ENGLAND, in their attempt to win back the Ashes this summer, realistically could select up to six dual nationals of Australian stock or upbringing. Struth!

The six English Australians in the frame for an England jersey are: Craig White, Martin McCague, Alan Mullally, Jason Gallian and the brothers Hollioake. Only extreme optimism would allow the addition of Peter Bowler, Vince Clarke, James Brinkley, Matt Cassar or myself some of the other English-qualified Australians playing county cricket - to this list.

These players all qualify to play for England as they were born in the United Kingdom or have residency qualifications. But the accents of these men begs the question: Are the criteria for national qualification appropriate? Do they sufficiently achieve the desirable objectives 1) that all English players are English 'at heart'; and 2) that the team be a true representation and product of English cricket?

As a representative of the group, I can say, hypothetically unfortunately, that if I was selected to play for England my commitment would be wholehearted. Having being born in Oxford, while my Australian parents undertook post-graduate study, I returned almost immediately to Adelaide which has been my 'home' ever since.

I am a cricketing product of Grade cricket and the South Australian Shield squad since 1991. Now, having been a part of English county cricket since representing Surrey in 1992, in cricketing terms, I consider myself English. I want 'our' system to produce better cricketers, including myself, than the Australian one, culminating in an Ashes triumph. Having said that, I cannot say I'm 'English' in general.

But I believe cricketing allegiance to England is sufficient in our professional age when most sports people unfortunately play predominantly for themselves, secondly for their team- mates and even less still for their roots and the people they represent.

The professional sportsman still gives the same commitment to his new team-mates and supporters. All the above dual nationals can represent England. We are part of the English system; some have been part of the English team. This, coupled with the allegiance of British birth or lengthy stay here, makes this appropriate.

The other concern is that with potentially half a team of Australian reared cricketers, the team is not a true representation or product of the English system. But even with so many such cricketers in the frame at the moment, the cricket they learned in Australia is matched, if not outweighed, by the amount experienced by members of the present Australia team playing county or club cricket in England as overseas professionals.

This concern can only remain an issue while our system is not producing the goods. This will change with Lord MacLaurin and Tim Lamb waving their administrative magic, to improve the competitiveness and standard of county cricket and its under- lying grass-roots structure.

The quality of the English-produced player will improve, so extinguishing the need or desire by counties to sign Aussie-reared players. Then, ultimately, the residence of one small urn will change. Hopefully in five years' time it will be the Australian states who need to latch on to dual nationals.

So the present 'national qualification' rules do allow the appropriate cricketers to be both Australia and English qualified. However, the stage at which members of this group become committed to one country thankfully has changed recently, after the Andrew Symonds case. His situation attracted ill-feeling among fellow professionals, as he was playing for Gloucestershire as an Englishman and Queensland as an Australian.

By the old criteria, as the new do not apply retrospectively, commitment to Australia cricket was not necessary until he played for the A side last summer, after turning down an England A tour. Loyalty was established eventually, but too late. From Sept 30 1994, under-19 international representation now commits the dual national to that country for at least four years. Further, playing first-class cricket as a non-overseas player also now ties the player to that country.

So, by both of these new rules, Symonds, McCague, White and Mullally would have been committed, at least temporarily, to Australia cricket, and Gallian by the under-19 rule. These changes will stop the inappropriateness and ill-feeling that occurs when players have two simultaneous bites of the cherry.

Appropriate criteria are now in place but, as alluded to, the best way to overcome problems caused by national qualification criteria is to strengthen the structure of English cricket. If this happens kick-started should the 'dinky di' Poms who represent England this summer regain the Ashes - then the above issues will become insignificant, as only English-reared and produced cricketers will be up to the high standard required to win selection in our 'all conquering' team.