Why can't...

[Spark]

If Irish cricket is well integrated into the county system why can't they play Tests if Bangladesh and Zimbabwe can? Not immediately, easing them in, but I think they've done enough to be seriously considered.

 

[vcs]

I am seriously coming round to the idea of Ireland being granted Full Member status. Perhaps not test status yet, but full member, and then rather like Zimbabwe's current full-member-but-not-test-playing position, can be eased into playing tests, starting with home matches or small series against Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and mid-table opposition.

Previously, the key hurdle for me was that Ireland does not have its own first class domestic structure. But I'm starting to question whether or not this matters all that much. After all, they do not have a List A structure either - their players all play county cricket. And given that the County Championship is some of the highest standard first-class cricket in the world, players with county contracts are coming from the same base as many test cricketers. Surely, with respect, it's a higher standard than you could expect to see in Bangladeshi domestic cricket?

So while I would accept a few arguments against this - perhaps you feel there is not enough enthusiasm for the sport within Ireland, or perhaps you feel Bangladesh aren't an apprpriate yardstick as they were introduced too early - I certainly feel it's something worth talking about.

Agreed.

 

[Flem274*]

I'd love Ireland to have test status, but why should England have to support the Irish domestic system? Ireland don't have their own FC comp, and while their players play CC, it is probably because England see them as no threat. Any good Irishmen who come along can be selected for England.

But if Ireland were a full test nation, then the Irish players won't likely show any interest in English spots. Why should England allow counties to waste space on an Irish player when they get no benefit? That spot could have been allocated to an Englishman.

Irish players playing CC as overseas signings is another matter entirely, and something I imagine Irish Cricket will be keen on if they become a test nation. Several players in the Irish side are probably just as good as some Kolpaks out there, so counties would be interested.

But for me, Ireland need their own domestic competition before they can have test status. The current lot are all products of the English or other systems.

Because wins like these won't happen everytime.Once in a blue moon perhaps.For most part,they'll be everyone's whipping boys.Despite the performances put in by Netherlands and Ireland this time,they're still a tier below Bangladesh,who are the weakest Test Nation out there.Plus,the boards arranging the bilateral series might not want associate nations involved since the matches would not generate a lot of revenue.Money talks.

Also,the cricket calender is already jampacked.Arranging bilateral tournament/series with Test Playing Nations would almost certainly mean that the test nation would send in a second string team,or atleast play witha second string team when they face an associate.This can be seen by how seriously test nations take series against Bangladesh.Matches against associates would be taken even more non-seriously.They'll pull off a shocker on a good day,but that's it.Not worth it IMO.

No way.

 

[vcs]

My wife says the same thing.

 

[salman85]

No way.

Why?

Ireland are a decent associate side,but they're not on Bangladesh's level IMO.The latter has been playing cricket at the highest level for a while now,and a match up between the two would'nt exactly be even.Bangladesh would beat them,minus the odd defeat.It's like the same difference in class between South Africa and West Indies for example.

 

[Flem274*]

Why?

Ireland are a decent associate side,but they're not on Bangladesh's level IMO.The latter has been playing cricket at the highest level for a while now,and a match up between the two would'nt exactly be even.Bangladesh would beat them,minus the odd defeat.It's like the same difference in class between South Africa and West Indies for example.

Ireland in home conditions would have Bangladesh in serious trouble imo.

 

[marc71178]

Irish players playing CC as overseas signings is another matter entirely, and something I imagine Irish Cricket will be keen on if they become a test nation. Several players in the Irish side are probably just as good as some Kolpaks out there, so counties would be interested.

If the Irish were forced to play as overseas then I doubt many if any of them would be playing as counties can only have 1 overseas player.

 

[Mike5181]

They would be a much better team if England stopped stealing all their players.

 

[cnerd123]

Ireland in home conditions would have Bangladesh in serious trouble imo.

BD would still come out on top more often than not.

I remember several occasions where BD have played Associate nations in tours or warmups and have won convincingly. They're easily better than Zimbabwe and the Associates. The only issues with them is that, much like Pakistan, they're prone to imploding, and so they seem weaker than they really are.

But they have more talent, experience, and a better FC structure. And they have players like Razzak, Shakib and Tamim capable of winning matches on their own (even Mortaza when he was fit), as well as pretty solid backups such as Raqibul, Siddique, Kayes, Rahim, Mahmadullah, Naeem. Even their pace attack is improving through Rubel and Shaiful. Their side won the T20 Cricket comp thing in the recent Asian games - essentially a BD Second XI beat out sides sent by Sri Lanka, Pak, and a full strength Afghanistan, and that too quite comprehensively.

They are definitely a tier above the Associates.


Having said that, Ireland and Netherlands do have strong sides stemming from the fact that a lot of their players play County cricket or domestic cricket in places like Australia. Canada has a few guys like Davison and Balaji Rao with past FC experience, but they're usually past their best. Anderson Cummins comes to mind. And Afghanistan do seem to have some good talent, and against with guys like Hamid Hassan having quite a bit of FC experience. So that's what makes them able to compete with sides like Zim and BD, and occasionally the big nations.

But were they to be made full members, then I agree with the point made that they won't see as much county cricket as before as there is no way for England/Australia to poach them if they're good enough.

Ideally they should just play a lot more ODIs. It would be cool if they could play 4-day warmups when sides tour places such as England or Pak (for Afghanistan, since Pak's home country now seems to be UAE) instead of the domestic sides, give them more exposure.

 

[Howe_zat]

Ideally they should just play a lot more ODIs. It would be cool if they could play 4-day warmups when sides tour places such as England or Pak (for Afghanistan, since Pak's home country now seems to be UAE) instead of the domestic sides, give them more exposure.

Agreed. I get the impression this may be on its way, as Australia played ODI warmups against Ireland and Scotland when they've toured here recently, though it's the FC matches I'd like to see.

 

[Flem274*]

BD would still come out on top more often than not.

I remember several occasions where BD have played Associate nations in tours or warmups and have won convincingly. They're easily better than Zimbabwe and the Associates. The only issues with them is that, much like Pakistan, they're prone to imploding, and so they seem weaker than they really are.

But they have more talent, experience, and a better FC structure. And they have players like Razzak, Shakib and Tamim capable of winning matches on their own (even Mortaza when he was fit), as well as pretty solid backups such as Raqibul, Siddique, Kayes, Rahim, Mahmadullah, Naeem. Even their pace attack is improving through Rubel and Shaiful. Their side won the T20 Cricket comp thing in the recent Asian games - essentially a BD Second XI beat out sides sent by Sri Lanka, Pak, and a full strength Afghanistan, and that too quite comprehensively.

They are definitely a tier above the Associates.


Having said that, Ireland and Netherlands do have strong sides stemming from the fact that a lot of their players play County cricket or domestic cricket in places like Australia. Canada has a few guys like Davison and Balaji Rao with past FC experience, but they're usually past their best. Anderson Cummins comes to mind. And Afghanistan do seem to have some good talent, and against with guys like Hamid Hassan having quite a bit of FC experience. So that's what makes them able to compete with sides like Zim and BD, and occasionally the big nations.

But were they to be made full members, then I agree with the point made that they won't see as much county cricket as before as there is no way for England/Australia to poach them if they're good enough.

Ideally they should just play a lot more ODIs. It would be cool if they could play 4-day warmups when sides tour places such as England or Pak (for Afghanistan, since Pak's home country now seems to be UAE) instead of the domestic sides, give them more exposure.

Imploding under pressure is an understatement. Bangladesh are masters of it.

Also, you can't say Bangladesh have more talent. Measure talent. Their FC structure is better because they actually have their own FC system. But the Irish players play CC, which is a much higher level than Bangladesh domestic cricket.

How many ODIs have Bangladesh won against top eight sides in eleven years? Barring the 4-0 whitewash of the most subcontinentally incompetent NZ batting line ups in decades, I can't think of much more success. There is no doubt they are improving, but Ireland are improving faster, and thats with more restrictions (like ICC funding) on them than Bangladesh have.

Bangladesh have three really good ODI players in Shakib, Tamim and Razzak, and a few decent ones in Mortaza, Mushfiqur Rahim and Muhmahahahahahahadullah. The rest are dire. Shakib, Tamim and Razzak are not very capable of winning matches on their own because Bangladesh have won sod all matches, because their teammates are terrified of success.

I've watched both sides, and Ireland are harder. That is a crucial difference. Bangladesh need Shakib and Tamim to stiffen their spines, but Ireland don't need to be toughened up to start with. Shakib and Tamim turn Bangladesh into a competitive side, but Tamim and Shakib playing for Ireland would turn them into something much better than just competitive.

It would be so awesome if Morgan returned to Ireland, especially if Marshall got dispensation to play. Porterfield, Stirling, Joyce, Marshall, Morgan, Niall O'Brien is almost a better top six than Bangladesh's all time top six. Heck, without Marshall its still close.

Ireland are not a tier below Bangladesh. If given the opportunities, they will pass them.

 

[Flem274*]

I'm trawling through cricketarchive to find the CC records of the Irish players. Could be interesting.

 

[GIMH]

They would be a much better team if England stopped stealing all their players.

There is one Irishman in the England team, and one of the Ireland team had a spell playing for us.

Hardly all their players.

 

[marc71178]

They would be a much better team if England stopped stealing all their players.

But arguably a worse one if they weren't stealing players from other places.

And also a worse one if County Cricket didn't give so many of their players opportunities.

Also, doesn't plural mean more than 1?

 

[Howe_zat]

But arguably a worse one if they weren't stealing players from other places.

And also a worse one if County Cricket didn't give so many of their players opportunities.

Also, doesn't plural mean more than 1?

Use of "Stealing" ridiculous anyway. As if the ECB hire suited men in a black van to prowl around Dublin cricket clubs.

 

[GIMH]

They bloody should after yesterday

 

[cnerd123]

Imploding under pressure is an understatement. Bangladesh are masters of it.

Also, you can't say Bangladesh have more talent. Measure talent. Their FC structure is better because they actually have their own FC system. But the Irish players play CC, which is a much higher level than Bangladesh domestic cricket.

How many ODIs have Bangladesh won against top eight sides in eleven years? Barring the 4-0 whitewash of the most subcontinentally incompetent NZ batting line ups in decades, I can't think of much more success. There is no doubt they are improving, but Ireland are improving faster, and thats with more restrictions (like ICC funding) on them than Bangladesh have.

Bangladesh have three really good ODI players in Shakib, Tamim and Razzak, and a few decent ones in Mortaza, Mushfiqur Rahim and Muhmahahahahahahadullah. The rest are dire. Shakib, Tamim and Razzak are not very capable of winning matches on their own because Bangladesh have won sod all matches, because their teammates are terrified of success.

I've watched both sides, and Ireland are harder. That is a crucial difference. Bangladesh need Shakib and Tamim to stiffen their spines, but Ireland don't need to be toughened up to start with. Shakib and Tamim turn Bangladesh into a competitive side, but Tamim and Shakib playing for Ireland would turn them into something much better than just competitive.

It would be so awesome if Morgan returned to Ireland, especially if Marshall got dispensation to play. Porterfield, Stirling, Joyce, Marshall, Morgan, Niall O'Brien is almost a better top six than Bangladesh's all time top six. Heck, without Marshall its still close.

Ireland are not a tier below Bangladesh. If given the opportunities, they will pass them.

What I'll agree too is that the current Ireland squad is strong, in that they have good CC experience, don't implode, work well as a unit.

But in the long run this really isn't sustainable. 10 years ago, heck 5 years ago, they would have lost to Bangladesh regularly. And once the core of this side retires, where is new talent going to come from. As you point out, Ireland don't really have an FC structure and Ireland isn't exactly a cricket mad country.

BD have a sustainable future, an FC system that has produce world class players like Shakib, Tamim, Mortaza, Razzak. They are on the rise. You could say Ireland are on the rise faster, to me they just look like a nuggety side hitting their peak. To argue that in the long run if Ireland receives more ICC support they would outdo BD is unfounded.

Take a look at NZ. it wasn't too long ago that a full strength NZ side were more than a match for sides like SL and India. But as time as passed NZ's lack of depth domestically has been shown up. NZ aren't going to be a consistently threatening side, the team with Cairns, Fleming, Bond, Vettori, Crowe, Richardson, Tuffey, etc. was a side with a good core who hit their peak together. Much like the Ireland side. NZ lost that core, and are sturggling to find replacements and are weakened at the moment, and the same will happen to Ireland.

Sides like Kenya and Scotland had these peaks once upon a time too, and they faded. Currently on the rise are Ireland and Afghanistan.

But the fact is that cricket and long term growth isn't really sustainable in these countries. Even if the ICC invests in Ireland and they produced their own FC system, the lack of interest in the game and small population means that down the line we will see some really dire Ireland sides take the field.

This is where BD have the edge. They will always be a tier above the associates just for the simple reason that they have more cricketers playing cricket in their country than all the other associates ever will. And that means a steadier line of talent being produced. And what's more important, is that the talent being produced through BD is improving over time. A side that once had players like Tapash Baisya and Khaled Masud has recently produced talent such as Mahmadullah, Shakib, Tamim, Naeem, Shuvo, Shaiful, Rubel. Most of this BD side would get into an all-time BD XI.

BD have more talent. They have an FC system. They have the passion in their country. Ireland are a good side now, but at best you'd place them at par with BD. The same was said of sides like Kenya and Scotland, and they faded because the talent in those countries faded and they couldn't produce new one. The same will eventually happen to Ireland. Just because they're good now doesn't mean we should chuck cash into them instead of BD; cricket is just not sustainable there.

What I agree with is giving these sides more exposure, mainly to make cricket more mainstream.

Once cricket is popular enough that there is enough demand for a proper domestic setup, then by all means invest into them. But such a knee-jerk reaction isn't right.

And yes, BD seem spineless. Which sucks. But they have matchwinners, and they have the talent that, if they develop a spine, they can consistently challenge the top nations.

 

[Howe_zat]

There's no sense in suggesting that Ireland don't have any talent coming through. Dockrell is a fine example. Looking at the squad, it's only really Johnston and Botha who are near retirement age.

What's concering is that a major motivation for the counties to develop them is that they might play for England.

 

[cnerd123]

I heard the same arguments after 2003 about Kenya having talent coming in as well tbh.

And yea, I overlooked that point, that will Irish players still get CC contracts if they aren't going to play for England.

 

[NasserFan207]

No, we need to develop a list A structure before this could be possible. Its as simple as that really.

I think there is potential for growth in Ireland though.