when do you think a so called minnow team will win a world Cup

[chaminda_00]

And have done - many, many times.

Because in reality, they're not playing for England - they're playing for The British Isles.

Really none of them want to play, they just have no other options.

 

[Richard]

That doesn't make sense. If they really don't want to play, they won't - their other option is not to play.

But most English, Welsh, Scottish, NIrish and ROIrish aren't so petty as to refuse to play with each other.

 

[chaminda_00]

That doesn't make sense. If they really don't want to play, they won't - their other option is not to play.

But most English, Welsh, Scottish, NIrish and ROIrish aren't so petty as to refuse to play with each other.

Why didn't Ryan Giggs played for England then?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

That doesn't make sense. If they really don't want to play, they won't - their other option is not to play.

But most English, Welsh, Scottish, NIrish and ROIrish aren't so petty as to refuse to play with each other.

About as ridiculous an assertion as a British metrosexual moving to America to play "soccer". Oh, wait...

 

[Richard]

Why didn't Ryan Giggs played for England then?

Because Ryan Giggs is a footballer - and in football the historical tradition is for the countries to play separately. Same in rugby.

In athletics and hockey, for example, it's the tradition for Britain to play as a whole.

In cricket, it's the tradition for the whole Isles to play together, same as it is for Barbados, Trinidad&Tobago, St.Kitts&Nevis, St.Vincent&The Grenadines, etc. to play together in cricket.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

In cricket, it's the tradition for the whole Isles to play together, same as it is for Barbados, Trinidad&Tobago, St.Kitts&Nevis, St.Vincent&The Grenadines, etc. to play together in cricket.

The situation in the West Indies is not at all the same as that in the UK. Because in the United Kingdom, players actually have the option of playing for their country, rather than England on the whole. None of the Caribbean have associate status.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

In athletics and hockey, for example, it's the tradition for Britain to play as a whole.

Yeah, that famous British runner Sonia O'Sullivan...

Considering that the Republic has been a separate state for some 90 years now, and has no connection to London any more save for the fact that they are part of the European Union, it seems particularly strange that they can't have their own cricket team just because Tim O'Brien went on a tour to South Africa in the 1890s.

 

[Richard]

The situation in the West Indies is not at all the same as that in the UK. Because in the United Kingdom, players actually have the option of playing for their country, rather than England on the whole. None of the Caribbean have associate status.

Associate status is a pretty recent thing - before then, no-one recognised Ireland and Scotland as anything other than part of "England".

IMO it's a mistake, and a huge one, to give said status to said teams. It's trying to blank-out the entire history of the situation, really. Trying to split what's effectively 1 cricket-playing country into 3.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, that famous British runner Sonia O'Sullivan...

No athletics expert, myself, have only ever seen the odd piece with "GBR" on the reprisentative part.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

No athletics expert, myself, have only ever seen the odd piece with "GBR" on the reprisentative part.

Yeah. GBR. Great Britain. Not the Republic of Ireland, which has been represented by their own team in almost any sport on this globe since the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921.

The only Irish cricketer I can find who went on to play for England before Joyce (who qualified under the same rules as Pietersen anyway) is Tim O'Brien, who played in the 1890s, when the rules of what consituted "England" was so different that Ranjitsinhji was considered an Englishman.

Scotland's a different kettle of fish, but the Scots evidently didn't think that the MCC were treating them equally, because they resigned of their own accord from the UK Cricket Council in 1992.

 

[Richard]

There's a difference between Irishmen and cricketers of Irish extraction, and playing for England is not the be-all-and-end-all. The reason Joyce had to qualifty is because of stupid I$C$C rules which define Ireland as separate from England. Pre-Associate Nations, there'd have been none of that. In any case, if there were any cricketers of Irish extraction good enough, they'd have played - the simple truth of the matter is that cricket ain't as popular in Ireland as Essex or Northamptonshire. So there haven't been a huge number of high-quality cricketers from the place.

And certainly the argument that because ROI is politically separate from GBR means they have to have a separate cricket team holds no water. Jamaica and Barbados are separate, too - so were Rhodesia and South Africa in the 1950s and 60s. Political nations do not have to equate to cricket-playing ones.

 

[Tomm NCCC]

The future looks bright for Bangladesh

 

[Richard]

Patently so but it always has - ever since 1986.

It'll be bright for Hong Kong one day, provided their cricketing infrastructure is well-built, just wait and see.

It's just a case of when.

 

[PhoenixFire]

As I said in some earlier thread, Bangladesh will be a pretty decent team in 5/6 years time, they have a good young side who are all around the 19/20/21 mark, so it's all looking good.

 

[Tomm NCCC]

Patently so but it always has - ever since 1986.

It'll be bright for Hong Kong one day, provided their cricketing infrastructure is well-built, just wait and see.

It's just a case of when.

Never really looked into the Hong Kong cricket team too much, so I suppose it would be wrong to just dismiss that view straight away. Personally, I cannot see them breaking into the top 16, as there are quite a number of otehr teams who are more likely to. One-day, perhaps. Anything can happen in the future (I am still waiting on that call from the Canadian Cricket team)

 

[AussieDominance]

There's a difference between Irishmen and cricketers of Irish extraction, and playing for England is not the be-all-and-end-all. The reason Joyce had to qualifty is because of stupid I$C$C rules which define Ireland as separate from England. Pre-Associate Nations, there'd have been none of that. In any case, if there were any cricketers of Irish extraction good enough, they'd have played - the simple truth of the matter is that cricket ain't as popular in Ireland as Essex or Northamptonshire. So there haven't been a huge number of high-quality cricketers from the place.

And certainly the argument that because ROI is politically separate from GBR means they have to have a separate cricket team holds no water. Jamaica and Barbados are separate, too - so were Rhodesia and South Africa in the 1950s and 60s. Political nations do not have to equate to cricket-playing ones.

But Ireland is a seperate country to England?

 

[Richard]

Not in cricketing terms it wasn't, until I$C$C decided it'd help their Globalisation myth if it they made it so.

 

[Richard]

Never really looked into the Hong Kong cricket team too much, so I suppose it would be wrong to just dismiss that view straight away. Personally, I cannot see them breaking into the top 16, as there are quite a number of otehr teams who are more likely to. One-day, perhaps. Anything can happen in the future (I am still waiting on that call from the Canadian Cricket team)

Mark my words, if you saw New Zealand in 1931 you'd very probably say the same thing.

Playing cricket at a level you should not be playing at can be a powerful detractor from any promise shown. Nonetheless, if there's genuine enthusiasm for the game and a well-constructed organisational body, the game WILL eventually become strong.

The only question is in how many countries will such a thing happen? And it's a question to which the answer could quite conceivably be 0 (it's been over 70 years since cricket last gained territory - aside from the thoroughly dubious case of Kenya), but it could also be a few more than that.

 

[speirz]

The question I ask is where is England on that list?


More interestingly, who will win a World Cup first, England or one of those countries?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Yeah. GBR. Great Britain. Not the Republic of Ireland, which has been represented by their own team in almost any sport on this globe since the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921.

The only Irish cricketer I can find who went on to play for England before Joyce (who qualified under the same rules as Pietersen anyway) is Tim O'Brien, who played in the 1890s, when the rules of what consituted "England" was so different that Ranjitsinhji was considered an Englishman.

Scotland's a different kettle of fish, but the Scots evidently didn't think that the MCC were treating them equally, because they resigned of their own accord from the UK Cricket Council in 1992.

There's four Irishmen who've played tests for England I know of: Leland Hone, Sir Tim O'Brien, Joseph McMaster & Frederick Fane. There's also been McCague too, but he's really only an Irishman (well, Ulsterman I suppose) by birth, having grown up in Oz from the age of 18 months.

Surprisingly few Scots too, only eight born-and-bred Sweaties have played tests for us I think: Gregor MacGregor, Alex Kennedy, Ian Peebles, Eric Russell, David Larter, Mike Denness, Peter Such & Gavin Hamilton. Dougie Brown played ODIs for us too, of course & (at a stretch) you could argue that DR Jardine was a Scot too, albeit an Indian born one. At an even further stretch you could also include the Greigs, as their old man was a Jock. Getting tenuous now tho...