***Unofficial*** Ireland Discussion Thread

[Uppercut]

If Kenyan cricket hadn't mysteriously went to crap then I think there could be an argument here but there isn't really. A fullstrength no-stealies from England Irish team would be a very good lineup.

Yeah- shame about Kenya's decline. Always loved watching them back in the day.

 

[Athlai]

Yeah- shame about Kenya's decline. Always loved watching them back in the day.

Tikolo is one of the guy's who got me into cricket tbh.

 

[Howsie]

Yeah- shame about Kenya's decline. Always loved watching them back in the day.

Martin Suji
Thomas Odoyo
Peter Ogondo

Loved that bowling attack.

 

[andruid]

At the moment, absolutely. I don't think that's a bold statement considering they won the Intercontinental Cup and the World Cup Qualifying Tournament at a canter and progressed further in the previous two major tournaments than any other Associate. It's a solid two and a half years of complete dominance- and that with a lot of their players either playing county cricket or defecting to England.

County cricket in England was just an embarrassment. If any of our players are up to that standard they immediately get snapped up by a county and can't play for us anyway, so of course we're never going to be able to compete in such a tournament. Australia wouldn't be able to compete in the Pro40 league either if any and every player who was actually good enough to had to play for someone else.

On the fiels they are far ahead just now, just as in the 1990s Kenya were by far the best associate team around. However the real question is do they have the capacity to stay in there long enough to catch the properly organized test nations. without a budget or infrastructure that is closer to Full member countries i do not think so.

 

[Uppercut]

On the fiels they are far ahead just now, just as in the 1990s Kenya were by far the best associate team around. However the real question is do they have the capacity to stay in there long enough to catch the properly organized test nations. without a budget or infrastructure that is closer to Full member countries i do not think so.

The poor budget, lack of interest, etc. didn't stop them from getting this far (the infrastructure's actually rather good, all things considered). Such factors never stopped New Zealand from maintaining a high standard. Although our equivalent of Richard Hadlee would inevitably play for England instead. These things really don't particularly matter. There's no way of telling whether we'll decline once we lose some key players or we'll continue to improve.

The important thing, for me, is that if it becomes clear Ireland are out of their depth the decision can be reversed, as it should have been some time ago with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. I see no reason why full member status has to be a permanent change, but its seemingly an unmovable assumption when discussing promotion to it.

 

[Pratters]

I listened to Cricinfo's switchhit too today during my time at the fitness centre on my phone. It is a nation which get's only 30% of it's income generated through the ICC. Ireland haven't lost a FC match since 2004 or 2005 (it was mentioned during the show). So despite every thing, Ireland is doing quite well. I do think they deserve test status. If Bangladesh can play, so should Ireland.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'd have no objections to Ireland having test status, but I would object to them being included on the future tours program (or whatever it's called); them playing Australia or SA would serve no sporting purpose. However I don't think it's too big a stretch to imagine them being competitive versus Bangladesh or Zimbabwe and maybe even The Windies in home conditions.

 

[slugger]

I think if the icc introduced a test championship, every game holds some importance, and this is whats lacking now, no one cares about zim and bang it feels like a waste of time to play them, but if there is points up for grabs it changes everything, include Ireland and it's more points etc.. it makes the whole test game/ftp have some real meaning.

if you think teams like bang, zim and ire aint up to it then there needs to a be a 2 teir comp created with promotion and relagation.

 

[Athlai]

The plan of them playing 3 years after being granted Test status seems to be a decent one. It would keep England from poaching, and maybe Morgan, Joyce and co. could be tempted to stick around. If they get all their 'English' players back they should be right on par with the current Bangladeshi team, and far superior to Bangladesh circa 2000.

Even if a 2 tier comp isn't on the cards surely limited matches vs. Ireland wouldn't be that bad?

 

[NUFAN]

Uppercut (or anyone else) what are the facilities like in Ireland? How many grounds would you consider capable of staging Test matches?

I don't agree with Brumby saying a match against Australia or South Africa serves no sporting purpose especially if it's a Test Match at the start or end of a tour of England.

 

[morgieb]

Peter Roebuck on Ireland's bid for full membership.

 

[andruid]

On the fiels they are far ahead just now, just as in the 1990s Kenya were by far the best associate team around. However the real question is do they have the capacity to stay in there long enough to catch the properly organized test nations. without a budget or infrastructure that is closer to Full member countries i do not think so.

The poor budget, lack of interest, etc. didn't stop them from getting this far (the infrastructure's actually rather good, all things considered). Such factors never stopped New Zealand from maintaining a high standard. Although our equivalent of Richard Hadlee would inevitably play for England instead. These things really don't particularly matter. There's no way of telling whether we'll decline once we lose some key players or we'll continue to improve.

The important thing, for me, is that if it becomes clear Ireland are out of their depth the decision can be reversed, as it should have been some time ago with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. I see no reason why full member status has to be a permanent change, but its seemingly an unmovable assumption when discussing promotion to it.

Consider that New Zealand, by virtue of being full ICC members are entitled to certain participation fees for stuff like the Champions Trophy, World Cup et al, that no Associate, no matter how successful it is gets . This gives them enough money to have enough pro players (not necessarily millionaires) to run a proper FC standard tournament right across New Zealand to maximise on small player base that they have. This gives New Zealand (and most other Full mamber countries) players loads more experience p-laying a decent standard cricket prior to International debut than any Associate could hope for in this day and age. Thus the New Zealand comparison does not quite do justice to Ireland's case.
Also news Zealand have much better support, by being on the FTP, for planning TV deals and stuff for their international fixtures than Ireland do. Consider that the ICC are still to announce even the next round of Intercontinental Cup fixtures so that Associates can orgarnise ODIs and T20 matches around them

I think stuff like that ought to be looked into, either by the ICC, or by Ireland, so that the game can make that final jump to being fully competitive within the ICC.

having said that Ireland have done tremendously well despite all this and hopefully it does not go to waste.

 

[Flem274*]

Thats because New Zealand are cool.

Ireland should get test status so we can laugh at Richard and because they're just awesome. Boyd Rankin to rape everyone. Laugh if they pick Hamish marshall, didn't he use his irish passort for county cricket or something? He could be useful, would they like his brother?

 

[Goughy]

This raises an interesting question if they are granted Test status. Associate players face stricter eligibility requirements than full members. As a Test nation the rules are less thorough.

The Ireland team will include N. Ireland and I asume players with British passports and citizenship.

Given all that is required is to be
- A national of the country (as defined by the country);

and all that is needed is a British passport. I cant see how any British passport holder canot represent Ireland.

Maybe it wil be the other way around with Ireland 'stealing' Engish players

Certainly it opens the possiblity to many 'heritage' players with British pasports (rather than Irish) playing.

EDIT- To quote British Nationality Law "A child born outside the UK on or after 1 January 1983 will automatically acquire British citizenship by descent if either parent is a British citizen otherwise than by descent at the time of the birth."

So, in my understanding, if British citizens from N. Ireland can represent the Ireland Test team then any English (or Scotish or Welsh) player can and also those children born overseas to a British born citizen.

This is were the distinction between and 'All-Ireland' team and a Repbulic of Ireland team is important. There are 2 options.
- Limit the team to only those that carry Eire passports (then it should be called a Republic Team).
Adv: Would be cleaner and logical
Dis: Would potentially exclude players in N. Ire that did not want to take Republic citizenship and could be a politally charged issue. Especially given the North is a stronghold of cricket
- Allow all British citizens to play for the 'Ireland' team
Adv: Would create an automatic pool of players and improve standard and depth
Dis" Could be expolited and cheapen the game and make Ireland an England 'C' team.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think the nationals "as defined by the country" is the get out clause here. As the test entity of "Ireland" isn't a sovreign national I imagine eligibility would be limited to those UK passport holders born in the six counties or, possibly, extended to those with Irish parents or grandparents, similar to the rule they have for the Ireland union team.

 

[Goughy]

I think the nationals "as defined by the country" is the get out clause here. As the test entity of "Ireland" isn't a sovreign national I imagine eligibility would be limited to those UK passport holders born in the six counties or, possibly, extended to those with Irish parents or grandparents, similar to the rule they have for the Ireland union team.

As defined by country means defined by the Government. For GB and NI that is British citizenship based on birth, Naturalization or parents.

There is no clause to differentiate (or discriminate) against passport holders or citizens in this regard. This isnt about what we would like or want but how it is written in the rules. It is up to the government of the country, not the cricket association, to define who is a national. As such a British citizen from NI is no different from a British citizen of England. There is no such seperate citizenship as Northern Irish or English and under the rules they must be viewed as the same.

Rugby may be different but the IRB has different eligibility rules.

The IRB has no such "defined by country" standard. Regarding Britain that means British (by law) rather than English, Scottish or anything else. The ICC rules bring domestic citizenship law into the discusion. The IRB does not.

 

[BoyBrumby]

As defined by country means defined by the Government. For GB and NI that is British citizenship based on birth, Naturalization or parents.

There is no clause to differentiate (or discriminate) against passport holders or citizens in this regard.

Rugby may be different but the IRB has different eligibility rules.

I don't think it does. I'd be pretty sure it means as defined by the test nation rather than the nation state, which in the instance of Ireland (and also with England and the West Indies) aren't the same thing. Take Pietersen as the example: he's a UK passport holder who hadn't represented SA in any age group cricket but we still required him to serve a four year residence qualification. So it seems as if the ECB define English test nationality as separate from UK citizenship. It's reasonable to assume the test entity of Ireland might do the same.

 

[Goughy]

I don't think it does. I'd be pretty sure it means as defined by the test nation rather than the nation state.

You would be 100% wrong. That is incorrect

RE: KP. Up until 2009 people born before 1983 outside the UK were only given citizenship if father was born in UK. KP was born in 1980 and his mother was British. Whether the specific example of KP fell into this category I dont fully know.

I dont quite get why you keep guessing on issues that are pretty clearcut. This is black and white, not about what we think, want or believe is a good idea.

 

[BoyBrumby]

You would be 100% wrong. That is incorrect

RE: KP. Up until 2009 people born before 1983 outside the UK were only given citizenship if father was born in UK. KP was born in 1980 and his mother was British. Whether the specific example of KP fell into this category I dont fully know.

I dont quite get why you keep guessing on issues that are pretty clearcut. This is black and white, not about what we think, want or believe is a good idea.

Chill. Let's look at the evidence. Ireland currently play ODIs. Ireland consists of Eire & Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK. If all UK nationals were eligible for an Ireland test team it follows they'd be eligible for the Irish ODI team too. So far so reasonable? Why then is their team not full of UK nationals? Playing for an associate in full ODIs doesn't negatively impact on one's test eligibilty (as evidenced by Joyce and Morgan), so why then are there no Englishmen in the Irish team? It stretches credulity past breaking point to imagine every non-English capped first class player has turned them down. So it's reasonable to assume Ireland apply more than just UK citizenship as criteria for their eligibility. They might not be required to by the ICC, but (as with England) they might chose to their own criteria.

With regards to British citizenship for overseas born children of British mothers, with effect from 30 April 2003, anyone born between 08/02/1961 & 31/12/1982 overseas to a British mother was entitled to UK citizenship automatically (Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002) and, additionally, if registered before the age of 18, had been entitled to it since 08/02/1979. As Pietersen has been here since 2001 and was a UK citizen on arrival I imagine the latter provision applies to him.

 

[Goughy]

Chill. Let's look at the evidence. Ireland currently play ODIs. Ireland consists of Eire & Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK. If all UK nationals were eligible for an Ireland test team it follows they'd be eligible for the Irish ODI team too. So far so reasonable?

It does not follow. The eligibility rules for Associate members are far murkier and more complicated than for Full members. It is harder to represent an Associate than a Full member.

It is a far clearer that a British player could play Tests for Ireland than if they are an Associate. Though even then maybe they still could if they challenge the interpretation of the more complicated rules.

The same rules do not apply to Full (Test) members as to Associate members so the situation is not comparable. It becomes far more easy to interpret once full membership is granted.

EDIT: For example for full members you have to only be a national defined by the government but for Associate and Affiliate Members, a player must also meet at least one of the following development criteria;
B2.1 Played 50% of games in national / domestic competition of the country
in any three of the five preceding years
B2.2 Spent a cumulative total of 100 days over the preceding five years
doing cricket work in the country
B2.3 Represented that country at Under 19 level or above in the past (in an
ICC sanctioned match), either under previous ICC rules (i.e. prior to
Annual Conference 2006) or where the current ICC development
criteria had applied

The nation/country mentioned there is not based on Governement definitions (as the passport and citizenship is.) That can mean work within Ireland (inc N. Ire). They are two completely different sets of requirements with terms defined differently.

In your opinion it may stretch credulity but the reason is explained (awkwardly) in the rules. It is quite possible that English born players are not eligible to represent Ireland at Associate level but could be if granted Full status.