Quote:
Originally Posted by PartyGirlUK
Well firstly as a constitutional conservative I object to changing the residency rules from seven to three years specifically for Archer. If they think the transition period is too long and want to change it to three years starting seven years from now fine. But that's a bit too niche and political philosophy-y maybe.
I guess I'm not convinced he's British as opposed to West Indian. The reason I generally prefer international sports to domestic is there's a purity about it, they play for the country they love rather than for a wage. Strauss, De Freitas, Dexter etc. were born abroad but that's not the point - they grew up in England, I'm sure they supported England in football etc. I feel the same way about Eoin Morgan and Kevin Pietersen btw although at least with Morgan you can say he had to play for England in test cricket - I think Archer should play for the West Indies :/
How can you change the rules from now? Someone who starts the transition period now has to wait 3 years but someone who started a year ago has to wait 6 more years?
I kind of see both sides but don't have an issue with it, but for sure I don't think that you can only play for the country you were born in - despite having a parent from elsewhere - unless you move before 18. It's a big thing to move to another country at that age no matter what you want to do with your career.
I think he was determined to play for England even if he had to wait, which must mean something as he could have walked into the Windies team a while back and earned a fortune playing T20. It's not like he needed England to be a star.
Either way - what a player though, and he's just want England wanted to add to their side.