Minnows - Do we need them, do they improve with us?

[chaminda_00]

They certainly did play in 1986.

That was the first Asia Cup, its just like how HK played in the last Asia Cup and the matches were ODIs.

 

[slugger]

Team Matches Win Lost NR Tied
Zimbabwe 44 8 (***) 32 3 1
Kenya 21 6 (**) 14 1
Neth'lands 13 1 12
Bang'desh 12 3 (**) 8 1
Canada 11 1 10
Scotland 6 0 6
Namibia 6 0 6
UAE 5 1 4
Ireland 2 1 (*) 1

World Cup List. Minor results. A win against a Test team (*)

chucked this together, take from it what ya will.

 

[Richard]

That was the first Asia Cup, its just like how HK played in the last Asia Cup and the matches were ODIs.

Yep, so cricket was formally organised in the country. Suggests to me there was just a teeny bit of enthusiasm for it.

 

[Richard]

Team Matches Win Lost NR Tied
Zimbabwe 44 8 (***) 32 3 1
Kenya 21 6 (**) 14 1
Neth'lands 13 1 12
Bang'desh 12 3 (**) 8 1
Canada 11 1 10
Scotland 6 0 6
Namibia 6 0 6
UAE 5 1 4
Ireland 2 1 (*) 1

World Cup List. Minor results. A win against a Test team (*)

chucked this together, take from it what ya will.

Zimbabwe has NOT always been a minor team.

 

[Dead Badger]

So could Yorkshire. Would you want them in the Cup too?

No, because it's an international tournament. Don't be obtuse. Your Barcelonas and Man Uniteds would almost certainly be capable of winning the World Cup at football, too. England would be at best an upper mid-table Premiership club. So what?

So, back to the actual point I made, which is that there clearly isn't such a bright demarcating line between the top nations and the minnows, or else you wouldn't have the problem in the first place. Again: your issue should not be with the mere presence of the minnows, but with the tournament structure which is based around reasoning that has been proven completely false, namely that the top sides are bound to win, therefore we can have a ridiculously binary tournament. The ICC have concocted a system which is clearly very sensitive to upsets. Whose fault is that? It's not Ireland's.

Your argument, it seems, boils down to saying, "some teams are too rubbish to be allowed to win." I don't think it needs me to point out the flaw there, but then I always thought you played a game in order to determine the winner, not vice versa.

 

[Richard]

No, because it's an international tournament. Don't be obtuse. Your Barcelonas and Man Uniteds would almost certainly be capable of winning the World Cup at football, too. England would be at best an upper mid-table Premiership club. So what?

In cricketing terms Scotland and Ireland are no more separate from "England" than Yorkshire are. The team has never really been England, it's been The British Isles under the byline "England". For a long, long time that never mattered. Unfortunately, at the moment we're in a position to wish those bean-counters at MCC had been more thoughtful and inclusive back in 1903.

So, back to the actual point I made, which is that there clearly isn't such a bright demarcating line between the top nations and the minnows, or else you wouldn't have the problem in the first place. Again: your issue should not be with the mere presence of the minnows, but with the tournament structure which is based around reasoning that has been proven completely false, namely that the top sides are bound to win, therefore we can have a ridiculously binary tournament. The ICC have concocted a system which is clearly very sensitive to upsets. Whose fault is that? It's not Ireland's.

Your argument, it seems, boils down to saying, "some teams are too rubbish to be allowed to win." I don't think it needs me to point out the flaw there, but then I always thought you played a game in order to determine the winner, not vice versa.

Have you ever heard of probability and chance? The sort of results we've seen here will hardly ever happen - it's just an unfortunate coincidence that they happen to have in a tournament which will get skewed because of it.

If teams get enough chances, they'll always win eventually. However, they do not neccessarily deserve the chance, because just because someone has won 1 game it doesn't change their paucity.

 

[Dead Badger]

In cricketing terms Scotland and Ireland are no more separate from "England" than Yorkshire are. The team has never really been England, it's been The British Isles under the byline "England". For a long, long time that never mattered. Unfortunately, at the moment we're in a position to wish those bean-counters at MCC had been more thoughtful and inclusive back in 1903.

Sure, many Scots and Irishmen have played for England over the years; there wasn't any alternative. Does that mean it's a desirable thing? Are you sure there aren't Irish and Scottish guys out there who would rather represent their own nation, given the chance? Why is it preferable to hold back a country that has proved capable of beating top teams (even if only rarely), insisting that their players should play under a different flag?

But if we're completely ignoring the supposedly global nature of this tournament, we should just have a non-"World" cup, then; some sort of invitational thing, perhaps. We could have just the top nations compete - the "champions", if you will - hashing it out over a more truncated timeframe for some sort of "trophy". Hey! We could call it the "Champions Trophy", or some such. Maybe we can get "ICC" in there somewhere, to remind everyone it's cricket. It'll be great!

Have you ever heard of probability and chance? The sort of results we've seen here will hardly ever happen - it's just an unfortunate coincidence that they happen to have in a tournament which will get skewed because of it.

I thought half the fun of sport tournaments is that they're not deterministic. If we want to eliminate probability and chance, why not have the starting ceremony be the ending ceremony, and just let Malcolm Speed read out the current ODI rankings? That'd get rid of all that hideous uncertainty for sure. It'll be ace. We can watch youtube clips of famous sledges (because we haven't heard "mind the windows" for at least half an hour) and drink Pepsi(tm) til the cows come home. Why send them away, in fact? We won't need the field.

If teams get enough chances, they'll always win eventually. However, they do not neccessarily deserve the chance, because just because someone has won 1 game it doesn't change their paucity.

I think you're conflating eventual success (i.e. winning the cup) with even being given the opportunity to try. Ireland are clearly not going to win the cup proper; there's just no way. But they took their chance, and in doing so proved they deserved it; for them, this is success, and so it should be. Similarly, by contriving to lose to such apparently inferior opposition, Pakistan have demonstrated that they don't deserve to be there. Playing like that, were they going to seriously threaten for the title?

You can't organise a tournament that's immune to shocks. Hell, other, more meritocratic sports actually worry that the same teams win, year in, year out. Only in cricket do I see this weird handwringing concern that the "good" teams aren't winning reliably enough. By your argument, the minnows can't win (ha) - if they do well, they're spoiling the tournament, and if they do badly, they're proving they're not good enough. If a "good" team is beaten by a "bad" one, is the solution really to exclude the latter? Shouldn't the "good" one have been, y'know ... good?

 

[marc71178]

In cricketing terms Scotland and Ireland are no more separate from "England" than Yorkshire are.

Erm yes they are.

One is a domestic side, the other 2 are International sides.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Tell me - what happened in 1969?

First man on the moon?

Seriously you can't compare a beer & skittles knock-about against a Windies team who'd quite definitely been enjoying the most fearsome craic the night before to a win over the 4th ranked (IIRC) team in the world cup!

I spent the weekend in Galway & cricket (whose profile in Ireland is next to nothing) did make the front page of the Monday Irish Mirror. It won't happen overnight, but their success will undoubtedly raise the profile of the sport over there. Frankly the best thing for cricket in Ireland would be for then to beat us because they love nothing more than beating the English in any sport.

 

[silentstriker]

Sure, many Scots and Irishmen have played for England over the years; there wasn't any alternative. Does that mean it's a desirable thing? Are you sure there aren't Irish and Scottish guys out there who would rather represent their own nation, given the chance? Why is it preferable to hold back a country that has proved capable of beating top teams (even if only rarely), insisting that their players should play under a different flag?

But if we're completely ignoring the supposedly global nature of this tournament, we should just have a non-"World" cup, then; some sort of invitational thing, perhaps. We could have just the top nations compete - the "champions", if you will - hashing it out over a more truncated timeframe for some sort of "trophy". Hey! We could call it the "Champions Trophy", or some such. Maybe we can get "ICC" in there somewhere, to remind everyone it's cricket. It'll be great!

I thought half the fun of sport tournaments is that they're not deterministic. If we want to eliminate probability and chance, why not have the starting ceremony be the ending ceremony, and just let Malcolm Speed read out the current ODI rankings? That'd get rid of all that hideous uncertainty for sure. It'll be ace. We can watch youtube clips of famous sledges (because we haven't heard "mind the windows" for at least half an hour) and drink Pepsi(tm) til the cows come home. Why send them away, in fact? We won't need the field.

I think you're conflating eventual success (i.e. winning the cup) with even being given the opportunity to try. Ireland are clearly not going to win the cup proper; there's just no way. But they took their chance, and in doing so proved they deserved it; for them, this is success, and so it should be. Similarly, by contriving to lose to such apparently inferior opposition, Pakistan have demonstrated that they don't deserve to be there. Playing like that, were they going to seriously threaten for the title?

You can't organise a tournament that's immune to shocks. Hell, other, more meritocratic sports actually worry that the same teams win, year in, year out. Only in cricket do I see this weird handwringing concern that the "good" teams aren't winning reliably enough. By your argument, the minnows can't win (ha) - if they do well, they're spoiling the tournament, and if they do badly, they're proving they're not good enough. If a "good" team is beaten by a "bad" one, is the solution really to exclude the latter? Shouldn't the "good" one have been, y'know ... good?

Completely agree.

 

[Swervy]

Sure, many Scots and Irishmen have played for England over the years; there wasn't any alternative. Does that mean it's a desirable thing? Are you sure there aren't Irish and Scottish guys out there who would rather represent their own nation, given the chance? Why is it preferable to hold back a country that has proved capable of beating top teams (even if only rarely), insisting that their players should play under a different flag?

But if we're completely ignoring the supposedly global nature of this tournament, we should just have a non-"World" cup, then; some sort of invitational thing, perhaps. We could have just the top nations compete - the "champions", if you will - hashing it out over a more truncated timeframe for some sort of "trophy". Hey! We could call it the "Champions Trophy", or some such. Maybe we can get "ICC" in there somewhere, to remind everyone it's cricket. It'll be great!

I thought half the fun of sport tournaments is that they're not deterministic. If we want to eliminate probability and chance, why not have the starting ceremony be the ending ceremony, and just let Malcolm Speed read out the current ODI rankings? That'd get rid of all that hideous uncertainty for sure. It'll be ace. We can watch youtube clips of famous sledges (because we haven't heard "mind the windows" for at least half an hour) and drink Pepsi(tm) til the cows come home. Why send them away, in fact? We won't need the field.

I think you're conflating eventual success (i.e. winning the cup) with even being given the opportunity to try. Ireland are clearly not going to win the cup proper; there's just no way. But they took their chance, and in doing so proved they deserved it; for them, this is success, and so it should be. Similarly, by contriving to lose to such apparently inferior opposition, Pakistan have demonstrated that they don't deserve to be there. Playing like that, were they going to seriously threaten for the title?

You can't organise a tournament that's immune to shocks. Hell, other, more meritocratic sports actually worry that the same teams win, year in, year out. Only in cricket do I see this weird handwringing concern that the "good" teams aren't winning reliably enough. By your argument, the minnows can't win (ha) - if they do well, they're spoiling the tournament, and if they do badly, they're proving they're not good enough. If a "good" team is beaten by a "bad" one, is the solution really to exclude the latter? Shouldn't the "good" one have been, y'know ... good?

splendid work fella

 

[LA ICE-E]

Sure, many Scots and Irishmen have played for England over the years; there wasn't any alternative. Does that mean it's a desirable thing? Are you sure there aren't Irish and Scottish guys out there who would rather represent their own nation, given the chance? Why is it preferable to hold back a country that has proved capable of beating top teams (even if only rarely), insisting that their players should play under a different flag?

But if we're completely ignoring the supposedly global nature of this tournament, we should just have a non-"World" cup, then; some sort of invitational thing, perhaps. We could have just the top nations compete - the "champions", if you will - hashing it out over a more truncated timeframe for some sort of "trophy". Hey! We could call it the "Champions Trophy", or some such. Maybe we can get "ICC" in there somewhere, to remind everyone it's cricket. It'll be great!

I thought half the fun of sport tournaments is that they're not deterministic. If we want to eliminate probability and chance, why not have the starting ceremony be the ending ceremony, and just let Malcolm Speed read out the current ODI rankings? That'd get rid of all that hideous uncertainty for sure. It'll be ace. We can watch youtube clips of famous sledges (because we haven't heard "mind the windows" for at least half an hour) and drink Pepsi(tm) til the cows come home. Why send them away, in fact? We won't need the field.

I think you're conflating eventual success (i.e. winning the cup) with even being given the opportunity to try. Ireland are clearly not going to win the cup proper; there's just no way. But they took their chance, and in doing so proved they deserved it; for them, this is success, and so it should be. Similarly, by contriving to lose to such apparently inferior opposition, Pakistan have demonstrated that they don't deserve to be there. Playing like that, were they going to seriously threaten for the title?

You can't organise a tournament that's immune to shocks. Hell, other, more meritocratic sports actually worry that the same teams win, year in, year out. Only in cricket do I see this weird handwringing concern that the "good" teams aren't winning reliably enough. By your argument, the minnows can't win (ha) - if they do well, they're spoiling the tournament, and if they do badly, they're proving they're not good enough. If a "good" team is beaten by a "bad" one, is the solution really to exclude the latter? Shouldn't the "good" one have been, y'know ... good?

way t' go... but from past experience i dont think he'll get it and still blabber around making you go round and round to make the same point but still won't get it( i know pointed out some of the same points in the past to him, and you still see this)

 

[Richard]

Sure, many Scots and Irishmen have played for England over the years; there wasn't any alternative. Does that mean it's a desirable thing? Are you sure there aren't Irish and Scottish guys out there who would rather represent their own nation, given the chance? Why is it preferable to hold back a country that has proved capable of beating top teams (even if only rarely), insisting that their players should play under a different flag?

TBH, I think there are many reasons it's a desireable thing - the nations of the British Isles haven't always been the most united and it's good that cricket was one thing where they were all under the same roof.

Added to which, is it really likely that something which has been the case for 150 years or so is going to change? Regardless of how many lines you try to draw?

I thought half the fun of sport tournaments is that they're not deterministic. If we want to eliminate probability and chance, why not have the starting ceremony be the ending ceremony, and just let Malcolm Speed read out the current ODI rankings? That'd get rid of all that hideous uncertainty for sure. It'll be ace. We can watch youtube clips of famous sledges (because we haven't heard "mind the windows" for at least half an hour) and drink Pepsi(tm) til the cows come home. Why send them away, in fact? We won't need the field.

How many times are people going to say the same thing? You can either draw a sensible line or you can not draw one at all as far as I'm concerned. 8 is the place to draw it - 16 is as stupid a number as 32.

I think you're conflating eventual success (i.e. winning the cup) with even being given the opportunity to try. Ireland are clearly not going to win the cup proper; there's just no way. But they took their chance, and in doing so proved they deserved it; for them, this is success, and so it should be. Similarly, by contriving to lose to such apparently inferior opposition, Pakistan have demonstrated that they don't deserve to be there. Playing like that, were they going to seriously threaten for the title?

You can't organise a tournament that's immune to shocks. Hell, other, more meritocratic sports actually worry that the same teams win, year in, year out. Only in cricket do I see this weird handwringing concern that the "good" teams aren't winning reliably enough. By your argument, the minnows can't win (ha) - if they do well, they're spoiling the tournament, and if they do badly, they're proving they're not good enough. If a "good" team is beaten by a "bad" one, is the solution really to exclude the latter? Shouldn't the "good" one have been, y'know ... good?

Bad teams are bad. There's no way around that. Ireland are not ODI-standard, their presence IS going to ruin the tournament - and if they win 1 game, as has been demonstrated, that just makes it worse, because then they're in it for longer.

As I've said many times before, too, cricket is different to most sports - cricket is and always has been far, far more elitist than near enough any others (hence the defensivenes over Test-status and the failure to award it to Italy and Kazakhstan, whereas in international football no-one has a problem with England-vs-Andorra being exactly the same as Italy-vs-Spain) and that's the way most of it's devoted followers prefer it. Hence, I couldn't give a stuff about what other sports' attitudes to the same teams winning all the time is.

 

[Richard]

way t' go... but from past experience i dont think he'll get it and still blabber around making you go round and round to make the same point but still won't get it( i know pointed out some of the same points in the past to him, and you still see this)

You're the one that doesn't get it son. I got 100% of what he was saying, but I don't agree with any of it.

 

[Richard]

Erm yes they are.

One is a domestic side, the other 2 are International sides.

They're political nations.

There's a difference between being a political nation and an international cricket team.

Until very recently, no-one remotely seriously considered Ireland or Scotland as international cricket teams - they were just part of the team known as "England" but which in reality reprisented The British Isles.

 

[Richard]

First man on the moon?

Seriously you can't compare a beer & skittles knock-about against a Windies team who'd quite definitely been enjoying the most fearsome craic the night before to a win over the 4th ranked (IIRC) team in the world cup!

So? Ireland still won a cricket match. That's all that matters.

I spent the weekend in Galway & cricket (whose profile in Ireland is next to nothing) did make the front page of the Monday Irish Mirror. It won't happen overnight, but their success will undoubtedly raise the profile of the sport over there. Frankly the best thing for cricket in Ireland would be for then to beat us because they love nothing more than beating the English in any sport.

You read the papers in 1969?

 

[BoyBrumby]

So? Ireland still won a cricket match. That's all that matters.

Hardly. The world cup is the highest profile ODI tournament in the world. Ireland have won cricket matches before, but not on the highest stage. They've won dozens of football matches over the years but I'm willing to bet their penalties-win over Romania in the 1990 world cup to qualify for the quarter-finals generated more publicity & column-inches than any before.

You read the papers in 1969?

That's wafer-thin at best. Did you?

 

[Richard]

Hardly. The world cup is the highest profile ODI tournament in the world. Ireland have won cricket matches before, but not on the highest stage.

Is winning a match against notable opposition not sensation enough? I'd say it was, regardless of whether points were involved.

They've won dozens of football matches over the years but I'm willing to bet their penalties-win over Romania in the 1990 world cup to qualify for the quarter-finals generated more publicity & column-inches than any before.

Have the ROI football team seriously done nothing more notable than that?

If so I'm astounded.

That's wafer-thin at best. Did you?

I'm not the one mentioning the papers this time around. Unless you know for certain that said game generated no interest the fact that it did this time means little.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I hate it when he makes these sort of twatty point-by-point rebuttal posts because one is almost compelled to reply in kind.

Is winning a match against notable opposition not sensation enough? I'd say it was, regardless of whether points were involved.

I'd disagree. For example we recently beat Australia three times on the bounce in the Commenwealth Bank thingy. Did those wins (admirable as they) generate as much reportage as one win over any team in the WC final would?

Same principle involved for Ireland; beating a half-cut Windies in a non-FC thrash is all well & good, but clearly not of the same magnitude.

Have the ROI football team seriously done nothing more notable than that?

If so I'm astounded.

Arguably not. It was the first time they'd ever qualified for a world cup & the last 8 isn't too shabby for a country of about 4 million where the sport is by no means the clear number one. They've had single results that are more impressive (they beat Italy in 1994), but have never again made the quarters.

I'm not the one mentioning the papers this time around. Unless you know for certain that said game generated no interest the fact that it did this time means little.

It doesn't mean little. How often does cricket make the front page in England? & it's our national summer sport! Just because something may or may not have happened 38 years ago doesn't negate the importance of that. I'm not for one moment suggesting that every freckle-faced child in Cok is going to throw down the ash & take up the willow, but it will help the sport to grow.

 

[Richard]

I hate it when he makes these sort of twatty point-by-point rebuttal posts because one is almost compelled to reply in kind.

WTF is wrong with it? Almost everyone does it from time to time, it's just me and tec that do it often.

I'd disagree. For example we recently beat Australia three times on the bounce in the Commenwealth Bank thingy. Did those wins (admirable as they) generate as much reportage as one win over any team in the WC final would?

Same principle involved for Ireland; beating a half-cut Windies in a non-FC thrash is all well & good, but clearly not of the same magnitude.

I'd honestly reckon the CBS win would probably generate more coverage than if we were to, say, beat Sri Lanka in the Super Eights.

Arguably not. It was the first time they'd ever qualified for a world cup & the last 8 isn't too shabby for a country of about 4 million where the sport is by no means the clear number one. They've had single results that are more impressive (they beat Italy in 1994), but have never again made the quarters.

TBH. Always thought ROI and footy went way back.

It doesn't mean little. How often does cricket make the front page in England? & it's our national summer sport! Just because something may or may not have happened 38 years ago doesn't negate the importance of that. I'm not for one moment suggesting that every freckle-faced child in Cok is going to throw down the ash & take up the willow, but it will help the sport to grow.

I know it doesn't negate the importance of it - that's what I've been saying all along! I'd honestly be surprised if said game didn't receive a bit of coverage - heck, there's even some surviving TV footage of it! Suggests to me it was being taken vaguely seriously. And I honestly don't believe, until I see the kids playing with tapeballs on the streets of Donaghee, that the more recent similar event will help improve the sport's popularity over there.