Associate and Affiliate Thread

[Phen]

The "ease in" theory can easily be replaced with tiers which I won't go into in detail again, but it is the only way I can see a team like Ireland getting Test status.

Otherwise I can see 'The Author' not being at their first Test as it either won't happen, or he'd have to be dug up.

Are Ireland anywhere near being a competitive ODI side let alone a Test side? I'd say not. Ireland may have upset some applecarts in the past two World Cups, most notably reaching the super 8 in 2007, but still aren't competitive enough.

Their overall record in ODIs may look good, but it includes a lot of Holland, Kenya, Scotland, Canada and other non-Test nations. Split their record and you have a much less impressive picture.


overall (05/06-present) : P74 W34 L35 Tie 1 NR 4 (Won 45.95%)
vs Test sides* : P23 W2 L19 NR 2 (Won 8.70%)
vs ZIM/BAN : P12 W3 L8 Tie 1 (Won 25.00%)
vs Non-Test : P39 W29 L8 NR 2 (Won 74.36%)

*excluding ZIM/BAN

Clearly too good for the level they are mostly playing at, not good enough for ODIs against the big boys - 1 in 7 win ratio against Test sides overall, even against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe they lose about 3 in 4.

Even in those two World Cups their record was to cause an upset and then lose heavily.

World Cup 2007 vs Test sides

vs ZIM - tied
vs PAK - won by 3 wkts
vs WIN - lost by 8 wkts
vs ENG - lost by 48 runs
vs SAF - lost by 7 wkts
vs NZE - lost by 129 runs
vs AUS - lost by 9 wkts
vs BAN - won by 74 runs
vs SRI - lost by 8 wkts

Won and tied against the two weakest Test nations, lost heavily to everyone else bar Pakistan who they bear narrowly. England's win by 48 runs is still a fairly large margin for an ODI .

World Cup 2011 vs Test sides

vs BAN - lost by 27 runs
vs ENG - won by 3 wkts
vs IND - lost by 5 wkts
vs WIN - lost by 44 runs
vs SAF - lost by 131 runs

One win over England, England really should have won, and four mixed size defeats. Worst still is the lack of substance displayed by the Ireland top order in those five matches :

first five wickets

110/5 vs BAN (178 all out)
111/5 vs ENG - added 218 for only two further wickets
147/5 vs IND (207 all out)
187/5 vs WIN (231 all out)
92/5 vs SAF (141 all out)

Bar the West Indies match Ireland were always in trouble when five down. It may not look so bad against England, and they did win, but England really should have gone in for the kill

IRE 111/5 after first 24.2 overs (4.56 rpo)
IRE 218/2 off the last 24.5 overs (8.78 rpo)

England conceded 218 runs after the 5th wicket fell, no other Test side conceded more than 68 runs (Bangladesh) before bowling Ireland out. Good effort blah blah blah from O'Brien et al, but England should have polished the lower order off and tail.

Interesting that Ireland's two most significant scalps should be at consecutive World Cups and by three wicket margins.

I remember watching the WI and Bangladesh games last WC, they were bloody close to beating the WI and if it wasn't for one of the worst decisions in WC history that gave Gary Wilson out LBW even after review, then Ireland probably would have won as Wilson was on 50 and looking good. I'll put the Bangladesh game down to being the first game and being rusty.

I disagree although your argument is quite rounded as always. It's the facts behind the statistics, yes they haven't beaten many test playing nations but the truth of the matter is until recently they've only played associate nations or B teams who don't give a damn from test playing countries. How is a team going to develop when these are the only games they play?

What I like about the Irish is their fight and the amount of talent they are producing, if you follow their cricket closely, they have more and more Irish players being picked up by county teams. A good sign? I think so.

If they were going to get test status-ship say tomorrow, it would probably take them a year to win their first Test match but then I believe they'd overtake the WI (on current form), Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and challenge New Zealand.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

yes, but the thing with ireland is whenever they get a truely world class player (morgan for example) he is taken out the team by england just as joyce was in the past. dockrell and stirling are potentially next in line.

say those two do end up england internationals the question becomes is would england be as far ahead of ireland if ireland were playing them with englands three best players in their team instead of the other way around?

 

[Aislabie]

yes, but the thing with ireland is whenever they get a truely world class player (morgan for example) he is taken out the team by england just as joyce was in the past. dockrell and stirling are potentially next in line.

say those two do end up england internationals the question becomes is would england be as far ahead of ireland if ireland were playing them with englands three best players in their team instead of the other way around?

And now Rankin is being pressured to leave Ireland as well.

 

[Phen]

Which is why they need it.

 

[Aislabie]

I don't know about anybody else here, but one day I would love to help the development of cricket in one of the smaller cricketing countries - somewhere like Rwanda for example, or a country that doesn't even play the game.

 

[Aislabie]

First two days of the South Africa game washed out, disappointing stuff.

 

[VC the slogger]

I don't know about anybody else here, but one day I would love to help the development of cricket in one of the smaller cricketing countries

That's my dream too. I wish the cricket was as popular a game as football(something that'll probably never happen). I would like to see an over 50 team Cricket World Cup before I die .

 

[icyman]

Are Ireland anywhere near being a competitive ODI side let alone a Test side? I'd say not. Ireland may have upset some applecarts in the past two World Cups, most notably reaching the super 8 in 2007, but still aren't competitive enough.

Their overall record in ODIs may look good, but it includes a lot of Holland, Kenya, Scotland, Canada and other non-Test nations. Split their record and you have a much less impressive picture.

.

Agreed, but what good are Bangladesh too to deserve a place in the Test tier ? Are they anywhere as good as say England or Pakistan. The answer is NO.

A lot of you may say their game is improving- I dont see it. The Asia Cup-SRL and IND were woefully out of form and I really would not count those results in BD's favor. Going by the logic of NRR, that team would never have qualified for the finals.

The Irish have done well. As you,most of their games have comes against their fellow Associates. But, you gotta give it to them. The way they played in the 2011 WC is commmendable. Agreed, that they didnt win too many, but they did extremely well. Now,if you compare that to BD's performance you can see that the Irish were on the top of their game always.

Secondly, the reason to give them Test status also stems from the fact that they are soon becoming a breeding ground for England, which just does not bode in well. Its unfair for the Irish.

 

[Aislabie]

Exactly. They are producing quality players that are being lured away by the bright lights and brighter prospects. The only way they have a chance is to have equally bright prospects.

 

[icyman]

I would really like to see a format in Test Cricket like this:

Tier I : Have 10 Test playing nations for a full cricketing cycle- i.e 4 years,maybe from World Cup to World Cup.

Tier II : The Associates can battle it out. The Top 2 ranked Associates then move into Tier I and the the Bottom 2 of T1 are relegated to T2.

I am dead sure that this sytem will work in spreading the game.

 

[troll3y]

I don't know about anybody else here, but one day I would love to help the development of cricket in one of the smaller cricketing countries - somewhere like Rwanda for example, or a country that doesn't even play the game.

Have you heard about the Rwanda Cricket Stadium Foundation? There was a recent article in The Guardian that found its way into my Facebook news feed about a new cricket stadium that is being planned in the country's capital. The Stadium Foundation is great because this isn't a farfetched pipe-dream -- already, more than ?335,000 has been raised, and the first phase of the stadium is set to be completed this April. It's a great cause to which you can donate without leaving your computer.

For charities where you can physically volunteer, check out Cricket Without Boundaries (who travel to Rwanda and neighbouring African nations) and Cricket For Change, both of which are based in your part of the world.

----------

I would really like to see a format in Test Cricket like this:

Tier I : Have 10 Test playing nations for a full cricketing cycle- i.e 4 years,maybe from World Cup to World Cup.

Tier II : The Associates can battle it out. The Top 2 ranked Associates then move into Tier I and the the Bottom 2 of T1 are relegated to T2.

I am dead sure that this sytem will work in spreading the game.

I'm staunchly against this. I would rather see Full Members and Associates rub shoulders often rather than segregating the two classes. It's like dividing the rich and the poor -- the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Morally and globally, nobody wins.

A great ICC initiative would be to make Full Members tour at least one Associate nation every two years or so; they can even leave the scheduling up to the relevant Boards, letting them decide how many 20-over, 50-over and four-day games to play. Either that, or pair each Full Member with an Associate, and make touring teams play at least a couple of matches in the Associate nation before or after their tour of the paired Full Member nation. The only problem with that is that England are the only Full Member in Europe. Still, the West Indies could be paired with Canada or Bermuda, Pakistan with Afghanistan (regardless of where the home game are played), India with Nepal, New Zealand are already working with the United States, and there are several Associates in South-East Asia and around the Pacific who could do with the aid of the Australians and New Zealanders.

There are 105106 Members of the ICC. Global cricket doesn't need division.

 

[Aislabie]

Couldn't agree more. The Associates need exposure against the best if they're ever to be that good.

And yeah, I knew about the RCSF.

 

[troll3y]

This thread doesn't deserve to be buried on page 3.


- Namibia's ODI weaknesses are continuing to show, losing both games to the Netherlands despite being in a decent position to win the second match. Daan van Bunge did marvellously to guide the tail to a tense one-wicket win. Not sure why Jason Davidson didn't bowl -- he ended up doing nothing in that game. He seems to be a wicket taker, and it surely would have been worth throwing him the ball at some point. Reading back through the commentary and looking at the bowling spells, Sarel Burger had been a little frantic in his bowling changes -- Craig Williams is brought on in the 34th over to bowl his 8th: goes for three and instigates a run-out in his first over, goes for an acceptable six in his second, then gets taken off before bowling his tenth over. At that stage, the Netherlands were reeling at 188/7. It may have been more effective to bowl Williams out then, then entrust Davidson -- a tidy opening bowler -- to trouble the batsmen who had only seen him in only one game prior to this. I don't know -- I'm just trying to work out how Namibia lost that one.

In the grand scheme of things, those losses put Namibia out of contention for a 2015 World Cup berth. Afghanistan's next games are against Namibia, which makes them favourites for another four points, even in Windhoek. First-placed Ireland have to earn their direct WC spot with games against second- and third-placed Netherlands and Scotland, but they only need one win to guarantee their place, and they're likely to get at least one from those four games. The onus is really on Scotland to win all four of their remaining games; hopefully the Ireland games in September-October won't be rain-affected. The UAE is an outsider, if any of the other teams slip up.

- I'm glad Afghanistan received TAPP funding from the ICC. Re-reading the news, it's initially US$422,000, with a later decision to be made as to whether or not to approve upto a further $578,000. The request for Afghanistan to become an Associate ICC Member will be decided in June, which will also increase their annual ICC base funding. There are a couple of issues with this request, particularly surrounding the national women's team, and the stability and safety of the nation. The former is an ICC requirement, but that article reports good things and evokes hope. It's only a matter of time now before Nepal is the next nation to receive TAPP funding and recognition.

 

[Aislabie]

It's very frustrating, because Namibia have a strong long-form set-up and are equally potent in T20s, but can't seem to find that middle ground. Saying that, if Gerrie Snyman was playing I honestly think we would have seen 2-0 the other way.

And it's beautiful to see the following cricket has in Nepal. Would be lovely to see them included in the Ranji Trophy some day soon. Until then, I have to resort to adding them in Cricket Coach.

 

[troll3y]

It's very frustrating, because Namibia have a strong long-form set-up and are equally potent in T20s, but can't seem to find that middle ground.

It seems that way in the WCL Div 1 circuit, but I was looking at their CSA Three-Day results yesterday, and that looked disappointing -- they only had two 300+ scores over the 13 matches and a further three between 250-300. Add to that the time they lost chasing 158, and the time they squandered a big first-innings lead to be bungled out for 60 and lose the game, and it doesn't make for pretty reading. I'm looking at the CSA One-Day Comp results now, though, and strangely, it's much more comforting: chasing 263 in less than 40 overs, and bowling out the second-placed team for 93. Inconsistency is definitely the word.

Saying that, if Gerrie Snyman was playing I honestly think we would have seen 2-0 the other way.

hey, yeah! What happened to that guy?

Would be lovely to see [Nepal] included in the Ranji Trophy some day soon. Until then, I have to resort to adding them in Cricket Coach.

Didn't the Nepalese team tour India recently? Did anything eventuate from that? Allowing the Associate nations to compete with the established domestic teams is something for which you have to credit England, South Africa, and the West Indies (to an extent). The Papua New Guinea national team will be playing in South Australia's premier State competition, which is also very encouraging. This needs to become commonplace around the world, and the India-Nepal and Pakistan-Afghanistan inclusions need to happen ASAP. This may have the benefit of dissuading the top Associate players to play for another competing domestic team or County club. As much as I want to have faith in the BCCI, however, I fear that they will be difficult when it comes to Nepal. Still, there were recent walk with the ECB saying that the BCCI were willing to negotiate a shorter IPL window to accommodate the English cricketing summer, so there's hope.