Under 19s thread. Players and under 19 matches

[Tinah09]

I agree, those “rules” are clearly made to be broken and largely based on situational ethics. Once yet another poachable, emerging West indian, South African pops up, those “rules” will be thrown out of the window, loop holes will materialise out of thin air. This is not new, across all sports…but as far as cricket is concerned, England takes the cake

[TapsC2]

They will probably poach a lot more West Indians from now on. A lot of people from that side of the world already have British passports or qualify for them

[Tinah09]

I don’t blame them, their team has been shit since the last batch of South Africans they poached retired….a batch consisting of CAPTAIN Andrew Strauss, wktkpr-batsman Matt Prior and the BEST ENGLAND BATSMAN OF ALL TIME Kevin Pietersen

[Googly]

That's an urban myth. The exact opposite is true. They have now made it extremely difficult for foreigners to play cricket in the UK. They have loads of their own extremely talented young players and have zero interest in poaching any youngsters.
The only young player who was completely ineligible that has had a clear run at it that I have ever heard of is Tawanda and he's had to play a poor card in order to do so.
He's playing in No Man's Land at present and there's no guarantee he will get a passport.
The only potential pressure they have is to be more inclusive.
Their openers are not doing well, but anyone who says Burns is shit doesn't know what they're talking about.
Of course they've still got Ballance in the wings, he's a fine player, but his nemesis was the Aussie attack.

Remember they changed their eligibility rules to allow Archer to qualify for the last World Cup. Who they perceived as a superstar in the making.
They will do it alright.

I think what they do though is make it hard for the average county level player to play. They don’t want to accomodate first class players. They want Pietersen level players.

Archer already had a Brit passport. Because he'd played West Indies u19 he couldn't play for England until he'd done the England stipulated 5 years. The ICC ruling is 3 years, but England made their internal ruling 5, but then dropped it to the ICC three year ruling to accommodate Archer.

[secretzimbo]

England's problem is they play all their red ball cricket in April and September. Which makes the conditions amazing for average medium pacers who wobble it off the seam - hence 45-year-old Darren Stevens having one of the best county bowling averages in recent years. There's absolutely zero on offer for spinners. It's also exceptionally difficult for batters to craft long innings in those conditions. Hence the last England Test XI included 5 right arm seamers with no pace. No spinners and no competent batters.

England's multi-format internationals also typically play even fewer domestic first class games than we do in Zimbabwe.

Bit off topic haha, sorry.

[ZIMDOGGY]

That's an urban myth. The exact opposite is true. They have now made it extremely difficult for foreigners to play cricket in the UK. They have loads of their own extremely talented young players and have zero interest in poaching any youngsters.
The only young player who was completely ineligible that has had a clear run at it that I have ever heard of is Tawanda and he's had to play a poor card in order to do so.
He's playing in No Man's Land at present and there's no guarantee he will get a passport.
The only potential pressure they have is to be more inclusive.
Their openers are not doing well, but anyone who says Burns is shit doesn't know what they're talking about.
Of course they've still got Ballance in the wings, he's a fine player, but his nemesis was the Aussie attack.

Remember they changed their eligibility rules to allow Archer to qualify for the last World Cup. Who they perceived as a superstar in the making.
They will do it alright.

I think what they do though is make it hard for the average county level player to play. They don’t want to accomodate first class players. They want Pietersen level players.

Archer already had a Brit passport. Because he'd played West Indies u19 he couldn't play for England until he'd done the England stipulated 5 years. The ICC ruling is 3 years, but England made their internal ruling 5, but then dropped it to the ICC three year ruling to accommodate Archer.

There you go. They went as far as to change the rules to accomodate an over seas player.
Yes he has a more legitimate claim to UK it seems, but i think my point stands.

What they seem to be irritated about is south africans and whoever else coming in, being good enough to take a county spot of a local, but not being international quality. Which makes sense. why piss the locals off by accomodating an onslught of outsiders, when they can thin the herd and concentrate on just a few outsiders who will significantly boost the ashes squad.

At least its how i read it. Youre right that they arent poaching left right and centre, but they are still doing it selectively, and you dont see it elsewhere.

[ZIMDOGGY]

That's an urban myth. The exact opposite is true. They have now made it extremely difficult for foreigners to play cricket in the UK. They have loads of their own extremely talented young players and have zero interest in poaching any youngsters.
The only young player who was completely ineligible that has had a clear run at it that I have ever heard of is Tawanda and he's had to play a poor card in order to do so.
He's playing in No Man's Land at present and there's no guarantee he will get a passport.
The only potential pressure they have is to be more inclusive.
Their openers are not doing well, but anyone who says Burns is shit doesn't know what they're talking about.
Of course they've still got Ballance in the wings, he's a fine player, but his nemesis was the Aussie attack.

Im sure England have talent but it really hasnt been converting. I mean Ollie POpe is a demon in county but hes been underperforming significantly. I dont understand why. I mean fair enough he`s young and he can come good soon but like TInah said, Crawley and Sibley among others dont really strike me as representing a solid English cricketing pool. by the way Im obviously referring to test. In odi and t20, England are miles ahead of everyone

I think what we are seeing is too many county teams. The jump seems too big. Too many player are plodders who comfortably make county with no clear value beyond it.
Each and every aussie first class player is in the international mix as a comparison. Six teams.

England needs more than 6 because of their population but i think instead of 18 or whatever it is, it should be like 12. 14 tops.

[slcricfan1]

That's an urban myth. The exact opposite is true. They have now made it extremely difficult for foreigners to play cricket in the UK. They have loads of their own extremely talented young players and have zero interest in poaching any youngsters.
The only young player who was completely ineligible that has had a clear run at it that I have ever heard of is Tawanda and he's had to play a poor card in order to do so.
He's playing in No Man's Land at present and there's no guarantee he will get a passport.
The only potential pressure they have is to be more inclusive.
Their openers are not doing well, but anyone who says Burns is shit doesn't know what they're talking about.
Of course they've still got Ballance in the wings, he's a fine player, but his nemesis was the Aussie attack.

Im sure England have talent but it really hasnt been converting. I mean Ollie POpe is a demon in county but hes been underperforming significantly. I dont understand why. I mean fair enough he`s young and he can come good soon but like TInah said, Crawley and Sibley among others dont really strike me as representing a solid English cricketing pool. by the way Im obviously referring to test. In odi and t20, England are miles ahead of everyone

I think what we are seeing is too many county teams. The jump seems too big. Too many player are plodders who comfortably make county with no clear value beyond it.
Each and every aussie first class player is in the international mix as a comparison. Six teams.

England needs more than 6 because of their population but i think instead of 18 or whatever it is, it should be like 12. 14 tops.

Yeah but thatll be hard to do with all the history

[andrewn9]

I don’t blame them, their team has been shit since the last batch of South Africans they poached retired….a batch consisting of CAPTAIN Andrew Strauss, wktkpr-batsman Matt Prior and the BEST ENGLAND BATSMAN OF ALL TIME Kevin Pietersen

Strauss moved to the UK aged 6, Prior moved to the UK aged 11. Tell me, what kind of poaching is this? The kind done with a fucking crystal ball I guess!

[Tinah09]

I don’t blame them, their team has been shit since the last batch of South Africans they poached retired….a batch consisting of CAPTAIN Andrew Strauss, wktkpr-batsman Matt Prior and the BEST ENGLAND BATSMAN OF ALL TIME Kevin Pietersen

Strauss moved to the UK aged 6, Prior moved to the UK aged 11. Tell me, what kind of poaching is this? The kind done with a fucking crystal ball I guess!

I can see that you’ve conveniently left the third cricketer I mentioned i.e greatest test batsman in England history out of your retort. But honestly, doesn’t it look odd that for a ~200 year old institution, the best players to represent England cricket just happen to be blokes born elsewhere? England has well-funded schools, academies and county clubs with great facilities and coaching staff yet their best test batsman is a guy from Pietermaritzburg, KwaZulu-Natal, SA whilst their leading ODI AND T20 batsman (and WC winning captain) just happens to be a guy born in Dublin, Ireland who captained Ireland U19 and had represented the senior Ireland cricket team before ‘switching to England’.

Perhaps it’s just a coincidence!! But if the top performing kids in your household just happen to be children born and raised elsewhere, that does that say about your household?