zimcricketforums.com

The Irish esablished their position as the best of the rest for the better part of a decade starting with their notable performamce at the 2007 World Cup. They had beaten major sides in almost every global tournament they played in, and at one stage were better than two Test playing nations (Bangladesh and Zimbabwe).

But since the 2015 world cup, there form has been horrific. They are routinely losing by margins that even Zimbabwe and Bangladesh only rarely suffered. Against major sides they have lost by the folllowing margins in the last 2 years:

190 runs
51 runs
85 runs
206 runs
255 runs
136 runs
76 runs
23 runs

Or

8 wickets, 137 balls
7 wickets, 180 balls
9 wickets, 119 balls

I have always supporte Ireland in getting Test status, but their future looks bleak especially since they have a very experienced side with veteran players. Their youth team is also not doing well, failing to qualify for the last world cup.

We could just about echo Eddo Brandes' words about given a higher status too late. But I believe there are 2 factors in Ireland's favour.
Firstly, the increase in funding any future ICC model provides. On the back of that, the huge amount of potato eaters there are in the world(l'm one!) who may wish to come back & kiss the Blarney Stone & try their hand for Ireland.
There is history with this as Trent Johnston & Jeremy Bray from NSW immediately drew on their roots when Ireland started their ascendency. So think 90's when Goodwin, Johnson & Huckle were courted back to Zimbabwe.
Again, there must be a vast amount of county players with Irish extraction who are waiting to see how the cards fall. And let's not forget that Mother England has rarely been without a Southern African batsmen in their line up since Basil D'oliveira. Think of Andre Botha, John Anderson, Max Sorensen. These blokes have turned out for Ireland already. How many disgruntled Saffers will give it a go - depending on the coin?

^I would hope so. Ireland really has played some wonderful cricket over the past 10 years (much of it against Bangladesh - beating us world cups twice!). World cricket really needs about 12 strong sides to make things interesting. 15-20 would be ideal but unrealistic at this point in time.

To be honest, I think Scotland may surpass Ireland soon - they seem to have some good players coming through the system.

Ireland are a worry, but their admin is certainly in cricket's top ten. They should be given the chance, the diaspora may get behind things and the government should too. They can make progress. The really big thing against them is that they are a tiny tv market.

Bangladesh when they got test status in 2000 were pathetic, but they had a good administartion and help from ICC. Same is situation with Ireland now, but in the longer run if ICC supports them with test status ..in next 5 to 10 years they can be at par with other test cricket nations.

Ireland's form does not surprise me. I've long maintained on this site that Ireland for too long had an unsustainable model; piggyback off of English county cricket with just a limited cadre of players. Ireland did not do much to deepen or strengthen cricket domestically until after Afghanistan burst onto the scene and stole their limelight. Only when Afghanistan went about their business without all the fuss of the Irish did we see the Irish seriously set up a 3-day domestic tournament. They have a good administration otherwise but in that key area (administering domestic cricket, not just instituting a 3-day tournament...that was only emblematic of the problem) they fell down badly by not acting sooner. Now Ireland have a problem - the team that got them to this point is ageing and some members have left, but the focus was soooo much on that team that there was no real development of replacements.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why I am always very, very wary when I hear folks here in the Caribbean insisting that what WI need to do is to go back with the veteran players. In essence we can see two models on display: the Irish model and the Bangladesh/Afghanistan ("Banglafghan") model. In the Irish model you stick with the old players almost entirely and maybe put in a new face when an old one retires or is seriously injured. In the "Banglafghan" model you show no fear in trying out new and young players and only really keep the old ones (like Nabi) who are performing exceptionally well (and not just relatively well). In the Irish model the team does well for a while but when the older players lose form a lot of them lose form around the same time and the team performance becomes a shadow of its former self. In the Bangla/Afghan model the team might take some initial licks and some heavy licks but they gain experience and over time you build a strong team and a strong system because the culture of being willing to go with fresh blood means new players get exposed and the old players don't begin to feel entitled.

The current WI team actually has less ODI match experience than Afghanistan if I'm not mistaken (and generally overall less match experience...something like a third or a quarter of the match experience of the Afghan team). But already I've seen new players who are making names for themselves - Hope (ODIs, possibly tests), Chase (tests), Gabriel, Mohammed (ODIs),

Had they stuck with the old core until the old core felt they couldn't bother anymore then we would have been wasting time and inhibiting these other players in order to accommodate players who are so entitled they don't even feel it necessary to play list A or first class cricket in order to get picked for ODI or test cricket.