Disagree with his approach in places, eg
Cricket fans from the Test-playing nations, even the newer ones, like to suggest that cricket is theirs. That people from other countries aren't smart or cultured enough to get the great game
Anyone who says that is an idiot, the problem is that cricket is elitist and "by invitation only" so isn't global and, as I keep saying, tiers may be the only way to make it more global. I'd even suggest some, maybe most, who take little interest say it is "our's", because it is played at the highest level by so few.
Like the resentment and stick you can get from lower league supporters if you support a Premiership football club. Their attitudes would change if their club were promoted and on the brink, if not in, the top flight. It's very much a "them and us" attitude some had, we've been accused of it at work when the fact is some departments consider themselves more important and the rest just there to do the 'simple' admin, lacking appreciation without us they couldn't do their job.
As for the Trent Johnston 'utility player' comment, he is what a side needs in transition, like an ageing but experienced footballer in the Championship and lower reaches of the Premiership, but not what will ultimately take them forward.
Also it sickens me the way it's all about money, money and money again. It's about time the ICC made it cricket first, money second.
The part at the end of part 1 sums it up, they have a good couple of games and draw and beat Test sides and apparently that is good enough for Test status. They were good results, but every dog has its day and Zimbabwe are in the lower reaches of Test and ODI standing, Pakistan vulnerable at the best of times.
It is rather an assumption they beat some sides so they deserve Test status. I'd love to know the EXACT reasons why Bangladesh got it, because they really were ill equipped then and still are now.
But none of that bodes well for Cricket Ireland getting their Test status. There is even a chance that there will never be another Test-playing nation.
It comes off as arrogant suggesting Ireland get "their Test status", it isn't "their's" whether they think they've earned it or not. Although he does seem to allude to tiers, that is a massive change and it shouldn't come in simply to suit the demands of the Irish.
I doubt they'll 'get in' any more than tiers will go through in a hurry, the problem is money which the Irish undoubtedly would love and the existing Test nations would not like to lose. The danger with a second tier is the sides will complain about not playing their favourite series, the lack of money that will undoubtedly come with secondary status, and I think most would rather maintain the status quo and just play Zimbabwe and Bangladesh when they have to.
In seven years it has only been three players. But the best three. Take the best three players out of any team and see how they go
Well actually the better sides would cope, maybe not be as strong, but maybe because there are quite a few English players who would probably get or contend to be in the Irish XI (that's bound to get a few toys thrown out of prams by being taken completely the wrong way), so what I'm saying is the strength and depth is much greater. After all there are 18 counties with at least 11 playing staff of whom some will not be English, but essentially around 200 give or take.
I don't agree with England taking the Irish players, we have players we should bring in instead and not pinch players because they provide an instant fix or as if they're just part of a bigger catchment.
If they want to be critical, why not of Morgan, Joyce, Rankin etc themselves for putting Ireland second? No, it's easier to blame England, that England could do sweet FA if Morgan had said "no thanks, I'm Irish" is besides the point.
Seems a lot of self pity in that article which is a shame, it just comes across as if the whole (cricket) world should be putting Ireland first. Kenya were snubbed in favour of Bangladesh, other countries have a case albeit a lesser one in most cases, but it's all about Ireland. 'How can we get Ireland Test status?', we'll stop complaining and demanding it would be a start. I want to see tiered Test cricket, get it so teams are playing at their level not just England et al playing teams because they have to and chalking up easy wins most of the time.
yes Ireland will suffer with lost players, lost revenue, and no progress/development because they're not testing themselves at the higher level, but what's new?!? Cricket is living years in the past in its structure, ironic given the arrival or T20s and years ago ODIs. Neither shifted thinking into the 21st century, they continued adding Test teams periodically and now they've reached the limit there is no suggestion of expansion.
I know it may come across like I'm arguing for and against Ireland's inclusion, I'm talking about developing cricket for cricket's sake, not just because the Irish and their advocates keep whining. I would trust more than just Ireland would be beneficiaries of any changes, there is little chance there'll be 11 Test nations in the current structure and this whole thing should have been considered back when Zimbabwe got Test status and South Africa returned to the fold only a few years late eg in the mid 90s.
Two decades have passed, one more team was ill advisedly added for whatever reason, perhaps something to do with them being Asian and perhaps $$$$, I mean who wants some African country in Tests.............? (not my view, perhaps that of the ICC at the time)
As for the World Cup, I thought it was stupid to deny non-Test nations participation. I can understand why, the format has become decidedly difficult with half a dozen weaker sides involved, the 2007 format meant the ICC and TV didn't get the round robin "super eight" phase they wanted as Pakistan and India went out.
They would not want a repeat of that. The 2011 format made sure the non-Test nations plus unwanted Zimbabwe and Bangladesh were odds on to go out at the group stage, but this meant way too many games, 42 in the group stage and another 7 in the knockouts. Back in 2007 there were 24 in the group stage, two Test casualties, and 24 in the "super eight" phase which inconveniently included Ireland and Bangladesh who predictably finished 7th and 8th out of eight.
I'm not sure exactly what format was proposed with just the 10 Test nations, something that got rid of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh to then include as many games as possible between the rest without being too many as to make it last too long.
Ireland may be happy they'll get a piece of the pie in terms of $$$ out of participating, but they'll do exceptionally well to progress given only four from each group qualify. They've already been thrown in with South Africa, India, Pakistan and West Indies, they'd need 3+ wins and I think to get that everything would have to 'go to plan'
----------
Oh and I think the ICC will be more worried about the balance between T20Is and the other formats, and the IPL than whether or not Ireland are happy.
That they had to be almost coerced into changing the 2015 World Cup format shows what they think of non-Test nations in terms of their plans for structures of competitions, and while Ireland may feel they have won a major battle, it may set them back in the war because the ICC won't be happy about it.
I doubt the Test nations will rally to their side either, they may offer the odd ODI and series here and there, but if Bangladesh ran the risk of not playing England et al because Ireland were drafted in and Bangladesh effectively relegated, they'd cut their own throats.
So in one respect you could argue Ireland are on a level with the Test nations, all selfish and wanting what is best for them over what is best for cricket
