No, they wouldn't, because West Indies have been a historically accurately named entity. If the team called "England" was instead called "The British Isles" I$C$C would never have been able to make a case for trying to break it up.
On the contrary, a very bad thing - because said ODI-status gives the impression that Ireland vs Holland is the same as Sri Lanka vs South Africa. When in fact it's less than Kent vs Leicestershire.
There are some things which you can throw as much capital at it as you want, you'll still not produce a decent team. ODI and Test status will not get you sponsors, not if you are relentlessly thrashed. The only way to get sponsors is to have interest in the game - otherwise people are not concerned with sponsoring you.
And the chances of them ever doing so are extremely remote.
You know that do you? You've been inside the heads of every cricketer playing in Ireland? No. You're just making ill-educated comments from faraway based on misunderstanding and historical matters which, mercifully for all concerned, are becoming less and less of an issue.
Well, East Africa certainly had a lot more chance of beginning a serious cricket team than Kenya ever have or ever will IMO.
Yes, they could. And the ICC would probably allow it, too!
Ireland has a much bigger population than Yorkshire though, so one could argue that they hence have more potential to become test standard than Yorkshire. Yorkshire have approximately 0 (in big red font or otherwise) chance of becoming test standard, but Ireland, while they are currently a lesser side, do have a chance. Whether the ICC should be looking towards pipe-dreamed potential or instead focusing on maintaining the quality of cricket is up for debate for sure, but I don't for a second believe it would make more sense to give Yorkshire ODI status than Ireland, even if they are better at this current time. New South Wales, on the other hand....Richard said:
Well, their captain never did - he aspired to play for Australia all his life. Their opening batsman and opening bowler are in the same boat there. Their best bowler of the World Cup wanted to play for South Africa all his life. Ireland was a second choice for many of their best players...LA-ICE said:
Separating the West Indies would actually dethrone a test and ODI standard nation though. Separating Ireland from England has minimal to no effect on England since most of Ireland's players aren't good enough for England regardless and the ones that are typically try to qualify anyway (Joyce being a great example here.)
Anyway - as Manan is ever-fond of pointing-out, population isn't all there is to it. Yorkshire has always has a massive culture of cricket. Ireland hasn't. It'll take more than a victory in one hungover match in 1969 or one World Cup game in 2007 to make the neccessary boost.Ireland has a much bigger population than Yorkshire though, so one could argue that they hence have more potential to become test standard than Yorkshire. Yorkshire have approximately 0 (in big red font or otherwise) chance of becoming test standard, but Ireland, while they are currently a lesser side, do have a chance. Whether the ICC should be looking towards pipe-dreamed potential or instead focusing on maintaining the quality of cricket is up for debate for sure, but I don't for a second believe it would make more sense to give Yorkshire ODI status than Ireland, even if they are better at this current time. New South Wales, on the other hand....
If it aided in perpetuating their expansion myth, they would very possibly do.
If I read it all properly, I'm sure I could have managed more, but I only skimmed over it and plucked out random points I disagreed with.Richard said:
Oh, of course not, however it's something that really can't be developed by the ICC. Yorkshire, regardless of how much interest there is and how well they organise it, simply does not have the population to support an ODI standard team, to the best of my knowledge. Ireland does, and hence it is more likely to achieve such - even if that likelihood is, in itself, very low due to simple cricketing factors such as interest and infrastructure.Richard said:
Oh of course, and I never argued that. Simply that it makes infinitely more sense for the ICC to focus on developing them into an ODI standard team rather than Yorkshire, because the stumbling blocks to achieving it are indeed cricket related.Richard said:
That has little to no chance of eventuating again though, not to mention the fact that it certainly never had any chance of being sustained over a long period.Richard said:
No, they cannot, because they're not a nation, they are a domestic side.
Man after my own heart... without the "only skimming" bit.If I read it all properly, I'm sure I could have managed more, but I only skimmed over it and plucked out random points I disagreed with.
I hope I wasn't coming across as arguing that Yorkshire should become a ODI side...
The point, really, is that it makes no sense to try and develop either.
(That part was in jest, I hope you realised... or did it need the you-know-what?)
2 separate entities - hence Nanty Hayward, Shahid Afridi, Saqlain Mushtaq and the qualifying period.
No not at all doesn't matter how serious or not. It's all the same, you can't force Ireland to play for England when they choose not to.
