On Wed, 25 May 2022 03:16:50 -0700 (PDT), Brian DSouza
<themightyatlast@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:22:58 AM UTC-4, RH wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:58:04 PM UTC+1, Najeeb ybo wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 11:44:44 UTC+1, RH wrote:
>> > > On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 7:46:37 AM UTC+1, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>> > > > On 23/05/2022 16:07, RH wrote:
>> > > > > On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 2:02:41 PM UTC+1, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>> > > > >> On Sunday, 22 May 2022 at 13:51:21 UTC+1, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > >>> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 2:57:14 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>> > > > >>>> On 21/05/2022 12:58, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> > > > >>>>> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 8:57:02 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>> On Sat, 21 May 2022 03:36:58 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
>> > > > >>>>>> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 6:41:09 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 May 2022 00:40:04 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
>> > > > >>>>>>>> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 11:12:12 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 17 May 2022 05:54:48 -0700 (PDT), David North
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> None of that says that he pretended to be English or called himself English. It does, however, say that "he declared that his allegiances lay with Australia" after one season of county cricket, not after "he had been playing in England for some years" as you claimed.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> That depends on how you take the Kolpak clause about making oneself
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> available for England if selected.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Saying that you will while having no intention of doing so if actually
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> selected is at least arguably pretending to be English. But it is hard
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> to argue that someone is pretending to be English when they keep
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> saying they're Australian.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> However, saying that you don't particularly want to play for England
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> has no effect at all on whether you are eligible for selection because
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> you fit the criteria. You can't pretend to be eligible for selection:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> you either are or you aren't, so unless you're busy forging birth
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> certificates, you have no control over it at all.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Personally I'm not convinced that Symonds would have looked further into the contract than "you'll be paid X to play country cricket for 3 years"
>> > > > >>>>>>>> His lawyer at least would have been remiss if he didn't inform his
>> > > > >>>>>>>> client that the contract meant that he couldn't play for Australia
>> > > > >>>>>>>> while it remained in force.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>> In a lot of the Kolpaks' cases
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> Was Symonds a Kolpak player? He was born in the UK, so I thought he was just on a standard county contract
>> > > > >>>>>> On further investigation, he was an overseas player,
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>> I think his first stint in County Cricket for Gloucestershire was as an England qualified player, he turned down a spot in the England A team at the end of 95 and must have played for them as an overseas player in 96
>> > > > >>>> He was still England-qualified in 1996. From Wisden 1997: "His decision
>> > > > >>>> to play for Australia A in the winter made it virtually certain he would
>> > > > >>>> not return, as it meant the loss of his England qualification." Courtney
>> > > > >>>> Walsh was Gloucestershire's one allowed overseas player.
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>> which suggests that his contract didn't say he'd have to play for England teams if selected otherwise he wouldn't have been able to play it...
>> > > > >> "At the start of the [1995] season all England-qualified players had signed a contract which included a new clause stating that they had to make themselves available for the national team ..."
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> https://wisden.com/stories/features/legend-of-roy-the-andrew-symonds-story
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I'm assuming that that wasn't a one-off, and that anyone signing a new contract for 1996, which apparently included Symonds, would have had to agree to the same clause.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Which the little Toad did and only cam,e out for Oz when his bluff had been called... RH
>> > > > The cricxtasy.com article that you quoted suggests that he signed the
>> > > > 1996 contract several months _after_ declining selection for England A:
>> > > >
>> > > > "After rejecting a chance to play for England, Symonds returned to
>> > > > feature Queensland but failed to make it to the Australia team. In
>> > > > disappointment, Andrew Symonds signed a three-year contract with
>> > > > Gloucestershire which included the clause that he will play for England
>> > > > if selected."
>> > > >
>> > > > He was picked for England A "a week after being named the Cricket
>> > > > Writers’ Club Young Cricketer of the Year", which suggests that it was
>> > > > after the end of the 1995 season, so his 1995 contract would presumably
>> > > > no longer have been in force.
>> > > >
>> > > > Also, England A wasn't "the national team", so if that's what the clause
>> > > > amounted to, _technically_ the bluff was never called.
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > David North
>> >
>> > > Your argument does not make sense because it was his selection for the England A team that called his bluff ,ie, he came out for Oz when selected ... RH
>> > His argument makes perfect sense, as long as you aren't stupid enough to assume a conclusion before you examine the evidence.
>> OK. Explain the logic of a 70 million population (UK) compared with a 25 million population (Oz) not being able to produce 3 times the sides in their domestic FC cricket .Of course the great difference is the UK allows 50 or more foreigners in their domestic competition while Oz allows virtually none. RH
>
>Does CA not allow overseas players, or is it simply scheduling, pay and competition?

I think they could only play in the sheffield shield and couldn't play
in the CC or any other country's domestic competition.
That rule changed when Sam Robinson qualified for England with his
dual passport. Apparently the SS pay is poor and overseas players were
mostly Zimbabweans.

I see Henderson still doesn't understand that it's the concentration
of talent in a competition that determines it's value and not the
amount of teams in it or the nationality of the players. It's almost
as if he sits and dreams of innovative was to fuck up the English
cricket system.

max.it

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus