Ireland For Test Status?

[sledger]

Your sister must have wrote that post, well written. Completely agree, anyhow.

Yeah, bet LT is frothing with excitment.

 

[Richard]

oh this argument again in which Richard decides that Ireland is not a seperate country....

Nothing of the sort - I don't consider Jamaica, Barbados etc. as all one country. It's just all one cricket-playing territory. But unlike British Isles, West Indies had the team named properly so I$C$C couldn't step-in in 1997 and decide they wanted to create the illusion of expansion by driving a wedge between them.

 

[Richard]

Don't see why this should be tbh, may as well combine South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Namibia, and India and Pakistan together as well. Ireland is well represented as Ireland in every other major sport, and is treated as totally seperate from the British Isles in a lot of other regards, so I don't see why they shouldn't be in cricket either. Just because they are a lesser side to England doesn't mean they should simply be a breeding ground for stronger teams to come along and hoover up their best players, how are they supposed to develop when they are deprived of any players worth their salt? Their recent success in the last World Cup and against England recently demonstrate why their development should be encouraged rather than hindered.

The thing is, Ireland in cricket unlike other sports has always been one and the same with England\Wales and Scotland. It's only very recently that the idea of separate teams has been toyed with, and the only reason it's happened is because ICC want to make the game look more global. If Glamorgan hadn't been in the County Championship for 70 years then you can bet your life the same thing would've happened with Wales. Same way if East Stirlingshire had been in the Championship, it wouldn't have happened with Scotland.

South Africa and Zimbabwe was all one cricket-playing country until fairly recently as well (IIRR, that came with Zimbabwe being formed out of Rhodesia, which was about 1981 or something). That changed, and I suppose you could say so why shouldn't Ireland? Well, no particular reason I suppose, but I'm not in favour. I don't see Ireland ever being a serious international force in itself, but it could potentially be a big part of an improved British Isles team.

Kenya and Namibia may indeed well never get anywhere, but it is possible that their best players could offer something to South Africa (or, better, Zimbabwe) so some sort of combination of that lot wouldn't be the worst thing ever. On the other hand, Kenya have shown signs of promise several times before, so it's a dangerous development.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The British & Irish Lions comparison is a bit of a red herring, tbh. The team comes together for a tour every four years; in the intervening time the constituent parts enjoy a fierce rivalry.

As I've said a couple of times before, my vote would be for chaps like Morgan and Joyce to remain in Ireland's colours for ODIs but be available for tests for England until such time as their home country gain full test status. Us taking the best Irish players, making them unavailable for Ireland and then not using them in tests seems almost a bit spiteful.

 

[GIMH]

The British & Irish Lions comparison is a bit of a red herring, tbh. The team comes together for a tour every four years; in the intervening time the constituent parts enjoy a fierce rivalry.

As I've said a couple of times before, my vote would be for chaps like Morgan and Joyce to remain in Ireland's colours for ODIs but be available for tests for England until such time as their home country gain full test status. Us taking the best Irish players, making them unavailable for Ireland and then not using them in tests seems almost a bit spiteful.

I actually now call this the Brumby ruling

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

I actually now call this the Brumby ruling

Ugh, get those worthless journeymen Brumbies out of our domestic game.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Ugh, get those worthless journeymen Brumbies out of our domestic game.

Indeed. Average 30-somethings taking up valuable bandwidth that would otherwise be filled by younger English-qualified posters.

 

[Richard]

The British & Irish Lions comparison is a bit of a red herring, tbh. The team comes together for a tour every four years; in the intervening time the constituent parts enjoy a fierce rivalry.

It's a British and Irish team that plays together. The regularity and any inter-competition of the constituents is completely irrelevant (there's inter-competition of counties in English cricket - something that, as things currently stand, Ireland are of sufficient strength to be among). The point is merely that a team represents Britain and Ireland, which is something that, in an ideal World, would happen in every Test played by the team which has historically been known as "England".

 

[Pratters]

Nothing of the sort - I don't consider Jamaica, Barbados etc. as all one country. It's just all one cricket-playing territory. But unlike British Isles, West Indies had the team named properly so I$C$C couldn't step-in in 1997 and decide they wanted to create the illusion of expansion by driving a wedge between them.

West Indies players from any region are allowed to play ODIs and even tests if they are good enough. They aren't denied like a Joyce is. I think it is very unfair on the Irish players and their cricket region/country - whatever you decide to call it.

 

[Shri]

The thing is, Ireland in cricket unlike other sports has always been one and the same with England\Wales and Scotland. It's only very recently that the idea of separate teams has been toyed with, and the only reason it's happened is because ICC want to make the game look more global. If Glamorgan hadn't been in the County Championship for 70 years then you can bet your life the same thing would've happened with Wales. Same way if East Stirlingshire had been in the Championship, it wouldn't have happened with Scotland.

South Africa and Zimbabwe was all one cricket-playing country until fairly recently as well (IIRR, that came with Zimbabwe being formed out of Rhodesia, which was about 1981 or something). That changed, and I suppose you could say so why shouldn't Ireland? Well, no particular reason I suppose, but I'm not in favour. I don't see Ireland ever being a serious international force in itself, but it could potentially be a big part of an improved British Isles team.

Kenya and Namibia may indeed well never get anywhere, but it is possible that their best players could offer something to South Africa (or, better, Zimbabwe) so some sort of combination of that lot wouldn't be the worst thing ever. On the other hand, Kenya have shown signs of promise several times before, so it's a dangerous development.

Would you still encourage this idea if a minimum number of Irish players are required to be selected in the side? Say, 4 Irish players and 7 Eng players.

 

[Richard]

West Indies players from any region are allowed to play ODIs and even tests if they are good enough. They aren't denied like a Joyce is. I think it is very unfair on the Irish players and their cricket region/country - whatever you decide to call it.

The point is nothing to do with major and minor teams - the point is that historical tradition has it that West Indies' islands play as one. Tradition did also have it that England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland did - but now because ICC want to create the illusion of expansion, it's only England and Wales that are deigned to be one (and that only because Glamorgan play in the Championship).

 

[Richard]

Would you still encourage this idea if a minimum number of Irish players are required to be selected in the side? Say, 4 Irish players and 7 Eng players.

Why on Earth would such a thing be stipulated? There's precisely no logical reason for it - the idea would be to pick the best 11 players. If that's 2 Irishmen, 6 Scots, 2 Welshmen and 3 Englishmen, or any other combination (including 11 of each) then so be it.

 

[Pratters]

The point is nothing to do with major and minor teams - the point is that historical tradition has it that West Indies' islands play as one. Tradition did also have it that England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland did - but now because ICC want to create the illusion of expansion, it's only England and Wales that are deigned to be one (and that only because Glamorgan play in the Championship).

Your point doesn't counter my argument.

 

[Richard]

I know, but the point you're making is irrelevant to the one I am - they're rather different issues. The only reason I mentioned what I did is to show that international cricket does not have to be defined on national boundaries.

 

[slugger]

this whole english irish thing reminds me of how the all blacks work, they offer contracts to pacific islanders at a young age who could play if they wanted to their native island, but it advise them they have the potential to play for the all blacks, in the end many talented players end up with no international career because they hold out to long .. waiting .. waiting..i don't like how the all blacks do this and I don't think its cool the ecb poach irish players.. thus destroying ireland a real chance to one day succeed similar to the all blacks approach.

 

[Chemosit]

A sloution around the who should or should not be be 'granted' Test status issue would be solved if the ICC formalised a tier system with regular promotion relegation.

No one should just take Test status for granted, I believe it should be earned and played by the top 8 countries. If promotion/relegation in time mean one of the traditional teams gets relegated, tough - they should have kept standards up.

If this was done and $$ distributed based on performance, i think there would be enough protection for the established teams to make it a possibility and enough of an opportunity for upcoming teams to break into the top tier.

I'd rather watch a tussle between say Ireland and Bangladesh for promotion than a one sided thrashing of Windies B by Australia.

 

[laksh_01]

A sloution around the who should or should not be be 'granted' Test status issue would be solved if the ICC formalised a tier system with regular promotion relegation.

No one should just take Test status for granted, I believe it should be earned and played by the top 8 countries. If promotion/relegation in time mean one of the traditional teams gets relegated, tough - they should have kept standards up.

If this was done and $$ distributed based on performance, i think there would be enough protection for the established teams to make it a possibility and enough of an opportunity for upcoming teams to break into the top tier.

I'd rather watch a tussle between say Ireland and Bangladesh for promotion than a one sided thrashing of Windies B by Australia.

I totally agree... That might also give some value for this sense less thing called ODI status where teams with Odi status are only not allowed to partiespate in ODI tournaments.

 

[Naumaan]

For me it's early to give Ireland Test Status
but ICC should creat a Group of those countries which are better than other associates
then they should arrange tours of those countries of test playing nations
& these associate team should play A teams of test palying nations, this will be alot better for these teams

 

[turnstyle]

Very very interested to see what happens at this ICC CEC meeting next week. They're drawing up the next FTP and there's talk that us dropping out of the new English 40 over comp may have had a lot to do with costs, but also had a lot to do with Warren Deutrom (Ireland's CEO) managing to get regular ODI fixtures and 'A' tours against the full members placed throughout the next FTP.

One dayers and FC matches against county teams would theoretically sound like the next logical step for Ireland, but I believe it's now time Ireland are treated like the 10/11th international side rather than the 19th county.

EDIT: oh, and on the topic - surely not one sane person with half a cricketing brain would suggest Ireland are even close to being ready for test cricket. After chatting to one of the fringe players whilst i was in Belfast last month, we both agreed it's at best 10 years away

 

[Uppercut]

Test status wouldn't be a realistic suggestion were it not for the fact that Bangladesh have it and they're not visibly any better than we are.

Deutrom's stated aim is that Ireland should be allowed to become full members without playing tests. Presumable a similar scenario for Bangladesh would come into place were such a thing allowed.