If South Africa’s end of year Test series against India was in that country rather than in South Africa, would the world’s most consistently performing spinner in domestic cricket for the last three years be considered for selection? Almost certainly not.
The rugby analogy isn't comparing 'apples-to-apples'. In rugby, the player's prime commitment needs to be to their 'club', as this is where they get most of their income and where they play most of their games. In cricket, the player's prime commitment needs to be to their country,
as this is where their bread is buttered. A rugby international season is 2 months long. An international cricket season is 10 months long. That's what makes it difficult to let players commit themselves to County cricket, make that their primary commitment, and then expect to play for SA as well.
Cricket needed a mechanism to reduce the 'Kolpak' flow, and the chance of playing for your country (or more specifically denying it to Kolpaks) was the best mechanism available. If that wasn't the case, you would end up with 20 more players doubling (or more) their income by playing Country cricket, and SA would have to field a C or D team for any games between April and September. And then the 'stars' just walk back in for the SA summer? That's not going to work. Not often I say this, but I think CSA got this one right.
After all the wilderness years and return to cricket via Donald, Pollock etc and becoming a force in the game - the governance of cricket in SA is heading backwards with the attitude towards players of great quality. Such a shame !!
The rugby analogy in these comments is stark. If a rugby player abroad is not released by, say, Toulouse, he does not play in that particular Springbok series. But if he is available, he plays. Why can't we do that in cricket? Why are cricket administrators so stuck up? I wonder if this will change with the new guard who purportedly promise a new dawn...
Well argued Manners. Rugby, one of our major sports and certainly our most successful one, now chooses players wherever they are practising their trade. Why can't cricket do likewise? If only people saw cricketers' (and all sportspeople's) decisions on where to play being largely governed by economic considerations. they wouldn't get so heated.
The rugby analogy isn't comparing 'apples-to-apples'. In rugby, the player's prime commitment needs to be to their 'club', as this is where they get most of their income and where they play most of their games. In cricket, the player's prime commitment needs to be to their country,
as this is where their bread is buttered. A rugby international season is 2 months long. An international cricket season is 10 months long. That's what makes it difficult to let players commit themselves to County cricket, make that their primary commitment, and then expect to play for SA as well.
Cricket needed a mechanism to reduce the 'Kolpak' flow, and the chance of playing for your country (or more specifically denying it to Kolpaks) was the best mechanism available. If that wasn't the case, you would end up with 20 more players doubling (or more) their income by playing Country cricket, and SA would have to field a C or D team for any games between April and September. And then the 'stars' just walk back in for the SA summer? That's not going to work. Not often I say this, but I think CSA got this one right.
After all the wilderness years and return to cricket via Donald, Pollock etc and becoming a force in the game - the governance of cricket in SA is heading backwards with the attitude towards players of great quality. Such a shame !!
The rugby analogy in these comments is stark. If a rugby player abroad is not released by, say, Toulouse, he does not play in that particular Springbok series. But if he is available, he plays. Why can't we do that in cricket? Why are cricket administrators so stuck up? I wonder if this will change with the new guard who purportedly promise a new dawn...
Well argued Manners. Rugby, one of our major sports and certainly our most successful one, now chooses players wherever they are practising their trade. Why can't cricket do likewise? If only people saw cricketers' (and all sportspeople's) decisions on where to play being largely governed by economic considerations. they wouldn't get so heated.
Faf came back from kolpak, pick the best available players it's not rocket science.
Exactly. Rugby saw the light and we won another World Cup. Will cricket learn that lesson. Time will tell.