England Lions batter South Africa...

... by six wickets with nine overs to spare.

Not even England Lions' first choice XI as Essex and Kent players couldn't play.

How funny.

Samit Patel 60*.

How funny.

"England" Lions indeed. The key men; Mascarenhas, Patel, Shah, Trott, Morgan. Hmm...

Augustus wrote:"England" Lions indeed. The key men; Mascarenhas, Patel, Shah, Trott, Morgan. Hmm...

:?:

Mascarenhas - Aussie.
Patel - Of Indian descent, though irrefutably English in upbringing.
Shah - Ditto.
Trott - South African.
Morgan - Irish.

The only player who influenced the game who is english is Patel...

I see Joyce hit his wicket, anyone watch that by chance? Always good for a chuckle...

Augustus wrote:"England" Lions indeed. The key men; Mascarenhas, Patel, Shah, Trott, Morgan. Hmm...

English. English. English. English. Irish.

Augustus wrote:Mascarenhas - Aussie.
Patel - Of Indian descent, though irrefutably English in upbringing.
Shah - Ditto.
Trott - South African.
Morgan - Irish.

Gotcha.

Darren Pattinson 7-0-62-1

JKLever wrote:Darren Pattinson 7-0-62-1

Does his roof work leak as much as this?

JKLever wrote:Darren Pattinson 7-0-62-1

Not good enough for the senior side. Not good enough for the A side. Suppose he'll get a game in the under 19s next, in a last-ditch, desperate attempt by the selectors to prove that he's not a total crapsicle and they're not incompetent to the nth degree.

Augustus wrote:"England" Lions indeed. The key men; Mascarenhas, Patel, Shah, Trott, Morgan. Hmm...

Samit Patel is completely English - or are you one of these people who think Monty shouldn't play for England?!

Owais Shah, fair enough was born in Pakistan, but moved to England at a young age and learned his cricket here - for me he is English.

Tim Bresnan and Luke Wright's (!) economical bowling played a big part in the victory too...

The moment you're born in England, it does not make you completely English. No doubt Samit is an Englishman, hence 'irrefutably English in upbringing' but a large part of his family remains in India. He is certainly not 'completely' English. Not that I have a problem with that, I was just making the point that much of England's talent is not exactly of English origin.

What a victory

Augustus wrote: No doubt Samit is an Englishman, hence 'irrefutably English in upbringing' but a large part of his family remains in India. He is certainly not 'completely' English. Not that I have a problem with that, I was just making the point that much of England's talent is not exactly of English origin.

See i'd say the other way around. I've no doubt most of his upbringing would be culturally Indian. But he's just as much a citizen of this country as you and me and would also have a British upbringing too having been born here.

It's not biggie. He's one of us, fat b'stard or not...

JKLever wrote:

Augustus wrote: No doubt Samit is an Englishman, hence 'irrefutably English in upbringing' but a large part of his family remains in India. He is certainly not 'completely' English. Not that I have a problem with that, I was just making the point that much of England's talent is not exactly of English origin.

See i'd say the other way around. I've no doubt most of his upbringing would be culturally Indian. But he's just as much a citizen of this country as you and me and would also have a British upbringing too having been born here.

It's not biggie. He's one of us, fat b'stard or not...

Some thing like Pietersen you mean?

Augustus wrote:The moment you're born in England, it does not make you completely English. No doubt Samit is an Englishman, hence 'irrefutably English in upbringing' but a large part of his family remains in India. He is certainly not 'completely' English. Not that I have a problem with that, I was just making the point that much of England's talent is not exactly of English origin.

Yeah, and Michael Vaughan, Steve Harmison, Alistair Cook and ever other dark haired English player is not completely English - as the original settlers of England were Celts with either blond or ginger hair. They're immigrants from central Europe, probably Germany with Angle or Norman blood. Many of their distant relatives must still live there too.

And lets not get started on white players for Australia or South Africa, or black African players for the West Indies...

Gary 111 wrote:
And lets not get started on white players for Australia or South Africa, or black African players for the West Indies...

Pretty weak gary

Gary 111 wrote:

Augustus wrote:The moment you're born in England, it does not make you completely English. No doubt Samit is an Englishman, hence 'irrefutably English in upbringing' but a large part of his family remains in India. He is certainly not 'completely' English. Not that I have a problem with that, I was just making the point that much of England's talent is not exactly of English origin.

Yeah, and Michael Vaughan, Steve Harmison, Alistair Cook and ever other dark haired English player is not completely English - as the original settlers of England were Celts with either blond or ginger hair. They're immigrants from central Europe, probably Germany with Angle or Norman blood. Many of their distant relatives must still live there too.

And lets not get started on white players for Australia or South Africa, or black African players for the West Indies...

That evolution has extended to the skin, to the blood, to the minds. We're talking about the difference between a thousand generations that have forged what is virtually a separate species, and you in your naivete have compared that to an immigrant walking into the country (in effect) and saying "Ay up lads, I'm English."

You only have to look at the Saffers and Australians and their entirely new linguistic devices to see the difference between evolution and adoption. I've nothing against foreigners coming in to the country and Englishifying themselves, that's entirely up to them. Let's not pretend that they're instantly exactly the same as us though.

For one, a lot of them are better cricketers.

Augustus wrote: Let's not pretend that they're instantly exactly the same as us though.

BNP?

taipan wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:
And lets not get started on white players for Australia or South Africa, or black African players for the West Indies...

Pretty weak gary

How far back do you want do go? Does someone like Sajid Mahmood, Samit Patel, Monty Panesar, etc, who was born in England, raised in England, learned to play cricket in England, who's parents most likely lived here for the last 30 years at least - how are they not English. Do there have some inbuilt social consciousness in their genes that makes them foreign?

England is a nation of immigrants - from all over Europe for the last 2000 years and all over the British Empire. The English cricket team reflects the balance of modern Britain with Asian and Black players playing alongside White. None are any more or less English than the other.

Gary 111 wrote:
How far back do you want do go? Does someone like Sajid Mahmood, Samit Patel, Monty Panesar, etc, who was born in England, raised in England, learned to play cricket in England, who's parents most likely lived here for the last 30 years at least - how are they not English. Do there have some inbuilt social consciousness in their genes that makes them foreign?

Pietersen?

Augustus wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:

Augustus wrote:The moment you're born in England, it does not make you completely English. No doubt Samit is an Englishman, hence 'irrefutably English in upbringing' but a large part of his family remains in India. He is certainly not 'completely' English. Not that I have a problem with that, I was just making the point that much of England's talent is not exactly of English origin.

Yeah, and Michael Vaughan, Steve Harmison, Alistair Cook and ever other dark haired English player is not completely English - as the original settlers of England were Celts with either blond or ginger hair. They're immigrants from central Europe, probably Germany with Angle or Norman blood. Many of their distant relatives must still live there too.

And lets not get started on white players for Australia or South Africa, or black African players for the West Indies...

That evolution has extended to the skin, to the blood, to the minds. We're talking about the difference between a thousand generations that have forged what is virtually a separate species, and you in your naivete have compared that to an immigrant walking into the country (in effect) and saying "Ay up lads, I'm English."

You only have to look at the Saffers and Australians and their entirely new linguistic devices to see the difference between evolution and adoption. I've nothing against foreigners coming in to the country and Englishifying themselves, that's entirely up to them. Let's not pretend that they're instantly exactly the same as us though.

For one, a lot of them are better cricketers.

A thousand generations? 30,000 years?!

No - the English race isn't a result of evolution! Just integration.

taipan wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:
How far back do you want do go? Does someone like Sajid Mahmood, Samit Patel, Monty Panesar, etc, who was born in England, raised in England, learned to play cricket in England, who's parents most likely lived here for the last 30 years at least - how are they not English. Do there have some inbuilt social consciousness in their genes that makes them foreign?

Pietersen?

Well Pietersen is obviously different to the likes of Samit Patel and Monty Panesar.

True

Gary 111 wrote:

Augustus wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:

Augustus wrote:The moment you're born in England, it does not make you completely English. No doubt Samit is an Englishman, hence 'irrefutably English in upbringing' but a large part of his family remains in India. He is certainly not 'completely' English. Not that I have a problem with that, I was just making the point that much of England's talent is not exactly of English origin.

Yeah, and Michael Vaughan, Steve Harmison, Alistair Cook and ever other dark haired English player is not completely English - as the original settlers of England were Celts with either blond or ginger hair. They're immigrants from central Europe, probably Germany with Angle or Norman blood. Many of their distant relatives must still live there too.

And lets not get started on white players for Australia or South Africa, or black African players for the West Indies...

That evolution has extended to the skin, to the blood, to the minds. We're talking about the difference between a thousand generations that have forged what is virtually a separate species, and you in your naivete have compared that to an immigrant walking into the country (in effect) and saying "Ay up lads, I'm English."

You only have to look at the Saffers and Australians and their entirely new linguistic devices to see the difference between evolution and adoption. I've nothing against foreigners coming in to the country and Englishifying themselves, that's entirely up to them. Let's not pretend that they're instantly exactly the same as us though.

For one, a lot of them are better cricketers.

A thousand generations? 30,000 years?!

No - the English race isn't a result of evolution! Just integration.

Hyperbole, perhaps, but there are Romanic traces among us, whilst those from Wales, Cornwall, Scotland and some northern reaches of England retain strong parts of their identity from a time before the Normans, the Romans and the many other invaders. In all cases, inter-breeding has seen the original Anglo blood remain to some degree. The foreigners in question are almost entirely of Indian/Saffer/Whatever descent. They're in no part Anglo. LIke I said, it doesn't matter, but how much they know about England and how English they feel or act is debatable. I don't think somebody becomes an Englishman the moment they say so is all. In the case of Samit, he's half and half.