Test status for Ireland?

This is the forum for discussion of all cricketing issues and news. Here you will find frank analysis and opinion on subjects ranging from selection policies, favourite cricketers and match post-mortems right through to dressing room and cricket board fiascos.
User avatar
Boycs
Muppet Moderator
Muppet Moderator
Posts: 11049
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:32 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Test status for Ireland?

Postby Boycs » Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:08 pm

Ireland must meet new criteria to achieve Test status
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/39734193

Their road to test status moved forward another increment.

What do we think of such a notion? A good thing to spread test cricket and further their own development? Or yet another way of diluting the skill levels in test cricket with yet another minnow team who don't have the domestic set up to further evolve - as Bangladesh have failed to evolve.

Not much noise from Ireland recently. More about Afghanistan than the Emerald Isle.

User avatar
Going South
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 25685
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:10 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
United States of America

Re: Test status for Ireland?

Postby Going South » Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:20 am

I say they are better off not playing test cricket and concentrate just on T20. Make up 4 local clubs for 4 T20 teams play among themselves or other international T20 teams on tours.

Mick180461
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 1099
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 1:28 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Australia

Re: Test status for Ireland?

Postby Mick180461 » Sat Apr 29, 2017 1:54 am

BoyCaught30 wrote:Ireland must meet new criteria to achieve Test status
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/39734193

Their road to test status moved forward another increment.

What do we think of such a notion? A good thing to spread test cricket and further their own development? Or yet another way of diluting the skill levels in test cricket with yet another minnow team who don't have the domestic set up to further evolve - as Bangladesh have failed to evolve.

Not much noise from Ireland recently. More about Afghanistan than the Emerald Isle.

Couldn't be any worse then Zimbabwe but they recently coped a Innings & 172 run hiding off Afghanistan. Do they have 3 venues of Test standard for test martches?

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 27679
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: Test status for Ireland?

Postby raja » Sat Apr 29, 2017 4:31 am

I think we need to treat each format with respect, so that there is no halo around getting Test status.

Right now, Test is like an Oscar, other formats are like Golden Globe, BAFTA etc.

So, even if you win other awards, what you REALLY want is that Oscar.

Am not talking about individual players - many of them have already realised that it's not worth putting Tests on a pedestal. After all, they are the ones on the field of play, they know how demanding it is on their body, hard work for the far less returns they get compared to other formats.

So players are under no illusion. Recently ABDV himself said, he couldn't care less about getting 10000 Test runs; it meant nothing to him as an achievement/statistic.

At country level, the aura of Test cricket still holds.

It is considered a matter of great prestige and pride to be a "Test-playing nation".

We need to ask the question, why?

If Ireland becomes a world-beating T20 side, challenging the very best regularly, it will (or rather should) win a LOT of respect in the cricketing community.

Better this, than becoming a Test nation - and becoming fodder for the likes of Ashwin and Kohli.
Lesser cricketers will have their averages tremendously boosted by playing against Ireland.

We will then start talking of "show me his average, excl Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Ireland".

Or, make it two leagues, something like Champions' League and UEFA in football.

I like Ireland as a team - love the green wave we see whenever they play. Their supporters are just fabulous.

But I'd hate to see Kohli boost his Test average (and no. of hundreds), taking advantage of Ireland.

Have already seen that happen with Tendulkar and Bangladesh.

User avatar
Leo
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 6613
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 2:19 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 1
Norfolk Island

Re: Test status for Ireland?

Postby Leo » Sat Apr 29, 2017 5:01 am

Personally I want more test playing nation. However, if Ireland is interested to play test they should really concentrate on this. Good Luck.
Time is the Best Speaker

User avatar
Boycs
Muppet Moderator
Muppet Moderator
Posts: 11049
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:32 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Test status for Ireland?

Postby Boycs » Sat Apr 29, 2017 5:06 am

If one argues that Ireland could become a regular victor against other nations in T20 but if given Test status would be fodder for minnow bashers you're suggesting test cricket is still harder than t20 and still put it on that pedestal.

I'm personally a bit old fashioned in that I do see test cricket as the pinnacle of the sport, partially due to its legacy and history. It's my favourite format. But I'll concede that though t20 is a different skill set at times it's not exactly easier.

Would Ireland's inclusion just add to the weakness of test cricket between minnows like Bangladesh West Indies and Zimbabwe?

Or alternatively might it improve test cricket, in that it gives the weaker teams more opponents?

We lambast Bangladesh most when we see them get steamrolled by South Africa. Would we enjoy the more even test contest between Bangladesh and Ireland?

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3457
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Test status for Ireland?

Postby Paddles » Sat Apr 29, 2017 5:07 am

I think its great. I look forward to Ireland and Afghanistan making a real fist of test cricket. I have seen the rise of Sri Lanka as a a test nation from being a whipping boy to Sanga and Murali. We all are currently watching the emergence of Bangladesh with Mustafizur and Shakib. Afghanistan clearly have a tonne of local talent as they already have global cricket stars Khan, Nabi and Mohammad Shezhad and they do not even have test status yet! (they're short on fast seam bowlers but they can obviously produce very good spin bowling and even decent batsmen).

Becoming a full ICC member with test status will give financial investment in Ireland and Afghanistan's FC scene, and both seem pretty savvy about not going overboard. Afghanistan with 5 team and Ireland with 3, are not making the same arguable mistake Sri Lanka made. New Zealand has no winter tours this year or next year, so there is clearly room in the international calendar for more teams to play. While Australia and India say may not be lining up too fast to tour UaE or the Emerald Isle, the bottom half of the ICC have plenty of room in their schedules to do so and get favourable reciprocal tours.

While I think their focus for success will initially be limited overs cricket, as it was for Zimbo, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh previously, as that is the easier format for the weaker cricket teams to win and succeed in, becomming a full member just adds to the globalization of the wonderful game of cricket.

Next stop - China.
Last edited by Paddles on Sat Apr 29, 2017 5:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Boycs
Muppet Moderator
Muppet Moderator
Posts: 11049
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:32 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Test status for Ireland?

Postby Boycs » Sat Apr 29, 2017 5:13 am

The post-test status financial injection into cricket development is a big gain. Though Bangladesh aren't exactly poster boys for this theory.

why did it work for Sri Lanka, work initially and then stumble in Zimbabwe, and repeatedly flatter to deceive in Bangladesh? In these questions we can chart a safer course for Ireland

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3457
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Test status for Ireland?

Postby Paddles » Sat Apr 29, 2017 5:15 am

BoyCaught30 wrote:The post-test status financial injection into cricket development is a big gain. Though Bangladesh aren't exactly poster boys for this theory.

why did it work for Sri Lanka, work initially and then stumble in Zimbabwe, and repeatedly flatter to deceive in Bangladesh? In these questions we can chart a safer course for Ireland


One actually has to give Bangladesh regular test matches for there to be indicators of success. But havn't Bangladesh really stepped up at home in tests lately?India drew there, and didn't England leave with only a drawn series after winning a nailbiter by 22 runs and losing the second by over 100 runs? South Africa drew their test series in Bangladesh recently.

Shakib has played 49 tests in 11 years of test cricket. Australia and England play 12 to 15 or more tests a year.

And its not like Bangladesh are the first Asian nation to suck away, and not lose at home. Heck - they just won a test in Sri Lanka recently to boot and draw a series away. Their away series win over the West Indies will be trumped with a more impressive result soon one would imagine.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

The Third Man
CF Specialist
CF Specialist
Posts: 796
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:08 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Ireland

Re: Test status for Ireland?

Postby The Third Man » Sat Apr 29, 2017 11:46 am

Given how our performances have fallen off a cliff since the last World Cup, there is an ever decreasing number of people involved in Irish Cricket that are deluding themselves with Test Cricket aspirations any time soon. I'd be more concerned with staying clear of Scotland and Holland than catching Zimbabwe. We have made developments with our Inter-Provincial Competitions but bridging the gap from there to International Cricket will take time, if it happens at all

Misty
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 4153
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 7:13 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
Zimbabwe

Re: Test status for Ireland?

Postby Misty » Sat Apr 29, 2017 1:57 pm

Not until 2019 I think so but Ireland's hopes high, they are doing good in multiday games than Afghanistan,i feel sorry for Afghanistan who just last 3 month's ago allows to play FIRST CLASS CRICKET

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 27679
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: Test status for Ireland?

Postby raja » Sat Apr 29, 2017 2:17 pm

Nice to see you here, TTM.

Talking of SL getting Test status, if there was one country that deserved it earlier it was SL.

They got Test status only in 1982 - but already in the 1970s (and maybe even earlier), they were a decent side.
They even had a cricketer, Sathasivam - see what Sobers and Worrell had to say about him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahadevan_Sathasivam

Key to getting Test status is to be tested over 5 days.

Bangladesh floundered in this format for years (only recently has it got some results to show) because it was fast-tracked into Test cricket. This was a political decision of then BCCI chief, Jagmohan Dalmiya, because that would give the South Asian bloc another vote in the ICC.

So Bangladesh won a World U19 ODI trophy or something - and boom, it was accorded Test status.

Ridiculous!

What was its 5-day match record at the time?

No wonder it floundered in Tests. If it did well in one innings, it invariably failed in the other.

I'd like every Test aspirant to first play a large number of 5-days matches - and be judged over this performance.

Play these games against Test teams, even the biggies, why not?

Call them unofficial Tests.

If you acquit yourself consistently creditably in unofficial Tests, you have a case to get Test status.

Otherwise, sorry.

I don't know whether you know but a Sri Lankan side toured India in 1975 and played 3 unofficial Test matches and some four-day games against zonal sides. I was in high school then.

It was a thoroughly enjoyable series, which, though India won 2-0, had its moments for Sri Lanka. They lost the 2nd Test by not-too-big a margin, they drew the 3rd Test but were on top all the way - India got a scare but got away with a draw.

Their captain Anura Tennekoon was a really good batsman (even got a hundred). Then they had Roy Dias, Duleep Mendis, David Heyn (he also got a hundred, I think), Sidath Wettimuny. Their bowlers were not bad either. Tony Opatha, Asantha De Silva, Somachandra De Silva...

Sri Lanka played in the 1979 World Cup - and beat India.

Finally they got Test status in 1982. If I'm not mistaken, the first time thereafter when they toured England, Sidath Wettimuny scored 190 in the one-off Lord's Test.

Anyway, my point is ... play a lot of 5-day matches first against good opposition.

If you do really well, stake a claim for Test status.

I wouldn't want to see any Bangladesh-like minnow (though now, after almost 20 years), Bangladesh is doing well in Tests.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3457
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Test status for Ireland?

Postby Paddles » Sun Apr 30, 2017 4:48 am

Raja, please rethink your proposed test. I see it suffering flaws. First, you're asking a prospective test nation to demonstrate that they are already a test worthy nation. You may disagree here - and I know how you care about the sanctity of test records. But Associates only play associates in multi day matches (over 4 days I think). So when they play these "tests to test" - they're coming upto a level they've not encountered. Further, noone is going to be keen to send their best teams to play these unofficial tests, best players will be rested, so what will be sent is effectively "A" squads and current non-star and fringe test players. Now given the ridiculous bowling depth in some countries at present, these A squads will likely be made up of players with test experience, so its still quite a level up (SL and IND have a tone of spinners, SA, Aus and NZ have tonne of seamers, Eng possibly do too).

While your argument to prove you're good enough already is defendable as reasonable, my biggest gripe with it is this. Everyone bar England and Australia would have failed it begin with. New Zealand was utter tripe until the 1970's (1948 tour of England and J R Reid's 1960's tour to SA notwithstanding). Even then - it isn't until the 1980's team that I am should your test would be satisfied, pending whether Turner would have been available in the 1970's side. Even then, NZ became a mockery again after Hadlee and Crowe and had to wait for the C Cairns era where Richardson and Flemming gave him some help putting runs on the board. And very recently, after Flemming's retirement, NZ has been in the duldrums under Vettori's captaincy when he was the best bats in the side, until this new breed of Ryder (he did actually help pull us out of it) Taylor, then Williamson and Southee/Boult/Wagner came along with some famous McCullum tripple figure slogging.

Sri Lanka, were a whipping boy despite having Ranatunga from the get go and Aravinda pretty early on. It isn't until about 1992 or 1993 when these two were supported by Tilikiratne, Jayasuriya, Mahanama, Gurusignhe comming of age and a bowling attack with a guy named Murali with Vaas, that they were a 5 day test nation. Until then their bowlers were horrid, incl the 2 R's seamers, and their batting was softer than a damp towel. Everyone enjoyed Aravinda's hooking, but even in ODI cricket - they were a one wicket team. Get Aravinda out cheaply, win game.

Zimababwe were tripe unless Flower and late comer Streak combined together. The very essence of a two man side.

India took decades to come of age as a test nation. This is best evidenced that for many years, until possibly as late as Sunil Gavaskar, Farokh Engineer was their best ever player. He wasn't that good. But it took decades before Gavaskar, Dev, Dravid, Tendulkar, Sehwag or the next tier Laxman, Shastri, Dhoni, Vengasarkar, Azzradhuin, Kumble et al. Even then, its record outside Asia is not impressive to say the least. But they are consistently good at home since the 1970's. But its weakness is glaringly obvious with Srinath the best Indian seamer after Dev.

If current test nations were asked to do this test, if its away SL lose test status. The West Indies lose it home and away. Pakistan could slip from #1 to losing test status in the course of one series. NZ retain it now while Boult. Wagner, Taylor and Williamson are playing well, but could lose it next decade if they are not suitably replaced with new talent.

Bangladesh is comming good. In a more rapid time than India and NZ did. And possibly on course with SL. I profess ignorance as to Pakistan's early days, but I doubt that they were much chop until Mohammad brothers with Nawaz and then Khan (then Minandad). West Indies got some batting stars fairly early on George Headley (with bowling support from Constantine and Griffith) and won a home series after 7 years in 1935. Ironically - they probably hold the record for establishing themselves the fastest in global cricket, but they were repeatedly thrashed by Australia until they lost closely 2-1 in 1960/61 and finally victorious in 1965 at home.

My point is, I believe it takes time to develop a cricket culture and infrastructure that will produce successful test cricket teams of actually playing the game. It takes those that played at test level, got thrashed, to go back to FC and thrash their opponents there, to teach the harsh lessons that red ball cricket serves us. But, the sharing of knowledge is increasing, and teams appear to be doing it faster than many of the former colonies took outside Australia. looking at the current test nations, India are consistently good at home since the 1970's. Australia is good home and away. England - overall are fairly good on a consistent basis, but nothing like Australia. West Indies have been crap for nigh 20 years now, when they were the best for 20 years before that, and very good in the 1960's. South Africa have been excellent since the 1970's and their consistency is probably 2nd only to Australia's - home and away.

I don't think its fair to have a test for admission that so many current participants would possibly fail.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 27679
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: Test status for Ireland?

Postby raja » Sun Apr 30, 2017 6:30 am

Your point is well taken, Paddles.
You are right in saying that if England and Australia had enforced this admission rule decades ago, teams like NZ and SA would have struggled to make the cut.

To clarify, I am not demanding wins or even fantastic performances from an associate side. We need to be realistic.
If they perform creditably against A sides of top teams, that would be impressive enough.

Key for me is to demonstrate SOME ability to stay in a 4-5 day game.

When Bangladesh got Test status, it had shown ZERO ability to play the longest format of the game. ZERO.
All it had done was to win some ODIs at youth level.
And bang, it was fast-tracked into Test status.

That must NEVER happen again.

Let Ireland (or Afghanistan or any other country) play a whole lot of 5 day games against reasonable competition. Need not even be A teams. Even state teams (like Aussie Sheffield Shield sides) or top county sides in England would do.

But definitely 5 day cricket.

Let's evaluate their performance - then decide.

I get mighty pissed off when ODI/T20 is used as a measure to judge preparedness for Tests.

Today, almost 20 years after Bangladesh got Test status, they have a semblance of a decent Test side. These 20 years were a learning phase for them.

If they'd played unofficial Tests till 2012, got all that 5-day cricket experience in - and then got Test status in 2012, they'd have earned it.

Ireland doesn't need to wait for 15 years. All it has to do is play loads of 5-day cricket - and show some ability. Not demanding too much of it either, but something that can be built on, with more effort. I don't even know if Ireland has a domestic 4-5 day competition (like county cricket). If it doesn't, its players need to get that experience elsewhere. But they HAVE to.

Another thing.

I don't know about NZ and SA but India already had decent cricket competition at domestic level in its early years. Pakistan (being part of India till 1947) was part of this. Pakistan impressed on their very first tour of England in 1954.

Players like Vijay Merchant, CK Nayudu, Mushtaq Ali scored tons of runs at domestic level.

All I'm asking for is a lot of 4-5 day cricket first.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3457
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Test status for Ireland?

Postby Paddles » Sun Apr 30, 2017 3:01 pm

What you're asking for is reasonable in that they have a fc infrastructure playing red ball and they have been granted domestic fc status now. It would be nice if there was money in the kitty to get their sides touring and playing domestic fc teams and fly teams in from elsewhere in the world (pre season warmups like some Eng counties do in UaE) to get them upto skill.

The full members domestic teams and A teams ought to help and there needs to be money in the kitty to do so. Some off season scholarships for them best bats and bowlers to play elsewhere offseason would help no end.

But I don't think its fair to ask any new test nation to do well for first 15 years or so. A series here or there is easily done, but it takes a while to build a consistently competitive team for test cricket.

NZ had a strong fc scene well before ww2 - and was undefeated in 4 tests in England in 1948 - but we still sucked on a consistent basis for 30 odd more years. A strong fc scebe is necessary but not at all sufficient. Actual test matches is necessary. Look at all the strong and great players from long time test nations who took time to get good at tests despite having come through a strong domestic (with current and former intls) and intl jnr infrastructure.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 27679
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: Test status for Ireland?

Postby raja » Mon May 01, 2017 4:30 am

Decent 4-5 day cricket experience at domestic level is certainly no guarantee of performance at Test level.
But it needs to be put in there as a criterion for eligibility for Test honours.
If, inspite of this, you struggle at Test level - well, ok, that's just a matter of being beaten by better opposition.

It's a bit like saying, you need to have x hours of driving experience before you get a license.
Doesn't mean you won't cause a road accident - but at least this practical experience could minimise chances.

Or maybe it's just the Bangladesh experience that has scarred me. Their first 10 years were SO frustrating. I always wanted them to do well, it was so frustrating to see them play ODI style in Tests and get shot out in 2 sessions. If they did ok in one innings, you could rest assured they'd fail in the other. It's only now that they're showing some resilience - that too, glimpses of it. I would want to see much more of this before making a definitive statement that they've turned the corner.

They got Test status too soon. All because of BCCI's politics.

I just don't want that to happen to Ireland or Afghanistan or any aspiring nation. I like them all, I'm happy to see more countries play cricket at international level - but for each format (esp Tests which are a test of temperament AND skill), they need to demonstrate a degree of capability before getting international honours.

At the same time, if we do give them Test status, let them start at the bottom and play teams closer to their ranking. That would be Windies, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh at the moment.

Take it from there. It will be good 5-day cricket experience against good competition, matches will likely be interesting - and they can only progress from that point on.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3457
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Test status for Ireland?

Postby Paddles » Mon May 01, 2017 6:47 am

raja wrote:Decent 4-5 day cricket experience at domestic level is certainly no guarantee of performance at Test level.
But it needs to be put in there as a criterion for eligibility for Test honours.
If, inspite of this, you struggle at Test level - well, ok, that's just a matter of being beaten by better opposition.

It's a bit like saying, you need to have x hours of driving experience before you get a license.
Doesn't mean you won't cause a road accident - but at least this practical experience could minimise chances.

Or maybe it's just the Bangladesh experience that has scarred me. Their first 10 years were SO frustrating. I always wanted them to do well, it was so frustrating to see them play ODI style in Tests and get shot out in 2 sessions. If they did ok in one innings, you could rest assured they'd fail in the other. It's only now that they're showing some resilience - that too, glimpses of it. I would want to see much more of this before making a definitive statement that they've turned the corner.

They got Test status too soon. All because of BCCI's politics.

I just don't want that to happen to Ireland or Afghanistan or any aspiring nation. I like them all, I'm happy to see more countries play cricket at international level - but for each format (esp Tests which are a test of temperament AND skill), they need to demonstrate a degree of capability before getting international honours.

At the same time, if we do give them Test status, let them start at the bottom and play teams closer to their ranking. That would be Windies, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh at the moment.

Take it from there. It will be good 5-day cricket experience against good competition, matches will likely be interesting - and they can only progress from that point on.


But my point is - the first 10 years consistently sucked for most if not all nations, despite the odd highlight here and there. Heck - for most it was decades of sucking. And I think this is unavoidable, what we can seek to do with intl cooperation is decrease the "sucking" time.

No organism (living or artificial) is born mature to realise its potential, but some develop maturity potential faster than others.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Boycs
Muppet Moderator
Muppet Moderator
Posts: 11049
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:32 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Test status for Ireland?

Postby Boycs » Mon May 01, 2017 7:26 am

Now there's an article on cricinfo about how Zimbabwe got Test status too late

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3457
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Test status for Ireland?

Postby Paddles » Mon May 01, 2017 8:46 am

BoyCaught30 wrote:Now there's an article on cricinfo about how Zimbabwe got Test status too late


I agree with Brandes. Their 1992 team would have better if they'd started in 1988. To say otherwise is to argue against experience leading to improvement and refinement both of individual players and sharing of knowledge back home. But the real individual casaulty was Dave Houghton, who missed out on a stellar intl career. And maybe Graeme Hick would have fared better playing for his home nation without all the import pressures.

But the real damage noone foresaw or hoped wouldnt happen was Mugabe's government. Even to this day with CDG, Ballance, and the extraordinary talent of wicket keeper bat Brendan Taylor - they'd be far more useful. Taylor didn't do justice to his stats - at his readily accessible peak - he is world xi good. Mark Waughitis.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Boycs
Muppet Moderator
Muppet Moderator
Posts: 11049
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:32 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Test status for Ireland?

Postby Boycs » Mon May 01, 2017 11:33 am

So is that an argument for early inclusion in international cricket to foster development, rather than to fine tune a domestic set up before stepping to the international stage? Which way are we suggesting Ireland should go now? Or is Zimbabwe a different set of circumstances?

User avatar
Boycs
Muppet Moderator
Muppet Moderator
Posts: 11049
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:32 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Test status for Ireland?

Postby Boycs » Mon May 01, 2017 11:34 am

I certainly agree with raja that teams playing those that are closer to their own ability is a better way to develop. Ireland won't learn anything - or certainly much less - getting constantly hammered by South Africa. They need to become familiar with winning.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3457
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Test status for Ireland?

Postby Paddles » Mon May 01, 2017 3:00 pm

BoyCaught30 wrote:So is that an argument for early inclusion in international cricket to foster development, rather than to fine tune a domestic set up before stepping to the international stage? Which way are we suggesting Ireland should go now? Or is Zimbabwe a different set of circumstances?


All the same. Sooner is better. The intl will improve the domestic which improves the intl. Symbiotic relationship.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3457
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: Test status for Ireland?

Postby Paddles » Mon May 01, 2017 3:01 pm

BoyCaught30 wrote:I certainly agree with raja that teams playing those that are closer to their own ability is a better way to develop. Ireland won't learn anything - or certainly much less - getting constantly hammered by South Africa. They need to become familiar with winning.

They could play Windies away or have SL tour tho.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Boycs
Muppet Moderator
Muppet Moderator
Posts: 11049
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:32 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Test status for Ireland?

Postby Boycs » Sun May 07, 2017 9:30 pm

They have Bangladesh coming up admittedly in one day not four day cricket. But as I said on the other thread I'd be fascinated to follow a four day game between Ireland and West Indies.

User avatar
Boycs
Muppet Moderator
Muppet Moderator
Posts: 11049
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:32 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Test status for Ireland?

Postby Boycs » Sun May 07, 2017 9:31 pm

Have Ireland as their team exists now ever played a four day first class game against a test team?

User avatar
Boycs
Muppet Moderator
Muppet Moderator
Posts: 11049
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:32 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Test status for Ireland?

Postby Boycs » Sun May 07, 2017 9:35 pm

They made 598 or something against the UAE. Had someone avg over fifty and another avg over 60 in FC for Ireland apparently