Spanky : England is 'pinching' talent from everywhere

ten years after wrote:

JKLever wrote:

Are Symonds,Henriques & Ronchi foreigners? Would they appear in an article about too many imports into the Aus game? Would they f*ck

If there was a long history of crap performance by Australia and a third of the Shield squads were from overseas they most certainly would appear in an equivalent article, with bells on.

So does it make them foreigners or not? And such an article would be equally as farqwitted as this piece.

If there were only 3 overseas born players (or even 20) in county cricket no-one would even be mentioning it.

You don't think there are too many overseas cricketers in English county cricket then?

I get the impression that it wouldn't matter if there were no English cricketers at all as long as an England team could be put together from South Africans and that they could beat BanglaDesh.

ten years after wrote:If there were only 3 overseas born players (or even 20) in county cricket no-one would even be mentioning it.

You don't think there are too many overseas cricketers in English county cricket then?

I get the impression that it wouldn't matter if there were no English cricketers at all as long as an England team could be put together from South Africans and that they could beat BanglaDesh.

Are you actually reading anything JKL writes?

ten years after wrote:If there were only 3 overseas born players (or even 20) in county cricket no-one would even be mentioning it.

You don't think there are too many overseas cricketers in English county cricket then?

I get the impression that it wouldn't matter if there were no English cricketers at all as long as an England team could be put together from South Africans and that they could beat BanglaDesh.

I'll post again, what I posted on the last post of the previous page...

Rubbish, I've already said I agree with some of his points particularly the amount of foreigners in domestic cricket - Strauss & Prior came
to this country at the ages of 3 and 11. They are English and have no place in the discussion bar to falsely strengthen the impact of his
piece.

JKLever wrote:

ten years after wrote:If there were only 3 overseas born players (or even 20) in county cricket no-one would even be mentioning it.

You don't think there are too many overseas cricketers in English county cricket then?

I get the impression that it wouldn't matter if there were no English cricketers at all as long as an England team could be put together from South Africans and that they could beat BanglaDesh.

I'll post again, what I posted on the last post of the previous page...

Rubbish, I've already said I agree with some of his points particularly the amount of foreigners in domestic cricket - Strauss & Prior came
to this country at the ages of 3 and 11. They are English and have no place in the discussion bar to falsely strengthen the impact of his
piece.

Roebuck's article is all about the issue of the number of overseas players. You state that the article is "farqwitted" because he includes Prior and Strauss in his list of overseas born players despite this being such a minor part of the article (as well as being true).

I think it's reasonable to ask for confirmation that you do actually agree with what Roebuck is saying.

I agree with him as I've already stated about the growing number of foreign imports into the English game. I can't repeat that many times more without getting bored.

I disagree with including Strauss & Prior in an article which ends with the words 'Unable to produce players of their own, the Poms seem intent on
pinching everyone else's sportspeople'

What part of 'they are our own sportspeople' don't you understand?

He Trots (pardon the pun) the line out - 'He joins
Andrew Strauss, Kevin Pietersen, Matt Prior and Andy Flower in the
growing African contingent.'

'Nor is that all; Stephen Moore is a contender for a position as
an opener while Ryan McLaren and Craig Kieswetter are longer-term
candidates'

Yes, I have a problem with it as i've stated but Strauss & Prior are english, are products of English cricket age groups, produced by England systems and are totally incongruous to the debate.

They would make sense to be included in a piece by a trolling Aussie fan but not by someone claiming to be a journo.

It also seems as though Spanky is pandering to the Aussie taste by broadening this to sport in general with his remark...

'the Poms seem intent on
pinching everyone else's sportspeople.'

Note 'sportspeople' rather than cricketers.

Of course the fact that I could list copious amounts of 'foreigners' by his definition involved in Australias last Olympic squad and plenty more in past Aus rugby squads is neither here nor there

FFS, Spanky is a pom talking about English cricket...keep us well out of it thanks...

You (JKL) agree with the key and very important message of a two page article that refers to 119 overseas players in county cricket and yet think the whole thing is farqwitted because you think two of those players shouldn't be included in the list.

I haven't checked out that number of 119 that Roebuck quotes. I'm sure if we try we can lop at least 20 of them off the list as with Prior and Strauss. Does that mean it won't be a problem any more?

Perhaps if you had an opportunity to read more of his press articles you would realise that he most definitely does not pander to Australian opinion. I think many of the Aussie forummers on here will happily confirm that for you.

ten years after wrote:You (JKL) agree with the key and very important message of a two page article that refers to 119 overseas players in county cricket and yet think the whole thing is farqwitted because you think two of those players shouldn't be included in the list.

I don't 'think' those two shouldn't be in the list - I know they shouldn't.

No, I think his article is 'farqwitted' because he felt the need to include those two into his article, however much I may agree there is a problem. Poor journalism on his part. I can't make that any clearer.

Perhaps if you had an opportunity to read more of his press articles
you would realise that he most definitely does not pander to Australian
opinion. I think many of the Aussie forummers on here will happily
confirm that for you.

I've never read any article of his concerning England that comes accross as anything other than bitter and resentful that he got nicked for spanking boys in this country and now lives in Australia. What he says about Australia I couldn't care less.

ten years after wrote:
The decline in English cricket that has been noticed by the absence of recent players in English ATXIs on this forum. This traces back to the late 60s and early 70s. I suspect this isn't really Margaret Thatcher's fault as it also co-incides with the start of the mass influx of overseas players into the English counties. What Roebuck refers to as the soft option is the fact that it is so much easier to recruit players from overseas, even sub-test standard ones, than to develop home grown talent.

Perhaps we need to be beaten by BanglaDesh before we get motivated to start doing what's needed to rise above mediocrity again.

If we did World XI teams of the decades (60's 70's 80's 90's 00's) how many Poms would feature?

A few would get serious consideration in the 60s.

Since the 70s only Knott and Bob Taylor would be sure of places.

Botham would get consideration in the 70s depending on team balance.

That's probably about it.

JKLever wrote:I've never read any article of his concerning England that comes accross as anything other than bitter and resentful that he got nicked for spanking boys in this country and now lives in Australia. What he says about Australia I couldn't care less.

Sage.