Test Cricket for Ireland?

[sussexpob]

I'm not in favour of Ireland getting Test status but my problem is with the inconsistency. If Bangladesh have Test status (I don't think they should, either) then why not Ireland? Though I take the point that two wrongs don't make a right. Personally don't think either should have Test status but if they do, it has to be in a two tier structure. Not sure how that would work tbh.


As an aside, what if the West Indies crumble completely and split into their respective island nations? Would any of the islands warrant Test status?

Without the politics, you might find a Jamaica or Barbados team would do better

[Making_Splinters]

I'm not in favour of Ireland getting Test status but my problem is with the inconsistency. If Bangladesh have Test status (I don't think they should, either) then why not Ireland? Though I take the point that two wrongs don't make a right. Personally don't think either should have Test status but if they do, it has to be in a two tier structure. Not sure how that would work tbh.


As an aside, what if the West Indies crumble completely and split into their respective island nations? Would any of the islands warrant Test status?

Bangladesh, unlike Ireland, actually have a domestic structure in place as well as a very strong grass roots level engagement in the sport. Quite why Bangladesh have not improved in 15 years is a different issue, but they do meet the basic criteria which Ireland do not.

No double standards there.

[Red Devil]

I feel a bit sorry for Ireland - Murtagh is injured and Morgan and Rankin off playing for Eng, or trying to anyway. If we ignore Morgan's form, you'd have to say that those 3 would make a big difference to the Ireland side. At home (i.e. seaming conditions) Ireland could give Bang and Zim a run for their money.

[from_the_stands]

I've been doing a bit of reading on this issue around the internet and it seems to me that Ireland gaining Test status is a foregone conclusion. Thy're aiming for 2020, but it could be earlier.

[yuppie]

I'm not in favour of Ireland getting Test status but my problem is with the inconsistency. If Bangladesh have Test status (I don't think they should, either) then why not Ireland? Though I take the point that two wrongs don't make a right. Personally don't think either should have Test status but if they do, it has to be in a two tier structure. Not sure how that would work tbh.


As an aside, what if the West Indies crumble completely and split into their respective island nations? Would any of the islands warrant Test status?

Bangladesh, unlike Ireland, actually have a domestic structure in place as well as a very strong grass roots level engagement in the sport. Quite why Bangladesh have not improved in 15 years is a different issue, but they do meet the basic criteria which Ireland do not.

No double standards there.

Im pretty sure that Bangladesh did not have a suitable domestic league when they started test cricket. It was granted first class statues in the 2000-01 season, a year after the league its self started. The fact that they now have a domestic league does not take away from the fact that when given test status they pretty much had nothing.

Im sure that if Ireland got test status tomorrow they would start up a bigger domestic league straight away.

Not that this justifies Irelands inclusion as a test team.

[Making_Splinters]

I'm not in favour of Ireland getting Test status but my problem is with the inconsistency. If Bangladesh have Test status (I don't think they should, either) then why not Ireland? Though I take the point that two wrongs don't make a right. Personally don't think either should have Test status but if they do, it has to be in a two tier structure. Not sure how that would work tbh.


As an aside, what if the West Indies crumble completely and split into their respective island nations? Would any of the islands warrant Test status?

Bangladesh, unlike Ireland, actually have a domestic structure in place as well as a very strong grass roots level engagement in the sport. Quite why Bangladesh have not improved in 15 years is a different issue, but they do meet the basic criteria which Ireland do not.

No double standards there.

Im pretty sure that Bangladesh did not have a suitable domestic league when they started test cricket. It was granted first class statues in the 2000-01 season, a year after the league its self started. The fact that they now have a domestic league does not take away from the fact that when given test status they pretty much had nothing.

Im sure that if Ireland got test status tomorrow they would start up a bigger domestic league straight away.

Not that this justifies Irelands inclusion as a test team.

Banglandesh's promotion to Test status was purely a political move to change the voting balance at the ICC. If you look at the original comment responded to, it was regarding Bangladesh's current status as a Test team.

I don't know how you think Ireland would suddenly create a bigger league. Currently they can only manage a league of three teams, playing three day cricket to a low standard, with rather a large number of imports making up the numbers. Where are they going to find these extra quality cricketers to make up the numbers or be able to pay the proffesionals currently playing in England?

If we wanted to see where Irish cricket is actually at, they should only be able to select players playing in their own leagues. That'd prompt shut down any performance based arguments.

[ChrisQ]

wont happen but I kinda agree with the comment M-S made in the other thread , the ECB already covers England and wales, and has agreements with the irish cricket board as well, so why not just make England a GB team , tbh if you look at some of the players that have played for England over the years its always been a GB team by default anyway

Not sure from an economical level that would work, and what can Ireland/Scotland bring to the table apart from the odd player England produces anyway?

what economic changes would there need to be ?

we basically have one county system supporting all three anyway , why should there be three national teams representing what is in effect one system ? the England team isn't really a national team anyway, it is the representative team of the England and Wales cricket board, we have Irish and Scottish players being developed by counties that are supported financially by the ECB already and then people moan when the ECB select them.

Why? Because in the 1990s Scotland and Ireland applied for and got separate membership in the ICC. Prior to that the game in the Britsh Isles was governed by the predecessor bodies to the ECB. Ireland and Scotland were not counties though. Their status was not tidy but that isn't unusual for the British system of governance generally where administration has evolved according to circumstances (that is not a bad thing). In a way they could have been described as being associates of the English cricket much as how Belize and Bermuda (and according to one source I read, Suriname) were once associates of the West Indies cricket system.

A hold over from all of this is that any 3-day or 4-day match between Scotland and Ireland or between either team and an English county can be a first-class match regardless of whether or not the Irish-Scotch match is played in the intercontinental cup or not. Now why Ireland and Scotland don't make more use of that is anybody's guess but I would wager it is due to the same laziness of administration that only saw Ireland put in place a 3-day league a few years ago (and Scotland still yet to do so) whereas Afghanistan with FAR less funding and FAR more troubles put in place an 3-day league at least 2-3 years BEFORE Ireland.

[ChrisQ]

I'm well and truly sick and tired hearing about Irish test cricket.

A couple of years back, Warren Deutrom stated that Ireland would be playing Test cricket by 2020. We're nearly half way to that now and there has been little to no progress on the main stumbling block for Irish cricket, its domestic structure.

Yes they launched the Inter-Provincial championship two years ago but that's a 3 day cricket played between three teams. Ireland has a similar population to New Zealand and there is simply no comparision between the level of domestic cricket in the two countries. One has to ask, where has the additional £1,000,000 Irish cricket was given by the ICC to develop cricket in Ireland gone?

If you look at another associate side in Afghanistan, they have developed their grass roots cricket and are rapidly becoming a very competitive side without the need for a sugar daddy doing all their dirty work for them. So what is the Irish excuse?

Everyone should start promoting a side that has developed cricket in their country on their own for Test status. Here's a clue it's not the Irish parasites.

Bingo.

Note that despite a civil war that has been raging in that country for nigh on 30+ years and less funding and starting from a lower base, Afghanistan started their 3-day domestic tournament BEFORE Ireland did when all Deutrom was doing was complaining about ther being supposedly no clear pathway to gaining full membership and test status (hint: that's utter rubbish as the ICC has the requirements online for any one to read and the document is only two pages long; by no measure did Ireland event attempt to institute the most basic requirement in that document which was to put in place a domestic 3-day competition which they could later ask the ICC to adjudge as being of first-class format and standard.....and as Bangladesh and Zimbabwe have shown, first-class cricket does NOT have to like what we see in the English county system or Australian state system )

[ChrisQ]

I'm not in favour of Ireland getting Test status but my problem is with the inconsistency. If Bangladesh have Test status (I don't think they should, either) then why not Ireland? Though I take the point that two wrongs don't make a right. Personally don't think either should have Test status but if they do, it has to be in a two tier structure. Not sure how that would work tbh.


As an aside, what if the West Indies crumble completely and split into their respective island nations? Would any of the islands warrant Test status?

Bangladesh, unlike Ireland, actually have a domestic structure in place as well as a very strong grass roots level engagement in the sport. Quite why Bangladesh have not improved in 15 years is a different issue, but they do meet the basic criteria which Ireland do not.

No double standards there.

Im pretty sure that Bangladesh did not have a suitable domestic league when they started test cricket. It was granted first class statues in the 2000-01 season, a year after the league its self started. The fact that they now have a domestic league does not take away from the fact that when given test status they pretty much had nothing.

Im sure that if Ireland got test status tomorrow they would start up a bigger domestic league straight away.

Not that this justifies Irelands inclusion as a test team.

Banglandesh's promotion to Test status was purely a political move to change the voting balance at the ICC. If you look at the original comment responded to, it was regarding Bangladesh's current status as a Test team.

I don't know how you think Ireland would suddenly create a bigger league. Currently they can only manage a league of three teams, playing three day cricket to a low standard, with rather a large number of imports making up the numbers. Where are they going to find these extra quality cricketers to make up the numbers or be able to pay the proffesionals currently playing in England?

If we wanted to see where Irish cricket is actually at, they should only be able to select players playing in their own leagues. That'd prompt shut down any performance based arguments.

You are all quite incorrect with regards to Bangladesh.

Bangladesh DID have a multi-day domestic tournament in place before gaining test status. They started off with a 2-day league that goes back to at least the mid 1990s (and I suspect goes back farther) and they converted this 2-day league into a 3-day league ahead of becoming a full member (note that Warren Deutrom for a long time didn't seem to want to do this and wanted Irish full membership with NO multi-day domestic cricket).

And while I say that Bangladesh "started" off with a 2-day league, that misses the bigger picture which is that from the 1930s until 1971 The territory that is now Bangladesh was previously apart of test playing nations (India until 1947 and Pakistn until 1971) and East Bengal as it was then used to host first class cricket and even some Pakistani home test matches and a East Bengalis used to feature in first class cricket teams.

The promotion of Bangladesh is viewed as being purely political but that's not entirely true and I would wager that the promotion of Bangladesh was not even primarily political but rather the belated elevation of one of the few remaining non-full members with domestic multi-day cricket to the ranks of teams that play international multi-day cricket. Much as how Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe were promoted during earlier eras as one of the few teams to have domestic multi-day cricket.

Until Afghanistan out in place their 3-day league and prior to that before Kenya put in place their now aborted 2-day league (which was planned as a 3-day league) the ONLY nation on earth outside of the full members that had any regular domestic multi-day cricket after Bangladesh was promoted was....believe it or not......Argentina! With their annual one off North v South match.

[ChrisQ]

I'm not in favour of Ireland getting Test status but my problem is with the inconsistency. If Bangladesh have Test status (I don't think they should, either) then why not Ireland? Though I take the point that two wrongs don't make a right. Personally don't think either should have Test status but if they do, it has to be in a two tier structure. Not sure how that would work tbh.


As an aside, what if the West Indies crumble completely and split into their respective island nations? Would any of the islands warrant Test status?

Bangladesh, unlike Ireland, actually have a domestic structure in place as well as a very strong grass roots level engagement in the sport. Quite why Bangladesh have not improved in 15 years is a different issue, but they do meet the basic criteria which Ireland do not.

No double standards there.

Im pretty sure that Bangladesh did not have a suitable domestic league when they started test cricket. It was granted first class statues in the 2000-01 season, a year after the league its self started. The fact that they now have a domestic league does not take away from the fact that when given test status they pretty much had nothing.

Im sure that if Ireland got test status tomorrow they would start up a bigger domestic league straight away.

Not that this justifies Irelands inclusion as a test team.

Note that after the 1940s the only entities which could adjudge any competition or match as first class were the full member boards themselves or the ICC. Since Bangladesh gained independence in 1971 the domestic 2-day league they had in place (since at least the mid 1990s if not before) before it was converted into a 3-day league in 1999 AHEAD of their full membership they foul not legally have had a "suitable domestic league" as you call it (one that was actually first-class as you seem to imply) unless the ICC adjudged it to be so. As far as cricket is concerned the Bangladeshis did have a suitable domestic league since all prior full members were admitted in the basis of at least having a 2-day domestic competition (South Africa were the only full members admitted with only a 2-day league to start back in the late 1800s); all other full members including Bangladesh were admitted with at least a 3-day league to the best of my knowledge and from what I read)

[Making_Splinters]

I'm not in favour of Ireland getting Test status but my problem is with the inconsistency. If Bangladesh have Test status (I don't think they should, either) then why not Ireland? Though I take the point that two wrongs don't make a right. Personally don't think either should have Test status but if they do, it has to be in a two tier structure. Not sure how that would work tbh.


As an aside, what if the West Indies crumble completely and split into their respective island nations? Would any of the islands warrant Test status?

Bangladesh, unlike Ireland, actually have a domestic structure in place as well as a very strong grass roots level engagement in the sport. Quite why Bangladesh have not improved in 15 years is a different issue, but they do meet the basic criteria which Ireland do not.

No double standards there.

Im pretty sure that Bangladesh did not have a suitable domestic league when they started test cricket. It was granted first class statues in the 2000-01 season, a year after the league its self started. The fact that they now have a domestic league does not take away from the fact that when given test status they pretty much had nothing.

Im sure that if Ireland got test status tomorrow they would start up a bigger domestic league straight away.

Not that this justifies Irelands inclusion as a test team.

Note that after the 1940s the only entities which could adjudge any competition or match as first class were the full member boards themselves or the ICC. Since Bangladesh gained independence in 1971 the domestic 2-day league they had in place (since at least the mid 1990s if not before) before it was converted into a 3-day league in 1999 AHEAD of their full membership they foul not legally have had a "suitable domestic league" as you call it (one that was actually first-class as you seem to imply) unless the ICC adjudged it to be so. As far as cricket is concerned the Bangladeshis did have a suitable domestic league since all prior full members were admitted in the basis of at least having a 2-day domestic competition (South Africa were the only full members admitted with only a 2-day league to start back in the late 1800s); all other full members including Bangladesh were admitted with at least a 3-day league to the best of my knowledge and from what I read)

I'd personally note the use of the present tense when talking about Bangladesh above, not the past tense.

[meninblue]

Domestic cricket needs to be improved before giving anyone test status. It should not happen that first they get test status and then they start developing domestic cricket. Also imo test status should not be given just because they have 11 competitive test players. Do they have backups on bench, what do they do when their main players get injured or out of form. Nobody to fall back in that case. The ODI win also should not be the basis of deciding a ODI team will be a good test team. Example is Raina an Yuvi. Yuvi was the best ODi cricketer at one point of time, but how well he did in test format.

[braveneutral]

Hope all is well CQ!

[m@tt]

Ireland don't need more ODIs, that won't solve anything.

The fundamental problem with Irish cricket is that they do not have the infrastructure to support a Test side. The top Irish cricketers have little to do with Irish cricket aside from representation and untill either the ICC or Irish Cricket comes up with a solution to that, this debate is nothing more than a red herring.

Ireland seem to think they need more ODIs and surely its all about baby steps , haven't they done enough to merit more ODI series and higher profile games outside of a world cup ?

I think the next logical step is get them involved in tri-series with two other Test-playing nations.

And whilst I wish the likes of Morgan and Rankin all the best when they represent England (and don't begrudge them or England for them switching allegiance), the ICC shouldn't allow players to instantly switch country like they have done. That rule unnecessarily makes it even more difficult for non-Test countries to compete.

[sussexpob]

I think its personally more logical for Ireland to become a county championship team to test what their 4 day side can do