It’s time cricket went Blarney

Maybe Australian cricket should take leaf out of the AFL's book,& recruit in Ireland. Unlike Gaelic footballers,they wouldn't have to learn a new game,& may be a good thing for the Aussie competition. After all,we have had cricketers from South Africa in the past,so why not Ireland? Obviously,England has the advantage of proximity to home & family,but with modern transport,the distance isn't the problem it once was.

Ian, I never said that NZ & WI should be in a second tier. Please re-read what I said, I said that Ireland should have FTP guaranteed matches against those four teams. The relegation system would be to include Bang A, Zimb A and Ireland A in I Cup matches and if the teams beat them they play against them for their test positions which would create the relegation system. Please re-read what I have said and dont accuse me of things that I did not say or intend to say.

@Russ - I'm loving your blog.

Ian, there is a reason FIFA applies penalties to players who don't turn out for international duty, and a reason they have windows for international fixtures. Cricket's administrators seem to be in denial that they can force players to play international cricket, or that it won't be a problem. FICA is much clearer that that is the direction cricket is heading - there was a good interview with Tim May on flyslip.net the other day where he raised these issues - or perhaps more accurately, which direction they are pushing boards to go.

Congratulations. In another display of cynical "help", you just emphasised what a good idea it was for Eion Morgan to move to England, because there is no way Ireland playing the second tier is going to fund a salary that is better than that of a plumber. Oh, and because you stuck New Zealand and West Indies into tier two, you've ensured that talented sportsmen there will migrate to a sport where they can get paid.

Russ, Bangladesh is ahead of you there, and the big clubs of the Dhaka Premier League (Mohammadean and Abhitani) dont want to release their players for first class duty.

Bangladesh and Zimbabwe arent the problem. The problem is that the instant one of the big sides - India, South Africa, Australia or England - look like they'll be relegated, the system will be trashed.

thanks guys. dasilva has correctly hit upon on my general thoughts about test structure. Relegation will cause financial issues, and makes it hard for a team to progress forward (particularly if there are multiple divisions). A championship - 1 year qualifying, 1 year finals - would (I think) work better. Teams will still have that opportunity to test themselves against the best, they just won't do it very often, nor will they be guaranteed games against every side. Ian, not avoiding, just a different issue. Personally I think the future is domestic T20 cricket providing the bulk of player salaries in the same way domestic football/basketball/rugby(?) does. A shortened international calendar played within a window where players are paid more nominal amounts according to their boards financial ability would allow Ireland to retain their players. The non-monetary benefits of international cricket, particularly test cricket, would retain its standing. With regard to board funding, the advantage of playing mostly ICC tournaments, instead of depending on selling tv rights to foreign markets, is that the ICC would have control of most of cricket's global income, and therefore be better able to fund various nations according to need.

I fully agree with what Russ is saying. There should be a relegation system in test cricket. Limit the top tier to 8 test countries and have a system where Bang, Zimb, Ireland and another three teams play in a second tier competition, where the winner plays against the bottom side in a home & away test series for the top competition. We need a relegation system that promotes cricket and encourages teams to gain promotion through talent and ability instead of politicial alegiance. There are a lot of ways that the ICC can resolve this issue, but they arent even trying. It appears that the ICC WANT full members to be able to strip associate countries of their best players.

The ICC need to start taking these issues seriously. All players should be equal in the eyes of the ICC and should have equal access to play international cricket for their country based on their ability. Half of the irish side is ready for test cricket, and they could carry the other half. There needs to be an acceptable that Ireland 2012 is not Bangladesh 2000, they are more prepared, more experienced internationally and domestically in all forms of the game and could easily be competitive against the low full members and avoid regular one-sided contents against middle ranked. ICC should award Ireland probationary full membership starting January 1st 2013 and include them in the future tours program in matches against NZ, WI, Bang and Zimb. ICC should also look at a relegation system in test cricket to replace the current boys club approach and allow associates a chance to qualify for test cricket via ICup. Perhaps the ICup should include Bang A, Zimb A & Ireland A teams where a team that gets to the final plays the countries that didnt for a spot in test cricket for next two years. Another option is that associate players can play test cricket for a nation in their region and still play ODI & T20s for associates. Associate players should have to wait to play ODI or T20s for full members like any other side. Another option is 11th test team could be "The Associates" with ICup being first class comp of "The Associates" full member. The Associates would be a top 5 team within two years based on associate players talent.

Ian I think Russ is advocating a sort of international test championship where all ICC members qualify (but the current test nations are seedings) instead of simply give out test status and have them play against every other test playing nation regularly. Where teams are good enough they qualify to play against the big guns. They play against them, when they aren't good enough they drop down to appropriate level. Right now there is an all or nothing system. You get test status (which is often influence by politics) and you play against everyone or you don't and you have no opportunity to play against the test team. With teams like Zimbabwe, they had a golden generation of players that was competitive (with the flower brothers and heath streak) that deserve to play test cricket. Then now they are pretty uncompetitve at test level. It's probably a good idea to have a more fluidic test system where teams can regularly graduate or demoted according to current strength with no nation are specifically protected. Russ had a pretty decent multipart essay about it here http://idlesummers.com/post.php?postid=1453

Russ, The point you're carefully avoiding is how does cricket grow the code. If you tell Eion Morgan that, as Ireland doesnt have any money for cricketers, then the way to make a living is to turn English, then thats what he'll do ... just like Stephen Coniglio and Nick Smith left cricket for Australian Rules in Australia.

nk7792, there are a number of different issues here that, by being conflated under the category "full membership", hide the varied solutions needed in both full member and associate nations with respect to test cricket, finances and ICC governance. Taking them in reverse order. Full membership should really be only a voting criteria at board level. A recognition that a nation has achieved a level of participation. infrastructure and governance that they can contribute to the governance of cricket. Meaning that, notwithstanding that ICC governance under full members is atrocious, the hundreds of thousands of cricketers in the existing full members ought to have better representation than a few hundred playing in parts of Europe. Ireland are close to where they ought to be to receive that level of recognition - certainly they will be there within the next few years - and they'd be a valuable representative at ICC board level because they are one of the best governed cricket boards anywhere. Although convincing the existing full members to cede political power is unlikely - much like the Woolf recommendations for independent representation on the board are pretty unlikely. Financial reform needs to be a key-stone for any ICC changes. The ICC has become a conduit for funnelling money from Indian (and English/Australian) fans to the various full member boards, either from distributions (roughly $30m every 4 years) or by guaranteeing tours with the FTP. Hosting and touring Ireland won't make up the short-fall of splitting the pie 11 instead of 10 ways. Which means including Ireland also means one or more of a) increasing the size of the ICC pie by creating more ICC owned tournaments b) changing the way the ICC distributes shared revenue c) paying players predominantly through domestic T20 and having a fixed (low-paying) window for international commitments without central contracting (ala football/basketball). Finally, test cricket suffers from being played by only 10 nations, and by those nations being obliged to play each other, regardless of the gap in standards. Which is not to say a team should never play deeply inferior opposition. Merely that test cricket would be better if most of it (excluding the Ashes, for example) was played as part of a tournament structure, instead of endless friendlies. Paddyeff's point about diluting quality is bang-on, but teams are only relatively inferior, not absolute. Ireland aren't a big nation; even fully developed they'll not generally be better than New Zealand, who are only rarely competitive with Australia. So Ireland (and many many others) should play multi-day cricket (as they already do) including qualification games against the best (which they don't) so that when they are very good those players get to play against the best. And when they aren't, they still play at the right level, instead of being repeatedly outclassed, as happened to Bangladesh. But what you really don't want to do is just elevate Ireland to full member status and regular test cricket against the game's powerhouses, because they aren't at that level. They might never reach that level, though I hope they do. Because then we'll just have another punching bag for the game's elitist element to complain about. Which further limits the chances of the dozen nations that aren't that far below Ireland in ability or infrastructure, who should also be included in a "test" competition, where they can aspire to win enough games to qualify for the top tier.

-Irleand and holland should both be admitted. Put a T20 team form dublin in the england T20 comp, and amsterdam as well. But in reality it may not matter long term if test cricket does not develop, with T20 getting bigger maybe more will stay. But it must be looked at , Irleand is as big as NZ and in europe so would attract tv viewers, as would holland. Get Irleand into test cricket would be great.

Timely piece considering Boyd Rankin has just announced his retirement from Irish cricket in a hope to play for England. I'm not sure if I agree. I suppose the whole "dilution of test quality" would be the argument I would run. But a well thought out, well put together piece. Good reading.