Former English skipper Micheal Vaughan has lashed out yet again against the massive influx of South Africans into the English cricket scene. Vaughan said, "It's very, very difficult to stop them (South African players). I would like to see, in an ideal world, 11 complete Englishmen in the team but I don't think that's ever going to be the case.", getting the entire cricketing fraternity debating.
I agree with Vaughan that England won't see a match where there will be 11 English players with cent percent English blood like Vaughan had playing, and I don't see a problem in this. I do disagree however with Vaughan that this is a problem.
Vaughan sees this issue has a big tricky problem and went onto say, "It's a very tricky one. Someone like Kevin Pietersen made the decision very early to come over to England and he learnt a lot of his cricket here. [But] I do have a problem when the likes of Jonathan Trott, and [Craig] Kieswetter, who's played for the South African Under-19s. I think in Trott's case even played for the South African A team. Now that is where I have a problem, that we have almost got a 'ship-in' system of looking at talent, and a lot of them come over for the money."
In the current English team Kevin Pietersen, Andrew Strauss, Jonathan Trott, Craig Kieswetter, Matt Prior are all South African born cricketers. Vaughan is alright with the names of Pietersen, Strauss and Prior because of the simple reason that they started their careers in England and not in South Africa. While players such as Trott (whom he already had singled out in his autobiography - 'Time to Declare') and Kieswetter have made their career starts in South Africa, and not in England. In my view, this is utter nonsense because Kevin Pietersen also started playing cricket in South Africa before moving over. Pietersen played for Natal and then only did he move to England to seek better opportunities. Strauss moved out when he was just five and Prior when he was eleven, so these two players had their entire cricket upbringing in England unlike Pietersen. But the interesting part is that Vaughan is not upset with Pietersen playing, while even he is in the same group as Trott and Kieswetter.
The main influx of the South African cricketers into the English cricketing scene is because of the selection system in South Africa. South Africa is a country that was torn by racial segregation and many turmoils. Despite the new republic being formed under Nelson Mandela, issues like racism don't die overnight and the only way to prevent it is the quota system. It is not the most appropriate, and most liked way, but it is a way of doing things in a country that is desperately trying to forget it's past racist history. Since the selection policy is based on the quota system, many players like Pietersen and Trott don't make the cut, and find themselves in the 'uneventful and ugly' side of the quota system. Pietersen spoke strongly against it and moved to England. Another main reason is money. South Africa may be developing their cricketing scene, but it is still nowhere near the English circuit. Further more, these South African born players who often hold English passports (due to one of their parents or grandparents being English) find themselves easily in the English county scene as an English player rather than an overseas player. This makes their selections more favorable and also they get to earn money. For these South African born 'English' cricket players, England seems like the land of milk and honey as they get better exposure, financial gains and also opportunities. So why wouldn't they want to come to England?
I understand Vaughan's dream of an English team filled with Englishmen. I wouldn't like to see Monty Panesar playing for India just because his parents are from India. It not only is unfairly good to him, but also unfair to an Indian born player wanting that spot in the playing 11. But in the end it is all legal and perfectly fair because both the players fought for the same place and the best one won. The selectors will always try to choose the best players to field, and if Monty is among the 11 best players for India, then I have absolutely no problems in him representing India.
England is the home for thousands of immigrants and this is seen in their football and cricket teams. I don't see why a big issue is being made into this. The English national cricket team may not contain pure Anglo-Saxon blood, but it still contains a little bit of the Anglo-Saxon blood. It's a multi-cultured team, but still very much an English team. At the end of the day, the players all represent England and play wearing the emblem of the three lions on their shirts. You want to see your 11 best players taking field and representing England. Not your 11 best pure Englishmen. As long as loyalties and interests of the multi-cultured players are with England and don't clash with other teams, I don't see the problem. I really admire the way Kieswetter handled the issue when he said, "Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but for me it's about putting performances in on the park and helping England win."
I don't really understand Vaughan's making this a big issue. After it's still the English who play for England.
I agree with Vaughan that England won't see a match where there will be 11 English players with cent percent English blood like Vaughan had playing, and I don't see a problem in this. I do disagree however with Vaughan that this is a problem.
Vaughan sees this issue has a big tricky problem and went onto say, "It's a very tricky one. Someone like Kevin Pietersen made the decision very early to come over to England and he learnt a lot of his cricket here. [But] I do have a problem when the likes of Jonathan Trott, and [Craig] Kieswetter, who's played for the South African Under-19s. I think in Trott's case even played for the South African A team. Now that is where I have a problem, that we have almost got a 'ship-in' system of looking at talent, and a lot of them come over for the money."
In the current English team Kevin Pietersen, Andrew Strauss, Jonathan Trott, Craig Kieswetter, Matt Prior are all South African born cricketers. Vaughan is alright with the names of Pietersen, Strauss and Prior because of the simple reason that they started their careers in England and not in South Africa. While players such as Trott (whom he already had singled out in his autobiography - 'Time to Declare') and Kieswetter have made their career starts in South Africa, and not in England. In my view, this is utter nonsense because Kevin Pietersen also started playing cricket in South Africa before moving over. Pietersen played for Natal and then only did he move to England to seek better opportunities. Strauss moved out when he was just five and Prior when he was eleven, so these two players had their entire cricket upbringing in England unlike Pietersen. But the interesting part is that Vaughan is not upset with Pietersen playing, while even he is in the same group as Trott and Kieswetter.
The main influx of the South African cricketers into the English cricketing scene is because of the selection system in South Africa. South Africa is a country that was torn by racial segregation and many turmoils. Despite the new republic being formed under Nelson Mandela, issues like racism don't die overnight and the only way to prevent it is the quota system. It is not the most appropriate, and most liked way, but it is a way of doing things in a country that is desperately trying to forget it's past racist history. Since the selection policy is based on the quota system, many players like Pietersen and Trott don't make the cut, and find themselves in the 'uneventful and ugly' side of the quota system. Pietersen spoke strongly against it and moved to England. Another main reason is money. South Africa may be developing their cricketing scene, but it is still nowhere near the English circuit. Further more, these South African born players who often hold English passports (due to one of their parents or grandparents being English) find themselves easily in the English county scene as an English player rather than an overseas player. This makes their selections more favorable and also they get to earn money. For these South African born 'English' cricket players, England seems like the land of milk and honey as they get better exposure, financial gains and also opportunities. So why wouldn't they want to come to England?
I understand Vaughan's dream of an English team filled with Englishmen. I wouldn't like to see Monty Panesar playing for India just because his parents are from India. It not only is unfairly good to him, but also unfair to an Indian born player wanting that spot in the playing 11. But in the end it is all legal and perfectly fair because both the players fought for the same place and the best one won. The selectors will always try to choose the best players to field, and if Monty is among the 11 best players for India, then I have absolutely no problems in him representing India.
England is the home for thousands of immigrants and this is seen in their football and cricket teams. I don't see why a big issue is being made into this. The English national cricket team may not contain pure Anglo-Saxon blood, but it still contains a little bit of the Anglo-Saxon blood. It's a multi-cultured team, but still very much an English team. At the end of the day, the players all represent England and play wearing the emblem of the three lions on their shirts. You want to see your 11 best players taking field and representing England. Not your 11 best pure Englishmen. As long as loyalties and interests of the multi-cultured players are with England and don't clash with other teams, I don't see the problem. I really admire the way Kieswetter handled the issue when he said, "Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but for me it's about putting performances in on the park and helping England win."
I don't really understand Vaughan's making this a big issue. After it's still the English who play for England.
15 Comments:
A funny thing about this whole issue is that MV doesn't remember that Kevin Pietersen actually played against England in a tour match when England toured SA in 99/2000 (MV made his test debut in that tour). He was, then, a lowly offie, not the charismatic guy that he turned out to be in '05. :)
Vaughan may be right when he says that he might never see 11 Englishmen playing in the national squad.
But has he considered the possibility of 11 non-England born / non-English origin players in the squad?
Going at English cricket's current rate of using imported cricketers, it is a distinct possibilty.
I was about to say good article, until I arrived here:
"Micheal Vaughan is going down the Hitler road of wanting to see a country full of Aryan blood, and I think it is about time Vaughan started to keep opinions such as this to himself, because the public easily sees them racist."
You can't be serious???
How can you compare Vaughan's concerns, that do not touch any potentially discriminating issues such as colour, religion or family background, to an ideology that cost more than 6 million people their lives in unspeakable ways? I am upset to read that from your quill. Unbelievable. How can you twist Vaughan's statement in this incredible manner? Your analogy is completely untenable. I am utterly shocked to read that from someone who actually delivers good quality in his blog. You should really edit that out, and in the future be a bit more careful before blindly whacking about with the Hitler club. It is irresponsible, people who read it might believe it! And, furthermore, Vaughan didn't say anything against the Panesars, the Shahs, the Rashids, the Boparas, the Mascarenhas, the Shahzads or the Carberrys. So how can you claim he wants an aryan English team, and would be seen as a racist??? The foundation of his thoughts is that he wants the players to play for *their* country, with their hearts, no matter what bloody skin colour or religion. It's an idealistic old school cricket dream, nothing else. What the heck does Hitler and "aryan" have to do with that, especially as the concerning guys are white ??? Your analogy is wrong in so many ways. It is doing my head in.
-Wes
Have to agree with Wes here Poshin. This isn't about an Aryan race thing, far from it.
The problem is the Kolpak rule...
"Kolpak came into force in 2003 when the European Court of Justice ruled that anyone with a work permit from a country which has an associate trading agreement with the EU had the same rights as a European worker. This means that county clubs can sign cricketers from around 100 countries, including South Africa and Zimbabwe, without having to designate them as overseas players as long as they have not represented their country in the past year. Kolpak players then only need a working holiday visa to play."
It means less opportunities to home grown players of any race etc. That's the crux of the issue
@Wes,
Firstly, I'd like to thank you for being straightforward and telling me your views. I appreciate it.
I agree with you that my analogy is wrong in a few ways. It is right to say that I'm at fault to have compared Vaughan's statements to Hitler's action of genocide in the quest for a pure Arayan race. I also am in the wrong for reading between the lines and taking Vaughan's statements out of context and twisting them. For this I apologize. Truth be told, I'm a huge fan of Micheal Vaughan and rate him as one of England's best ever skippers - but that's another discussion for another day.
As for the racism angle is considered, I have mentioned racism in only 4 places in this article and three of these places I use it to describe South Africa's old segregation system. The other was in the faulted analogy which I have edited.
As for my stand, I still do not deviate from it, and think that Vaughan is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Cheers;
@David,
I'm am wrong in a number of places in this article. (See my reply to Wes). But nowhere have I said Vaughan was racist. I used the term Aryan to signify pure Englishmen - or rather the likes of Strauss and Vaughan who were either born and brought up in England or born elsewhere but brought up in England. I feel this term was mis-interrupted. I never said that Vaughan nor his comments have any bit of racism in them.
As for the Kolpak rule is concerned, I knew it was there but I never knew about it in this detail. Thanks for bringing that to my notice.
@Thiru Cumaran,
I never knew that. I think KP was always charismatic though.
@ Shridhar Jaju,
I agree that it is very much a possibility.
Very interesting post CPD. I agree with your point that KP should have been classified in the same category as Kieswetter and Jonathan.
@Maz,
Exactly! I feel Vaughan has left KP out when he talks abt Kieswetter and Trott.
Hats off and big kudos, Poshin, for your quick (re-)action. This is absolutely impressive. You don't see that often in the blog world. Many many thanks, and keep up the good work.
Cheers,
Wes
@wes,
Much appreciated your criticisms and your compliments.
Cheers;
I don't have a problem with any of them playing for England as long as they really play for England and not their individual performances. To me, KP, Straussy, Matty, Keisy seem as English as Jimmy, Broady, Finny....The fact that Trotty is just too close to South African players is disturbing. He even celebrated SA's win over England in '08 after playin' a Twenty20 for us a few yrs ago.
@Jimmymycrushie,
Well I'm sure no one has any problems with the non-English born players playing, but it is a sad state one must agree to see a player go and celebrate with the opposition after a loss. It could have been a friendly drink, but Trott went out with the opposition and took part in their joys, and forgot his own team's trouble.
This I find disturbing, and think that a fully 100% English player wouldn't have done the same if he was in Trott's shoes.
Post a Comment
Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for granted but to weigh and consider.
- Francis Bacon