Kieswetter yet another South African representing England

Cricket


Craig Kieswetter recently became the latest South African-born cricketer to propel himself into the current England squad. The wicketkeeper-batsman, 22, only became fully qualified to represent his country four days prior to his call-up, with England wasting no time in securing their man after Graeme Smith had made a last-ditch attempt to lure him back to his native country.

Although originally not included in the full international squad to take on Bangladesh, Kieswetter’s form of 279 runs in five Twenty20 innings (including a match-winning 81 against the senior side) for the Lions made him impossible to overlook. The decision to promote him was proved to be the right one as the Somerset opener then hit a destructive 143 on full debut, signalling his intentions to become a permanent fixture in the England side.

As exciting a prospect Kieswetter is however, national selector Geoff Miller made a bold move in selecting yet another player in the England fold with South African ties. No one could doubt he deserved his chance after his sensational recent form, but this now leaves England with three South Africans who have used county cricket to qualify to play for the national side (the other two being Kevin Pietersen and Jonathan Trott). Matt Prior and the currently rested Andrew Strauss were also born in the country.

Miller was asked about the prospect of more South Africans representing England and admitted the selectors had to be “very careful” over more players like Kieswetter breaking into the side and that they needed to “monitor” the situation. Following these comments one can assume the ECB has voiced concerns over the issue, after all Miller’s position is judged upon player performances and will continue to pick what he considers to be the best eleven players available to represent the country, regardless of their background.

It is hard to contemplate that no more South Africans will qualify, and subsequently produce form worthy of representing England. The next player to fit into that category could be Michael Lumb. Like Kieswetter, Lumb came to country cricket with an English passport after representing South Africa in the Under-19 World Cup. Also on the current Lions tour, Lumb has come into his own, scoring runs for fun at an alarming rate.

With a sense of apprehension within the ECB on the inclusion of more South Africans in the England set-up, the issue finds itself in a precarious position, Kieswetter having every right to be selected for his adopted country under the current eligibility requirements.

Even though there will be many quick to question the credibility of selections such as these, England’s failure to embrace players in the future who have qualified for the country in a similar vein would be discriminatory.

One would hope the ECB’s uneasy stance on the number of South Africans representing England does not force the likes of Lumb to be overlooked for selection merely to comply with a behind the scenes quota they may seek to meet. Credibility would then be lost completely.

The end of one-day cricket?

Cricket


Shane Warne has finally called for what many people connected with cricket have been thinking for a long time, a cutback in the amount of one-day international cricket. Since the introduction of Twenty20 cricket in 2003, interest has dwindled year on year in the 50-over form of the game. Warne believes the removal of one-day cricket entirely from the international cricket calendar except for the World Cup, held every four years, would benefit the future of the international game.

His criticism of the ICC’s continued support of the 50-over format comes on the back of Andrew Strauss’s omission from England’s upcoming test series in Bangladesh for reasons of fatigue. Whether people believe the captain should be present or not under the circumstances, Strauss would surely have made the tour if the ICC had got their act together before now.

Given there is much more interest in the Twenty20 format of the game, it seems baffling that England have 15 home limited-over internationals scheduled for this summer, only 2 of them being Twenty20 matches. Even the County Ground in Bristol will struggle to be at capacity on the morning of the 10th July to see the 50-over encounter between England and Bangladesh.

The ongoing presence of the needless ICC Champions Trophy – a competition that would be significant but isn’t because the World Cup is more important (a classic comparison would be the Champions League and Europa League in football) – every two years, is a further example of unnecessarily hindering international schedules.

It is incontestable that 50-over international cricket is in a sorry state. The ICC have tinkered with rules such as the introduction of substitutes and different stages of ‘powerplay’ but now have to accept that although arguably less technical and a more individualist rather than team performance needed for success, Twenty20 cricket is what people want to, and have time to watch.

The removal of one-day international cricket, although hard to contemplate due to the ICC’s stubborn view of the format, would have serious implications on the domestic scene. The ECB have already scrapped the national 50-over and ‘Pro40’ competitions for the 2010 season, introducing a revamped 40-over competition while also expanding the Twenty20 competition to incorporate more fixtures. The two-division 4-day county championship remains untouched.

With the inevitability of one-day international cricket dying out as people will increasingly make their thoughts heard with their attendance, I see the future simply lying with two competitions, in Twenty20 and 4-day format. Although 4-day county cricket, at least in terms of gates, is dead in England, it is a vital stepping stone for players to enter the currently thriving test match arena, still considered to be the ultimate cricketing format, the Ashes an event which is treasured in this country.

With Twenty20 now proven to be the most marketable format of cricket, shown by the surge of interest in the competition between newly developed franchises, the ICC need to react and take note of what the public want before losing all credibility and the future of competition internationally.