Can Jamaica become a cricketing nation by itself ?

[Prince EWS]

The games against Ireland need to be taken with some sort of context too. Firstly I'll introduced a concept much-loved by West Indies fans of late - Ireland were "severely depleted". The best batsman, their best wicket keeper, their best quick and their best spinner all missed the one dayer, while their best containing one day bowler wasn't fit to bowl for the match either. In the three dayer their best quick and their best spinner missed out yet again. Secondly, I don't think a one dayer and a three-dayer is a great sample size either, particularly when there were no lead-up games or anything to acclimatise Ireland to the foreign conditions and they actually hadn't played any cricket since January. With a proper lead-up under more serious circumstances I'd expect Ireland to take Jamaica.

As many have noted, even if I was wrong it'd say more about the gap between Ireland and the Test-playing nations than it would about Jamaica.

 

[Matt79]

Gayle almost beat AUS all by himself. Guys like roach, and rampaul didn't have the best records when compared to Jamaican bowlers, and benn as a spinner didn't have more success than miller/brown etc from Jamaica. I understand WI selectors choose crap players and most you believe you always see the best from the region but that isn't true. For instance Roach has impressed alot of people but roach was around when baker was playing for West Indies. Roach and other bowlers were there when powell was still playing for West Indies. So people who don't know the talent and structure available in Jamaica shouldn't be quick to put the players down because WI isn't doing good.

When it comes to sports in general Jamaica is the best at all sports in the region, and Cricket is another area inwhich Jamaica leads.

lol. No he didn't. The West Indies together nearly won a match against Australia in one of the recent rubbers. But they didn't manage to do so. And they were humiliated in one of the other matches, and the other was a bore-draw. Is inter-island pride really worth the idea of getting schooled worse than Bangladesh does by every test standard opponent you meet?

 

[WindieWeathers]

lol. No he didn't. The West Indies together nearly won a match against Australia in one of the recent rubbers. But they didn't manage to do so. And they were humiliated in the other matches in the series. Is inter-island pride really worth the idea of getting schooled worse than Bangladesh does by every test standard opponent you meet?

Lets get one thing straight here in the last two tests we pushed you hard, of which one we drew and the other we lost by a mere 31 runs and both of those games we had a depleted team, in the one dayers and t20s you basically beat our reserves, so the only team that were "humiliated" was our second string in reality .

 

[Matt79]

Yeah, I realised I'd overgilded the lily there and if you want to look, I'd edited my post to be more accurate before your response. So no need for the eye-rolling.

We had our own injury concerns - in fact every team ALWAYS has injury concerns. You'll always have, I'd reckon, 2-3 guys who would be near automatic inclusions out of your team on injuries - if you can't win with that factored in, your team is lacking in the necessary depth to be a top team. No-one's particularly interested in excuses.

 

[shivfan]

The games against Ireland need to be taken with some sort of context too. Firstly I'll introduced a concept much-loved by West Indies fans of late - Ireland were "severely depleted". The best batsman, their best wicket keeper, their best quick and their best spinner all missed the one dayer, while their best containing one day bowler wasn't fit to bowl for the match either. In the three dayer their best quick and their best spinner missed out yet again. Secondly, I don't think a one dayer and a three-dayer is a great sample size either, particularly when there were no lead-up games or anything to acclimatise Ireland to the foreign conditions and they actually hadn't played any cricket since January. With a proper lead-up under more serious circumstances I'd expect Ireland to take Jamaica.

As many have noted, even if I was wrong it'd say more about the gap between Ireland and the Test-playing nations than it would about Jamaica.

On the other hand, the Jamaica that beat Ireland in the ODI and dominated the three-day game is one without Chris Gayle, Brendan Nash, Jerome Taylor, Darren Powell, Xavier Marshall, Jason Dawes, etc. The JCA used the opportunity to give FC experience to greenhorns Krishmar Santokie, Horace Miller, Akeem Dewar, and Kemar Marshall. I think it's a reflection of the lack of depth in Irish cricket that Jamaica could field a 'weakened' and 'severely depleted' side, and still come out on top....

If Jamaica had fielded this side against Barbados, they would probably have lost the match.

 

[Prince EWS]

On the other hand, the Jamaica that beat Ireland in the ODI and dominated the three-day game is one without Chris Gayle, Brendan Nash, Jerome Taylor, Darren Powell, Xavier Marshall, Jason Dawes, etc. The JCA used the opportunity to give FC experience to greenhorns Krishmar Santokie, Horace Miller, Akeem Dewar, and Kemar Marshall. I think it's a reflection of the lack of depth in Irish cricket that Jamaica could field a 'weakened' and 'severely depleted' side, and still come out on top....

If Jamaica had fielded this side against Barbados, they would probably have lost the match.

I've never been a fan of the "well it doesn't matter if the losing team had players out because the winning team had players out too, so they still would've won" logic, as the game then just becomes a test of depth rather than a test of first eleven quality. For example, if New Zealand A beat South Africa A, it wouldn't have any baring on how I rated New Zealand or South Africa. Obviously that's an exaggerated example compared to this case where it was just some of each team's best players out, but I still feel the same way. In no way am I saying that the game suggested Ireland were the better team; I'm just saying that it doesn't really prove much at all... particularly given the other factors I mentioned. This isn't the serious part of the tour for Ireland; it was just a couple of warmup games, I don't think people should be reading too much into it.

 

[shivfan]

Well, you can only beat the opposition that's put in front of you, and Jamaica did that to Ireland. So, until the Irish are able to put together a full-strength team to send to Jamaica to play a full-strength Jamaica side, it's perfectly justifiable to say that Jamaica beat Ireland. But given the state of Irish cricket, you wonder if that will ever be possible. As soon as a good Irish player comes thru the ranks, he ends up playing for England!

 

[Jarquis]

I'm quite sure Jamaica would be doing alot better than WI is doing right now.

I don't understand how that's possible.
Surely the Jamaican side can only ever be as good as the West Indies side because at best the West Indies side could be the same as the Jamaican side?
At the minute it is some Jamaicans plus some better non-Jamaicans.
If the Jamaican players were the best then West Indies would just = Jamaica.

 

[Matt79]

I think you're missing the under-current of disgruntlement at perceived politics ensuring that the poor Jamaica boys don't get a fair shake, while hacks like Chanderpaul, Bravo, etc, reap the benefits...

 

[Jarquis]

Oh... sorry. *climbs back into box*

 

[Beamer]

The games against Ireland need to be taken with some sort of context too. Firstly I'll introduced a concept much-loved by West Indies fans of late - Ireland were "severely depleted". The best batsman, their best wicket keeper, their best quick and their best spinner all missed the one dayer, while their best containing one day bowler wasn't fit to bowl for the match either. In the three dayer their best quick and their best spinner missed out yet again. Secondly, I don't think a one dayer and a three-dayer is a great sample size either, particularly when there were no lead-up games or anything to acclimatise Ireland to the foreign conditions and they actually hadn't played any cricket since January. With a proper lead-up under more serious circumstances I'd expect Ireland to take Jamaica.

As many have noted, even if I was wrong it'd say more about the gap between Ireland and the Test-playing nations than it would about Jamaica.

Ok I'll bite

Jamaica were missing Chris Gayle, Brendan Nash, Marlon Samuels, Wavell Hinds, Jerome Taylor, Nikita Miller, Darren Powell, Jason Dawes. Yet they still trounced Ireland. For the record no island is ready to go it alone but to say Ireland would 'take' Jamaica is utter rubbish IMHO. Jamaica is just stronger than Ireland fullstop.

And yes I do agree with you that it says more about Ireland's strength than Jamaica's.

Edit: Apologies Prince EWS, I've just realised shivfan wrote pretty much exactly what I said. Note to self..... read to the bottom of the thread before replying!

 

[slowfinger]

I think there is no way Jamaica are going to become a test nation full-stop.

 

[Beamer]

Agreed. In the same way that Ireland SHOULD not become a test nation if they can be beaten comprehensively by the reserves of a team that will never be a test nation.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Tour Match: Essex v West Indians at Chelmsford, Apr 25-27, 2009 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Test Status for Essex, IMO.

 

[King Pietersen]

Essex v Australians at Chelmsford, Sep 3-4, 2005 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Wasn't a one-off either. Get Essex in the Test arena tbh.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Good to see Gallian bag a pair, tbh.

 

[Beamer]

Tour Match: Essex v West Indians at Chelmsford, Apr 25-27, 2009 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Test Status for Essex, IMO.

Now you are just being silly!!!!!!!

 

[Matt79]

I think most people here, besides the Irish, agree that Ireland shouldn't become a test nation anytime in the next fifty years.

 

[Craig]

I think most people here, besides the Irish, agree that Ireland shouldn't become a test nation anytime in the next fifty years.

I could be wrong, but I haven't seen Uppercut strongly push Ireland for Test status. Maybe it could work if was some major investment from the ICC/BCCI (hey why not, scratch Ireland's back in exchange for a vote) over a period of 5-10 years, and were prevented from playing against Australia etc., and only played Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

 

[Ilovecric]

Jamaica beat Canada today aswell.

Jamaica has close to 11 bowlers right now who are quite good. It's a tough argument because obviously everybody have their question about Jamaica especially since WI is doing so badly.

I would love to see Jamaica play some more associate nations in the near future so the members on here can give them some more respect.