Ireland Discussion Thread

[Prince EWS]

Squad: William Porterfield (capt), Andre Botha, Jeremy Bray, Peter Connell, Alex Cusack, Trent Johnston, Kyle McCallan, John Mooney, Kevin O'Brien, Niall O'Brien (wk), Boyd Rankin, Paul Stirling, Regan West, Andrew White, Gary Wilson.

Only changes from the group that won the World Cup qualifiers are Bray and Stirling in for Poynter and... Morgan. Morgan's obviously a big loss, but Bray's return is as a boost, as is Botha's from injury (even though he's not going to bowl in the tournament).

I'm pretty surprised that Ireland actually managed to get in a group with Bangladesh.. are they actually ranked somewhere above the West Indies or Sri Lanka in Twenty20 cricket or something? Anyway, I'm really hoping the boys can get up in that game after some of the debates I've had on here. It'd obviously prove extremely little, win or lose, but it'd be a sweet victory if they got up anyway.

 

[GIMH]

Shoud be part of the England team IMO

 

[Prince EWS]

Shoud be part of the England team IMO

Yeah, McCallan could open the bowling with Swann.

 

[GIMH]

 

[vic_orthdox]

Good to see Wordsy (Bray) back in there. Hopefully can get them off to a couple of fliers.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Thought Bray had knocked it on the head?

Anyway, what's this:

I'm really hoping the boys can get up

all about? Prince O'EWS now, is it?

 

[Prince EWS]

Anyway, what's this:



all about? Prince O'EWS now, is it?

Well, it is the Ireland discussion thread, so I thought "the boys" was a fair enough thing to say. I explained why I'm hoping they win that particular game in the first post.

I'll admit I've had a particularly large soft spot for Ireland since I won a bundle on them beating Pakistan in the World Cup, though. 'Twas certainly one of my better days and I've followed their progress since.

 

[Prince EWS]

Thought Bray had knocked it on the head?

He came out of retirement not long ago.

Scored 40 odd the other day in the FP too.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Thought Bray had knocked it on the head?

Anyway, what's this:



all about? Prince O'EWS now, is it?

Bray quit Irish cricket, after pay dispute. He was over in Australia the past two southern-hemisphere summers, playing at my club, with a view of moving over here for good. However, few issues arose back in Ireland, and so it looks like he'll stay there.

With the knowledge that he'll be in Ireland for a while, and realising that you can't play cricket forever, probably mended a few fences.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

I'm pretty surprised that Ireland actually managed to get in a group with Bangladesh.. are they actually ranked somewhere above the West Indies or Sri Lanka in Twenty20 cricket or something?

They based the groups on the last World Twenty20 results. That was

India
Pakistan
Australia
NZ
RSA
SL
England
Bangladesh
(Zimbabwe - pulled out)
Associate 1
West Indies
Associate 2
(Associate 3)

So 1 was paired with 8 and 9, 2 with 7 and 10, etc.

It's a tad stupid because

a) Associate 1 in 2007 was actually Scotland
b) Scotland were only ahead of WI in 2007 because a game got rained off

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm pretty surprised that Ireland actually managed to get in a group with Bangladesh.. are they actually ranked somewhere above the West Indies or Sri Lanka in Twenty20 cricket or something? Anyway, I'm really hoping the boys can get up in that game after some of the debates I've had on here. It'd obviously prove extremely little, win or lose, but it'd be a sweet victory if they got up anyway.

Ireland are now 2 from 2 against Bangladesh in World Cups. Migara, where are you?!

Nah look, I'm not going to pretend that it suddenly means Ireland are better than Bangladesh, but I think once again it backs up my point (well, to an extent) that there's very little difference in talent, ability and potential between the cricket of each country at the moment (certainly not anywhere close to the difference in assistance - financial and otherwise - they are given by the ICC in progressing cricket) especially given Ireland have lost their best two batsmen. Even if it is prank-cricket.

 

[Athlai]

Bastards owe me $20

 

[Jono]

Nah look, I'm not going to pretend that it suddenly means Ireland are better than Bangladesh, but I think once again it backs up my point (well, to an extent) that there's very little difference in talent, ability and potential between the cricket of each country at the moment (certainly not anywhere close to the difference in assistance - financial and otherwise - they are given by the ICC in progressing cricket) especially given Ireland have lost their best two batsmen. Even if it is prank-cricket.

Yep, but the difference in assistance is purely because of the population and interests that exists within Bangladeshi cricket. I don't believe the ICC actually think Bangladesh players naturally have more potential than Irish.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yep, but the difference in assistance is purely because of the population and interests that exists within Bangladeshi cricket. I don't believe the ICC actually think Bangladesh players naturally have more potential than Irish.

Yeah, I'm not saying I don't understand the reasoning. The flip-side to your point is, of course, that Bangladesh have failed to put out a competitive team even with cricket being a dominant sport in the country and that with more proper international exposure, Ireland's already decent production line could be greatly enhanced - but that's actually not the point I was trying to make and would probably be best saved for another thread.

My point was that there are a few people on this forum who insist Bangladesh are far and away a better team than Ireland (so much so that one member actually claimed that Bangladesh were more compable to the West Indies than Ireland), and I simply don't believe it to be the case. I think it's pretty close at the moment, even though Bangladesh have been given every advantage available by the ICC (whether they should have or not) and Ireland keep losing their best batsmen to England. If Bangladesh hadn't been given full member status and Ireland were able to actually put out a full-strength team then I personally have little doubt that Ireland would have overtaken Bangladesh as the #1 associate by now.

Of course, one Twenty20 game doesn't go anywhere close to proving my point, but it certainly doesn't hurt it.

 

[Prince EWS]

Bastards owe me $20

They've won me plenty in the last couple of years; I'll pick up their tab.

 

[andruid]

Yeah, I'm not saying I don't understand the reasoning. The flip-side to your point is, of course, that Bangladesh have failed to put out a competitive team even with cricket being a dominant sport in the country and that with more proper international exposure, Ireland's already decent production line could be greatly enhanced - but that's actually not the point I was trying to make and would probably be best saved for another thread.

My point was that there are a few people on this forum who insist Bangladesh are far and away a better team than Ireland (so much so that one member actually claimed that Bangladesh were more compable to the West Indies than Ireland), and I simply don't believe it to be the case. I think it's pretty close at the moment, even though Bangladesh have been given every advantage available by the ICC (whether they should have or not) and Ireland keep losing their best batsmen to England. If Bangladesh hadn't been given full member status and Ireland were able to actually put out a full-strength team then I personally have little doubt that Ireland would have overtaken Bangladesh as the #1 associate by now.

Of course, one Twenty20 game doesn't go anywhere close to proving my point, but it certainly doesn't hurt it.

Some of us could even go as far as to argue that Bangladesh were not even the no. 1 associate at the time they were granted test status, being as at that point they had lost 6? stright ODI's to kenya and would not taste victory against Kenya until 2006(partly due to the test status and partially due to Kenya going through a pstch of 3 years with only about 4 ODIs and 6? FC mkatches in total).

 

[NUFAN]

Hats off to Ireland, they should definitely be playing more T20 and 50 over Cricket now.

Reckon a Tri Series between Australia, England and Ireland would be very competitive.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, I'm not saying I don't understand the reasoning. The flip-side to your point is, of course, that Bangladesh have failed to put out a competitive team even with cricket being a dominant sport in the country and that with more proper international exposure, Ireland's already decent production line could be greatly enhanced - but that's actually not the point I was trying to make and would probably be best saved for another thread.

My point was that there are a few people on this forum who insist Bangladesh are far and away a better team than Ireland (so much so that one member actually claimed that Bangladesh were more compable to the West Indies than Ireland), and I simply don't believe it to be the case. I think it's pretty close at the moment, even though Bangladesh have been given every advantage available by the ICC (whether they should have or not) and Ireland keep losing their best batsmen to England. If Bangladesh hadn't been given full member status and Ireland were able to actually put out a full-strength team then I personally have little doubt that Ireland would have overtaken Bangladesh as the #1 associate by now.

Of course, one Twenty20 game doesn't go anywhere close to proving my point, but it certainly doesn't hurt it.

Spot on. The point isn't that Ireland should have test status though, it's arguing the "why shouldn't we?" point to demonstrate how unjust it is that Bangladesh have it.

 

[Prince EWS]

Spot on. The point isn't that Ireland should have test status though, it's arguing the "why shouldn't we?" point to demonstrate how unjust it is that Bangladesh have it.

Yeah, exactly. Both Ireland and Bangladesh are a lot more comparable to each other, Kenya, Holland, Scotland etc than West Indies and New Zealand and that's the key issue here.

 

[Arjun]

I'm surpirsed at the repeated statements that write off the West Indians as a near-minnow team. They have won several ODI tournaments, including a Champions Trophy, and even some Test series, although mostly at home. Moreover, the teams that they have defeated are very strong or playing well. Besides, every West Indian player, irrespective of his style of play, has the ability to mount an all-out attack while batting, and sustain it for a long time.

Bangladesh, supposed to be compared to them, have practically never won a match, especially against good teams or teams in very good form. They're branded as giant-killers after occasionally sinking a few creaky, stumbling, ailing giants in decline, but when they have to compete against the teams to beat, they've failed all the time. They're not even a strong team at home, which could be said of the Zimboks in their best days. Even in the 2007 World Cup, they were defeated by Ireland, and then the eliminated England team, apart from several other big defeats at the hands of top teams. For a team to compare with the West Indians, they don't even have the explosive pace and firepower that their Caribbean counterparts possess.

In contrast, Ireland players have often been poached by England, as we have seen, and they've often lost a lot of their best players because of this. Yet, we find that while they're not excessively talented, they are quite a smart team and they have a strong work ethic, which we find in most minnow teams, particularly from Europe. That's very different from Bangladesh, who tend to get carried away when they're momentarily on top, and don't come back in the game once out. We can't tell much about Ireland, given how little they play, and how they often lose their players to England, but Bangladesh has been given ample chances since the Dalmiya era in the ICC, and in an age of technology, research and analysis, and they've done very little of note, and have stagnated for long.