At the time of writing this, England's attempt to score 340-odd in the fourth innings to beat South Africa and thus retain their status as the world's No. 1 Test nation is foundering under the pressure of both the Proteas' bowling and the stress inherent in chasing such a large total. England might have had a bit more chance had Kevin Pietersen been playing, but KP, as he likes to be known, has been dropped following revelations that he had texted derogatory comments about his team-mates to his fellow South Africans.
To remind non-cricketers, Pietersen is a South African. But he's playing for England. How has that come about? Because the ECB's rules allow naturalisation after four years' residence. This is an aspect of the game's laws that has allowed a number of overseas cricketers, most recently Pietersen, Jonathan Trott and Craig Kieswetter, to turn out for England despite, in some cases, having represented their own countries at junior level. South Africans have been particularly adept at shape-shifting in this way, firstly because for years the apartheid boycott kept their country out of international sport, latterly because the quota system has seen some of their most talented cricketers kept out of the international side in favour of non-whites.
My sympathy for them is limited. Pietersen is an unattractively egotistical goon who has simply followed his ambition, which was to stride the big stage. He has often been colossal, but although he had three lions tattooed on his shoulder, his loyalty to England is skin deep. Why should we be so surprised to find that, come the crunch, his loyalties are not to his team mates but his fellow countrymen? That is actually as it should be. The whole point of international sport is that it should take place between the people of one country and another.
But that begs the question, what does "of one country" mean? My personal preference would be for a birth qualification, but if it has to be residence then four years is way too short. The ECB has recently recognised this and upped it to seven. But that still means that a South African could represent his country at U-15 level and then play for England at 22. Not good enough.
Monty Panesar, a Sikh from Luton, is English through and through. So is Ravi Bopara and so was Mark Ramprakash. But Pietersen, Kieswetter and Trott are South Africans and, wherever they live, should be playing for South Africa. The present arrangements mock the rationale, such as it is, for competitive sport between nations (incidentally, Rugby Union is just as guilty of this too).
It's not often that I agree with Peter Oborne, but the journalist said that he would rather watch a proper England team lose than one stuffed with opportunists and mercenaries win. This fact will be of little interest to the ECB. But perhaps more pertinently, I'd be more likely to pay to go and watch a team full of Englishmen, no matter whether they won or lost.
