This explains about 90% of my infractions and likes.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
5th Match - Ireland v West Indies
- Thread starter brockley
- Start date
Two Fine Legs
New member
Well that display pretty much made me go back and edit a vast amount of a piece I was writing questioning whether Ireland are actually good enough for Test status yet.
Beating West Indies is an achievement but to be honest, beating that West Indies side isn't. I agree with the comments on Holder, he doesn't stand a chance as captain, with far too many egos on the pitch and on the board. It's the worst cricket board in the world, though that is a hotly contested category with USA, Kenya and the mighty BCCI kicking around, and the petty infighting and point scoring has to stop. It won't though, and more and more of the player pool will turn to T20 leagues around the world.
The most impressive thing about this was that it was in no way an upset. Also, it wasn't your typical "Associate side beats Full Member" kind of game. It almost seemed like a real game of cricket. Ireland were clinical in the chase. There wasn't any flukes or any monumental West Indies mistakes (the mistake of their entire squad having been made before this game) and Ireland were just better.
Unless Ireland get more ODI's against Full Members it'll be hard for them to break into the top eight ranked sides for automatic qualification for the next World Cup. The top eight is pretty much set in stone, though it's not unreasonable to say that Bangladesh could leapfrog West Indies, if things go certain ways for both nations. Also, qualification tournament in Bangladesh for a World Cup hosted in England? The ICC does it again.
Beating West Indies is an achievement but to be honest, beating that West Indies side isn't. I agree with the comments on Holder, he doesn't stand a chance as captain, with far too many egos on the pitch and on the board. It's the worst cricket board in the world, though that is a hotly contested category with USA, Kenya and the mighty BCCI kicking around, and the petty infighting and point scoring has to stop. It won't though, and more and more of the player pool will turn to T20 leagues around the world.
The most impressive thing about this was that it was in no way an upset. Also, it wasn't your typical "Associate side beats Full Member" kind of game. It almost seemed like a real game of cricket. Ireland were clinical in the chase. There wasn't any flukes or any monumental West Indies mistakes (the mistake of their entire squad having been made before this game) and Ireland were just better.
Unless Ireland get more ODI's against Full Members it'll be hard for them to break into the top eight ranked sides for automatic qualification for the next World Cup. The top eight is pretty much set in stone, though it's not unreasonable to say that Bangladesh could leapfrog West Indies, if things go certain ways for both nations. Also, qualification tournament in Bangladesh for a World Cup hosted in England? The ICC does it again.
andmark
Well-known member
Just watched highlights of the match and the one criticism of Ireland I can come up with is that they were immature late in the innings and did some needless shots. With an equation like 30 runs needed off 60 bowls, they were still swinging the bat and thus lost needless wickets in doing so. Overall though, impressive performance.
Last edited:
Uppercut
Well-known member
Net run rate might come into play and realistically the win was already in the bag.
andmark
Well-known member
Ah, makes sense now. Still though, they were slogging with 80 or so needed even though it's not stretching the imagination too far to lose with 80 needed. Maybe I'm just being cautious considering it was only the Windies and not SA.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Probably would've been my favourite game of the Cup and it's one I miss due to jury duty. I'll probably see every other game in full (bar overlaps obvs). Sigh.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Sorensen got in based on warmup results. I was expecting Sorensen and Young to open together but they went with two spinners due to the surface (can't really comment on whether that was the right call as I didn't see the game, but McBrine and Dockrell had good figures) so Mooney opened. Young will definitely play at some point IMO.
BeeGee
Well-known member
Drunken Irishmen? There's something you don't see every day.
Smudge
Well-known member
God, I hope it's not an unemployed activist going on trial. They'll be hanging from the gallows before the week is out if you have your way...
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
The whole jury was dismissed because two people somehow had the same juror number, and that number was selected. Complete farce.
If anything I think I'd lean more strongly towards not guilty than most people though, particularly given the vast array of things I don't think should be crimes at all. Having me on the jury would be an absolute blessing to someone brought up on drug charges for example, unemployed activist or not.
Last edited:
HeathDavisSpeed
Well-known member
Certain teams seem more capable of holding their nerve to win tight games against the odds. We use the word 'choker' for a team that regularly overcomes the odds in a tight game to lose, but what word is there for a team that often wins in those situations? Giant killer is a tag that's often used, but sometimes that isn't really appropriate. Teams like Ireland or, say, Bradford City or Sheffield Utd in football cup competitions in recent years are examples from another sport. There should be an epithet for Ireland that is less condescending than 'giantkillers' and has the same positive connotations that 'choker' has for negatives.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
In all seriousness I planned on trying to get excused if the nature of the case meant I'd find it hard to be impartial. The nature of the case was fine though so I proceeded, only for the whole jury to be turfed out.
Last edited:
You're not there to interpret the law ffs.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yeah, which is why I'd try to get excused if I had a problem with it.
morgieb
Well-known member
If there were genuine philosophical reasons that led to believe that anyone convicted of said crime you wouldn't convict wouldn't you get kicked off the jury?
HeathDavisSpeed
Well-known member
Yet another thread turns into a discussion about Cribb's ****ed up politics. **** up, ****.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Well, not so much 'kicked off' as 'not selected in the first place'. They assemble a pool of much more than needed because people often have reasons to be excused before they select the jurors out of a hat. "I don't think I can be impartial" was the basis for several people being excused yesterday so that's exactly what I'd do if I thought I was going to be biased. I wouldn't just be a **** about it, get myself onto a jury and then refuse to convict; I'd get myself out of that situation if the case related to a victimless crime; I'd get excused.