Talk:England cricket team

Crest

Isn't that the ECB logo? England shirts don't have ECB written on them.--Adzz 08:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English players

Whilst most England Test cricketers have been English there have also been players from the other nations which comprise the United Kingdom and further afield. England has been captained by Welshmen (Tony Lewis); Scotsmen (Mike Denness) and South Africans (Tony Greig) and has had many players who were born or born and bred overseas. In recent times Andrew Caddick (New Zealand); Geraint Jones (Papua New Guinea); Andrew Strauss (South Africa) and Kevin Pietersen (South Africa)have, amongst others, become England Test cricketers.

Which is all true and interesting, but it seems to me that there are two different things going on here. Welsh players are entitled to play for England automatically. I don't remember if the same is true of Scots. However, the other players have some sort of family connection which makes them officially partly English. This is of course not specific to England or to cricket — in all sports there are always people who are qualified to play for two countries.

What I'm getting at is that it would be nice to say something more about the qualification rules for being an England cricketer, so that we don't imply that England is somehow a special case. (Although it would also be nice to know whether it's benefited more from these rules than other countries). But I'm not certain enough about the precise rules to add this myself. Anyone want to have a go?

Stephen Turner 09:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

English or England?

Myu view is that the correct title for this entry would be the "England" cricket team not the "English" cricket team; not least beacuse there are (or have been) Welsh, Scottish and Irish players in the side! PaddyBriggs 08:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We had a long discussion about this a few months ago. I don't remember the reason for using nationalities, and I definitely agree with you in preferring country names, but I'm sure there was a reason for the choice. Stephen Turner 10:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a little odd. it does seem that it was decided that the adjective "English" or "Pakistani" or "Indian" is preferable to the country name. However in cricket parlance we always refer to "England" or "India" or "Pakistan" (etc.) and you will not find the adjective used as the descriptor of the team in any cricket record or reference books. PaddyBriggs 10:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you do - on tours it's always said "Australians in England", "West Indians in Pakistan", that kinda thing. (However, I believe England is an exception - they used to be MCC and are now England?) Sam Vimes 10:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam. You are quite right that in non Test matches the convention is (now) that we refer to the "West Indians" or the "Australians" in matches they play on tours that are not Test matches or One Day Internationals (expect for the England touring team who are always "England"). However in Test matches it is always "West Indies" or "Australia" or "England"...The entries about the national teams are (rightly) all about International matches not at all about the touring sides. So I stick to my view that the correct descriptor of the teams is the "England" or "Australia" (etc.) Cricket team. Another reason is both grammatical and accuracy concerned. Kent (or Surrey or Middlesex) are "English" cricket teams but not of course England cricket teams. The only England cricket team is the one that plays for England! PaddyBriggs 10:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was when Wisden, Cricinfo or Cricketarchive write about a team touring another, they put "West Indians in Australia in 2005-06". I agree with you, though, but I think we should go one further and align ourselves with the rest of the sports in Wikipedia - we have England national football team, England national basketball team, England national rugby union team, England national rugby league team, so I don't really see any reason why we shouldn't use the precise England national cricket team Sam Vimes 11:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket, because it's clearly of wider interest than just the people watching this page. I'll move the conversation so far, and we can carry on the discussion there, OK? Stephen Turner 11:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why "English" not "England Cricket Team"? I've never heard it referred to as anything but England. Warwickshire or Little Piddington are English cricet teams, but there is only one England cricket team. Chris R 23:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was already discussed above. Stephen Turner (Talk) 02:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden in a discussion about non-English players! Now moved the heading and this thread to make it clear.

Greatest ever matches

This is an arbitrary and subjective selection. I think that it should be removed. What do others think? PaddyBriggs 10:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. However, if we do remove them, I would like to see more on those matches in the section about each decade (especially Headingley 1981 and Edgbaston 2005, which are part of the folklore of English cricket). Stephen Turner 10:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UK Team

I have reintroduced the statement that England is a "de facto" UK team. Seems obviously true to me, just look at the history. English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish players have all played for England.And they could again. Not an opinion, a fact! PaddyBriggs

Wikipedia:No original research. --Mais oui! 17:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bollocks! Look at Wisden if you need proof! PaddyBriggs 17:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand how Wikipedia works. If you want to include new information, it is you who must provide the source, not other editors.--Mais oui! 17:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get overheated about this! This is not "new information" and I have no need to cite a source. It is included early in the piece because it is, on the face of it, odd that a team with players from across the UK is called "England". But it is a historical oddity that goes back to the earliest days of cricket. I could put together a list of Scots (etc.) who have played for England. Similarly I could point to the strong Scottish, Welsh and Irish support that England (cricket !) always gets. Self-evidently England is a de facto (if not de jure) UK team! PaddyBriggs 18:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I have no need to cite a source" Indeed? Most remarkable news. Why? Are you in possession of a unique dispensation from Jimbo Wales? You may think that something is "self-evident", but that is merely your personal opinion, and constitutes original research,... unless of course you produce a bona fide source.

"Let's not get overheated about this" Eh, it is you who has used an expletive. Calm down and try to be a bit more professional.--Mais oui! 18:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not clear to me whether all Scots and Northern Irish are automatically eligible to play for England, or whether they have to qualify by ancestry or residence in exactly the same way as (say) a South African or a Papua New Guinean. I think if we resolve that point, the paragraph will fall into place. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The player eligibility rules are at http://www.icc-cricket.com/rules/player_eligibility.pdf (PDF). I don't see anything that treats Scots or Northern Irish as more privileged to play for England than any other national. So the opening paragraphs seem misleading to me. I think I'll try rewriting them. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten it, and also made it less prominent. I have removed the claim that Scots and Northern Irish are somehow more privileged than other nationalities. If this is in error, please correct it, with a source. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Any citizen of the United Kingdom is eligible to play cricket for England. Thus the England team is a de facto UK team and always has been. Qualification (of course) does not apply for those who are already British nationals! Anyone with British nationality can play for England. This is not as the absurd and provocative Scot "Mais oui!" Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. seems to think my opinion but a very obvious fact! To suggest that Mike Denness needed to qualify by residence to play for England is ignorant and ridiculous ! Nothing has chnages since Denness's day. There is no such thing as a Scottish passport! PaddyBriggs 09:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~I seem to remember Gavin Hamilton had to qualify through residence; he certainly had to when he wanted to return to Scotland... Sam Vimes 10:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)~~. Scratch that. Sam Vimes 10:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support the excellent, intelligent edit made by Stephen Turner, and have thus reverted the unsourced personal opinion of the unprofessional PaddyBriggs. I have requested that he desist from making personal attacks on his Talk page. If an administrator is reading this, I would appreciate some input, otherwise I will request it elsewhere.--Mais oui! 13:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that my remarks constituted a personal attack and I am sorry that you so perceived them. Sorry if I offended, that was not my intent. Regards.PaddyBriggs 13:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy wrote: Stephen, Any citizen of the United Kingdom is eligible to play cricket for England.

Could you cite a source for that, Paddy? My reading of the ICC regulations is that they seem to say the opposite. I may be "ignorant and ridiculous" but it's still not "very obvious" to me that those players didn't qualify through some English ancestry. Thank you.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well I've googled and found this [1], on the ECB website which says

"Subject to the overriding discretion of the ECB, acting with the consent of the International Cricket Council, a Cricketer will only be qualified to play for England in a Test Match or in a One Day International Match if: (a) he is either a British citizen or an Irish citizen; and either (i) he was born within England and Wales; or (ii) he has been resident in England and Wales for the immediately preceding four consecutive years; and (b) he has not during the immediately preceding four consecutive years either (i) played cricket for any Full Member Country except England at under 17 level or above, or (ii) played First Class Cricket in any Full Member Country outside England and Wales, except as an overseas cricketer under local rules similar to Regulation 3 above or in any other circumtances approved by the ECB; and (c) he makes, whenever requested by the ECB, a declaration in the form set out in the Annex to this Regulation; and (d) he is also qualified for England pursuant to the provisions laid down from time to time by ICC. .

I found this easily enough on google (putting 'ECB Regulations Qualification for England' into Google seemed obvious to me, anyway) Average Earthman 16:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine Googling, and certainly ought to be included in the article.--Mais oui! 17:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above does imply that Scottish and Northern Irish players are not automatically eligible to play for England, so maybe it should be made clear in the article. If anyone else has the 2005 Wisden Almanack, on page 808, in Yorkshire's squad, it gives John Blain's country as Scotland only, whereas in the Warwickshire squad on page 779 in gives Dougie Brown's country as England/Scotland, thus implying that as of publication, John Blain was NOT eligible for England selection, whereas Dougie Brown was eligible for both England and Scotland. Thoughts anyone? User:Andrew nixon 23:18, 12th March 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the section on player eligiblity refers to players qualifying throught parentage. This is not actually possible these days. Kevin Pietersen has an English parent and had to qualify through residence. It also describes Monty Panesar as being from the Indian subcontinent. Panesar was born in Luton, which last time I looked at a map, wasn't anywhere near the Indian subcontinent. Andrew nixon 11:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this makes it quite clear that Scots are not automatically eligible to play for England; they must qualify by birth or residence. I've rewritten the section again, citing both the ICC and ECB regulations this time. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 09:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help

Could someone please tell me the full england cricket team list including subs..everyone. Its for a school project?