June 28, 2013

Who's an Australian then?

England gets stick for playing "overseas" players. It's time the old enemy got some
27

Fawad Ahmed: doesn't quite have the ring of Shane Warne, does it?
Fawad Ahmed: doesn't quite have the ring of Shane Warne, does it? © Getty Images

Excuse me a minute while I… yaaaaawnnnn. Right, now then… No, need another. Hang on. YAAAAAWN.

Phew, that's a bit better. Touch cream-crackered. See, I've been chin-wagging - at ridiculous, excruciating length - to a couple of carping Australians about cricket. More specifically, about English cricket. On and on and on they went about how "England" (their speech marks) can only win by plundering the Commonwealth ("a-bloody-gain"); about how there will be times in the Ashes when there isn't an Englishman on the paddock ("KP, Trott and 11 blokes in the baggy green"); about… sorry, going to have to yawn again.

YAAAWN.

…Yeah, so, they were bleating about how now we've got, like, Compton too? About how, next, we'll be picking, like, Ugandans? And Falkland Islanders? About how England don't develop their own players? But just cherry-pick them. From the former colonies? Yada, yada…

Fair go - I'm not actually denying that historically the England team has availed itself of some exotic talents, pulled in from far-flung un-English lands. Just that, well, they came to us. As well as KP and Trott, we've borrowed more than a few Saffers (Lamby, the Smiths), several West Indian-born players (Phil DeFreitas, Gladstone Small, Devon Malcolm), Kiwis (Andy Caddick), Zimbabweans (Graeme Hick), Irish (Morgs), and a few born on the subcontinent (Owais Shah, Usman Afzaal, Nasser Hussain). Pick and Mix. But, amidst this frankly laudable openness toward the auslander, what particularly seems to rile the Aussies are, yes, the Aussies who, committing the ultimate sin, opt to play for the Mother Country: the Hollioakes, Geraint "Grant" Jones, Allan Mullally and Martin bloody McCague. Lower than a snake's scrotum, mate.

Anyway, with all this moral high ground-seeking, a few things have been overlooked by our antipodean cousins. (I won't mention how the Australian Rugby Union side has not been averse to requisitioning the best South Sea islanders: Fijian-born Lote Tuqiri, who scored the try in the 2003 World Cup final, or Papua New-Guinean Will Genia from the current group. No, I'm not going to mention that. Gonna stick to cricket…)

The first thing to query is the very notion of what constitutes an Australian. Our Strayan friends seem to forget that, save a tiny minority of players with some aboriginal bloodlines (Jason Gillespie, Dan Christian), strictly speaking, they are all descendants of immigrants. Trotts and Morgans every last one of 'em. More to the point, which country isn't a mongrel?

Let's leave aside for now the fact that there obviously wouldn't be any "Australia" (my speech marks) - let alone England-Australia Tests - had Britain not set up a colony there and shipped off various unruly elements to help "nation-build" (i.e. steal resources). But again: what is an Australian?

If we start from 1877, it's clear that the ethnic make-up of their team has been chiefly Anglo-Saxon or Celtic. In fact, out of their 433 capped Test players, 26 are Mc/Mac variants, with six O'Whatevers. That's 32 ultra-Celtic names. This is what the majority of Aussies are referring to when they invoke "our identity": displaced Celts.

Bearing this heritage in mind, here's an XI taken from some of the players who have popped up in Aussie sides in the last 20 years or so, since the dawn of their (now sadly faded) dominance:

1. Michael Di Venuto
2. Simon Katich (c)
3. Phil Jaques
4. Usman Khawaja
5. Darren Lehmann
6. Adam Voges
7. Luke Ronchi (wk)
8. Ashley Noffke
9. Jason Krejza
10. Mike Kasprowicz
11. Ben Hilfenhaus
12th. Nathan Hauritz

Some pretty flamin' fair-dinkum Strayan appellations there, eh cobber? Haven't even mentioned Lennie Pascoe, né Durtanovich.

The second thing about the jockstrap-twisted froth they get into over England's foreign-born players is the implication that Australia has never played anyone who wasn't born a weak sheila's half-slung boomerang from a coolabah tree. Strewth. But here's the thing: the man (retroactively) given Baggy Green No. 001, Charles Bannerman, Test cricket's first centurion, was born in Woolwich. In London. Not the one in Ontario. In fact, six of that Australian side for the inaugural Test match were born abroad. For our friends Down Under, that's more than half of them. And I hear the new legspinning hope doesn't look a great deal like Warnie.

Out of interest, here's an all-time Aussie team of players born offshore:

1. Kepler Wessels - Bloemfontein, South Africa
2. Charles Bannerman - Woolwich, UK
3. Usman Khawaja - Islamabad, Pakistan
4. Andrew Symonds - Birmingham, UK
5. Dav Whatmore - Colombo, Ceylon
6. Moises Henriques - Funchal, Madeira
7. Luke Ronchi - Dannevirke, NZ (ODI, T20)
8. Ken MacLeay - Bath-on-Avon, Wiltshire (ODI only)
9. Brendon Julian - Hamilton, NZ
10. Steve O'Keefe - Malaysia (T20 only)
11. Clarrie Grimmett - Dunedin, NZ

So there you go. Nothing more to discuss. Take your medicine.

Shot, Trotty lad.

Scott Oliver tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Moppa on June 29, 2013, 0:04 GMT

    @AndyMick, I hope you're right that the article was meant as a joke, because that's how it read. Assuming that despite the joking approach to it, the author is actually trying to make a serious point, I'd agree with @SamuelH that where you are born doesn't mean much. This is evident from the 'all time overseas Aussie XI' selected by the article's author, and the amount of barrel-scrapping required to get it together. Only two of the XI are genuine imports who learned their cricket overseas: Wessels and Grimmett. Taking that approach, I classify KP, Trott (and Lamb, Robin Smith etc) as imports and Strauss, Prior, Dernbach, Hussain, Caddick, Devon Malcolm etc as genuine Poms. Fawad Ahmed, if he ever plays for Australia, would indeed be an import.

  • Prazzo on July 1, 2013, 10:07 GMT

    As an Indian brought up in Oz, I was initially amazed that the English cricket team had such a number of foreign players who were embraced into the team. To me it seemed like a great strength indicating the open minded nature of the Brits which I don't think has ever existed in Oz towards local talent with foreign origins. I think in Oz, it is seen as some kind of aberration to have a non-white player in the team, so Khawaja has been having a tough time cementing his place even though he deserves his place more than the mediocre Cowan and the stop-start Hughes. They talk of this guy Fawad Ahmed but I think that is more of a curiosity then a reality. It will take a few years before Ozzies grow up and give a go to local talent with non-western roots. If there are signs of it now, its because England has taken a lead on it. Oz is mentally about 20 years behind, so this conversation should be revisited then!

  • lisadb99 on July 1, 2013, 6:31 GMT

    Geraint Jones was born in Papua New Guinea, not Australia.

  • Paul_Somerset on June 30, 2013, 15:39 GMT

    An all-time German XI would have been pretty useful:

    Justin Langer Michael Klinger Darren Lehmann Adam Voges Tim Zoehrer Shane Warne Andy Bichel Nathan Hauritz Paul Reiffel Ben Hilfenhaus Carl Rackemann

  • Brownly on June 30, 2013, 1:21 GMT

    I think this article is taking the joke a little seriously. Most Australians make it more out of the disbelief that these cricketers would CHOOSE to identify as Poms. Australian imports have the right idea.

    In all seriousness though, I agree with Debatable. "Your implication that, after the Aboriginal population, Anglo-Irish descendants are more Australian than European/Asian immigrants is both offensive and ignorant." I had trouble reading this article, even as a joke, because of this same reason. To the point where I'd reconsider parts of your wording.

  • brittop on June 29, 2013, 21:38 GMT

    @foxee1: My definition is any person who becomes a citizen of the country can play test cricket for it. How would you set your rules?

  • foxee1 on June 29, 2013, 15:59 GMT

    @Brittop, excellent point(s). It's called International Cricket for a reason. Country Vs Country. It is a game, just like Monopoly or Scrabble with rules that everyone adheres to and follows. Yes we have human beings playing this game, nevertherless it is still a game.Therefore it comes down to what rules we cricket lovers want for International Cricket. Do we want anyone with any particular background to play for any country that they want to, which is fine if we want it, or do we want some sort of defined criteria with which all cricketing nations adhere to. This is why I highlighted the particular country's cricketing system as being a base with which we can use to set the rules of eligibility. Otherwise, anything goes, which is cool if we want it?

  • RodStark on June 29, 2013, 15:50 GMT

    I do think it should be easier for players from countries that don't play test cricket to play for ones that do than for players to move around between the test-playing countries, but in any case, the rules are in place, and as long as you abide by them, that's okay. I must say the Aussies went a bit far by changing the actual laws of their country to let the leg-spinner play.

  • brittop on June 29, 2013, 13:41 GMT

    @Foxee1: So a test match is one coaching system versus another. Does that mean that nobody should be allowed to participate in another country's coaching scheme? Does it mean that players should not be allowed to get any assistance from former players of another country? Also if you're in one country until the age of say 14 or 15, then move to another, which country can you play for? What if you move at 12 or 13? 16 or 17?

  • siddhartha87 on June 29, 2013, 13:15 GMT

    Well surely Aussies on a decline for past 2-3 years.But this nothing new to Aussies. same happened for few years in mid eighties. But my dear poms, you know what it means right? this only means you will be dominated for some 20-25 years soon.Remember the Ashes during those days? :D You always lose 4-1. The 1 game you won were normally insignificant dead rubbers.Damn in 2002 it would had been another white wash. But aussie declared on 172-4 in 3 th or 4th test. And England won that.In 2005 you won. In 2007 white washed :D you did well in 2011 only. MY prediction Poms gonna win ashes again in 2033.

  • Moppa on June 29, 2013, 0:04 GMT

    @AndyMick, I hope you're right that the article was meant as a joke, because that's how it read. Assuming that despite the joking approach to it, the author is actually trying to make a serious point, I'd agree with @SamuelH that where you are born doesn't mean much. This is evident from the 'all time overseas Aussie XI' selected by the article's author, and the amount of barrel-scrapping required to get it together. Only two of the XI are genuine imports who learned their cricket overseas: Wessels and Grimmett. Taking that approach, I classify KP, Trott (and Lamb, Robin Smith etc) as imports and Strauss, Prior, Dernbach, Hussain, Caddick, Devon Malcolm etc as genuine Poms. Fawad Ahmed, if he ever plays for Australia, would indeed be an import.

  • Prazzo on July 1, 2013, 10:07 GMT

    As an Indian brought up in Oz, I was initially amazed that the English cricket team had such a number of foreign players who were embraced into the team. To me it seemed like a great strength indicating the open minded nature of the Brits which I don't think has ever existed in Oz towards local talent with foreign origins. I think in Oz, it is seen as some kind of aberration to have a non-white player in the team, so Khawaja has been having a tough time cementing his place even though he deserves his place more than the mediocre Cowan and the stop-start Hughes. They talk of this guy Fawad Ahmed but I think that is more of a curiosity then a reality. It will take a few years before Ozzies grow up and give a go to local talent with non-western roots. If there are signs of it now, its because England has taken a lead on it. Oz is mentally about 20 years behind, so this conversation should be revisited then!

  • lisadb99 on July 1, 2013, 6:31 GMT

    Geraint Jones was born in Papua New Guinea, not Australia.

  • Paul_Somerset on June 30, 2013, 15:39 GMT

    An all-time German XI would have been pretty useful:

    Justin Langer Michael Klinger Darren Lehmann Adam Voges Tim Zoehrer Shane Warne Andy Bichel Nathan Hauritz Paul Reiffel Ben Hilfenhaus Carl Rackemann

  • Brownly on June 30, 2013, 1:21 GMT

    I think this article is taking the joke a little seriously. Most Australians make it more out of the disbelief that these cricketers would CHOOSE to identify as Poms. Australian imports have the right idea.

    In all seriousness though, I agree with Debatable. "Your implication that, after the Aboriginal population, Anglo-Irish descendants are more Australian than European/Asian immigrants is both offensive and ignorant." I had trouble reading this article, even as a joke, because of this same reason. To the point where I'd reconsider parts of your wording.

  • brittop on June 29, 2013, 21:38 GMT

    @foxee1: My definition is any person who becomes a citizen of the country can play test cricket for it. How would you set your rules?

  • foxee1 on June 29, 2013, 15:59 GMT

    @Brittop, excellent point(s). It's called International Cricket for a reason. Country Vs Country. It is a game, just like Monopoly or Scrabble with rules that everyone adheres to and follows. Yes we have human beings playing this game, nevertherless it is still a game.Therefore it comes down to what rules we cricket lovers want for International Cricket. Do we want anyone with any particular background to play for any country that they want to, which is fine if we want it, or do we want some sort of defined criteria with which all cricketing nations adhere to. This is why I highlighted the particular country's cricketing system as being a base with which we can use to set the rules of eligibility. Otherwise, anything goes, which is cool if we want it?

  • RodStark on June 29, 2013, 15:50 GMT

    I do think it should be easier for players from countries that don't play test cricket to play for ones that do than for players to move around between the test-playing countries, but in any case, the rules are in place, and as long as you abide by them, that's okay. I must say the Aussies went a bit far by changing the actual laws of their country to let the leg-spinner play.

  • brittop on June 29, 2013, 13:41 GMT

    @Foxee1: So a test match is one coaching system versus another. Does that mean that nobody should be allowed to participate in another country's coaching scheme? Does it mean that players should not be allowed to get any assistance from former players of another country? Also if you're in one country until the age of say 14 or 15, then move to another, which country can you play for? What if you move at 12 or 13? 16 or 17?

  • siddhartha87 on June 29, 2013, 13:15 GMT

    Well surely Aussies on a decline for past 2-3 years.But this nothing new to Aussies. same happened for few years in mid eighties. But my dear poms, you know what it means right? this only means you will be dominated for some 20-25 years soon.Remember the Ashes during those days? :D You always lose 4-1. The 1 game you won were normally insignificant dead rubbers.Damn in 2002 it would had been another white wash. But aussie declared on 172-4 in 3 th or 4th test. And England won that.In 2005 you won. In 2007 white washed :D you did well in 2011 only. MY prediction Poms gonna win ashes again in 2033.

  • siddhartha87 on June 29, 2013, 13:07 GMT

    why Strauss ,Prior, were not mentioned?

  • mamboman on June 29, 2013, 8:24 GMT

    What a load of tosh this is. Khawaja is demonstrably inadequate to play for even this weakened Australian side. His continued selection smacks of "political correctness" from the ACB.

  • on June 29, 2013, 7:27 GMT

    I think deep down most Aussies find it difficult to accept that more world class cricketers moving overseas choose to live in England rather than Australia.

  • debatable on June 29, 2013, 5:33 GMT

    I know this is meant to be funny, and I know I'm rising to the bait but can't we change the caveman-style tone of the pre-Ashes repartee? Anyone else (English, Australian, the cricket community in general) tired of reading 'banter' of this kind? 1. Strewth. Tick. 2. "Straya". Tick. 3. Fair dinkum. Tick. 4. Colony, convicts, etc. Tick

    Your implication that, after the Aboriginal population, Anglo-Irish descendants are more Australian than European/Asian immigrants is both offensive and ignorant. Your statement: This is what the majority of Aussies are referring to when they invoke "our identity": displaced Celts. is so far wrong it's just not funny any more. If we were to transpose your humour to other Test-playing nations you wouldn't sign your name to it.

  • on June 29, 2013, 3:22 GMT

    These Aussies you were talking to, were they born in Australia because it sounds more like they migrated here from England.

  • on June 29, 2013, 2:16 GMT

    What rubbish. Both the UK and Australia are multicultural countries and societies. Of course players with foreign ancestry and backgrounds will play for them. This argument over "Proper English players" or "Proper Australian players" is a complete red herring.

  • Moppa on June 29, 2013, 1:04 GMT

    OK, I know I'm taking this article too seriously, but here's an all-time English imports XI. Trott, Lamb, Hick, Pietersen, D'Oliveria, Greig (c), Jones (wk), Caddick, Mullaly, Small, Malcolm. (My research indicates that Malcolm moved to England about 20). Compared to Australia's list of three genuine imports, Wessels, Grimmett and Ahmed, it is a bit of an argument clincher, as @WheresTheEmpire points out.

  • AndyMick on June 28, 2013, 16:29 GMT

    Stop whinging Foxee1, it was a jokey article, can only assume it touched a nerve mate!!!!!

  • ThatsJustCricket on June 28, 2013, 15:55 GMT

    An absolute tripe of an article if you ask me. So, England keeps "borrowing" cricketers who are born, brought up and learnt cricket elsewhere and gets peeved when talked about it. Talk about eating the cake and keeping it as well. Forget about the folks from SA, the thing that irks me most is when they keep eating into the Irish team.

  • guptahitesh4u on June 28, 2013, 15:12 GMT

    I am an Indian and I do not support the Australian team but yet I am forced to say that this is a ridiculous article...

  • dlpthomas on June 28, 2013, 15:00 GMT

    NTHUQ - try Kepler Wessels as well (and then as soon as the Saffers were allowed back he threw away the baggy green and headed home)

    The one serious point in the article is that England doesn't have talent scouts scouring the cricket fields of the world in order to steal budding talent from other nations but rather players go to England to further their careers. (God knows why - its cold, its wet and its full of Poms). Whilst I would argue that there are too many overseas players in the England side, at least they didn't pass an Act of Parliament to get a new leggie.

  • Hammond on June 28, 2013, 13:03 GMT

    I love this. When they rush in a bog average Pakistani asylum seeker (after pushing through legislation to make sure that he can play) and then have them temerity to have a go at a KP or a Trott that had to already have UK citizenship BEFORE fulfilling a 5 year qualification period actually playing cricket in England, then that says to me that whatever moral high ground that my countrymen (I am Australian) had on this issue is dead and buried. Pot, kettle, black.

  • SDHM on June 28, 2013, 12:09 GMT

    I think we might see the boot on the other foot over the coming decade to be honest - the ECB has recently made it tougher to qualify for England, but with the law change in Australia we might see a few more Fawad Ahmeds playing for them. And what's wrong with that? Immigration is a massive part of the culture of both countries, their sporting sides should reflect that.

    What really annoys met is this idea that where you're born defines everything about you, however. I can see why people might get a bit annoyed at someone like Trott representing England/UK, but Strauss? Prior? Dernbach or Meaker? Ben Stokes? Chris Jordan (IF England pick him)? To take it to other sports, Mo Farah? Laura Robson? They may have been born elsewhere, but they all grew up on these shores. This archaic idea of where you're born is where you're from full stop is wrong. I myself was born in NZ but have grown up in England; which country, guessing from this comment, do you reckon I identify with?

  • its.rachit on June 28, 2013, 11:47 GMT

    The fact that the author spent a day collecting stats/data and writing this article means that he does not YAWN at the fact that people pick England for not having all England born players ... And frankly any country would do that .. If Dale Steyn had migrated to India at the age of 2 years, he might have played for India ... and I dont see anything wrong in that ... Commenting on what constitutes a nation and how you define an Australian is Definitely Not Cricket .....

  • foxee1 on June 28, 2013, 11:15 GMT

    What an absurd article. We may as well say that we are all inter-connected as human beings. Therefore our ancestral background may include various ethnic origins, so we should be able to play for any country we like.That's clearly not the point and is irrelevant when talking about what defines your nationality in regards to international cricket. The whole point of country versus country is to pick cricketers that basically have been groomed through the various cricket systems of each particular country.This has obviously not clearly been the case when it comes to certain players representing England especially.Why try to even the score on this point by pointing out the ethnic background of Australian players that have clearly been brought up through the Australian State systems is bizarre and again nonsensical. The reason there is dismay when watching the English team play against another international team, is because it is perceived that it is not being done on a level playing field

  • nthuq on June 28, 2013, 11:05 GMT

    Fair enough, but I think the difference between Australia and England's 'overseas' players, is that due to the large number of teams and large number of places available for people to make incomes playing first class cricket in County Cricket, a lot of people who did not grow up in England moved there to play cricket. Fawad Ahmed is the only one I can think of who's done this in Australia, though this is only a guess.

  • TheCricketEmpireStrikesBack on June 28, 2013, 10:00 GMT

    Enjoyed your "stirring" article Scott. Of course Aussies will point out there is a difference between a true immigrant and a cricketing mercenary and that the sheer weight of numbers of these that have played for England over the past 40 years that is the real argument clincher.

    What I would like explained is why England changes its borders so often when playing sport. It's "England" for cricket, England for soccer, Britain for the Olympics and England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales for rugby. Is this because the only way to win is get someone else to do it for you? After all, Spain and Italy do not morph into "Spitaly" when playing Germany in the soccer.

    Cheers mate.

  • TheCricketEmpireStrikesBack on June 28, 2013, 10:00 GMT

    Enjoyed your "stirring" article Scott. Of course Aussies will point out there is a difference between a true immigrant and a cricketing mercenary and that the sheer weight of numbers of these that have played for England over the past 40 years that is the real argument clincher.

    What I would like explained is why England changes its borders so often when playing sport. It's "England" for cricket, England for soccer, Britain for the Olympics and England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales for rugby. Is this because the only way to win is get someone else to do it for you? After all, Spain and Italy do not morph into "Spitaly" when playing Germany in the soccer.

    Cheers mate.

  • nthuq on June 28, 2013, 11:05 GMT

    Fair enough, but I think the difference between Australia and England's 'overseas' players, is that due to the large number of teams and large number of places available for people to make incomes playing first class cricket in County Cricket, a lot of people who did not grow up in England moved there to play cricket. Fawad Ahmed is the only one I can think of who's done this in Australia, though this is only a guess.

  • foxee1 on June 28, 2013, 11:15 GMT

    What an absurd article. We may as well say that we are all inter-connected as human beings. Therefore our ancestral background may include various ethnic origins, so we should be able to play for any country we like.That's clearly not the point and is irrelevant when talking about what defines your nationality in regards to international cricket. The whole point of country versus country is to pick cricketers that basically have been groomed through the various cricket systems of each particular country.This has obviously not clearly been the case when it comes to certain players representing England especially.Why try to even the score on this point by pointing out the ethnic background of Australian players that have clearly been brought up through the Australian State systems is bizarre and again nonsensical. The reason there is dismay when watching the English team play against another international team, is because it is perceived that it is not being done on a level playing field

  • its.rachit on June 28, 2013, 11:47 GMT

    The fact that the author spent a day collecting stats/data and writing this article means that he does not YAWN at the fact that people pick England for not having all England born players ... And frankly any country would do that .. If Dale Steyn had migrated to India at the age of 2 years, he might have played for India ... and I dont see anything wrong in that ... Commenting on what constitutes a nation and how you define an Australian is Definitely Not Cricket .....

  • SDHM on June 28, 2013, 12:09 GMT

    I think we might see the boot on the other foot over the coming decade to be honest - the ECB has recently made it tougher to qualify for England, but with the law change in Australia we might see a few more Fawad Ahmeds playing for them. And what's wrong with that? Immigration is a massive part of the culture of both countries, their sporting sides should reflect that.

    What really annoys met is this idea that where you're born defines everything about you, however. I can see why people might get a bit annoyed at someone like Trott representing England/UK, but Strauss? Prior? Dernbach or Meaker? Ben Stokes? Chris Jordan (IF England pick him)? To take it to other sports, Mo Farah? Laura Robson? They may have been born elsewhere, but they all grew up on these shores. This archaic idea of where you're born is where you're from full stop is wrong. I myself was born in NZ but have grown up in England; which country, guessing from this comment, do you reckon I identify with?

  • Hammond on June 28, 2013, 13:03 GMT

    I love this. When they rush in a bog average Pakistani asylum seeker (after pushing through legislation to make sure that he can play) and then have them temerity to have a go at a KP or a Trott that had to already have UK citizenship BEFORE fulfilling a 5 year qualification period actually playing cricket in England, then that says to me that whatever moral high ground that my countrymen (I am Australian) had on this issue is dead and buried. Pot, kettle, black.

  • dlpthomas on June 28, 2013, 15:00 GMT

    NTHUQ - try Kepler Wessels as well (and then as soon as the Saffers were allowed back he threw away the baggy green and headed home)

    The one serious point in the article is that England doesn't have talent scouts scouring the cricket fields of the world in order to steal budding talent from other nations but rather players go to England to further their careers. (God knows why - its cold, its wet and its full of Poms). Whilst I would argue that there are too many overseas players in the England side, at least they didn't pass an Act of Parliament to get a new leggie.

  • guptahitesh4u on June 28, 2013, 15:12 GMT

    I am an Indian and I do not support the Australian team but yet I am forced to say that this is a ridiculous article...

  • ThatsJustCricket on June 28, 2013, 15:55 GMT

    An absolute tripe of an article if you ask me. So, England keeps "borrowing" cricketers who are born, brought up and learnt cricket elsewhere and gets peeved when talked about it. Talk about eating the cake and keeping it as well. Forget about the folks from SA, the thing that irks me most is when they keep eating into the Irish team.

  • AndyMick on June 28, 2013, 16:29 GMT

    Stop whinging Foxee1, it was a jokey article, can only assume it touched a nerve mate!!!!!