Cricket World Cup: Eligibility rules can be a passport to an unfair advantage in cricket

The Cricket World Cup is now in full swing, and unfortunately the associate nations have not managed to win a game as yet, with six of the eight matches to date ending in huge and at times embarrassing defeat. Only the Irish against Bangladesh, and the Netherlands (against England) have played to their potential and fought the corner for the smaller nations.

In their two games to date the Dutch have had two innings of quality, one from Ryan ten Doeschate and one from Tom Cooper, both players who qualified for the Netherlands through ancestral passports. The issue of eligibility for international cricket raised its head again just prior to the tournament as the Western Australian player, Michael Swart, was reportedly approached to join the Netherlands squad as a replacement player. Swart qualifies for Holland as he holds a recently acquired Dutch passport, via his Dutch father, although he was born in Perth, WA.

On the face of it this does not seem problematic, as if you hold a passport for a country it seems only fair that you should play for it. But the Dutch team is heavily reliant on passport holders and residency qualifications as opposed to players born in the country. With Swart's potential inclusion not becoming reality due to their New Zealand-born captain Peter Borren passing a fitness test, only five of the 15 players selected by the Dutch were actually born in the country. Canada's statistics are even starker, with just three of their 15- man squad born in Canada.

Ireland, the leading associate nation who face England today, also has a third of its squad not born on the Emerald Isle. Although there is no doubt that some Associate countries do rely on immigrants and ancestral passport holders to remain competitive, a few countries such as the Dutch and Canadians have taken this to the extreme. In Ireland's defence their non-Irish born players have all lived in the country for a number of years and made it their home, and they have produced a number of very talented home grown players as well, good enough in fact to progress to play for England, another quirk of the international eligibility criteria.

But Ireland also use the passport issue to their advantage, as they are about to secure the services of Hamish Marshall, the New Zealand batsman, who qualifies through holding an Irish passport although his bond with the country is tenuous.

Of course, this is not just an issue for the smaller countries.England have over the years benefited from a number of players who have qualified through residency, from past captains Tony Greig and Ted Dexter to players in the modern era such as Robin Smith, Allan Lamb, Graeme Hick, Jonathan Trott and Kevin Pietersen; not to mention the Irishmen Ed Joyce and Eoin Morgan, and the Scotsmen Gavin Hamilton and Dougie Brown.

The issue of how to become eligible to play international cricket is complex and it certainly benefits some countries and hinders others. Of greater concern, however, is how this reflects on the development of the game in the country and how sustainable its cricket actually is. The Netherlands, for example, seems to rely almost exclusively on ancestral passport holders and immigrants to the country, supplemented by a minority of home grown players. If the International Cricket Council is serious about globalising the game and developing it in non traditional areas then indigenous growth is the fundamental key to making the game sustainable.

There has to be a balance struck between home grown and born players and those eligible through residency and ancestral passports, but the current system does not take account of this, it is a free-for-all for the developing cricket world. Some countries' development programmes are based on scouring the cricketing world for passport holders.

Both England and Scotland are placed at a disadvantage with the passport rule as the British passport is an irrelevance in ICC's criteria as it covers up to eight member countries of the world's governing body including England, Scotland, Northern Ireland (Ireland), Jersey, Guernsey, Falklands, Isle of Man and Gibraltar.

To play cricket for Scotland you have to satisfy one of two criteria. You have to have been born in the country or have lived in it for 183 days out of the last four years to qualify by residency. In reality this means that sons and daughters of Scottish parents cannot play for Scotland unless they have been born in the country, or are willing to relocate to Scotland for 183 days over four years. When compared to the rules in rugby and football that allow the birthplaces of athletes' grandparents to be taken into consideration, cricketing rules seem draconian.

The rules go even further in some ICC events when, even if you have been born in the country, you must have lived there for the four-year qualification period before you can play in the event. Josh Davey, born in Aberdeen, was ineligible to play in the final of the ICC's four-day competition last year because he did not meet the criteria due to his family relocating from Scotland when he was a young boy.

Scotland has in the past benefited from the residency rules and been the stronger for it. In the 2005 ICC Trophy win, the Scotland side had quality players in Ryan Watson, Paul Hoffman and Cedric English, all of whom had come to Scotland as professional players and settled here.Since retirement English and Hoffman continue to make Scotland their home and are true adopted Scots whilst Watson is continuing to play for Scotland whilst settling with his Scottish family in Dundee. In recent seasons the number of these players making the national cricket side has decreased, and last year's squads that made the finals of the two ICC events had a distinctly home grown feel to it.

The Scottish team in the majority of the CB40 games against the English counties last season had ten players who had played for Scotland Under-19s (plus the overseas player), and of the 14-man squad that took part in the Intercontinental Cup final, all bar one player had progressed through the Scottish club scene and age group set-up. The Scotland team which faced England last year contained nine born Scots, Watson, and Richie Berrington who was born in South Africa but has lived in Scotland since his formative years and represented his country through all the age groups.

What does this tell us? It is clear that the ICC eligibility criteria benefit the countries that can issue passports to the detriment of those that cannot, and the countries that rely heavily on ancestral passports and immigrants are simply masking their overall deficiencies in long-term development.

There is no right or wrong here, but there is a blatant unfairness. For the good of the game we must hope that the smaller nations perform well in the remaining World Cup matches as it will hopefully allow for continued World Cup participation. But let's not assume that the strength of a country's national cricket team is a reflection of its overall development or sustainability in the long term.