this were the case, players from the top country who didn't
> quite
> > > make it into the national team could go and play for someone
else.
> eg
> > > Lehmann, who was blocked from selection for many years, might
have
> > > thrown in his lot and moved to England to play for them.
> >
> > I'm not sure why that would have been wrong, for him persoanlly,
for
> > cricket in Australia, or cricket in general. He would have played
> more
> > test matches. If he'd proven to be any good, Australia could have
> > invited him back, and he could have returned, phoenix-like from the
> > Ashes. (Sorry I couldn't resist the pun). If Australia hadn't
needed
>
> Whaaaat?
>
> So Lehmann goes to England, plays for them, is seen to be really
good,
> so then he comes back and plays for Australia?
>
> You're taking the piss, right?
>

What seems to be right by you is that a player should spend years
twisting in the wind hearing people say he wasn't good enough and
having to keep his mouth shut precisely because he can't answer "in the
best way possible".

I think it's you who are "taking the piss" and much else too.

Fran
> Higgs



15 Feb 2005 23:21:32
FRAN
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


Bob Dubery wrote:
> Calvin wrote:
> > <kenhiggs8@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1108510184.717003.150640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > FRAN wrote:
> >
> > > > I say it's all too hard to fathom. Junk the restrictions and
let
> the
> > > > chips fall where they may. In Sheffield Shield, and ING you can
> play
> > > > for anyone, and the result has been a stronger competition and
> better
> > > > data on the abilities of players on the fringes of selection at
> the
> > > top> > level.
> >
> > Indeed. Eligibility rules can only reduce the pool of talent
> available.
>
> Maybe there's another issue at stake?
>
> Who "owns" a national team? Who are the stakeholders?
>

People who want to see a good contest; people who like cricket; people
who have the interests of the sport at heart; people who work in
cricket or are dependent on it for a living;

> How would you feel if your own kid was a good player, had been
through
> school cricket, the various regional age sides, fought his way into
FC
> cricket and was doing well and then the national board goes and signs
> some SAn who learned his cricket in SA, is known to be a very good
> player and who hasn't, for whatever reasons, been contracted by the
SA
> board?

No problem with that at all, provided selection is on merit, and
accepting that merit can be a somewhat subjective business. If my
hypothetical son is good enough (or even if he isn't quite as good as
the one he was displaced) he'll have a chance to develop in some other
team who needs him more. Perhaps the training and experiences there
will see him improve and be the equal of his rival, or even better and
he will return in triumph, selcedt on the basis of trial by combat.
Then, nobody will dare quibble about whether he deserved his spot.


>
> Would you feel that your son had been deprived of something that was
> his right?


No, but then I think rights attach to humans rather than nations.

> Would you feel differently if said SAn had to come to your
> country, sign with a club and play a stipulated number of seasons of
FC
> cricket first?

Yes. I'd believe that the SAn had been discriminated against on the
basis of national origin, something which in every other sphere of
life, I also oppose.

> There's a line somewhere, and countries have a right to
> draw that line

Countries don't draw that line in cricket -- national cricket
administrators in consultation with the ICC do.

> and maybe the citizens of a country have a right to a
> say in the drawing of that line.
>

Well I'm largely against that too. If we are discussing rights to
welfare and regular employment, feasibility may well be an issue --
perhaps there simply aren't jobs or the resources to meet the needs of
some people, and so rationing will have to occur. But that is very far
from the point being discussed here. We are discussing perhaps hundreds
of people on a world wide scale, rather than thousands, and elite and
unusual people at that.

> I believe that even if the ICC opens the whole thing up, says, in
> effect, that anybody can play for any country that will have them,
that
> the various countries have the right to impose their own criteria in
> order to create a situation where the national team can reasonably be
> considered as representative of the nation.
>

But that's the point isn't it? In what sense does a national team
"represent" a nation. In cricket, as in all commercial elite sports,
the team is almost the antithesis of the nation. It's a bunch of people
who have done the unusual thing of striving to become the best in the
world at some field of sporting endeavour, whereas most have hardly
done more than watch. Few of us have more than passing contact with
them. We look at them in awe precisely because they are so much more
gifted and driven than we are, at cricket or rugby or whatever.

> Regional sides are a different matter. Let them have a freeer hand in
> the interest of developing a stronger pool of talent that the
national
> side can be picked from.

I guess we differ on what the aim of the sport should be. I see it as
aiming for excellence, rather than an international pissing competition
from which inferences about the mass of the population should be drawn.
I laugh at Alvey because of his parochialism, but really, this attitude
is only one rung up the ladder of generality.

Fran



16 Feb 2005 04:09:35
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


FRAN wrote:
> kenhiggs8@hotmail.com wrote:
> > FRAN wrote:
> > > kenhiggs8@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > FRAN wrote:
> > > > snip
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > On the other hand, it seems to me that anyone ought to be
> > able
> > > to
> > > > > > play
> > > > > > > for anyone who is interested in having them. What's wrong
> > with
> > > > > that?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fran
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, I'm not so sure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can see the logic of Hick/Wessells/Lamb etc moving off
> shore,
> > > > > because
> > > > > > there was absolutely zero chance of them getting Test
cricket
> > > > whilst
> > > > > > they were SAfrican.
> > > > > > But I'm uncomfortable with players like Pietersen, who've
> > learnt
> > > > > their
> > > > > > skills and developed in SA suddenly upping and going and
> > > > effectively
> > > > > > selling their skills to another country.
> > > > >
> > > > > That may be so, but I think people remain the custodians of
> their
> > > own
> > > > > talents, even if others (such as the state) have contributed.
> The
> > > > main
> > > > > problem I have with formal restraints is that players who
want
> to
> > > > play
> > > > > at the top level, and have the skills, can't be considered on
> > merit
> > > > as
> > > > > long as a formal barrier stands. There are many players who
> have
> > > > played
> > > > > far fewer test matches than they might have, either because
> they
> > > ran
> > > > > foul of admin, were misperceived as inferior to other
players,
> > were
> > > > > good when their competitors were too good to drop or were
> > perceived
> > > > as
> > > > > "standing in the way of younger players" or whatever. In the
> end,
> > > > such
> > > > > restrictions both deny players a bona fide opportunity to
> pursue
> > > > their
> > > > > career, and rob the cricketing public of a potentially higher
> > > quality
> > > > > contest.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Possibly. But the precedents are worrying.
> > > >
> > > > If this were the case, players from the top country who didn't
> > quite
> > > > make it into the national team could go and play for someone
> else.
> > eg
> > > > Lehmann, who was blocked from selection for many years, might
> have
> > > > thrown in his lot and moved to England to play for them.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure why that would have been wrong, for him persoanlly,
> for
> > > cricket in Australia, or cricket in general. He would have played
> > more
> > > test matches. If he'd proven to be any good, Australia could have
> > > invited him back, and he could have returned, phoenix-like from
the
> > > Ashes. (Sorry I couldn't resist the pun). If Australia hadn't
> needed
> >
> > Whaaaat?
> >
> > So Lehmann goes to England, plays for them, is seen to be really
> good,
> > so then he comes back and plays for Australia?
> >
> > You're taking the piss, right?
> >
>
> What seems to be right by you is that a player should spend years
> twisting in the wind hearing people say he wasn't good enough and
> having to keep his mouth shut precisely because he can't answer "in
the
> best way possible".
>
> I think it's you who are "taking the piss" and much else too.
>
> Fran
> > Higgs

Seems to me that what you're advocating is abolishing national teams
and replacing them with a quasi-club team, attracting the best players
from around the world.
You could take the best, say, 150 odd players and hire them out to
whoever can attract them.
Probably by paying the most cash.
You'd probably not have a single Bangladeshi in that top 150, but it
wouldn't stop them (Bangladesh) having a top team, if they could find a
suitable sugar daddy.

So why bother calling them 'Australia' or 'Bangladesh'?
Why not have something like the America's Cup where the entire
successful NZ team is bought out by someone like Bertarelli and goes on
to cream the field?
Why call it 'Switzerland'?
Why not 'Team Bertarelli'?

If a guy isn't good enough to make the national team, basically, that's
the way it is.

He can get his jollies playing for a successful club side (if they want
him).

Other international teams are not nurseries for the already successful
nations.

Higgs



16 Feb 2005 05:22:05
Maxx
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


Andrew Dunford wrote:
> "Maxx" <maxx@starmail.co.za> wrote in message
> news:1108483914.704655.30500@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Andrew Mc wrote:
> > > In article <i9h111p637l56cc55l4toppgaguqg8hr3k@4ax.com>, CiL
says...
> > > >
> > > >There are 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor".
"Hansie
> > > >Cronje traitor" brings up only 56.
> > >
> > > I suspect googling for "hansie cronje cheat" will yield
considerably
> > more.
> >
> > A few hundred. Thousands for "hansie cronje legend"
>
> 'legend' probably isn't a very useful key word: "shane warne legend"
returns
> 53,000 results. Even "grant bradburn legend" gives almost 4,000,
although
> none of the few I viewed appeared to be using the word about the man
> himself.
>
> Andrew

Just showing that Hansie's positives outweighed his negatives. Or at
least, they balance each other out.



16 Feb 2005 05:42:49
Bob Dubery
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


Maxx wrote:
> Andrew Mc wrote:
> > In article <i9h111p637l56cc55l4toppgaguqg8hr3k@4ax.com>, CiL
says...
> > >
> > >There are 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor".
"Hansie
> > >Cronje traitor" brings up only 56.
> >
> > I suspect googling for "hansie cronje cheat" will yield
considerably
> more.
>
> A few hundred. Thousands for "hansie cronje legend"

Yes. All those reports that quoted Hansie Cronje saying that David
Boone was a legend at the Mars Bar factory.



16 Feb 2005 18:16:10
Prior
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


"Bob Dubery" <megapode@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1108501864.497040.181220@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Prior wrote:

>> Oh get off the political high horse Bob - I was illustrating a point.

>> As was I. I'm not sure what your point is though,

Due to the politics of the day, Basil De Olivera was forced out of SAn
Cricket and went on to play for England (see 1968-69 tour of South
Africa...shades of KP strolling onto the pitch). I was drawing a parallel
between this fact and having KP leaving SA to play for England due to what
he considered to be the politics of the day in SAn cricket.

Tony Grieg, Alan Lamb and Kepler Wessels (albeit for Australia) all did the
same...

> because Graeme
> Pollock certainly had enough of a career to make his mark before SA was
> frozen out of international cricket.
> 23 Tests over 7 seasons. 7 100s, 11 50s and 2256 runs at an average of
> 60.97. 2 tons in his first Test series (in Australia, in 63/4).

Yes agreed, but Jacque Kallis has played 87 tests with 6833 runs (20 100's
and 34 50's) If you extend GP's career by the years he lost out on what
would his final career stats be?

> Pollock's place in the cricketing firmanent is fixed.

That I dont dispute!




16 Feb 2005 20:34:25
FRAN
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


kenhiggs8@hotmail.com wrote:
> FRAN wrote:
> > kenhiggs8@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > FRAN wrote:
> > > > kenhiggs8@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > FRAN wrote:
> > > > > snip
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On the other hand, it seems to me that anyone ought to
be
> > > able
> > > > to
> > > > > > > play
> > > > > > > > for anyone who is interested in having them. What's
wrong
> > > with
> > > > > > that?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Fran
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Again, I'm not so sure.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can see the logic of Hick/Wessells/Lamb etc moving off
> > shore,
> > > > > > because
> > > > > > > there was absolutely zero chance of them getting Test
> cricket
> > > > > whilst
> > > > > > > they were SAfrican.
> > > > > > > But I'm uncomfortable with players like Pietersen, who've
> > > learnt
> > > > > > their
> > > > > > > skills and developed in SA suddenly upping and going and
> > > > > effectively
> > > > > > > selling their skills to another country.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That may be so, but I think people remain the custodians of
> > their
> > > > own
> > > > > > talents, even if others (such as the state) have
contributed.
> > The
> > > > > main
> > > > > > problem I have with formal restraints is that players who
> want
> > to
> > > > > play
> > > > > > at the top level, and have the skills, can't be considered
on
> > > merit
> > > > > as
> > > > > > long as a formal barrier stands. There are many players who
> > have
> > > > > played
> > > > > > far fewer test matches than they might have, either because
> > they
> > > > ran
> > > > > > foul of admin, were misperceived as inferior to other
> players,
> > > were
> > > > > > good when their competitors were too good to drop or were
> > > perceived
> > > > > as
> > > > > > "standing in the way of younger players" or whatever. In
the
> > end,
> > > > > such
> > > > > > restrictions both deny players a bona fide opportunity to
> > pursue
> > > > > their
> > > > > > career, and rob the cricketing public of a potentially
higher
> > > > quality
> > > > > > contest.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Possibly. But the precedents are worrying.
> > > > >
> > > > > If this were the case, players from the top country who
didn't
> > > quite
> > > > > make it into the national team could go and play for someone
> > else.
> > > eg
> > > > > Lehmann, who was blocked from selection for many years, might
> > have
> > > > > thrown in his lot and moved to England to play for them.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure why that would have been wrong, for him
persoanlly,
> > for
> > > > cricket in Australia, or cricket in general. He would have
played
> > > more
> > > > test matches. If he'd proven to be any good, Australia could
have
> > > > invited him back, and he could have returned, phoenix-like from
> the
> > > > Ashes. (Sorry I couldn't resist the pun). If Australia hadn't
> > needed
> > >
> > > Whaaaat?
> > >
> > > So Lehmann goes to England, plays for them, is seen to be really
> > good,
> > > so then he comes back and plays for Australia?
> > >
> > > You're taking the piss, right?
> > >
> >
> > What seems to be right by you is that a player should spend years
> > twisting in the wind hearing people say he wasn't good enough and
> > having to keep his mouth shut precisely because he can't answer "in
> the
> > best way possible".
> >
> > I think it's you who are "taking the piss" and much else too.
> >
> > Fran
> > > Higgs
>
> Seems to me that what you're advocating is abolishing national teams
> and replacing them with a quasi-club team, attracting the best
players
> from around the world.

I guess you could call it that, although I think in practice, bearing
in mind the people already waiting in the wings, that it would be
fairly hard for anyone external right now to force their way into the
Australian team. I assume that most people would strongly prefer to
play for their national team, given the chance to do so. And of course,
the administrators have to think about the games image in the
Australian market, which would be something to weigh against what that
person would bring to the side. Would a young talent (or even a more
recognised one) block some local talent and then disappear back home
when it suited? That's a judgement call for local administrators to
consider.

There's a fair bit of depth in Indian cricket too and it's unlikely
many from the outside would get a run there either. New Zealand, or
perhaps England and South Africa, might pick up a couple of players. I
doubt in practice that there would be more than two super subs in any
team to take the field in any team.

> You could take the best, say, 150 odd players and hire them out to
> whoever can attract them.

In practice, I think most would pass it up unless there were a huge
differential or their careers were coming to a close (or were over) in
their home country. People like Lehmann, Bevan, Bichel, Cox, DiVenuto,
Blewett, Maher, Love, Bracken, Stuart Clarke, Nicholson, Campbell and
so on might think an offer to play for NZ or England or SAfrica
appealing.

> Probably by paying the most cash.
> You'd probably not have a single Bangladeshi in that top 150, but it
> wouldn't stop them (Bangladesh) having a top team, if they could find
a
> suitable sugar daddy.
>

Much easier said than done.

> So why bother calling them 'Australia' or 'Bangladesh'?

For marketing reasons old son. What else?

> Why not have something like the America's Cup where the entire
> successful NZ team is bought out by someone like Bertarelli and goes
on
> to cream the field?

I don't have a problem with that. I don't care who owns the contest. I
just want to see a good one.

> Why call it 'Switzerland'?
> Why not 'Team Bertarelli'?
>

You really are hung up on this patriotic thing. Don't you like cricket?
Don't you want to see the best players up against the best players?

How many people would have picked Healy as one of Australia's most
successful keepers? How many who would have would have crossed him off
that potential list after his first tour? Suppose he'd been dumped?
Wouldn't you have wanted to know if sheer hard work could make him one
of the greats? And what of the poor bugger he displaced -- Anderson(?).
Maybe he could have been good too if he hadn't got that injury at an
inconvenient moment.

> If a guy isn't good enough to make the national team, basically,
that's
> the way it is.
>

I think there's an aphorism attributed to Niebuhr that goes:

... grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the
courage to change the things that I can, and the wisdom to know the
difference [god excised on the grounds of atheism]

It's not the way it is -- at least it NEED not be. Passively accepting
that one isn't good enough or that one has been the victim of "bad
luck" is not generally advisable. People are dynamic. They can learn
and grow --be better than they are, discover new talents and develop
old ones. They need settings that foster that. If the current rules
complicate that, then they infringe on the basic rights that all humans
have, and we who think everyone should get a fair shake should advocate
remedies. What's yours? At this stage it seems to be "cop it on the
chin you loser".

> He can get his jollies playing for a successful club side (if they
want
> him).
>

You're trivialising greatly here.

> Other international teams are not nurseries for the already
successful
> nations.
>
> Higgs

Much of what makes cricket work is money. That is maximised when the
product -- in this case cricket-related entertainment -- is of the
highest quality. If Bangladesh gets close enough to make the matches it
plays in credible contests, then the money will flow into development
of the facilities and infrastructure from which a local talent pool can
arise. So if Bangladesh gets two bowlers a keeper and a batsman and
makes a test match go for four days and a session against another
middle-ranked side, that's a good thing. And if NZ really can challenge
Australia consistently in test matches, we'll also know how good our
players really are. Everybody is ahead. The only thing that is
subverted is the largely fanciful cultural connection between the names
of the teams and the communities to which they refer.

That's a price, (if it is a price) that is well worth paying for
prgmatic and ethical benefits as sizeable as these.

Fran



16 Feb 2005 21:43:49
Bob Dubery
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


FRAN wrote:
<snip > I don't have a problem with that. I don't care who owns the
contest. I
> just want to see a good one.
>
> > Why call it 'Switzerland'?
> > Why not 'Team Bertarelli'?
> >
>
> You really are hung up on this patriotic thing. Don't you like
cricket?
> Don't you want to see the best players up against the best players?

I recall a triangular ODI tournament in SA just after readmission - SA,
Pakistan and West Indies. I had a season ticket for the Wanderers in
those days and went to the see the final even though it didn't feature
SA. It was a fine enough contest with some star bowlers - Walsh,
Ambrose, Waqar, Wasim - and some pretty good batsmen but I didn't enjoy
it much to tell the truth. Give me a match with South Africa in any
day. There's an extra edge to it when your team is competing.



16 Feb 2005 22:42:05
FRAN
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


Bob Dubery wrote:
> FRAN wrote:
> <snip> I don't have a problem with that. I don't care who owns the
> contest. I
> > just want to see a good one.
> >
> > > Why call it 'Switzerland'?
> > > Why not 'Team Bertarelli'?
> > >
> >
> > You really are hung up on this patriotic thing. Don't you like
> cricket?
> > Don't you want to see the best players up against the best players?
>
> I recall a triangular ODI tournament in SA just after readmission -
SA,
> Pakistan and West Indies. I had a season ticket for the Wanderers in
> those days and went to the see the final even though it didn't
feature
> SA. It was a fine enough contest with some star bowlers - Walsh,
> Ambrose, Waqar, Wasim - and some pretty good batsmen but I didn't
enjoy
> it much to tell the truth. Give me a match with South Africa in any
> day. There's an extra edge to it when your team is competing.

Hmm ... in my school days I used to like Pink Floyd, the Rolling
Stones, Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, ... didn't care where they came from.

Fran



17 Feb 2005 12:15:07
Yuk Tang
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "

"Andrew Dunford" <adunford@artifax.net > wrote in
news:421150aa$1@clear.net.nz:
>
> There's a big difference between the Pietersen and Rathbone cases.
> Pietersen is presumably a British Citizen by Descent (since birth)
> and on top of that lived in the UK for four years (or at least the
> best part of four years, the ECB finding it convenient to bend
> their own rules a bit). Rathbone OTOH qualified to play for
> Australia by having an Australian grandparent and didn't (to my
> knowledge) have to complete a residential qualification.

You mean like Jack Charlton Irish?


--
Cheers, ymt.


18 Feb 2005 10:19:17
Andrew Dunford
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


"Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Xns96007CA2A75F9jimlaker2yahoocom@130.133.1.4...
> "Andrew Dunford" <adunford@artifax.net> wrote in
> news:421150aa$1@clear.net.nz:
> >
> > There's a big difference between the Pietersen and Rathbone cases.
> > Pietersen is presumably a British Citizen by Descent (since birth)
> > and on top of that lived in the UK for four years (or at least the
> > best part of four years, the ECB finding it convenient to bend
> > their own rules a bit). Rathbone OTOH qualified to play for
> > Australia by having an Australian grandparent and didn't (to my
> > knowledge) have to complete a residential qualification.
>
> You mean like Jack Charlton Irish?

The football eligibility rules are just as silly as those for rugby. It
gets even better when you're a Le Tissier and can play for any of the Home
Nations.

All together: Ton-y Cas-ca-ri-no

Andrew




17 Feb 2005 15:05:41
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


FRAN wrote:
> kenhiggs8@hotmail.com wrote:

snip

> >
> > Seems to me that what you're advocating is abolishing national
teams
> > and replacing them with a quasi-club team, attracting the best
> players
> > from around the world.
>
> I guess you could call it that, although I think in practice, bearing
> in mind the people already waiting in the wings, that it would be
> fairly hard for anyone external right now to force their way into the
> Australian team. I assume that most people would strongly prefer to

That isn't what it's about.
Australia don't need to go out and attract foreign players at the
moment.

> play for their national team, given the chance to do so. And of
course,
> the administrators have to think about the games image in the
> Australian market, which would be something to weigh against what
that
> person would bring to the side. Would a young talent (or even a more
> recognised one) block some local talent and then disappear back home
> when it suited? That's a judgement call for local administrators to
> consider.
>

Huh?

Firstly, if you open the door to allow this ultra free movement,
there's no telling how many will or wont take off. And there's no
guarantee that because they wont at present, they never will. Times
change, the fortunes of countries rises and falls.

> There's a fair bit of depth in Indian cricket too and it's unlikely
> many from the outside would get a run there either. New Zealand, or
> perhaps England and South Africa, might pick up a couple of players.
I
> doubt in practice that there would be more than two super subs in any
> team to take the field in any team.
>

Says you.

BD and Zimb spring to mind as countries that would greatly benefit from
an influx of nearly men from Australia/England/SA etc.

Yet Zimbabwe is the team currently most likely to exclude some of their
own well credentialled players (though not by bringing in outside
players).

> > You could take the best, say, 150 odd players and hire them out to
> > whoever can attract them.
>
> In practice, I think most would pass it up unless there were a huge
> differential or their careers were coming to a close (or were over)
in
> their home country. People like Lehmann, Bevan, Bichel, Cox,
DiVenuto,
> Blewett, Maher, Love, Bracken, Stuart Clarke, Nicholson, Campbell and
> so on might think an offer to play for NZ or England or SAfrica
> appealing.
>

Hang on.

Your initial stance was that players like Lehmann would go to, say,
England, because in his prime he was kept out by MWaugh. Now you're
saying when they've finished their career they can take off.

If Lehmann is playing poorly for Australia, what makes you think that
he's going to suddenly start playing well for another team?
Surely it's going to be harder for a batsman to make runs playing for a
weaker team, rather than in a successful team like Aus.

> > Probably by paying the most cash.
> > You'd probably not have a single Bangladeshi in that top 150, but
it
> > wouldn't stop them (Bangladesh) having a top team, if they could
find
> a
> > suitable sugar daddy.
> >
>
> Much easier said than done.
>

You reckon?

There are plenty of wealthy expat Bangladeshis.
At present the rules don't allow the wholesale buying of a Test team
(and I don't think too many people want it anyway).


> > So why bother calling them 'Australia' or 'Bangladesh'?
>
> For marketing reasons old son. What else?
>

So a team comprised entirely of foreigners representing, say, BD, would
be a big drawcard?


> > Why not have something like the America's Cup where the entire
> > successful NZ team is bought out by someone like Bertarelli and
goes
> on
> > to cream the field?
>
> I don't have a problem with that. I don't care who owns the contest.
I
> just want to see a good one.
>

Well, I reckon if Packer had started his revolution in the 80s, he'd
have been hard pressed to find a competitive Aus side. So we'd have had
WI v, maybe, Pak. And a RoW side, featuring perhaps Border and Hughes.
I reckon it would have fizzed.

> > Why call it 'Switzerland'?
> > Why not 'Team Bertarelli'?
> >
>
> You really are hung up on this patriotic thing. Don't you like
cricket?

Because I don't want to see all sorts of ring-ins playing Test cricket
for various countries, it means I am hung up on patriotism and don't
like cricket?

What are you on about?

> Don't you want to see the best players up against the best players?
>

Not as much as I want to see genuine International Test cricket.

> How many people would have picked Healy as one of Australia's most
> successful keepers? How many who would have would have crossed him
off
> that potential list after his first tour? Suppose he'd been dumped?
> Wouldn't you have wanted to know if sheer hard work could make him
one
> of the greats?

No, not in the slightest.
If he hadn't made it at Test level, why would I have been curious to
find out if he'd have made it?
You're looking at things in hindsight.

Do you think this about every player who was tried and failed?


d what of the poor bugger he displaced -- Anderson(?).
> Maybe he could have been good too if he hadn't got that injury at an
> inconvenient moment.
>

That is cricket.
And life.

> > If a guy isn't good enough to make the national team, basically,
> that's
> > the way it is.
> >
>
> I think there's an aphorism attributed to Niebuhr that goes:
>
> ... grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the
> courage to change the things that I can, and the wisdom to know the
> difference [god excised on the grounds of atheism]
>

Repeating a quote does not make it true.

> It's not the way it is -- at least it NEED not be. Passively
accepting
> that one isn't good enough or that one has been the victim of "bad
> luck" is not generally advisable. People are dynamic. They can learn
> and grow --be better than they are, discover new talents and develop
> old ones. They need settings that foster that. If the current rules
> complicate that, then they infringe on the basic rights that all
humans
> have, and we who think everyone should get a fair shake should
advocate
> remedies. What's yours? At this stage it seems to be "cop it on the
> chin you loser".
>

If the plaer really is so good, then they need to keep plugging away,
not running away and spitting the dummy.
At least Hayden had the fortitude to keep at it.

And where do you get this 'cop it on the chin you loser' from?

I never said that or anything like it.

> > He can get his jollies playing for a successful club side (if they
> want
> > him).
> >
>
> You're trivialising greatly here.
>

I don't think so.

If a player doesn't make the national team, but really is good, he can
sell his talents to a top County/State side.
It currently does happen.
(and I don't have a problem with that)

> > Other international teams are not nurseries for the already
> successful
> > nations.
> >
> > Higgs
>
> Much of what makes cricket work is money. That is maximised when the
> product -- in this case cricket-related entertainment -- is of the
> highest quality. If Bangladesh gets close enough to make the matches
it
> plays in credible contests, then the money will flow into development
> of the facilities and infrastructure from which a local talent pool
can
> arise. So if Bangladesh gets two bowlers a keeper and a batsman and
> makes a test match go for four days and a session against another
> middle-ranked side, that's a good thing. And if NZ really can
challenge
> Australia consistently in test matches, we'll also know how good our
> players really are. Everybody is ahead. The only thing that is
> subverted is the largely fanciful cultural connection between the
names
> of the teams and the communities to which they refer.
>

I don't think it works like that, at least not for Interbnational
cricket.

> That's a price, (if it is a price) that is well worth paying for
> prgmatic and ethical benefits as sizeable as these.
>
> Fran

Ethical?

Surely you jest.

Higgs



17 Feb 2005 21:45:11
FRAN
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


kenhiggs8@hotmail.com wrote:
> FRAN wrote:
> > kenhiggs8@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > >
> > > Seems to me that what you're advocating is abolishing national
> teams
> > > and replacing them with a quasi-club team, attracting the best
> > players
> > > from around the world.
> >
> > I guess you could call it that, although I think in practice,
bearing
> > in mind the people already waiting in the wings, that it would be
> > fairly hard for anyone external right now to force their way into
the
> > Australian team. I assume that most people would strongly prefer to
>
> That isn't what it's about.
> Australia don't need to go out and attract foreign players at the
> moment.
>

No, but some up and coming players, or some (eg Bichel) given early
retirement ought to be able to see if they could still cut it. As you
imply below, others may not share their self-estimation -- in which
case it really would be stiff cheddar, but they should have the chance.

> > play for their national team, given the chance to do so. And of
> course,
> > the administrators have to think about the games image in the
> > Australian market, which would be something to weigh against what
> that
> > person would bring to the side. Would a young talent (or even a
more
> > recognised one) block some local talent and then disappear back
home
> > when it suited? That's a judgement call for local administrators to
> > consider.
> >
>
> Huh?
>
> Firstly, if you open the door to allow this ultra free movement,
> there's no telling how many will or wont take off.

So it's about protecting a buying cartel?

> And there's no
> guarantee that because they wont at present, they never will. Times
> change, the fortunes of countries rises and falls.
>

But as they do, chances for movement open up.

> > There's a fair bit of depth in Indian cricket too and it's unlikely
> > many from the outside would get a run there either. New Zealand, or
> > perhaps England and South Africa, might pick up a couple of
players.
> I
> > doubt in practice that there would be more than two super subs in
any
> > team to take the field in any team.
> >
>
> Says you.
>
> BD and Zimb spring to mind as countries that would greatly benefit
from
> an influx of nearly men from Australia/England/SA etc.
>

It's hard to imagine that anyone would want to play for the Zims just
now, or even in Zimbabwe. Some of their own players (rightly) have
upped and left. And they should benefit from what I propose.


> Yet Zimbabwe is the team currently most likely to exclude some of
their
> own well credentialled players (though not by bringing in outside
> players).
>

True.

> > > You could take the best, say, 150 odd players and hire them out
to
> > > whoever can attract them.
> >
> > In practice, I think most would pass it up unless there were a huge
> > differential or their careers were coming to a close (or were over)
> in
> > their home country. People like Lehmann, Bevan, Bichel, Cox,
> DiVenuto,
> > Blewett, Maher, Love, Bracken, Stuart Clarke, Nicholson, Campbell
and
> > so on might think an offer to play for NZ or England or SAfrica
> > appealing.
> >
>
> Hang on.
>
> Your initial stance was that players like Lehmann would go to, say,
> England, because in his prime he was kept out by MWaugh.

Correct

> Now you're
> saying when they've finished their career they can take off.
>

That too.

> If Lehmann is playing poorly for Australia, what makes you think that
> he's going to suddenly start playing well for another team?

He could try persuading someone else. If he failed, then too bad.

> Surely it's going to be harder for a batsman to make runs playing for
a
> weaker team, rather than in a successful team like Aus.
>

And against the most successful attack at the moment so yes, but if he
did, wouldn't it be a case of him answering in the best possible way?

> > > Probably by paying the most cash.
> > > You'd probably not have a single Bangladeshi in that top 150, but
> it
> > > wouldn't stop them (Bangladesh) having a top team, if they could
> find
> > a
> > > suitable sugar daddy.
> > >
> >
> > Much easier said than done.
> >
>
> You reckon?
>
> There are plenty of wealthy expat Bangladeshis.
> At present the rules don't allow the wholesale buying of a Test team
> (and I don't think too many people want it anyway).
>

Well then they wouldn't would they?

Again, it's hard to imagine that many would be lured to the Bangles
given what they can earn here. Lifestyle is something. And getting a
profile here is important to one's life post-cricket.

>
> > > So why bother calling them 'Australia' or 'Bangladesh'?
> >
> > For marketing reasons old son. What else?
> >
>
> So a team comprised entirely of foreigners representing, say, BD,
would
> be a big drawcard?
>
>

Well if it was like the RoW team, yes.

> > > Why not have something like the America's Cup where the entire
> > > successful NZ team is bought out by someone like Bertarelli and
> goes
> > on
> > > to cream the field?
> >
> > I don't have a problem with that. I don't care who owns the
contest.
> I
> > just want to see a good one.
> >
>
> Well, I reckon if Packer had started his revolution in the 80s, he'd
> have been hard pressed to find a competitive Aus side. So we'd have
had
> WI v, maybe, Pak. And a RoW side, featuring perhaps Border and
Hughes.
> I reckon it would have fizzed.
>

So the market would determine the feasibility of the project. There's a
novel concept.

> > > Why call it 'Switzerland'?
> > > Why not 'Team Bertarelli'?
> > >
> >
> > You really are hung up on this patriotic thing. Don't you like
> cricket?
>
> Because I don't want to see all sorts of ring-ins playing Test
cricket
> for various countries, it means I am hung up on patriotism and don't
> like cricket?
>

Yes. For you, the bit of paper stamped "citizen" or "resident", rather
than the bit of willow or leather is key.

> What are you on about?
>
> > Don't you want to see the best players up against the best players?
> >
>
> Not as much as I want to see genuine International Test cricket.
>

Genuine meaning "approved by a bunch of codgers who only recently
started to let go of the idea that cricket was a gentlemanly club-like
activity".

> > How many people would have picked Healy as one of Australia's most
> > successful keepers? How many who would have would have crossed him
> off
> > that potential list after his first tour? Suppose he'd been dumped?
> > Wouldn't you have wanted to know if sheer hard work could make him
> one
> > of the greats?
>
> No, not in the slightest.

Well there goes one spectacular career.

> If he hadn't made it at Test level, why would I have been curious to
> find out if he'd have made it?

He didn't make it at test level, but luckily, after persisting with
support, he did. He was close to being dumped.

> You're looking at things in hindsight.
>

Yes ... the past is sometimes a good guide to how the world is.

> Do you think this about every player who was tried and failed?
>

No. Sometimes I forget they existed. They probably don't though. I
wonder what Siddons thinks of his one tour? I bet I could have carried
the drinks and scored as many runs. What does Law think of his test
average?

>
> d what of the poor bugger he displaced -- Anderson(?).
> > Maybe he could have been good too if he hadn't got that injury at
an
> > inconvenient moment.
> >
>
> That is cricket.
> And life.
>

Yet it might be neither.

> > > If a guy isn't good enough to make the national team, basically,
> > that's
> > > the way it is.
> > >

Later on you say you never said: "cop it on the chin you loser". The
above remark is what I'm talking about.

> >
> > I think there's an aphorism attributed to Niebuhr that goes:
> >
> > ... grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the
> > courage to change the things that I can, and the wisdom to know the
> > difference [god excised on the grounds of atheism]
> >
>
> Repeating a quote does not make it true.
>

No, but it states a claim. For example ...

> > It's not the way it is -- at least it NEED not be. Passively
> accepting
> > that one isn't good enough or that one has been the victim of "bad
> > luck" is not generally advisable. People are dynamic. They can
learn
> > and grow --be better than they are, discover new talents and
develop
> > old ones. They need settings that foster that. If the current rules
> > complicate that, then they infringe on the basic rights that all
> humans
> > have, and we who think everyone should get a fair shake should
> advocate
> > remedies. What's yours? At this stage it seems to be "cop it on the
> > chin you loser".
> >
>
> If the player really is so good, then they need to keep plugging
away,
> not running away and spitting the dummy.

Maybe they think they need new challenges to develop as a player, and
to become good enough to play for their home country.

> At least Hayden had the fortitude to keep at it.
>

Didn't have much of a choice though did he? neither did Bevan, or
Siddons or Matthews or Angel or Zoehrer or Martyn or Langer. Whether
they got back or not was purely a lottery.

> And where do you get this 'cop it on the chin you loser' from?
>
see above

> I never said that or anything like it.
>
see above

> > > He can get his jollies playing for a successful club side (if
they
> > want
> > > him).
> > >
> >
> > You're trivialising greatly here.
> >
>
> I don't think so.
>
> If a player doesn't make the national team, but really is good, he
can
> sell his talents to a top County/State side.

Let's get real. Those stats don't count unless someone in the top side
falls over. Imagine some bright young rookie -- 18 years old. Does
pretty well in Sheffield Shield -- 800+ runs @ 70 with a SR or 75, good
wagon wheels each match, 25 wickets at 25, 12 really sharp catches, two
great run outs. Looks good eating weet bix. Is he a chance of making
the test side any time soon? Not the first 11, no way. He's at least 3
years off, even if he plays County cricket and backs up next season.
Great. See ya in 2.5 years.

> It currently does happen.
> (and I don't have a problem with that)
>



> > > Other international teams are not nurseries for the already
> > successful
> > > nations.
> > >
> > > Higgs
> >
> > Much of what makes cricket work is money. That is maximised when
the
> > product -- in this case cricket-related entertainment -- is of the
> > highest quality. If Bangladesh gets close enough to make the
matches
> it
> > plays in credible contests, then the money will flow into
development
> > of the facilities and infrastructure from which a local talent pool
> can
> > arise. So if Bangladesh gets two bowlers a keeper and a batsman and
> > makes a test match go for four days and a session against another
> > middle-ranked side, that's a good thing. And if NZ really can
> challenge
> > Australia consistently in test matches, we'll also know how good
our
> > players really are. Everybody is ahead. The only thing that is
> > subverted is the largely fanciful cultural connection between the
> names
> > of the teams and the communities to which they refer.
> >
>
> I don't think it works like that, at least not for Interbnational
> cricket.
>
> > That's a price, (if it is a price) that is well worth paying for
> > prgmatic and ethical benefits as sizeable as these.
> >
> > Fran
>
> Ethical?

Ever heard of fairness? Best man for the job ...

>
> Surely you jest.
>

Often. But not here.

> Higgs

Fran



18 Feb 2005 06:38:43
RodP
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "

In article <1108614865.037533.25820@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
FRAN says...

> > Why call it 'Switzerland'?
> > Why not 'Team Bertarelli'?

> You really are hung up on this patriotic thing. Don't you like cricket?
> Don't you want to see the best players up against the best players?

I want to see the best players Australia can produce up against the best
players that other respective countries can produce.

What incentive would I have to support an Australian team that comprised
of no Australians?

Cheers,
Rod.


18 Feb 2005 00:55:38
FRAN
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


RodP wrote:
> In article <1108614865.037533.25820@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> FRAN says...
>
> > > Why call it 'Switzerland'?
> > > Why not 'Team Bertarelli'?
>
> > You really are hung up on this patriotic thing. Don't you like
cricket?
> > Don't you want to see the best players up against the best players?
>
> I want to see the best players Australia can produce up against the
best
> players that other respective countries can produce.
>

Of course, people in here are rarely unanimous about whether that is
ever the case. One day, I'd like to have a poll and see if there was
ever a time when everyone (or even 90%) were in agreement with a team
that took the field. And of course, who is the best and who will work
best in a given team aren't necessarily the same thing. People
comparing Marsh and Healy often say Healy was better keeping to spin
and Marsh to pace. Bichel might well do a good job, for another year
but maybe we need to "plan for the future". Ditto Bevan.

Often we just don't have enough to go on. Brett Lee may be OK going
back into the test team (I doubt it) but how would we know? How would
Hodge go if selected? He could be as good as Clarke, or even better.
We'll probably never know, especially if Clarke and the other five can
play well enough to stay in the team or if Hodge gets hit by a bus
three years from now.

> What incentive would I have to support an Australian team that
comprised
> of no Australians?
>

You know, if everyone in Sydney made a rush for the 7.12 from Epping to
the city there'd be chaos. For some reason, they don't.

Your argument is tendentious. It's not going to happen, for marketing
reasons as much as anythinge else. In fact, I doubt that there would be
a single non-Aussie in the team for at least five years, even if the
rules were relaxed tomorrow. On the other hand, the Kiwis, South
Africans, English might pick up one or two. The West Indians could
never allow even that, given the already intense rivalries between the
islands. So in practice, in any given year, there might be 8-12
players in teams from countries where they didn't come from.

But my incentive, in extremis, might be to see a good game.

Fran



18 Feb 2005 11:25:29
RodP
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "

In article <1108716938.713546.82920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
FRAN says...

> Of course, people in here are rarely unanimous about whether that is
> ever the case. One day, I'd like to have a poll and see if there was
> ever a time when everyone (or even 90%) were in agreement with a team
> that took the field. And of course, who is the best and who will work
> best in a given team aren't necessarily the same thing. People
> comparing Marsh and Healy often say Healy was better keeping to spin
> and Marsh to pace. Bichel might well do a good job, for another year
> but maybe we need to "plan for the future". Ditto Bevan.

Considering that Aussies can be parochial about their local boys
and a little more vocal about those from other states that fail
to perform, what sort of reception would you expect for a Pom coming
out to bat for Australia during an Ashes series? What if he then
failed to perform?

> > What incentive would I have to support an Australian team that
> > comprised of no Australians?

> You know, if everyone in Sydney made a rush for the 7.12 from Epping to
> the city there'd be chaos. For some reason, they don't.

> Your argument is tendentious. It's not going to happen, for marketing
> reasons as much as anythinge else. In fact, I doubt that there would be
> a single non-Aussie in the team for at least five years

...and beyond that? What if an overseas team bought up and had more
Australian representatives than the Australian team?

You seem to acknowledge the possibility that having too many imports
would be counter-productive. As far as I'm concerned, that number
begins at 1. The Australian team ceases to exist when an overseas
player is bought and asked to strap the boots on, IMO.

> But my incentive, in extremis, might be to see a good game.

It doesn't guarantee an improvement in the standards of the game than
what we have now. Seems to me that it will create an inordinate amount
of pressure for 'imports' to perform to a far greater degree than the
locals to justify their inclusion to its fans and critics.

Cheers,
Rod.


19 Feb 2005 23:22:40
Bhuvan Shome
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "

kenhiggs8@hotmail.com wrote:

> In club cricket, a wealthy team can buy a star batsman or bowler to
> fill a perceived weakness or put bums on seats (like Qld with Iron
> Bottom-IIRC, the gates increased hugely), they're in essence, a
> commercial enterprise. I don't have a problem with that.
>
> International cricket, it seems to me, shouldn't be like that, you
> shouldn't be able to buy players to fill gaps.
> Though I agree it's a very fine line with players holding dual
> nationality. In these days of increased international mobility, it's
> quite likely that many players will be eligible for two, or even more,
> countries.

If Intl. cricket rules were changed to allow "inter-club" transfers, we
would have Shaun Tait & Shoaib Akhtar opening the bowling for India (the
wealthiest "club"). We might also at long last have a decent keeper
(Flower/ Haddin/ Read).
Hmmmm... Maybe not such a dumb idea after all :-^
Bhu


21 Feb 2005 09:44:37
Andrew Dunford
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


"Bhuvan Shome" <bs@pacbell.net > wrote in message
news:4217CA9E.7060405@pacbell.net...
> kenhiggs8@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > In club cricket, a wealthy team can buy a star batsman or bowler to
> > fill a perceived weakness or put bums on seats (like Qld with Iron
> > Bottom-IIRC, the gates increased hugely), they're in essence, a
> > commercial enterprise. I don't have a problem with that.
> >
> > International cricket, it seems to me, shouldn't be like that, you
> > shouldn't be able to buy players to fill gaps.
> > Though I agree it's a very fine line with players holding dual
> > nationality. In these days of increased international mobility, it's
> > quite likely that many players will be eligible for two, or even more,
> > countries.
>
> If Intl. cricket rules were changed to allow "inter-club" transfers, we
> would have Shaun Tait & Shoaib Akhtar opening the bowling for India (the
> wealthiest "club").

I doubt that.

Having read recently that players who represented India against Pakistan in
April 2004 are still awaiting their win bonuses from that series, and that
such payment delays from the BCCI are commonplace, your Taits and Akhtars
would up sticks to a 'club' that paid them on time.

<snip >

Andrew




20 Feb 2005 20:58:16
David North
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "

"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1108705511.167290.202740@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> kenhiggs8@hotmail.com wrote:
> > FRAN wrote:
> > > kenhiggs8@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > You'd probably not have a single Bangladeshi in that top 150, but
> > it
> > > > wouldn't stop them (Bangladesh) having a top team, if they could
> > find
> > > a
> > > > suitable sugar daddy.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Much easier said than done.
> > >
> >
> > You reckon?
> >
> > There are plenty of wealthy expat Bangladeshis.
> > At present the rules don't allow the wholesale buying of a Test team
> > (and I don't think too many people want it anyway).
> >
>
> Well then they wouldn't would they?
>
> Again, it's hard to imagine that many would be lured to the Bangles
> given what they can earn here.

Doesn't that also depend on what they would be able to earn there (which we
don't know)? They seem to have 'lured' an Australian coach as it is - why not a
few players?

> What does Law think of his test
> average?

Not being an astrophysicist, he probably doesn't spend his time contemplating
infinity.

--
David North
Email to this address will be deleted as spam
Use usenetATlaneHYPHENfarm.fsnet.co.uk




20 Feb 2005 22:23:40
David North
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "

"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1108527444.028037.299610@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> kenhiggs8@hotmail.com wrote:
> > FRAN wrote:
> >
> > > No, I disagree, especially if there is little realistic prospect of
> > the
> > > player in question playing anytime soon for his "home" team, or,
> for
> > > ethical reasons, he doesn't want to. Had there been no Gleneagles,
> > I'd
> > > have supported a SA player playing for someone else. Ditto Zimbabwe
> > at
> > > the moment. One can imagine some Sri Lankans not wanting to
> associate
> > > themsleves with Sinhala chauvinist policies pursued by their
> > > governments at times. Pakistan is governed by a regime which most
> of
> > us
> > > here in the west would not want to represent. And here in
> Australia,
> > > and in Britain, there is the both governments have backed the Iraq
> > war
> > > and the atrocities that went with it. It seems to me that one
> should
> > > not be compelled to choose between one's sport and whatever ethical
> > > standards one feels are appropriate.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Well, that's a sticky one. I don't know that playing for your country
> > automatically illustrates your support for your government.
> > Are all the current Australian players therefore Howard supporters?
> > Would they all stand down if Howard lost the next election?
> >
>
> I don't assume that, but I defend the right of others to draw that
> conclusion and act according to their consciences. All I assume is that
> current Australian players endorse the basic governmental structure of
> Australia, or perhaps "Australian society in general" though not in
> every particular. On the other hand, if Australia were a bonapartist
> state (eg a fascist regime) it follows that they would be supporting
> Australian bonapartism or fascism in general (though perhaps not in
> every particular), and trying to endorse that with their skills. At
> least, that's what some might fairly conclude.

Sorry, can you clarify this? Are you saying that you assume that anyone who
played for Australia (or any other country) would be endorsing the "basic
governmental structure" or "society in general" whatever the situation was, or
just with respect to the specific case of Australia as it is currently?

--
David North
Email to this address will be deleted as spam
Use usenetATlaneHYPHENfarm.fsnet.co.uk




20 Feb 2005 16:26:32
FRAN
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


David North wrote:
> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1108705511.167290.202740@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > kenhiggs8@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > FRAN wrote:
> > > > kenhiggs8@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > > You'd probably not have a single Bangladeshi in that top 150,
but
> > > it
> > > > > wouldn't stop them (Bangladesh) having a top team, if they
could
> > > find
> > > > a
> > > > > suitable sugar daddy.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Much easier said than done.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You reckon?
> > >
> > > There are plenty of wealthy expat Bangladeshis.
> > > At present the rules don't allow the wholesale buying of a Test
team
> > > (and I don't think too many people want it anyway).
> > >
> >
> > Well then they wouldn't would they?
> >
> > Again, it's hard to imagine that many would be lured to the Bangles
> > given what they can earn here.
>
> Doesn't that also depend on what they would be able to earn there
(which we
> don't know)? They seem to have 'lured' an Australian coach as it is -
why not a
> few players?
>

I don't know what the coach is being paid, but you'd think that a coach
has an incentive to lift the performance of a team few regard as a
serious cricket country. You can't go down, and so any improvement is a
feather in your cap. You can probably get a coach who wants to make a
name for himself at modest cost. On the other hand, buying someone who
fancies his chances of 300k in the not too distant future, and a first
world lifestyle in a country where he speaks the language and is near
his friends is not going to be cheap.

> > What does Law think of his test
> > average?
>
> Not being an astrophysicist, he probably doesn't spend his time
contemplating
> infinity.
>

Making that very point was my reason for raising his name as a
"failure".

Fran



20 Feb 2005 16:35:42
FRAN
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


RodP wrote:
> In article <1108716938.713546.82920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> FRAN says...
>
> > Of course, people in here are rarely unanimous about whether that
is
> > ever the case. One day, I'd like to have a poll and see if there
was
> > ever a time when everyone (or even 90%) were in agreement with a
team
> > that took the field. And of course, who is the best and who will
work
> > best in a given team aren't necessarily the same thing. People
> > comparing Marsh and Healy often say Healy was better keeping to
spin
> > and Marsh to pace. Bichel might well do a good job, for another
year
> > but maybe we need to "plan for the future". Ditto Bevan.
>
> Considering that Aussies can be parochial about their local boys
> and a little more vocal about those from other states that fail
> to perform, what sort of reception would you expect for a Pom coming
> out to bat for Australia during an Ashes series? What if he then
> failed to perform?
>

I guess that's something he'd have to weigh in deciding whether the
exercise was worth it. Ditto the head hunting committee here.

> > > What incentive would I have to support an Australian team that
> > > comprised of no Australians?
>
> > You know, if everyone in Sydney made a rush for the 7.12 from
Epping to
> > the city there'd be chaos. For some reason, they don't.
>
> > Your argument is tendentious. It's not going to happen, for
marketing
> > reasons as much as anythinge else. In fact, I doubt that there
would be
> > a single non-Aussie in the team for at least five years
>
> ...and beyond that? What if an overseas team bought up and had more
> Australian representatives than the Australian team?
>

No problems for me. I'm just interested in the quality of the cricket.
Of course, that might create some interesting marketing opportunities
and problems for the game's promoters. So again, it would come back to
what those running the game fancied would be in the best interests of
their own sides. It could be that local administrators might try to tie
up the better long term prospects under contracts excluding them from
transferring. Whether a player agreed to sign such a contract would be
up to him (or her). But it should be about carrots rather than sticks.

> You seem to acknowledge the possibility that having too many imports
> would be counter-productive.

Not for me, but I'm not the entire demographic. Some people, as we see
here, are intensely focussed on national authenticity.

> As far as I'm concerned, that number
> begins at 1. The Australian team ceases to exist when an overseas
> player is bought and asked to strap the boots on, IMO.
>

You as well it seems.

> > But my incentive, in extremis, might be to see a good game.
>
> It doesn't guarantee an improvement in the standards of the game than
> what we have now. Seems to me that it will create an inordinate
amount
> of pressure for 'imports' to perform to a far greater degree than the
> locals to justify their inclusion to its fans and critics.
>

Not that there's any pressure on locals to perform. Didn't Hayden get a
bit of a time for slow scoring recently? Competitive sport is full of
pressure. That's one of its attractions.

> Cheers,
> Rod.

cheers

Fran



20 Feb 2005 16:44:43
FRAN
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "


David North wrote:
> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1108527444.028037.299610@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > kenhiggs8@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > FRAN wrote:
> > >
> > > > No, I disagree, especially if there is little realistic
prospect of
> > > the
> > > > player in question playing anytime soon for his "home" team,
or,
> > for
> > > > ethical reasons, he doesn't want to. Had there been no
Gleneagles,
> > > I'd
> > > > have supported a SA player playing for someone else. Ditto
Zimbabwe
> > > at
> > > > the moment. One can imagine some Sri Lankans not wanting to
> > associate
> > > > themsleves with Sinhala chauvinist policies pursued by their
> > > > governments at times. Pakistan is governed by a regime which
most
> > of
> > > us
> > > > here in the west would not want to represent. And here in
> > Australia,
> > > > and in Britain, there is the both governments have backed the
Iraq
> > > war
> > > > and the atrocities that went with it. It seems to me that one
> > should
> > > > not be compelled to choose between one's sport and whatever
ethical
> > > > standards one feels are appropriate.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, that's a sticky one. I don't know that playing for your
country
> > > automatically illustrates your support for your government.
> > > Are all the current Australian players therefore Howard
supporters?
> > > Would they all stand down if Howard lost the next election?
> > >
> >
> > I don't assume that, but I defend the right of others to draw that
> > conclusion and act according to their consciences. All I assume is
that
> > current Australian players endorse the basic governmental structure
of
> > Australia, or perhaps "Australian society in general" though not in
> > every particular. On the other hand, if Australia were a
bonapartist
> > state (eg a fascist regime) it follows that they would be
supporting
> > Australian bonapartism or fascism in general (though perhaps not in
> > every particular), and trying to endorse that with their skills. At
> > least, that's what some might fairly conclude.
>
> Sorry, can you clarify this? Are you saying that you assume that
anyone who
> played for Australia (or any other country) would be endorsing the
"basic
> governmental structure" or "society in general" whatever the
situation was, or
> just with respect to the specific case of Australia as it is
currently?
>

In my opinion, anyone who plays for their national team implicitly
endorses that country, its government structure (ie in Australia's
case, representative democracy) and the basic cultural features --
(here: separation of church and state, racial and gender equality,
mixed economy) at least conditionally. They are ambassadors for their
country, in that their actions, in public at least, are associated with
that state. That doesn't entail supposing that they endorse everything
that happens in their state. One might differ with one's government on
the quantum or quality or providence of services, on virtues or meaning
of aspects of the culture etc.

Obviously however, the closer one comes to a totalitarian regime, the
more specific the endorsement is, if only because it's unlikely a
totalitarian regime would take a chance on someone who was politically
unreliable, and because they are very likely to have an operational
role in team selection.

Fran



21 Feb 2005 01:46:45
RodP
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "

In article <1108946142.757008.268490@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
FRAN says...

> Not that there's any pressure on locals to perform. Didn't Hayden get a
> bit of a time for slow scoring recently? Competitive sport is full of
> pressure. That's one of its attractions.

Uhm, yeah. That's what I said..

> > Considering that Aussies can be parochial about their local boys
> > and a little more vocal about those from other states that fail
> > to perform, what sort of reception would you expect for a Pom coming
> > out to bat for Australia during an Ashes series? What if he then
> > failed to perform?

Cheers,
Rod.


21 Feb 2005 08:20:13
Jonivar Skullerud
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "

"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com > writes:

> In my opinion, anyone who plays for their national team implicitly
> endorses that country, its government structure (ie in Australia's
> case, representative democracy) and the basic cultural features --
> (here: separation of church and state, racial and gender equality,
> mixed economy) at least conditionally.

So, for instance, anyone who played for Pakistan under the Zia-ul-Haq
regime endorsed some kind of islamist military dictatorship?

--
| jonivar skullerud | http://www.jonivar.skullerud.name/ |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can tell a true war story by its absolute and uncompromised allegiance
to obscenity and evil. -- Tim O'Brien


22 Feb 2005 14:10:08
David North
Re: 246 Google entries for "Kevin Pietersen traitor "

"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1108945592.102932.24160@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> David North wrote:
> > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1108705511.167290.202740@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > kenhiggs8@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > FRAN wrote:
> > > > > kenhiggs8@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > You'd probably not have a single Bangladeshi in that top 150,
> but
> > > > it
> > > > > > wouldn't stop them (Bangladesh) having a top team, if they
> could
> > > > find
> > > > > a
> > > > > > suitable sugar daddy.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Much easier said than done.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You reckon?
> > > >
> > > > There are plenty of wealthy expat Bangladeshis.
> > > > At present the rules don't allow the wholesale buying of a Test
> team
> > > > (and I don't think too many people want it anyway).
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well then they wouldn't would they?
> > >
> > > Again, it's hard to imagine that many would be lured to the Bangles
> > > given what they can earn here.
> >
> > Doesn't that also depend on what they would be able to earn there
> (which we
> > don't know)? They seem to have 'lured' an Australian coach as it is -
> why not a
> > few players?
> >
>
> I don't know what the coach is being paid, but you'd think that a coach
> has an incentive to lift the performance of a team few regard as a
> serious cricket country. You can't go down, and so any improvement is a
> feather in your cap. You can probably get a coach who wants to make a
> name for himself at modest cost. On the other hand, buying someone who
> fancies his chances of 300k in the not too distant future, and a first
> world lifestyle in a country where he speaks the language and is near
> his friends is not going to be cheap.

Even if he thought he could bring that future closer by proving himself playing
for Bangladesh for a while.

In any access, I thought you wanted to do away with residential qualification,
in which case he would presumably only have to live there while he was "on
duty", and could tootle off back to Oz in between series.

> > > What does Law think of his test
> > > average?
> >
> > Not being an astrophysicist, he probably doesn't spend his time
> contemplating
> > infinity.
> >
>
> Making that very point was my reason for raising his name as a
> "failure".

He did also play 54 ODIs without much success. If he had done better in those,
he would probably have got another chance in Tests, where he was never a first
choice in the first place, of course.
--
David North
Email to this address will be deleted as spam
Use usenetATlaneHYPHENfarm.fsnet.co.uk