**Official** New Zealand in England

[KiWiNiNjA]

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.

 

[Richard]

Well, "The British And Irish Isles" would be most appropriate.

And yes, I really wish it was. Sadly, though, it ain't, so we're likely to have this sort of farce for a while yet - maybe for the rest of the time cricket exists.

71 for 8.

 

[NUFAN]

I would hate it if Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales were one.

Wouldn't mind if it was Ireland, Scotland and Wales combined that would be awesome.

Doesn't really make sense l0cation wise..

 

[Richard]

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!

BTW, looks like the 300-run defeat might just be avoided - currently need another 10 with 2 wickets left.

 

[Prince EWS]

Haha, who had Page 512 in the pool?

 

[Goughy]

Well, "The British And Irish Isles" would be most appropriate.

British Isles is the name if to be used. It includeds "Great Britain and Ireland" so why double up for no point.

 

[Richard]

I've had Irishmen pull me up for use of the term "British Isles" before now, saying it's not inclusive enough.

I'm happy with either, but I'd imagine Irishmen would be happier with the "British And Irish" ones.

 

[Richard]

Haha, who had Page 512 in the pool?

Either way, thanks to a last-wicket stand of 18, Ireland escape the 300-run defeat. It's 290 instead.

 

[stumpski]

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.

Was Boyd Rankin playing for Derby, or injured?

 

[Richard]

Well Rankin hasn't played at all this season UIMM, so I guess he's injured.

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

 

[pasag]

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 know it wasn't an ODI as such, but didn't NZ lose to Bangladesh in a World Cup warm up game last year?

Anyways, LOL.

 

[pasag]

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.

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

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.

 

[stumpski]

Australia and England also both lost to Zimbabwe before the Zims got Test status.

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.

 

[Richard]

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.

O I C. Well, FYI it's page 192 for me.

 

[NUFAN]

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!

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.

 

[Prince EWS]

O I C. Well, FYI it's page 192 for me.

Wondering if you actually read my hidden text. Worked a charm if not, but you're usually pretty thorough.

 

[Richard]

Australia and England also both lost to Zimbabwe before the Zims got Test status.

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).

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.

Same applies to any ODI-standard-team-vs-non-ODI-standard team, in fact.

 

[Richard]

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?

Don't think that was even an 11-a-side cricket match TBH.