USA interfere in Stanford 20:20

[Richard]

Yeah, and you've been right none of those times. The fact that none of the people that count give a toss for your opinion on this one and would never agree with it seems to matter little to you.

There's basically no-one that counts (not that there's many of them) who even seems to have given the matter thought, and that's why the current mess exists. Ireland will never be a ODI-class team in themselves, but they could be a very helpful component of cricket on the British Isles. The British Isles are stronger united than they are divided. It's mad to divide down to the lowest levels you can possibly get away with.

On the same basis as yours, NZ and Aus could combine

Nope, no comparison whatsoever. Australia and New Zealand have had international-class sides themselves for nearly 60 years and more.

or Holland and Denmark could combine etc. etc. Its just a non-point.

Not really, Holland and Denmark could easily play together.

It'll never happen, so maybe you should think twice about suggesting it again.

It basically did happen, for a century and more.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

It happened when Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. I have no problem with Northern Irish guys (e.g. Adrian McCoubrey) playing for England if they are good enough, but the combination of independant States into some bizarre contrived entity for cricketing purposes is a load of old Tosh. Even the West Indian basis can be seen as an anachronism - a hangover from when most of what are now independant states were part of a larger whole.

And what would the Dutch/Danish team be called? Maybe Nepal and Afghanistan could combine? How's about Uganda, Kenya and Zimbabwe?

In fact, lets scrap the whole nationalities thing and just go by continents. Asia vs Africa anyone?

 

[Richard]

It happened when Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. I have no problem with Northern Irish guys (e.g. Adrian McCoubrey) playing for England if they are good enough, but the combination of independant States into some bizarre contrived entity for cricketing purposes is a load of old Tosh. Even the West Indian basis can be seen as an anachronism - a hangover from when most of what are now independant states were part of a larger whole.

Or rather we could stop trying to banish the past and embrace the fact that we are stronger united than we are divided. RO Ireland was never part of the United Kingdom, it was simply oppressed and ruled by conquest-minded idiots. Nowadays, the UK and EIRE enjoy a far more equal, cordial relationship. What better to embrace this than a combined cricket team which would be of great benefit to the game in both countries?

And what would the Dutch/Danish team be called? Maybe Nepal and Afghanistan could combine? How's about Uganda, Kenya and Zimbabwe?

Whatever they want. If they can do better united than they could apart, maybe even approach international standard, they should go for it.

In fact, lets scrap the whole nationalities thing and just go by continents. Asia vs Africa anyone?

If anyone could actually be persuaded to take that seriously, IMO it'd be a great addition to the calender and something that should be played far more often.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

What better to embrace this than a combined cricket team which would be of great benefit to the game in both countries?

Where is the benefit to the Irish cricket team. At the moment, they're pretty much guaranteed a hoo-rah once every 4 years at the World Cup. If they were to be subsumed in Team England, the chances of any of their players reaching international level are worse than ever.

Incidentally, have you ever found anyone who agrees with you on this point?

 

[Richard]

I've never found anyone who even seems to understand it really. Too much buried in nationalistic idiocy.

The point is, the best Irish cricketers are going to amount to less as Ireland than they would as part of The British Isles. Ireland will never be a ODI-standard team (regardless of whether they get a World Cup shenanagans every 4 massive years) or even get close to being a Test-standard one. But they could help greatly to make the game on these Isles better than it would be without them. And that way they'd not feel like England were "stealing their" players when the very best Irish players went to play for counties and eventually Tests.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Your combined 'British Isles' team would not garner the support of the Irish people though due to the feelings you dismiss so readily as "nationalistic idiocy". Any thought to the contrary is naive at the very best. This idea just will not work in any practical terms, would not be welcomed by the players (certainly zero of the current Irish team would be needed by England, and thus Ireland lose any international games they have), England would not play 'home' games in Ireland as the financial returns would be too small and I cannot see any advantage to any one of these parties other than serving the small agenda that you have. Frankly, I'm not surprised by your attitude seeing as you've very little knowledge of the rest of the world outside your county, so it should come as no surprise that you dismiss the feelings of the majority as "nationalistic idiocy".

Until you list some practical and workable benefits for both sides, I just have to dismiss this as Wind-Up-Merchant-ism from you.

 

[Richard]

The reason I dismiss it as nationalistic idiocy is because it's routinely espoused by English, not Irish. I have much knowledge of these isles outside my own county, incidentally - I've lived all over the darn place and I know people from here there and everywhere around these isles, including a good few Irish lads.

There is no longer any anti-English feeling amongst the Irish with progressive minds. Hatchets have been buried.

Who's to say the British Isles team wouldn't start to play in Ireland if high-calibre grounds and high levels of support were drummed-up? There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest they wouldn't.

The only difference between Wales and Ireland is the time the countries have started to "get into" cricket. A Welsh county was playing in the Championship as far back as 1921. Had a Scottish and Irish county done the same thing (as they would if there was the enthusiasm in 1947, say, that there was in Glamorgan). Wales and England are accepted as one in a cricketing sense without a backward glance, even though the official I$C$C name doesn't reflect this. There is absolutely no good reason why Ireland and Scotland cannot be exactly the same.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Until you list some practical and workable benefits for both sides, I just have to dismiss this as Wind-Up-Merchant-ism from you.

I still fail to see any practical benefits from you.

 

[Richard]

I still fail to see any practical benefits for you.

Corrected.

 

[Janus]

I've never found anyone who even seems to understand it really. Too much buried in nationalistic idiocy.

The point is, the best Irish cricketers are going to amount to less as Ireland than they would as part of The British Isles. Ireland will never be a ODI-standard team (regardless of whether they get a World Cup shenanagans every 4 massive years) or even get close to being a Test-standard one. But they could help greatly to make the game on these Isles better than it would be without them. And that way they'd not feel like England were "stealing their" players when the very best Irish players went to play for counties and eventually Tests.

There is also another problem there for you Richard, No Irishman is going to play for a team called "The British Isles" as it implies dominance by the British Island. Hence why in rugby they've called the lions team "The British And Irish Lions". Parity, Two Islands, Not One.

Not to mention the fact that the island as a whole has a higher population than New Zealand meaning that With enough founding we could match them in quality even though cricket is only the fifth most popular sport after Gaelic football, Hurling, Association football and rugby.

On the original topic, I'd have to say that America's politic vendetta against Cuba shouldn't interfere with cricket as it's only the Cuban cricketers who lose out.

 

[Richard]

There is also another problem there for you Richard, No Irishman is going to play for a team called "The British Isles" as it implies dominance by the British Island. Hence why in rugby they've called the lions team "The British And Irish Lions". Parity, Two Islands, Not One.

Yep, that'd be a perfectly fine - indeed, better - title, in fact.

Not to mention the fact that the island as a whole has a higher population than New Zealand meaning that With enough founding we could match them in quality even though cricket is only the fifth most popular sport after Gaelic football, Hurling, Association football and rugby.

Populations mean nothing, really. The fact that the population of Ireland is higher than New Zealand, well, it means as little as the fact that India's population is, what, 50 times Pakistan's.

It's the calibre of cricketers produced, not the population, that counts. Also, New Zealand has never been, in essence, part of another cricketing community; Ireland has, whatever anyone might say, always been part of the British (and Irish) Isles in cricketing terms.

 

[Janus]

Yep, that'd be a perfectly fine - indeed, better - title, in fact.

Populations mean nothing, really. The fact that the population of Ireland is higher than New Zealand, well, it means as little as the fact that India's population is, what, 50 times Pakistan's.

The problem with your argument is that India and Pakistan are in places largely undeveloped, Ireland on the other hand is one of the most developed nations in the world. Leads me to ask when is the last time you saw Ireland in the flesh or on television, 70's?

It's the calibre of cricketers produced, not the population, that counts. Also, New Zealand has never been, in essence, part of another cricketing community; Ireland has, whatever anyone might say, always been part of the British (and Irish) Isles in cricketing terms.

It's a very vague argument you've presented as Calibre is something that is open to interpretation. England's domestic system produces alot of good calibre players but doesn't seem to preform as well as other teams. Form and determination are just as important as calibre and skill and are frequently the difference between two teams.

 

[Richard]

The problem with your argument is that India and Pakistan are in places largely undeveloped, Ireland on the other hand is one of the most developed nations in the world. Leads me to ask when is the last time you saw Ireland in the flesh or on television, 70's?

No, I wasn't born until 5 years after the 1970s finished. I wasn't comparing anywhere in these isles to India or Pakistan, certainly not in terms of economic development, simply showing that Pakistan, despite a population a tiny fraction of India's, can still produce teams which have often been their betters.

It's a very vague argument you've presented as Calibre is something that is open to interpretation. England's domestic system produces alot of good calibre players but doesn't seem to preform as well as other teams. Form and determination are just as important as calibre and skill and are frequently the difference between two teams.

England's domestic system, at the current time and in recent years, produces very few players I'd call particularly good. I've said this for a fair number of years, about both batsmen and bowlers, in both First-Class and one-day cricket. And this despite the fact that England's domestic system is probably the 2nd-best in The World.

 

[Janus]

No, I wasn't born until 5 years after the 1970s finished. I wasn't comparing anywhere in these isles to India or Pakistan, certainly not in terms of economic development, simply showing that Pakistan, despite a population a tiny fraction of India's, can still produce teams which have often been their betters.

And that's the point isn't it? Population and development mean nothing in cricket. Determination is the only factor, you've underestimated Ireland's determination in terms of cricket or in fact any sport. The passion is there, the determination is there, the development is not, the investment is not. Cricket has always had it's place in Ireland, it was just lost in the twentieth century; it's back now and I don't see why we can't catch up to the likes of New Zealand, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka.

you may say that we are stronger united, but in rugby we lose to New Zealand divided and united; It's the same in cricket, We'll lose to Australia divided, we'll lose united. Nothing will change.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Richard has never conceded any ground on this entirely inane argument. He's like some anchored soldier in the First World War; stuck in his trench, immovable whilst bloody hell is unleashed around him.

In the little under a year I've been on this site, I'm yet to see Richard change his opinion on certain topics - this being one.

The sad thing is, if you stop replying to him he seems to think he's 'won' the debate whereas in reality he's just either bored the other protaganist ****less or they've had more success headbutting a brick wall and are holed up in the local hospital with a broken skull.

 

[Richard]

Richard has never conceded any ground on this entirely inane argument. He's like some anchored soldier in the First World War; stuck in his trench, immovable whilst bloody hell is unleashed around him.

In the little under a year I've been on this site, I'm yet to see Richard change his opinion on certain topics - this being one.

No, of course I haven't - I don't generally form a strong opinion without plenty of basis. Therefore, it's unlikely anyone's going to convince me to change any seriously considered opinion. Nor, I might add, is there anything wrong at all with that.

The sad thing is, if you stop replying to him he seems to think he's 'won' the debate whereas in reality he's just either bored the other protaganist ****less or they've had more success headbutting a brick wall and are holed up in the local hospital with a broken skull.

In plenty of cases it's not even a case of debate to "win".

 

[Richard]

And that's the point isn't it? Population and development mean nothing in cricket. Determination is the only factor, you've underestimated Ireland's determination in terms of cricket or in fact any sport. The passion is there, the determination is there, the development is not, the investment is not. Cricket has always had it's place in Ireland, it was just lost in the twentieth century; it's back now and I don't see why we can't catch up to the likes of New Zealand, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka.

But was Ireland, in, say, the 19th-century (or 18th if you want to go back that far) ever a totally separate entity from England\Wales\Scotland?

I've never seen any evidence to suggest so. Only very recently have the British and Irish Isles been separated in cricket, and they were separated because I$C$C want to convince everyone they're attracting new membership, spreading the game where it's never been before. And I say it again - if an Irish county had played in the Championship in the 19th-century, there'd never have been a divide of any sort. Similarly, if Glamorgan had never joined-in, there'd now be a separate-in-I$C$C-terms Wales team as there are Irish and Scottish ones.

you may say that we are stronger united, but in rugby we lose to New Zealand divided and united; It's the same in cricket, We'll lose to Australia divided, we'll lose united. Nothing will change.

We might lose less badly, however, which at least would be a start. AFAIC, better > less better, regardless of immediate results.

 

[luvaus]

Dis f**kin so called leader of da world is only makin trouble to cricket, I know they hate cricket