KiWiNiNjA
International Coach
Then England should be known as Great Britain in that case.I don't see any reason why Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales cannot be one.
Then England should be known as Great Britain in that case.I don't see any reason why Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales cannot be one.
British Isles is the name if to be used. It includeds "Great Britain and Ireland" so why double up for no point.Well, "The British And Irish Isles" would be most appropriate.
Haha, who had Page 512 in the pool?
I was insinuating we had run a pool on which page your first mention of the British Isles team thing would occur. Of course, you're just about to "correct" me and tell me what page it was on under your adjusted settings, but it all adds to the over-riding theme of your predictability.
I know it wasn't an ODI as such, but didn't NZ lose to Bangladesh in a World Cup warm up game last year?Aye, me too. I wasn't suggesting (as you maybe seem to believe I was) that NZ are doing anything wrong by bashing substandard sides. Merely commenting on the fact that they seem to do it better than most.
IIRR, apart from England, they're the only ODI-standard team never to lose to a substandard team in a game classified by I$C$C at the time as a ODI.
Australia - Bangladesh, 2005.
India - Kenya, 1997/98; Kenya, 2001/02; Bangladesh, 2004/05; Bangladesh, 2006/07.
Pakistan - Bangladesh, 1999; Ireland, 2006/07.
South Africa - Bangladesh, 2006/07.
Sri Lanka - Kenya 2002/03; Zimbabwe, 2002/03 (Sharjah); Bangladesh, 2005/06.
West Indies - Kenya, 1995/96; Zimbabwe, 2003/04 (x 2); Zimbabwe, 2007/08.
Zimbabwe - Kenya, 2002/03.
I was insinuating we had run a pool on which page your first mention of the British Isles team thing would occur. Of course, you're just about to "correct" me and tell me what page it was on under your adjusted settings, but it all adds to the over-riding them of your predictability.
Well yeah, but there's also O'Brien, O'Brien, Rankin, Langford-Smith, Johnson, Bray, Cusack, Fourie, Mooney (although I think he might have retired) and Whelan to account for. Probably more too who I can't think of off the top of my head.Lost by 290 runs. Not sure that the addition of Porterfield and Morgan would have made that much difference tbh - might have restricted the winning margin to under 200 I suppose.
O I C. Well, FYI it's page 192 for me.I was insinuating we had run a pool on which page your first mention of the British Isles team thing would occur. Of course, you're just about to "correct" me and tell me what page it was on under your adjusted settings, but it all adds to the over-riding them of your predictability.
I just meant it wouldn't really make sense having Ireland, Wales and Scotland together with England separate as Wales would be with England if anyone.Why not? These isles are completely together, there's less between them and the islands (and non-island) of the Caribbean. Heck, Wales, England and Scotland are all on the same island!
Wondering if you actually read my hidden text. Worked a charm if not, but you're usually pretty thorough.O I C. Well, FYI it's page 192 for me.
Yeah, but they had plenty of class players at that time, and were obviously good enough to be playing ODIs (and probably Tests - in the case of the latter they were any moment to join the Test-playing club and perform extremely well on Test debut).Australia and England also both lost to Zimbabwe before the Zims got Test status.
Same applies to any ODI-standard-team-vs-non-ODI-standard team, in fact.Just heard Willis call it 'ridiculous' that this match has ODI status.
He has a point, these games seem to have gone from completely unofficial to official ODIs, where surely List A would have been about right.
Don't think that was even an 11-a-side cricket match TBH.I know it wasn't an ODI as such, but didn't NZ lose to Bangladesh in a World Cup warm up game last year?