Does it matter what team a cricketer plays for? - Opinion
There is constant debate about the origins of various cricketers and whom they eventually end up playing for. In true essence, it should really be upon the discretion of the player as to the side he aims to represent in the future. The acceptance level of
this fact is surprisingly very low amongst those who consider loyalties in a different light.
Vehement scorn was directed at England’s http://www.senore.com/Cricket/Sunil-Manohar-Gavaskar-c91863
had the audacity to claim that the crowd was booing him because they felt he should be playing for http://www.senore.com/Cricket/India-c750 instead of England. The absurdity of Gavaskar’s assertion was astonishing.
We live in times when the game has globalized to the point of tournaments such as the Champions League T20 being played in some distinct part of the world. A fast bowler from http://www.senore.com/Cricket/Zimbabwe-c3045 could end up playing for New Zealand if there is some connection based
upon lineage and ethnicity. Then there are cricketers who have ventured out, frustrated with the state of affairs in their country of origin. One example is http://www.senore.com/Cricket/Imran-c64193 Tahir, who stood on the fringes of the Pakistani domestic circuit only to end up playing for
http://www.senore.com/Cricket/South-Africa-c757, after marrying an Indian born South African Muslim.
Usman Khawaja’s decision to migrate to Australia with his family exposed him to Test level when he played for http://www.senore.com/Cricket/Australia-c746 at a tender age. Circumstances, compulsions and priorities are thus pivotal factors that determine which team one is to represent in the
near future. The point is that the game has evolved to such an extent that bearing with inadequate facilities at one’s disposal or controversial selection policies has helped players reserve the right to play where they want to.
It thus comes to one’s surprise that mutterings of players being traitors begin to surface from some of the most astute cricket observers. The most obvious case was http://www.senore.com/Cricket/England-c749 amid the controversial
quota system in South Africa, was met with considerable criticism from Cricket South Africa. Pietersen as a result, was castigated on his tour to his native land in the 2004-05 season, but managed to silence the hostile crowd by scoring consecutive hundreds
in the ODI series.
Then comes the all important reference points for players. The testimonials that many players have from different commentators almost explicitly mentions their ethnicity and race. Players such as http://www.senore.com/Cricket/RS-Bopara-c2373 for example are considered to
be the first ‘ Sikhs’ to play for England, which is highly irrelevant given that the focus needs to shift to lauding their achievements and highlighting their loopholes. Yet the debate continues to go on with regard to what constitutes a player’s decision
to shift loyalties with their native countries.
Even former players who take up contractual employment as foreign coaches often have to bear the brunt of criticism. Allan Donald’s status of being the coach of http://www.senore.com/Cricket/New-Zealand-c754 during his team’s routing of his native South Africa in the 2011 Cricket World Cup
was considered to be a grave sin committed by the paceman.
Yet as absurdity continues to prevail in commercial times, it seems as if the best way to silence one’s critics is to notch up a good score or pick up crucial wickets for a side that one has wanted to represent.
Disclaimer: Any views and opinions expressed in this article are solely of the author and do not represent Bettor.com's official editorial policy.
Tags: