Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Aidan11 wrote:Bangladesh pick up the occasional win here and there but on the whole they lose far more than they win.

And you think Ireland will win so many games if they get the opportunity.
the fact is soon as Ireland play so many games they will lost majority of their games with occasional wins just like Bangladesh.

I am not against Ireland playing more games, they should really play more games against WI, Ban, Zim, and top associate more often and they should really be 2 division and any team should be able to play test if they wish to play.
But I don't understand the people that say Ban should be relegated or replaced by Ireland or anyone since the reality is Ireland or the other won't do any better than them.

I said before Bangladesh would be just like Ireland if you swapped them in the last 8 years.

Bangladesh would most likely beat full members in world cup, have good players that are talented and pretty much win most associate games.

Bangladesh should have never been given Test status and sadly a fair few seem to ignore the lessons of history when talking about Ireland.

I'm not in favour of ireland getting Test status, but it might be that they would have kept Morgan and Rankin if they had it, and might attract a few children of expats. That won't bridge the gap, but it might make them a better side than they are.

Making_Splinters wrote:Bangladesh should have never been given Test status and sadly a fair few seem to ignore the lessons of history when talking about Ireland.

Exactly It was all politically driven.

bhaveshgor wrote:

Aidan11 wrote:Bangladesh pick up the occasional win here and there but on the whole they lose far more than they win.

And you think Ireland will win so many games if they get the opportunity.
the fact is soon as Ireland play so many games they will lost majority of their games with occasional wins just like Bangladesh.

No, but that's not my argument. My comments are based on the fact Bangladesh have been a full member now for about 15 years and not made any headway.


As for Ireland or anyone else - I wouldn't like to see any more test nations as there are too many pirahnas in the tank already. I don't agree with a two-tier test system either but that's another argument.

bhaveshgor wrote:

Aidan11 wrote:Bangladesh pick up the occasional win here and there but on the whole they lose far more than they win.

And you think Ireland will win so many games if they get the opportunity.
the fact is soon as Ireland play so many games they will lost majority of their games with occasional wins just like Bangladesh.

the only way they can improve tho is by playing regularly against better opposition , that's how you learn

rich1uk wrote:

bhaveshgor wrote:

Aidan11 wrote:Bangladesh pick up the occasional win here and there but on the whole they lose far more than they win.

And you think Ireland will win so many games if they get the opportunity.
the fact is soon as Ireland play so many games they will lost majority of their games with occasional wins just like Bangladesh.

the only way they can improve tho is by playing regularly against better opposition , that's how you learn

Teams don't learn anything by getting hammered by vastly better sides, as Bangladesh have clearly shown.

I have long been in favour of an extended induction phase for teams showing the potential to play at test level: Sides such as Ireland should be playing 3-5 match test series against the A sides of the top test nations. After they have shown they are able to regularly compete and beat them, they should move on to playing series against the bottom ranked test sides, and when they have shown they are able to compete at that level should they be exposed to the top sides.

Then again, no side should even be able to begin this if they are completely dependent on another test nation to develop their players. Unless a strong domestic framework is in place then there is zero point even discussing a move up.

Making_Splinters wrote: Teams don't learn anything by getting hammered by vastly better sides, as Bangladesh have clearly shown.

I have long been in favour of an extended induction phase for teams showing the potential to play at test level: Sides such as Ireland should be playing 3-5 match test series against the A sides of the top test nations. After they have shown they are able to regularly compete and beat them, they should move on to playing series against the bottom ranked test sides, and when they have shown they are able to compete at that level should they be exposed to the top sides.

Then again, no side should even be able to begin this if they are completely dependent on another test nation to develop their players. Unless a strong domestic framework is in place then there is zero point even discussing a move up.

they certainly don't learn anything by playing against teams weaker than them

i'm not advocating for Ireland getting test status, my record on the matter is the same as yours , they don't have the infrastructure and rely too much on the English county system, however the status quo obviously isn't working either. I agree 100% with what you are saying about regular A team tours, its something I have been saying for a couple of years now.

I would argue Bangladesh doesn't get enough opportunities either , and that is one of the reasons they have gone backwards over the last couple of years

Pretty much like I have argued over the years, Splinters.

rich1uk wrote:

Making_Splinters wrote: Teams don't learn anything by getting hammered by vastly better sides, as Bangladesh have clearly shown.

I have long been in favour of an extended induction phase for teams showing the potential to play at test level: Sides such as Ireland should be playing 3-5 match test series against the A sides of the top test nations. After they have shown they are able to regularly compete and beat them, they should move on to playing series against the bottom ranked test sides, and when they have shown they are able to compete at that level should they be exposed to the top sides.

Then again, no side should even be able to begin this if they are completely dependent on another test nation to develop their players. Unless a strong domestic framework is in place then there is zero point even discussing a move up.

they certainly don't learn anything by playing against teams weaker than them

i'm not advocating for Ireland getting test status, my record on the matter is the same as yours , they don't have the infrastructure and rely too much on the English county system, however the status quo obviously isn't working either. I agree 100% with what you are saying about regular A team tours, its something I have been saying for a couple of years now.

I would argue Bangladesh doesn't get enough opportunities either , and that is one of the reasons they have gone backwards over the last couple of years

Without a strong domestic structure no team can survive at the top level. The quality of first class cricket in Banglandesh, Zimbabwe and recently the West Indies prevents test quality talent developing and the side becoming stronger. While the ICL fallout did slow Bangladesh down, in a decade and a half they have at no time looked a decent test side. The same would happen to Ireland.

I don't personally think that Ireland are significantly better than the other top associate sides, but there does need to be a long term developmental pathway put in place, almost like a shaddow FTP for the top associate sides. However, I would not want to see any side in that program who are not in the process of developing their own domestic infrastruture to the point where it can support a test team. Afghanistan or Nepal are the sides that should be being supported by the ICC down this route, not Ireland.

bhaveshgor wrote:

Aidan11 wrote:Bangladesh pick up the occasional win here and there but on the whole they lose far more than they win.

And you think Ireland will win so many games if they get the opportunity.
the fact is soon as Ireland play so many games they will lost majority of their games with occasional wins just like Bangladesh.

I am not against Ireland playing more games, they should really play more games against WI, Ban, Zim, and top associate more often and they should really be 2 division and any team should be able to play test if they wish to play.
But I don't understand the people that say Ban should be relegated or replaced by Ireland or anyone since the reality is Ireland or the other won't do any better than them.

I said before Bangladesh would be just like Ireland if you swapped them in the last 8 years.

Bangladesh would most likely beat full members in world cup, have good players that are talented and pretty much win most associate games.

Except that they don't but you love to live in a fantasy world.

2007 ban beat Sa.
2011 ban beat England.
This is no fantasy Bangladesh beat full members in Icc events.

Beat Pakistan in 1999 too. So thats 3 upsets in 4 editions (not counting this one).

Ireland have 3 in 3.

And it is Bangladesh who have had the exposure to playing the full members for the last 15 years.

shankycricket wrote:Beat Pakistan in 1999 too. So thats 3 upsets in 4 editions (not counting this one).

Ireland have 3 in 3.

And it is Bangladesh who have had the exposure to playing the full members for the last 15 years.

Forgot India in 07.
So 4 upsets in 4 editions.

bhaveshgor wrote:2007 ban beat Sa.
2011 ban beat England.
This is no fantasy Bangladesh beat full members in Icc events.

But how many have they lost to England & SA?