Ed Joyce...

Chucky the tree

Why is it so galling? I dont know how well he did in the qualifiers but i am sure he was a big help to ireland qualifying. So he if was made to pick, a good chance ireland wouldnt of made it to the world cup.

TrueDub

Folks, we're going round & round the same territory on this thread.

It's an emotive subject and people will always have entrenched opinions on it. I'd agree with the Rockbeers of this world in that until we have a method of providing the challenge for these players, they will continue to seek other outlets to prove themselves.

What we really need is the ICU to get their act together & take hold of the organisation of the game in this country, particularly at elite level. We need a strong inter-pro or representative level below the national team, to act as a feeder to the national side.

We're not going to be a test nation, not in my lifetime. Bangladesh have a playing population many times ours and the general concensus is that they were given test status far too early. The ICC will not fall into that trap again.

gbh

Good topic here. I'd say Ed Joyce didn't make the decision lightly.

But there is no doubt a higher profile and therefore earning power playing for England as opposed to Ireland. Also, you would get more top class cricket playing test nations for England. When he decided to play for England, Ireland were still improving but probably still not at the test playing stage.

But to be honest, what he did happens in every sport all over the world. A lot of the best New Zealand rugby players come from islands in the South Pacific. A lot of the Irish soccer team in recent years weren't born in Ireland. And if Ed Joyce playing for England raises the profile of Irish cricket, then where's the problem?

Royale with Cheese

rockbeer wrote:

And again you show your ignorance of cricket. Compared to test cricket, the wc is a knockabout in the park. Until people understand that they will never grasp what Joyce has done or why.

Aye. There's no point in having this discussion if people can't grasp the fact that domestic cricket is just nothing compared to international, and that ODIs are not as high a standard as test cricket. I'm guessing people just see world cup and assume it's the highest standard you can get in the game, well it's not. Even still Ireland will never play proper ODI series against the worlds top teams. The world cup is as good as it gets for teams like Ireland. Once every 4 years and nobody thought they'd play more than 3 games. They did very well to beat Pakistan but if they hadn't then that would have been it as far as proper cricket was concerned until the next world cup, if they qualify for that.

dulpit - Ireland weren't an officially recognised ODI team untill after they'd qualified. Joyce never played for Ireland in an official ODI, which is why he was able to switch teams so easily.

dulpit

Royale with Cheese wrote:

dulpit - Ireland weren't an officially recognised ODI team untill after they'd qualified. Joyce never played for Ireland in an official ODI, which is why he was able to switch teams so easily.

Oh, so is there a rule in place for full teams? Cos that would make a lot of sense...

bobbysands81

rockbeer wrote:

You still continue to use this emotive and inaccurate language. Ed Joyce CHOSE to declare for England, yet you still try to portray England as the protagonist in this. How exactly did they 'cherry pick' him? Do you know something we don't? Was he bribed or threatened to make him change sides? Please explain or stop using the term.

Maybe I'm not making myself clear here my friend but I do not think that Ed Joyce should be allowed play for England* and I do not think that England* should choose him to play either. This is the crux of my argument.

A weaker country should not lose their best player to another country due to him living there for x years. Now if Joyce had an English mother and father or happened to be English but brought up in Ireland then I'd understand his desire to represent them. However, he is Irish and should not be allowed represent another country. Why do England pick Joyce? It's wrong, they've thousands and thousands to choose from. I would imagine (and this is just a hypotesis) that Joyce would have sounded out his chances of representing England (and Wales) before he declared for them.

However, in the interest of the game more lax rules should apply for players wanting to play for weaker countries.

(*substitute any other country, it is irrelevant that he has chosen England)

rockbeer wrote:

But it's completely impractical and arbitrary. It poses restraint of trade issues. How do you identify 'weak' and 'strong' nations and how do you account for the fact that these are relative terms that change over time. In what way is it fair or just that, say, Jeremy Bray should be able to elect to play for Ireland yet Joyce not able to elect to play for England. I can see what you're saying in the wider sense but you seem unable to accept that your proposal creates an intolerable situation on the individual level.

It's not impractical, it's actually very practical if you think about it. For instance you could have a situation where test playing countries had stricter rules foisted on them regarding player eligibility, and more relaxed rules for weaker nations in order to bump up the profile of the game and get more interest and therefore more players involved.

It does not at all pose a restraint of trade either. Nothing is stopping Joyce from playing his cricket in England. Was not allowing George Best play for Brazil a restraint of trade??? Of course not. I'm not suggesting for a second that Joyce shouldn't be allowed play for any club he wants but surely rules pertaining to what country you represent should be entirely different.

rockbeer wrote:

Of course not, it's obviously good for the game here and I'm decstatic about it. What I'm saying is that you can't enforce the development of Irish cricket by legislating to limit the behaviour of individuals. The best way for Ireland to keep it's top players is to create a genuinely thriving competitive first class structure here. That will create a proper incentive for players to stay. As it is, cricket is a tiny minority sport with little real foundation here, yet you're happy to limit the ambition of talented individuals like Ed Joyce to operating within that narrow framework. Since you're fond of football analogies, you tell me whether Roy Keane should have been made to stay in Cork rather than going to Forest?

Joyce chose to play for England because the current rules of the game allow him to, he acted within his rights and within the rules of the game, I am not trying to claim otherwise. I am saying that the rules are clearly unfair and bias if this is allowed to happen.

Yes Ireland should try to produce a competitive first class structure but this is made far more difficult when your best (and highest profile player) decides he no longer wants to play for his country anymore.

Your Roy Keane analogy is false. Nobody stopped Roy Keane leaving Cork and joining a club in England. Similarly nobody stopped Ed Joyce leaving Bray and joining a club in England.

rockbeer wrote:

We are already 'allowed' to keep our best players. Our best players are also 'allowed' to decline the opportunity to represent us. What you really seem to be saying is the rules should be changed to compel our best players to play for us. Can't see how that makes for a happy team situation. I'd love to see Joyce commit himself to Ireland, but I can't see how any good would come of forcing him to do so.

No, I'm not for one second saying that players should be compelled to play for Ireland, (and have never implied that) that is an individual choice. What I am saying is that they should not be allowed to go off and play for another country because his own country isn't good enough.

mikeruurds

Marshy wrote:

Very funny That Anil Kumble appeal thing is hilarious!

Just to add that Phil Simmons, Irelands new coach commented on the 'Ed Joyce' issue on sky yesterday. Cant remember all he said, but mentioned that the ICU might have to review their stance on the whole issue of our best players moving on. I guess he thinks that if we're to progress in a meaningful way we'll need our best players. But as has been said in this thread, unfortunately theres very little to stop the likes of EJ changing countries.

Off topic, but that Phil Simmons sure could cream a ball for 6 in his day

Chucky the tree

bobbysands81 wrote:

A weaker country should not lose their best player to another country due to him living there for x years. Now if Joyce had an English mother and father or happened to be English but brought up in Ireland then I'd understand his desire to represent them. However, he is Irish and should not be allowed represent another country. Why do England pick Joyce? It's wrong, they've thousands and thousands to choose from. I would imagine (and this is just a hypotesis) that Joyce would have sounded out his chances of representing England (and Wales) before he declared for them.

Residency rules apply in all sports though. So why should cricket be different?

bobbysands81 wrote:

However, in the interest of the game more lax rules should apply for players wanting to play for weaker countries.

How is this good for the game? This will just hinder the growth of irish players. If irish players are getting picked for the irish team due to a load of SA or aussies ahead of them it will not encourage people to stick playing cricket and trying to reach the next level.

bobbysands81 wrote:

Joyce chose to play for England because the current rules of the game allow him to, he acted within his rights and within the rules of the game, I am not trying to claim otherwise. I am saying that the rules are clearly unfair and bias if this is allowed to happen.

Yes Ireland should try to produce a competitive first class structure but this is made far more difficult when your best (and highest profile player) decides he no longer wants to play for his country anymore.

Its isnt made far more difficult. Us keeping Joyce would make absolutely no difference to us trying to gain test status, we'd still have no chances.

The only reason Joyce is high profile is because he made the switch, if he choose to play for ireland, most people wouldnt have a clue who he is.





No, I'm not for one second saying that players should be compelled to play for Ireland, (and have never implied that) that is an individual choice. What I am saying is that they should not be allowed to go off and play for another country because his own country isn't good enough.[/QUOTE]

rockbeer

bobbysands81 wrote:

Maybe I'm not making myself clear here my friend but I do not think that Ed Joyce should be allowed play for England* and I do not think that England* should choose him to play either. This is the crux of my argument.

Fair enough. And do you stand by your use of the phrase 'cherry picking'?

You do realize, don't you, that any human being - subject to the immigration rules of a foreign country - is entitled to go and naturalize him or her self as a citizen of that country and then participate fully as a national of that country? Even George Best could have gone off and practiced his trade in Brazil, become a Brazilian citizen and then made himself available for selection for their national side.

I personally think this sort of thing is in the realm of human rights not sport.

bobbysands81 wrote:

Why do England pick Joyce?

Because he's qualified to play for them according to the rules. Are you asking them to make a stand on principle?

bobbysands81 wrote:

It's not impractical, it's actually very practical if you think about it. For instance you could have a situation where test playing countries had stricter rules foisted on them regarding player eligibility, and more relaxed rules for weaker nations in order to bump up the profile of the game and get more interest and therefore more players involved.

Is it just me who's really struggling with this idea? Doesn't it make a mockery of sport if it's conducted on unequal terms by different nations? Maybe American athletes should have to wear lead boots when they run in the Olympics to give the weaker nations a chance.

bobbysands81 wrote:

It does not at all pose a restraint of trade either. Nothing is stopping Joyce from playing his cricket in England. Was not allowing George Best play for Brazil a restraint of trade???

As I pointed out previously, Best was at liberty to do what was necessary to qualify for Brazilian citizenship and take his chances on getting chosen to play for them. He elected not to exercise that right, like most other players of all sports.

bobbysands81 wrote:

Of course not. I'm not suggesting for a second that Joyce shouldn't be allowed play for any club he wants but surely rules pertaining to what country you represent should be entirely different.

They are different - you have to leave the country of your birth, qualify by residence and put up with being called a traitor by your former compatriots.

bobbysands81 wrote:

Your Roy Keane analogy is false. Nobody stopped Roy Keane leaving Cork and joining a club in England. Similarly nobody stopped Ed Joyce leaving Bray and joining a club in England.

Not at all... by your logic, Keane should have been prevented from defecting to Forest because he was leaving a weaker club for a stronger one.

I agree with TrueDub that we're going round in circles. Look, don't get me wrong, I understand your frustration at Joyce's defection, but it's something that happens in all sports and I'm just struggling to see why you think cricket should be any different. I also take issue with some of the ways you present your arguments because you put blame where I think none really exists. Some of what you say is true, but accusing England of cherry picking etc. isn't helpful because it just isn't true. And it makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.

I think a re-evaluation of the rules is probably necessary at this point, partly because the game is becoming more widespread and partly because there are many historical anomalies in cricket which are increasingly less sustainable as its profile increases. But as has been pointed out elsewhere, change will be slow because it's a delicate situation. The West Indies, for example, isn't even a country. The enforcement of stricter nationality rules might mean it would have to be broken up into a dozen or so weaker than weak nations, and the power of one of cricket's historical centres would be shattered. That would be a major headache for the ICC.

I worry that a lot of people are coming up with opinions and solutions about all this without really understanding the nature of what they're dealing with.

Steibhin

I have mentioned this already on another thread but I think its worth repeating. The situation vis-a-vis Ireland and England in cricket is analogous to that vis-a-vis New Zealand and the South Pacific's Islands.

If anyone has an argument that the NZ situation is beneficial for rugby in the South Pacific (and for a the game internationally that struggles to find competing Nations) than I would love to hear it. If you truely want Ireland to develop into a top class cricketing nation than there is no way you can support Ed Joyce's move. Prehaps it can be argued that his decision gave the game a temporary boost in the media in this country. I will grant that.

Essentially it boils down to ambition and self belief (an old Irish problem). If you believe Ireland's role in the cricketing world is to be a feeder for the English team, providing the odd player every generation, than Ed Joyces decision is to be welcomed. However if you harbor a genuine ambition to see Ireland competing at the top level than you must be opposed. I for one am the the latter.