Why are Irish-born players playing for England or other nations?

TrueDub · 06-05-2010 10:34pm #1

This is a topic that comes up on this forum regularly, and so to keep things tidy, we've decided to address it in this thread, and this thread only.

Please note: this is the only place to discuss this topic - any posts on this in other threads will be deleted, and the posters either directed to this thread (if they are polite) or banned from the forum (if not). This is at the moderator's discretion!

The facts are these:

1) Ireland is an associate member of the International Cricket Council (ICC), and is eligible to play Twenty20 cricket (T20) and One-Day International cricket (ODIs). This status is conferred on Ireland because of their performances in qualifying tournaments.

2) Ireland is not a full member of the ICC. Only 10 countries are: Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, England, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and the West Indies. Only these countries are eligible to play test cricket. Therefore, Ireland does not play test cricket, considered by many to be the pinnacle of the game.

3) In recent times, two Irish players declared for England, Ed Joyce and Eoin Morgan. Both are professional players, plying their trade in the English County Championship.

4) They have done this because this will allow them, if selected, to play test cricket for England, something they cannot do for Ireland. They have also done it because the rewards for playing for England are higher than those available for playing for Ireland, as England play many more matches and have a better remuneration scheme.

5) Under the current system, other players from Ireland may choose to declare for England, for the exact same reasons. The players most often mentioned in this area are Boyd Rankin and George Dockrell.

That is the reasoning behind the decision to declare for England. Many people can understand this, because if you think you're capable of playing at the highest level, and you get the opportunity to try to do so, you should take it. Others feel that you should stick to the country of your birth, no matter what.

Discuss - but keep it civil. If you have a point to make, make it constructively. Any sort of abuse is not acceptable, and tribal or jingoistic nonsense will be deleted on sight. This thread will be heavily policed - you have been warned!!

Beasty · 06-05-2010 11:17pm

Not much more to add Truedub, but I'll give it a go!

I think it needs to be accepted that there are limited opportunties for cricketers to play at the highest level. There are numerous examples of Scots and Welsh playing for and even captaining "England" (Mike Denness and Tony Lewis being the obvious examples) and many more of players moving from other Test playing nations to play for England, either because this was their only way to play at the highest level, or because they felt an affinity to England, perhaps because of parentage (Michael Lumb being an example, born in SA because his father moved there after a long career at Yorkshire).

In the case of Morgan (and Joyce) their only opportunity to play at the highest level was to move to and qualify for a Test-playing nation, and England was the obvious place where they could move to gain qualification, and take-up full-time cricket at county level.

It's interesting to note it happens in other sports - the one main comparison is Rugby Union, where NZ have used a number of players born on South Pacific islands, and a number of Southern Hemisphere players have moved to Northern Hemisphere countries and switched alligience. Even in football there are plenty of examples, with Brazilians unable to get into their own national team opting for other countries (even in one case taking up Croatian nationality)

Bottom line is these guys are entitled to make a living, and if they have the talent why limit their opportunities to shine at the highest level?

KevIRL · 06-05-2010 11:40pm

You've summed it up perfectly TrueDub. No cricket fan would begrudge Eoin or Ed (or any of the rest) a chance to play the highest level of cricket.

I do feel that the ICC should make it easier for Irish players to return to play for Ireland if its clear that their bid to play for England hasnt worked out. Some form of exception for players looking to return to their Associate nation. Ed Joyce should be back with us now for instance.

d'Oracle · 07-05-2010 12:23pm

I think its a huge ball drop on the part of the ICC and a giant **** you from the ECB.

The ECB seems dependant on foreign imports to supply the spark in the team. I'm not sure why that is, but its probably worth noting that there seems to be a spark of flair to some of these players, when compared to the English ones.

Compare Morgan and Kevin "Plastic lion" Pietersen, to the likes of Cook or Wright. Maybe its the Atherton-esque propensity towards "proper cricket" being front foot strokes and stock balls abound. Maybe I'm on a hyperbolic tangent.

The treatment of Joyce underlines the ECB's cynical approach to this rule, its indicative of a belief that all cricket is there to service the Full Members which seems at odds with the public face of developing the game.

Which brings me to the ICC.
They are screwing it up massively. Its hard to believe that they are taking expansion in anyway seriously when they are allowing the open exploitation of our resources at national level. I mean who is seriously not concerned at the Boyd Rankin situation? I know that in two innings George Dockerill gained some serious attention from the Commentators, Andy Flower would have seen this and England have proven themselves big fans of throwing a young spinner in for a game or two to see if they are any good.

The fact that ICC have in place a rule where either of these players can join England in a few weeks but must wait 4 years to play for Ireland indicates that they don't value the affiliates and associates at all.

I truly believe that this should be dropped or modified. The rule punishes the lower grades unfairly, more so considering that batsmen with the kind of experience that Ed Joyce has picked up would be invaluable in nets as much as on the pitch.

One thing is for sure, as long as the rule is there, England will have no remorse about decimating our team.

TrueDub · 07-05-2010 1:35pm

d'Oracle wrote: »

The fact that ICC have in place a rule where either of these players can join England in a few weeks but must wait 4 years to play for Ireland indicates that they don't value the affiliates and associates at all.

This isn't actually the case - the qualification to play for England is the same as to play for Ireland. In both cases a player not born in that country must serve a four-year residency period in the other country. Hence both Ed Joyce and Eoin Morgan served this residency period in England, as did Petersen, Kieswetter etc.

So England can't simply call up George Dockrell next week - he has to do the residency period. Boyd Rankin is slightly different, as far as I know, as he's a UK citizen and so can represent England whenever called up.

The rule on Ed Joyce returning is that he can play for Ireland again 4 years after last representing England. The ICC may, hopefully, waive a couple of weeks of this to allow Ed play for Ireland in WC2011 in India - but they may not, and if England pick him in the meantime, it's all academic as the clock restarts.

reb73 · 07-05-2010 1:39pm

A pretty concise assessment of the prevailing situation, True Dub!

d'Oracle wrote: »

I
The fact that ICC have in place a rule where either of these players can join England in a few weeks but must wait 4 years to play for Ireland indicates that they don't value the affiliates and associates at all.

The crux of declaring for a full-member country is the ability to play tests and land an annual contract. Perhaps the 4 year switch-back rule could be amended to place this limitation only to restrict the purpose of the original switch - namely playing test cricket. There could be a cool-off period of lesser duration for other forms of cricket in addition to a NOC from the full-member, provided the switch-back is to the native country.

Not sure if this makes sense, but my two-cents worth :pac:

Beasty · 07-05-2010 1:51pm

TrueDub wrote: »

Boyd Rankin is slightly different, as far as I know, as he's a UK citizen and so can represent England whenever called up.

I think the UK citizen rule applies across a number of sports, and players can opt to play for any of the 4 "home nations". Some football players with UK passports but born outside the UK have been able to do this.

Interestingly, though, other sports do tend to prevent players who have played for one country then opting to play for another (in football the current rule applies to restrict those who have played competitively at international level then opting for another country).

However I think the difference with cricket is the fact that only a small number of countries play Tests, and it would be seen to be unfair for someone perhaps establishing themselves for one country in the one day game then being prevented from furthering their career at Test level with another country.

Beasty · 07-05-2010 1:53pm

TrueDub wrote: »

and if England pick him in the meantime, it's all academic as the clock restarts.

But he could then declare himself unavailable to England if he wanted to return to the Irish team

TrueDub · 07-05-2010 2:09pm

Beasty wrote: »

But he could then declare himself unavailable to England if he wanted to return to the Irish team

True, but this brings us back to the start of the argument - if he's picked again for England, it means he's back in contention for greater rewards, and potentially a place in the test team, which are the exact reasons he declared for England in the first place. So why would he declare himself unavailable to England?

Sadly for Ed Joyce, I don't see this happening,especially as he's sidelined until the end of May after a hip operation. This could in the long term be good for Ireland though.

d'Oracle · 07-05-2010 2:23pm

TrueDub wrote: »

Sadly for Ed Joyce, I don't see this happening,especially as he's sidelined until the end of May after a hip operation. This could in the long term be good for Ireland though.

Is that what that was.

Cheers for the correction.
But I'm confused, how come Nannes could play for Holland and then switch to Aussie.
I understand he lived in Aussie, but how did he qualify for Holland?

TrueDub · 07-05-2010 2:41pm

d'Oracle wrote: »

Is that what that was.

Cheers for the correction.
But I'm confused, how come Nannes could play for Holland and then switch to Aussie.
I understand he lived in Aussie, but how did he qualify for Holland?

I admit I don't know the facts here, but I'm guessing this: he was born in Oz, served his residency for Holland, then was eligible to be called up for Oz due to citizenship.

The above could be complete horsesh*t, of course.

d'Oracle · 07-05-2010 5:34pm

Wiki says his folks are Dutch.
Which may explain it, I'm not sure.

djimi · 10-05-2010 4:25pm

For me the solution is to seperate test and ODI cricket at international level. A player like Eoin Morgan would be free to make himself available for test selection for England, but can still remain in the Ireland ODI team so long as he doesnt declare himself available for Englands ODI squad. Im not sure how many players would go for this, given that Morgan in particular is putting himself in contention for a place in the England test squad on the basis of his ODI performances more than his CC form, but it would be an option.

As for whether they are right to make the switch; as someone who is born in Ireland and has spent my entire life playing cricket, if I had the choice between walking out on the opening morning of an Ashes boxing day test to 100,000 people at the MCG, or contining to play Intercontinental Cup against the likes of Canada and UAE in front of tiny crowds, I know which one Id choose... Its wrong that the ICC puts players in this position to choose, and as a lifelong Irish cricketer I would give everything I own for the honour of representing my country in even one game, doesnt matter who it would be against, but at the end of the day the lure of that big occasion would be far too strong.

TheDrog · 10-05-2010 5:50pm

The problem with that idea Djimi is that more and more teams are using the ODI team to test out players before bringing them into the test side. So players would still choose the test teams over the associates

Beasty · 10-05-2010 7:17pm

Agree with that TheDrog - the Test playing nations would not allow this - there is no way England would want Morgan return to Ireland (even if there was a way to do it without the residence qualification) to play ODIs. In addition, I am sure Morgan would think he would get a much better deal (both financially and in terms of career progression) sticking with England (he is not even in the Test team (yet!))

djimi · 10-05-2010 10:58pm

Yeah no I completely agree that in reality it probably wouldnt work, but Im just trying to think of a compromise that would allow the likes of Ireland to keep our top players and develop at a faster rate, while still allowing the players themselves to progress their careers.

I suppose there is no easy answer; as long as the associate members are not playing test cricket we are going to be stuck in the catch 22 of losing our best players because we are not playing at a high enough standard, and not playing at a high enough standard because we are losing our best players.

Moist Bread · 12-05-2010 10:46am

What exactly is the process of becoming a test nation, who decides when we are good enough and what criteria will they use? Is Bangladesh the standard that the associate nations must aspire to or is a case that the interest is so high over there that it makes sense from a financial perspective? I honestly don't think Ireland will ever become a test nation, we don't have the infrastructure or the interest in the game. We might as well resign ourselves to being a feeder nation for England, at best.

schemingbohemia · 12-05-2010 11:50am

Does anyone know what happened to exceptional Sri Lankan and Bangladeshi players prior to their nations full membership? Were any of them picked/declared for Pakistan or India?

Beasty · 12-05-2010 12:04pm

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Does anyone know what happened to exceptional Sri Lankan and Bangladeshi players prior to their nations full membership? Were any of them picked/declared for Pakistan or India?

I suspect not - the "international transfer" situation has only really taken off in recent years (I know there were earlier examples, but they were often driven by the apartheid situation in South Africa).

This phenomena was probably initiated by Jack Charlton scouring the world for soccer players with Irish ancestry - what goes around comes around I guess!!

d'Oracle · 12-05-2010 3:30pm

I think there may have been a handful of Sri Lankans who played for india.

Not sure where I read it though.....
And certainly not in the contrived fashion that we have now.

TrueDub · 13-05-2010 4:28am

Beasty wrote: »

I suspect not - the "international transfer" situation has only really taken off in recent years (I know there were earlier examples, but they were often driven by the apartheid situation in South Africa).

This phenomena was probably initiated by Jack Charlton scouring the world for soccer players with Irish ancestry - what goes around comes around I guess!!

Posting from a bar in Las Vegas! The idea of nationality was a bit more fluid in days past - there's a case of one guy who played ashes cricket for both England and Australia! Also, several good Indian players played for England before independence - and, as you say, there's several South African examples from the 80s and 90s.

Bobo148 · 14-05-2010 11:51am

TrueDub wrote: »

I admit I don't know the facts here, but I'm guessing this: he was born in Oz, served his residency for Holland, then was eligible to be called up for Oz due to citizenship.
The above could be complete horsesh*t, of course.

I stand to be corrected but I think the Nannes situation is like this:

He qualified to play for Holland by right
He served his qualification period to play for Australia before he made his debut for Holland
He was allowed to play for Holland without jepordising his qualification for Australia*
He made himself available for the T20 for Holland after not being selected by Australia
Once he was selected by Australia that made him no longer eligible to play for Holland

* Before you give out about this, this is esentially an Irish-directed rule. We sought and were granted this rule to allow Ed Joyce continue to play for Ireland while serving his 4 year qualification period. This rule only applies to associate/affiliate nations, hence the reason Ed cannot play for England while requalifying for Ireland.

It would seem to me to be ridiculous that a person can play international cricket for two countries at all, and certainly not 6 weeks apart like Eoin Morgan did. (That is not to say that that is Eoin's fault)

At present there are opportunities within Irish cricket that were not available to Ed that are available to the players now. It is more than possible to play county cricket and Irish cricket at the same time, play all winter long, and earn a good living doing so.

At present we do not qualify to play test cricket. At one stage we never qualified for the FIFA world cup either. You could argue that we never would have if our best players had been allowed to declare for other countries in order to play in the world cup. In my mind the same argument applies to Irish cricket currently.

One final thought, and this is a bit more controversial. In 2007 we all claimed Jeremy, Lanky & TJ as ones of our own. In cricket terms Ed Joyce and Eoin Morgan are as English as Jeremy, Lanky & TJ are Irish. That is why I do not rejoice in their performances.

d'Oracle · 14-05-2010 12:03pm

Bobo148 wrote: »

One final thought, and this is a bit more controversial. In 2007 we all claimed Jeremy, Lanky & TJ as ones of our own. In cricket terms Ed Joyce and Eoin Morgan are as English as Jeremy, Lanky & TJ are Irish. That is why I do not rejoice in their performances.

Thats a bit of an oversimplification in my opinion.
These are players who aren't really good enough for their own nations.

Joyce and Morgan were good enough to play higher level.
Its really not the same thing.

We are not taking their finest, Aussie, NZ and SA aren't taking our finest, England are taking ours.

And this is true in cricketing terms as much as any other terms.

Beasty · 14-05-2010 1:43pm

Ultimately a lot of this is down to the mobility that the modern age brings all workers. In the last 30 years of so international travel has provided pretty unlimited access to most countries to ply your trade. However as a result of both protectionism and immigration controls, there have been severe limits placed on the ability of people from outside the EU to work within the EU.

This brings us to the fact that, certainly 20-30 years ago, the main country where any cricketer could earn a decent living was England (particularly before Kerry Packer came on the scene, but even he only really rewarded the best players in teh world). Hence a large number of players came from other coutries to play in the English game (and the English game rewarded them financially for doing so).

In recent years, however, work permit restrictions have resulted in a number of (non-EU) individuals seeking to qualify for England, to allow them to continue earning a living in the English game. This has particularly been the case with players from SA, (where there was already a history of players coming to England because of the restrictions on international sport in the country), Zimbabwe and even countries like NZ and Australia.

There have been a number of ways to qualify for England, and the rules have been tightened over the years. Citizenship and residency are now the 2 main options. Many can claim citizenship because of their parents, but others need to go through the 4 year qualification rule. If they then opt for their country of birth, this can cause problems because of EU quota/work permit rules. Hence a number simply want to qualify for England to keep their jobs. If they then progress to international standard, it makes sense for them to opt for England - this is often more to do with protecting their career prospects, but of course once they have played for their "adopted" country, they are probably more likely to to feel an affinity to that particular team (although I suspect their fervour for other sports may remain with their country of birth)

Ultimately this is the modern world, and how some people can make a living out of it - this is probably the main reason why England have benefitted more than other countries - essentially it's the English game that offers them more of a living than any other.

Turning to the Irish position, clearly EU employment rules are irrelevant, but to make a living out of the game these players will normally need to play for an English county. Once the clock starts ticking on eligibility, it makes absolute sense for them to opt for England, given the ever increasing awards available at the highest levels

TheDrog · 14-05-2010 4:09pm

It's not that recent a phenomenon a number of england players in the last 30 years came from other countries, Caddick was involved in New Zealand underage sides, Hick was in Zimbabwe's 1983 world cup squad and players like Robin Smith who were unable to play during apartheid all ended up with england

getz · 14-05-2010 4:24pm

Beasty wrote: »

Ultimately a lot of this is down to the mobility that the modern age brings all workers. In the last 30 years of so international travel has provided pretty unlimited access to most countries to ply your trade. However as a result of both protectionism and immigration controls, there have been severe limits placed on the ability of people from outside the EU to work within the EU.

This brings us to the fact that, certainly 20-30 years ago, the main country where any cricketer could earn a decent living was England (particularly before Kerry Packer came on the scene, but even he only really rewarded the best players in teh world). Hence a large number of players came from other coutries to play in the English game (and the English game rewarded them financially for doing so).

In recent years, however, work permit restrictions have resulted in a number of (non-EU) individuals seeking to qualify for England, to allow them to continue earning a living in the English game. This has particularly been the case with players from SA, (where there was already a history of players coming to England because of the restrictions on international sport in the country), Zimbabwe and even countries like NZ and Australia.

There have been a number of ways to qualify for England, and the rules have been tightened over the years. Citizenship and residency are now the 2 main options. Many can claim citizenship because of their parents, but others need to go through the 4 year qualification rule. If they then opt for their country of birth, this can cause problems because of EU quota/work permit rules. Hence a number simply want to qualify for England to keep their jobs. If they then progress to international standard, it makes sense for them to opt for England - this is often more to do with protecting their career prospects, but of course once they have played for their "adopted" country, they are probably more likely to to feel an affinity to that particular team (although I suspect their fervour for other sports may remain with their country of birth)

Ultimately this is the modern world, and how some people can make a living out of it - this is probably the main reason why England have benefitted more than other countries - essentially it's the English game that offers them more of a living than any other.

Turning to the Irish position, clearly EU employment rules are irrelevant, but to make a living out of the game these players will normally need to play for an English county. Once the clock starts ticking on eligibility, it makes absolute sense for them to opt for England, given the ever increasing awards available at the highest levels

in the lancashire cricket leagues most clubs have a club professional normally a international player ,but if a player is good enough he may earn a living without ever playing for a county or country,saying that i dont know of any who hasent

Beasty · 14-05-2010 8:27pm

getz wrote: »

in the lancashire cricket leagues most clubs have a club professional normally a international player ,but if a player is good enough he may earn a living without ever playing for a county or country,saying that i dont know of any who hasent

Definitely used to be the case, but the current work-permit rules are much more restrictive - I suspect you would need to already be at international level to be able to get one, unless you can qualify by reference to nationality/residence etc

Beasty · 14-05-2010 8:34pm

TheDrog wrote: »

It's not that recent a phenomenon a number of england players in the last 30 years came from other countries, Caddick was involved in New Zealand underage sides, Hick was in Zimbabwe's 1983 world cup squad and players like Robin Smith who were unable to play during apartheid all ended up with england

You can also go back to the likes of Basil D'Oliveira and Tony Greig in the 1960s and 1970s respectively (even Colin Cowdrey was born in Bangalore). However the point I was trying to get across is the nature of this "phenomena" has changed, probably in the last decade or so, with individuals and countries more actively looking for ways to get within the qualification rules, increasing significantly the number oif players taking advantage of them

dirtyden · 07-06-2010 2:55pm

As a part time cricket fan I am not well up on the financial rewards for playing the game at the highest level. I understand that playing in the IPL is pretty lucrative for the top players. Would anyone here know what kind of money E Morgan would be making in England?

And on the original topic of this post I would have thought it's a no-brainer. Playing professional cricket and getting to the highest level, test cricket means having to make the choice of representing England. It's the only sport where I will follow England currently, hopefully Morgan can make the cut at test level.

Dozen Wicked Words · 09-06-2010 12:37pm

dirtyden wrote: »

As a part time cricket fan I am not well up on the financial rewards for playing the game at the highest level. I understand that playing in the IPL is pretty lucrative for the top players. Would anyone here know what kind of money E Morgan would be making in England?

And on the original topic of this post I would have thought it's a no-brainer. Playing professional cricket and getting to the highest level, test cricket means having to make the choice of representing England. It's the only sport where I will follow England currently, hopefully Morgan can make the cut at test level.

The following post contains a high amount of guesswork

His county wages would be probably around £80,000 or £90,000 playing for a London/Test Ground county.

He is on an incremental contract at present, not sure what that's worth, would guess towards £100,000, but because of the number of games he is playing he will get a central contract next time round. Central contracts worth between £120,000 and £450,000 a year, so presumably Morgan would be somewhere at the top end as he currently playing in all forms of the game for England.

Half a million a year when he gets a central contract?

/Guesswork

Info Here

Here

Finally Here

celticbest · 09-06-2010 12:56pm

There are only 10 countries who play test cricket, Ireland is not one of these although they have applied,

As far as I'm aware you cannot play one day, twenty/20 or say 40 over cricket for one country & test for another, this is why some choose to play for another country eg, Irish playing for England, so they have the opportunity to play test.

Maybe this will change if Ireland start playing test cricket.

TheDrog · 09-06-2010 2:34pm

my guess is his wages at middlesex are a lot lower than that, probably around 45,000 tops. I would guess that if he gets a central contract it will be lower end 160,000 because he is not particularly senior.

the one figure we do know is that he got $220,000 for his Indian stint

dirtyden · 12-06-2010 1:59pm

Thanks for the replies, 220K for a few weeks work in India is not bad at all. I'm guessing that is something he could not have hoped to achieve while remaining associated with Ireland. He may even pocket an MBE in the queens awards as well for the 20/20 world cup.

worm_tongue · 16-09-2010 5:12pm

Noticed that Ed Joyce not playing for Sussex the last few days, is this due to injury or loss of form?
In addition any news on his rumoured move to return representing Ireland?:rolleyes:

djimi · 16-09-2010 6:03pm

Whats with the rolley eyes?

He missed the current CC match thru illness apparently.

Hes hoping to be allowed to represent Ireland at the world cup in February, even tho he isnt technically eligable for a little while after the world cup.

crackit · 16-09-2010 9:59pm

I'd say the rolly eyes are a person displeasure at Joyce jumping ship to play for England then when he inevitably got dumped by them after less than 20 ODIs running back to Ireland at the first available opportunity.

A quality player who could have helped progress the cause of Irish cricket had he stayed with us and played every game for the 5 years he spent not playing for England.

The only thing that bothers me about his return to Ireland are the interviews I've read recently in which he's still banging on about playing for England.

riffmongous · 16-09-2010 11:38pm

crackit wrote: »

The only thing that bothers me about his return to Ireland are the interviews I've read recently in which he's still banging on about playing for England.

Out of interest how recent is recently? I know he was still talking about England last year but I haven't heard anything since then

djimi · 16-09-2010 11:55pm

No nor have I tbh. The last few times Ive heard him talk its been about wanting to return to play for Ireland.

I'd say the rolly eyes are a person displeasure at Joyce jumping ship to play for England then when he inevitably got dumped by them after less than 20 ODIs running back to Ireland at the first available opportunity.

Would people prefer that he never came back? Are there people out there who, out of spite for a decision he made in an effort to enhance his career beyond the constraints of playing for his home country, would prefer that there be a player of the calibre of Ed Joyce out there, who is eligibe to play for Ireland but didnt play for us?

crackit · 17-09-2010 12:15am

I'm not saying he hasn't said he wants to return to Ireland. In the interview I read (maybe in TWC) within the last 2 months he, and I'll paraphrase here, said something along the lines of he knows he's good enough to play for england and he would still welcome the chance to do so but since its not going to happen he's more than happy to play for Ireland once more.

riffmongous · 17-09-2010 12:15am

I can understand why people would be be spiteful towards Joyce, but I would like to see him come back, prodigal son style.

Unfortunately the whole situation is pretty ridiculous, when one of the main problems people have with Ireland is the amount of foreign born players on our team, while at the same time the two best Irish born batsmen are trying to play for England, and how long before Dockrell and Stirling are picked up?

riffmongous · 17-09-2010 12:17am

crackit wrote: »

he would still welcome the chance to do so but since its not going to happen he's more than happy to play for Ireland once more.

I was hoping he wouldn't say something like that, might be interpreted as being a little ungrateful

crackit · 17-09-2010 12:29am

Yep, thats what I thought when I read it. I just said to myself can you not keep your gob shut. You know they won't pick you so saying stuff like this is only going to serve to rile some people.

We all know he'd rather play for england than Ireland but to mention his ambitions again 5 years down the road and just as he is about to come back into the fold struck me as a stupid.

I welcome him back for the record. I think it will benefit Irelands cause greatly for another 5 (maybe?) years.

MRPRO03 · 17-09-2010 12:29am

riffmongous wrote: »

I can understand why people would be be spiteful towards Joyce, but I would like to see him come back, prodigal son style.

Unfortunately the whole situation is pretty ridiculous, when one of the main problems people have with Ireland is the amount of foreign born players on our team, while at the same time the two best Irish born batsmen are trying to play for England, and how long before Dockrell and Stirling are picked up?

The point about the foreign players playing for Ireland is a different to Joyce and Morgan, Those players had to be Irish citizens or passport holders and some had to wait 5 or so years in order to attain this and also, they did not play for their nations at all, where as Joyce and Morgan played for Ireland in sanctioned matches by the ICC and all they had to do was spend 175+ days in England to qualify.

Those rules are just ridiculous, like you say, other talented players will be picked off. I personally hate the system but hate the players even more, they can go on about the ''playing at the highest level'' and want to test themselves in Test Matches all they want, the simple reason is, they are greedy, the only the reason they did what they did was cause a better pay packet. How can anyone welcome them back into the team at their own will, just annoys me. They rather choose money and than represent you country with pride.

riffmongous · 17-09-2010 12:43am

crackit wrote: »

Yep, thats what I thought when I read it. I just said to myself can you not keep your gob shut. You know they won't pick you so saying stuff like this is only going to serve to rile some people.

Exactly.

MRPRO03: How can anyone welcome them back into the team at their own will, just annoys me. They rather choose money and than represent you country with pride.

I understand this point of view, thats how I always felt about Morgan who made no secret of his desire to play for England. But when we get the situation we have at the moment not accepting them back doesn't accomplish anything at all

MRPRO03 · 17-09-2010 12:51am

riffmongous wrote: »

I understand this point of view, thats how I always felt about Morgan who made no secret of his desire to play for England. But when we get the situation we have at the moment not accepting them back doesn't accomplish anything at all

If a player is not committed to play for you, what makes them committed many years later. They would have an agenda, all about impressing other nations than the fans that follow the team. Wait till Ed Joyce and Hamish Marshall come, they will be not playing for Ireland, but for England 'B' and New Zealand 'B'. The other players that have always played for Ireland would be affected by this no doubt, what about the players that are dropped, they lose confidence cause of this and the whole team would be worse off when these players leave once again.

riffmongous · 17-09-2010 12:55am

MRPRO03 wrote: »

The other players that have always played for Ireland would be affected by this no doubt, what about the players that are dropped, they lose confidence cause of this and the whole team would be worse off when these players leave once again.

Very good point, I would be incredibly insulted if I lost my place to Marshall after years of hard work. And as you said what happens if Joyce hits a few centuries in the World Cup and England flop? Is he just going to get on the first boat back across the Irish Sea?

djimi · 17-09-2010 9:05am

MRPRO03 wrote: »

Those rules are just ridiculous, like you say, other talented players will be picked off. I personally hate the system but hate the players even more, they can go on about the ''playing at the highest level'' and want to test themselves in Test Matches all they want, the simple reason is, they are greedy, the only the reason they did what they did was cause a better pay packet. How can anyone welcome them back into the team at their own will, just annoys me. They rather choose money and than represent you country with pride.

If youre a professional sportman would you sooner have a crack at walking out to the MCG on boxing day morning in front of 100000 fans, or would you sooner spend the majority of your career playing against Canada, Denmark and the UAE in schools and clubs in front of one man and his dog? Because anyone who thinks that any professional cricketer, Irish or otherwise, would choose the former is seriously deluded. Yes they are greedy, greedy for success and to advance themselves as far as they can; thats what makes them professional sportsmen.

The system and the ICC is where blame lies, not with the players. Guys like Eoin Morgan and Ed Joyce should not be put in a position where they have to leave their home country in order to ply their trade at the highest level, but thats the position they are in. Do you honestly think for one minute that, given the choice, Morgan and Joyce would not sooner represent Ireland in a test match rather than England? They dont have that choice, and if you are looking for someone to blame and to direct your hate towards, look in the direction of the ICC and the stuffy old guard establishment who are hell bent on never giving players like Eoin Morgan and Ed Joyce the chance to represent their home country at the highest level of their sport.

TrueDub · 17-09-2010 9:12am

As per the charter, this topic is to be discussed in this thread only, so I've merged the threads. Please keep all discussion civil and relevant.

crackit · 17-09-2010 1:09pm

djimi wrote: »

If youre a professional sportman would you sooner have a crack at walking out to the MCG on boxing day morning in front of 100000 fans, or would you sooner spend the majority of your career playing against Canada, Denmark and the UAE in schools and clubs in front of one man and his dog? Because anyone who thinks that any professional cricketer, Irish or otherwise, would choose the former is seriously deluded.

If you're asking the question if we were in his position as to which we would prefer I would answer thusly. I would of course prefer to play test matches at the MCG that goes without saying. However, as an Irishman I could not possibly fathom doing it for another country. I take pride in being Irish and couldn't possibly ever dream of playing for england, Australia, Pakistan or Outer Mongolia.

And, while not of the same standard as Morgan and Joyce in my sport, I have played professional football so I can firmly attest that I would never dream of playing for another country. I was never picked after U-16 level for Ireland and was approached by the country of my mothers birth to represent them. I said no. Quite simply because I am Irish and I take pride in that.

Some people are happy to cast national pride or identity aside and put self interest ahead of that if and when the opportunity arises. I wouldn't tar everyone with the same brush though regardless of the sport

djimi · 17-09-2010 1:29pm

Its not about national pride tho, and its completely different to football. Irish footballers can play football at the highest level, Irish cricketers cannot. Whatever about Joyce, there is no doubt in my mind that Eoin Morgan is good enough to compete with the very best at test level; we know it and he himself knows it. Why should he hold himself back in his chosen profession when the option is there for him to advance his career and his potential earnings? Would you stay in a job that was only ever going to pay €25000 per year for example if you knew you had an offer of a job that was going to pay €500k a year and get you all the way to the top? Because at the end of the day thats the decision these guys are faced with. Would he prefer to play for Ireland regardless? Im sure he would. But given that it would be at the expense of his chance to play at the very highest level I dont think it is a realistic option.

National pride is admirable, but if it means the difference between stagnating in the intercontinental cup and the occasional ODI and world cup (and even the WC is looking less likely) for his career, or moving countries to realise his true potential and play amongst the best players in the world at the hightest level, then national pride should not even be a factor.

If Morgan and Joyce were footballers and obsconded to play for England Id feel very differently, but its a completely different situation.

kryogen · 18-09-2010 4:10pm

For a cricketer with the ability or potential of guys like Joyce, Morgan etc.. it would be a shame for them if they never at least tried to make it to the very top of the sport. this is surely the goal for all professional sportsmen, you cannot do that as things stand with Irish Cricket, the fault does not lie with the players rather then system and I reject the claim that all the move for is greed

I simply do not accept that that is the only motivation, i know from the little cricket that i play that i would much rather be playing and testing myself against the likes of Australia, India and South Africa then spend my career playing the likes of Canada, and i mean no disrespect to those nations but if you get the chance to play at the highest level of your profession you are doing yourself a disservice if you refuse it

I hate seeing our best and brightest head across the water but thats the system and to have animosity toward the players is foolish imo, if we get the chance to have Joyce play in the green again it can only benefit the country and take the game forward. hopefully we will be a test nation in the future and this problem wont exist but until it does then we have to live with the reality that if you are good enough to play test cricket you have the opportunity across the water

Why are Irish-born players playing for England or other nations?

Comments