PDA

View Full Version : ICC should ban foreign players from minnow teams


Alien
June 24, 2008, 10:50 AM
I was watching the scorecard for Hong Kong vs Pakistan game and had a look at the players from Hong Kong, all of them are from Pakistan except for one Caucasian guy born there (Atkinson). None of the them are Chinese born which make up bulk of the Hong Kong population.

The same can be said about UAE. Get all the rejected players from India and Pakistan and make a team of mediocre players who dont even belong to the country they are playing in.

ICC should put a stop to this and make rules that any players playing for a country must be a citizen of that country. Not a permanent resident or on tourist visa. Idea is to get the people of Hong Kong and Arabs of UAE involved into the game of cricket not get a bunch of mercenaries do the work.

Puck
June 24, 2008, 05:39 PM
are you absolutely sure that the so called 'foreign' players are not naturalised citizens, or at least, permanent residents?

the presence of minnows, which bangladesh used to be until only a few years ago, is usually a canon fodder. it is to give the stronger teams more batting and bowling practise against very weak opposition. so they are essentially there to make up the numbers. while bangladesh might have been in the enviable position to boast a very strong internal league, that is hardly the case for many other countries.

you have not put forward any logical reasoning behind your demand. you could perhaps demand that the lesser countries should not be allowed to play in tournaments involving major teams. there would be much support for this. however, others might argue that countires like srilanka, former zimbabwe and bangladesh would never had gained test status had they not been allowed to play in major competitions for years without winning anything.

Spitfire_x86
June 24, 2008, 06:34 PM
They're citizens of the country the play for, end of the story.

Eshen
June 24, 2008, 07:52 PM
80% of UAE population is made of immigrants, so I see nothing wrong with their team being full of Indian, Lankan, and Pakistani immigrants. Emirates board recently made a rule that at least four players in the national squad has to be indigenous Emirati, and at least three of them has to be in the playing XI, so it's not like the indigenous population has been ignored.

I am sure a big part of HK population is also made of immigrants.

However, I think ICC should make it mandatory for every associate/affiliate nation to have quotas for born and bred players from that country so that their teams are not completely overwhelmed by immigrants.

Alien
June 24, 2008, 09:14 PM
are you absolutely sure that the so called 'foreign' players are not naturalised citizens, or at least, permanent residents?

In Dubai, you cant get citizenship unless you marry a citizen of UAE. Or permanent residency for that matter. And I wonder how many of them married a UAE citizen.

http://www.answers.com/topic/united-arab-emirates?cat=travel
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060808073413AAX4SxJ

I haven't checked on Hong Kongs citizenship law yet.

This topic has been subjected to past debates back in 1996 when UAE qualified for the World Cup and Sultan Zarawani was the only Arab and rest where Indians and Pakistanis.


80% of UAE population is made of immigrants, so I see nothing wrong with their team being full of Indian, Lankan, and Pakistani immigrants. Emirates board recently made a rule that at least four players in the national squad has to be indigenous Emirati, and at least three of them has to be in the playing XI, so it's not like the indigenous population has been ignored.


There is no doubt Dubai is a special case with high volume of immigrants. But the word "Immigrant" doesn't automatically equate to "Citizen". They could be working there, living thiere for 10 years, but not necessarily a national of that country unless they went through the process (marrying one in case of UAE).

Here is what it says in that answers.com site:

Emirati 19%, other Arab and Iranian 23%, South Asian 50%, other expatriates (includes Westerners and East Asians) 8% (1982)
note: less than 20% are UAE citizens (1982)



They're citizens of the country the play for, end of the story.

So if I play for Mongolia tomorrow will that make me Mongolian citizen? I can change my surname to Khan without much trouble anyway. :)




UAE and Hong Kong are 2 countries that needs to be looked at sepearately.

In case of Hong Kong, its big majority are people with Chinese background or ethnic Hong Kongers. Having a team where 9/10 players are born in Pakistan will strike anyone odd. If they aren't citizens of Hong Kong then they shouldn't even be there. If they are (say I am wrong) then Hong Kong Cricket Board should introduce the quota system like UAE and make a proportion of players of Chinese background.

This is to help cricket gain a foothold in the country, and promote it. Not to discriminate against the Pakistani players who as I said shouldn't even be there if they are not Hong Kong national "officially". Not if they pretend to be one.

Eshen
June 24, 2008, 09:59 PM
Middle Eastern countries have tough immigration rules, even second generation immigrants are not granted citizenship there. If ICC makes citizenship a requirement, cricket will die in those countries. Instead, ICC made the rule that a player has to be resident of a country for at least seven years to be eligible to represent that country (although a maximum of two players can play after 4 years of residency). I think it's a fair rule. It will be better if ICC makes every country add the quota system for indigenous players.

In any case, ICC should not block immigrants from represent their country of residence. Playing cricket for associate/affiliate countries is not financially rewarding. If countries don't have immigrant population who are willing to sacrifice their personal interests to represent those countries, people of most of those countries won't even hear about cricket.

brockley
June 25, 2008, 01:10 AM
You guys watched rugby or soccer lately.
Sad case of locals don't play in many icc associate countries but their expat immigrants do.

Alien
June 25, 2008, 08:21 PM
Middle Eastern countries have tough immigration rules, even second generation immigrants are not granted citizenship there.


Thats no excuse. It's one thing to get foreigners to build your skyscrapers, dig your oil but another to make them play your cricket.


If ICC makes citizenship a requirement, cricket will die in those countries.


Cricket was never alive in those countries. Most Indians and Pakistanis have a decent understanding of the game. And lot of Indians and Pakistanis reside in countries like US, UAE and Hong Kong where they form their own cricket club. Because they are better than whatever the locals come up with, they end up representing the country even though it's not their country. If their passport says so then no worries, but if it doesnt then they shouldn't be because they are just taking the opportunity to play high level games from the actual citizens of the country. Why is that a problem?

Because if they keep on hogging the top spot of national team, then they are not letting the actual Hong Kong citizens the opportunity to rise in their own country and team. Same with UAE.


In any case, ICC should not block immigrants from represent their country of residence. Playing cricket for associate/affiliate countries is not financially rewarding. If countries don't have immigrant population who are willing to sacrifice their personal interests to represent those countries, people of most of those countries won't even hear about cricket.

Lot of these guys just want to play international cricket. It's like a paid vacation for them. They aren't playing for the money. BTW, I read in one news site that UAE cricketers get fairly decent amount of funding. Personally if I am given the opportunity, I'd play for free. There is free hotel, free food and chance to play with world's best players. Why not?

An average Hong Kong player is probably 100 times better than me but they are still crap by international standard.

For many of them, cricket is not their full time job, so it's barely a sacrifice and more like a once in a lifetime opportunity.

PS: I am careful in not mixing the word "Immigrant" and "foreigner". Immigrant is someone from country A who migrated to country B and is a rightful citizen and has every right to represent the team. Foreigners are foreigners in country B and shouldn't be having that right.

Surfer
June 26, 2008, 02:36 AM
If I am not wrong, such a rule already exists. There is a cap on the maximum number of foreign players in a team. I think that is 3. I could be wrong though. But I clearly remember the Asian Cricket Association sent back the entire UAE team back from the under19 Asia cup of associate members held in Nepal recently because the not single player in the entire UAE team was a UAE passport holder.

BANFAN
June 26, 2008, 08:13 AM
The current rule is; Minimum 4 players of local origin have to be there in the playing 11.

Alien
June 26, 2008, 10:09 AM
I could be wrong though. But I clearly remember the Asian Cricket Association sent back the entire UAE team back from the under19 Asia cup of associate members held in Nepal recently because the not single player in the entire UAE team was a UAE passport holder.

UAE is a rare case in the world. UAE citizens are a minority in their own country. Only a lousy 20%.

Surfer
June 26, 2008, 12:02 PM
UAE is a rare case in the world. UAE citizens are a minority in their own country. Only a lousy 20%.

Then they should either start giving citizenship to more people or pick a team from those 20% who have the citizenship. They cant get all foreigners to represent their country at an international level and deny them citizenship. Thats hypocritical.

Rabz
June 26, 2008, 12:49 PM
I think its fine the way it is.
Infact, ICC should encourage more and more discards from established domestic leagues to play in the associate leagues.

Its only going to promote cricket in those countries.

What cricket needs, in those associate countries, a launching pad from where they can build on to something for the future.

Remember the early 90's in our country? Guys like Neil Fairbrother, Ranatunga, Wasim Akram, Jayasuriya, Alan Lamb ( if im not mistaken), played in our DPL.
The games got a new look and it caught even more imagination of the people. Even though cricket was already a popular game back then, but i guess football used to the Number 1.

Cricket 1.0 was spread around the world by the British. Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Carribean countries, Subcontinental countries, all were British colony and they introduced the game to us.

The same responsibility, i believe, is borne upon us now in this era of Cricket 3.0.
Bangaladeshis, Indians, Pakistanis and Sri Lankans are virtually every corner of the world and they can carry the torch till the ignites the fire of the locals.

Mind you, it wont in all the places, but even it does in 5 more countries, the game of cricket will be the winner.

Till then, i believe the current system is doing ok.

Alien
June 27, 2008, 12:44 AM
I like the way cricket is around the world. Only a few countries playing. The more countries that starts playing, the more it becomes footballised.

Not to mention some countries will remain minnow eternally.

Eshen
June 27, 2008, 02:22 AM
I like the way cricket is around the world. Only a few countries playing. The more countries that starts playing, the more it becomes footballised.
???

Care to explain what you have said above ?

Not to mention some countries will remain minnow eternally.
May be so, but then again there is Sri Lanka. Bangladesh also made big strides as an associate country during 1983-97 period.

May be immigrant dependent countries like UAE or USA won't go far, but they are sure fielding worthy opponents for countries like Nepal, Afghanistan, and Uganda. At least those countries with true potential are benefiting from regularly playing against stronger immigrant based sides.

Alien
June 27, 2008, 08:50 AM
???

Care to explain what you have said above ?


Whats there not to understand?



May be so, but then again there is Sri Lanka. Bangladesh also made big strides as an associate country during 1983-97 period.

With the exception of SL, Bangladesh is still way way back in world standard. Zimbabwe was good for a while then slumped back thanks to Mugabe.



May be immigrant dependent countries like UAE or USA won't go far, but they are sure fielding worthy opponents for countries like Nepal, Afghanistan, and Uganda. At least those countries with true potential are benefiting from regularly playing against stronger immigrant based sides.

Maybe there are some good effects as you mentioned but this whole concept of getting foreigners is just wrong.

Kabir
June 27, 2008, 08:52 AM
Care to explain what you have said above ?

And also, explain it right. Naile Eshen dada kaan dhoriye dara koraye rakhbe.

Eshen
June 27, 2008, 04:45 PM
Whats there not to understand?
Sorry bro, I can't make sense of half of the stuff you are saying here. Some explanation will be surely appreciated.