International Rules series dying a slow death

After yet another International Rules series ended with a violence on field and scoreboard, we must now ask if the series has a future. The movement for it's abolition is gaining strength after a week which must have been painful for IR advocates like Ron Barassi.

While the games are undeniably similar, it's popular fallacy that Australian football evolved from Gaelic football. Both sports require remarkable endurance and skill. It seemed logical that games so isolated yet so similar should breed a hybrid competition; both sports feature "All-Ireland" or "All-Australian" teams, rewarding each sport's best players but don't give those elite a team to play against.

The International Rules series was founded to give GAA and AFL players the chance to represent their country in competitions which don't provide that opportunity. With over six years of violence - and multiple hiatuses - the GAA and AFL's so-called best don't deserve that opportunity any more.

As commentators noted during the most recent match on the Gold Coast, the series has become a farce. It no longer represents the best interests of Australia or Ireland. Those countries, both feisty at the best of times, don't need "representation" of this sort.

www.flickr.com/photos/jimmyharris/59309854/

From an Australian point of view, the International Rules series was aimed to give the best players in Australia the chance to represent their country. For over a decade now this has been a mockery as All-Australians make themselves unavailable for selection, either through press statement or ridiculous suspension.

How was the side that played the most recent matches in any way or shape inclusive of the best in the country? It was a team captained by Melbourne skipper Brad Green, who essentially inherited that position by being that club's most senior player. His year was hardly a model of leadership; his first year at the top will probably be best remembered for the side's 186-point roll-over at Geelong and the subsequent sacking of Dean Bailey. Alongside a frankly mediocre captain, would Matt Suckling, Easton Wood or Zac Smith make anyone's All-Australian ballots?

For the Australians, what was instituted as an opportunity for the elite has changed into a representative match devoid of honour. Playing to win is fine, and therefore sides should be picked accordingly. However, rewarding several of our league's most average talents is hardly high honour. Representing one's country should be the highest accolade a sport can bestow - indeed, it is the very (only?) reason for this series - and thus should go to the country's best. That the honour isn't wanted by the best, only signifies the lack of regard in which the competition is held.

It's also worth pointing out that those representing their country should do so with the nation's best interests at heart. A series aimed at building friendships with the potential to span continents should be played as such - highly competitive but in the spirit of the football "friendly". After last Friday's match, would any of the Irish and Australians settled down for a beer together?

For some reason, the games just seem to breed hate.

The game has become a disgrace to both codes: just watch for the number of cheap shots. With there being no apparent consequence for indiscretions other than yellow cards and IR suspensions, players are relatively free to infringe the law and spirit of the game. Should the series be played again, any suspensions for unsportsmanlike play should carry over to the next year's GAA or AFL competition and be adjudged by that league's disciplinary panel.

This may instill further club opposition towards the series and which may kill the sport. If clubs in either country don't sanction their players for unduly rough play, then the series as it stands doesn't deserve to survive.

The greatest single detractor for the game are ludicrous IR suspensions - like the one given to Matthew Scarlett - which ban players from further International games. The reputation of a nascent sport has been so brutally blackened by such legislative decisions, never mind those like Brendan Fevola's 2006 bar fight.

It's also damning that, as an ardent Aussie Rules supporter and someone who would like to see the International format succeed, there have been so few memorable moments from the series' twelve years. In truth, apart from the fights, only two stand out: Mick Malthouse trying without luck to get Dale Thomas to play defensively in 2008 and Nathan Buckley's "over" in 1999 to win the second match for Australia. And I'm not even a Collingwood fan. That the prevailing memories of a series with great potential is of fisticuffs speaks volumes.

Should the series return in 2012, there should be major changes. The competition once again should be aimed at the best players in the country, otherwise the accolade is meaningless. Secondly, and perhaps crucially, both sides should agree to appoint ambassadorial coaches and captains for their squads whose brief is to ensure the glorification of the game, rather than it's decline. For Australia, it seems Chris Judd and Kevin Sheedy would be perfect men for the task.

The series deserves one last chance. The Galahs of 1967 deserve to see their legacy survive. But to do so, it needs vastly revamped rules and citizenship. It isn't asking for much.

An Alternative to Exclusion: The Statistical Basis for an ICC World Cup Qualifying Tournament

The ICC have announced that affiliate nations are to be excluded from the World Cup in 2015, only to be reinstated from 2019 after a mooted ODI League begins. As well as manifestly defending without consequence the full member nations Bangladesh and Zimbabwe at the expense of the affiliates, there are several flaws in the ICC's logic. Their thinking is that Bangladesh and Zimbabwe deserve protection as developing cricket nations. Perhaps the ICC, when considering the following analysis, should expand their vista somewhat.

Over the last two World Cups, perhaps the most startling comparison is each team's success rate. Ireland have recorded four wins, one tie and eleven losses, Bangladesh went 6-10 and Zimbabwe managing two wins and a tie from nine matches. In fact if you take into account every ODI each nation has played since June 2006 (Ireland's first ever ODI), records are even more enlightening.

Nation	Games	Wins	Losses	Ties	N/R
Bangladesh	119	52	67	0	0
Zimbabwe	95	28	66	1	0
Ireland	64	30	30	1	3

Although Irish results don't quite measure up to those of Bangladesh, these tables don't take into account a decline in Bangladesh's form since their Super-8 appearance in the 2007 Cup in the West Indies. Comparing last decade to this, Irish cricket appears well in advance of their third-world neighbours in development:

Nation	Games	Wins		Losses		Ties	N/R
Bangladesh	119	52	43.7	67	56.3	0	0
2006-2009	86	40	46.51	46	53.49	0	0
2010-2011	33	12	36.36	21	63.64	0	0
Zimbabwe	95	28	29.47	66	70.53	1	0
2006-2009	69	19	27.54	49	71.01	1	0
2010-2011	26	9	34.62	17	65.38	0	0
Ireland	64	30	46.88	30	46.88	1	3
2006-2009	41	17	41.46	20	48.78	1	3
2010-2011	23	13	56.52	10	43.48	0	0

Given that many of Ireland's ODIs have been against ICC-trophy opposition, this is hardly conclusive proof that Ireland are a comparable side to either Zimbabwe or Bangladesh. However, what must be remembered is that while they may face weaker opposition more often, almost all of their matches are played "away". The same can't be said of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

Every nation uses Key Performance Indicators in their overall analysis of performance. Since Ireland entered the ODI arena, theirs compare well with their subcontinental and African cousins:

	Statistic	Bangladesh	Zimbabwe	Ireland
Bowling KPI	Runs conceded p/wkt	26	25.08	27.05
	Runs conceded p/over	4.56	4.54	4.68
Batting KPI	Highest Score	320	351	329
	Lowest Score	58	44	77
	Average Total Score	217.96	205.42	240.53

Let's examine both individual performances in both the last two World Cups to see how, on a per-match basis, the Irish stack up.

	Bangladesh	Zimbabwe	Ireland
Game 1	191	221	221
Game 2	318	204	132
Game 3	94	349	190
Game 4	106	262	266
Game 5	178	123	165
Game 6	184	166	263
Game 7	147	327	92
Game 8	243	164	169
Game 9	230	147	81
Game 10	370		205
Game 11	178		327
Game 12	59		210
Game 13	225		275
Game 14	160		272
Game 15	284		306
Average runs conceded	197.8	218.11	211.6
Total wickets taken	95	58	103
Average p/wkt	31.23	33.84	30.82
Adjusted Avg runs conc.	207.71
Adjusted avg/p/wkt	30.94

In this analysis, "Adjusted" removes the influence of any low totals made by the team while batting first - ie. Bangladesh's record-low 58 is not considered in the "Adjusted runs conceded". This has the happy benefit of decreasing their average per wicket (Adjusted avg/p/wkt) as they only took one West Indies scalp when attempting to defend their meagre total.

With batting, the story is very similar.

World Cup	Bangladesh		Zimbabwe		Ireland
	Runs	Wkts lost	Runs	Wkts lost	Runs	Wkts Lost
2007	1372	72	522	30	1452	79
2011	1017	51	1276	52	1393	51
Totals	2389	123	1798	82	2845	130
Average p/wkt	19.42		21.93		21.88

Perhaps rather than automatic ascension to ODI status, it would be best to enforce qualification rules upon the weakest two Full ICC Members - a simple, round-robin tournament evaluated by wins, losses and run-rate. It could be there that Ireland, the Netherlands, Canada and Kenya - perpetually the strongest four affiliate nations - could compete against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe for entry rights.

Such a setup may also strengthen those full members as it would provide another focal point at which things need to be "going right" in order to avoid the humiliation of failing to qualify. It only needs to be for one (two at most) World Cup and could easily be superseded by an ODI League.

Any suggestions the Bangladeshis or Zimbabweans would crush the competition in a qualifying tournament is fatuous in the extreme. To throw in one final statistic, in the past two Cups three Irish batsmen have scored hundreds. None have from Bangladesh or Zimbabwe (though one of each has come close). Ireland's batsmen seem to fire after playing themselves in - they have only eight unconverted 50s to their credit, while Bangladesh have managed nine half-centuries and Zimbabwe have eleven.

In all the statistics put together today, there's plenty of evidence that suggests that Irish, Bangladeshi and Zimbabwean cricket is relatively well-matched. Indeed, it's eminently possible to throw a blanket over the differences in each nation's stats. All statistical indicators point to a very even three-cornered series.

As with any developing cricketing nation, no-one is really sure who is going to step up on any given day to play a key hand. What it does seem however, is that Ireland are fully capable of upsetting bigger opponents, and their form is only improving rather than the cul-de-sac into which Bangladeshi cricket seems to have turned. The only fair way to ensure the development of cricket across the globe is to give the affiliate nations something to strive for, and Full member nations something to fear. That should take the form of World Cup qualifying.

ICC turns back on affiliate nations' World Cup hopes

By excluding Ireland, the Netherlands and other affiliate nations from the 2015 World Cup in Australia and New Zealand, the ICC could well have signed the death warrant for International 50-over cricket. A format which could well have been revitalized by one of - if not THE - best World Cups ever, now stands on the precipice of becoming an elitist tournament with no second division. Any league around the world needs a feeder system. By robbing themselves of that at ODI level, cricket's head honchos have announced that Twenty20 is the way of the future.

The ICC has decided that a ten-team format is the best for the ODI World Cup. That much is clear and, probably, fair. To compensate for their brutality, the Twenty20 World Cup will be expanded in a clear message to the world's 95 associate nations: T20 is the future. Notwithstanding the perilous effects this is likely to have on player techniques, this also cements the notion that no affiliate nation has any hope of ascending to Test level within twenty-five years.

Without a strong One-Day program, Test cricket is weaker. The fifty-over form is the best way of choosing a World Champion and, to the delight of the non-baseball crowd, demands batting and bowling technique, thought and tactics rather than an abrupt slog-a-thon. A nation can wean players on ODIs in preparation for Test matches; the same cannot be said of Twenty20. If countries like Ireland and Afghanistan aren't able to expose their men to the best in the world, there remains no hope for growth in the Test world. The step up from ODI to Test is often too great, let alone from T20.

Should, as is rumoured, the mooted ODI League - complete with promotion and relegation - come into effect after the 2019 tournament in England, the affiliates will be again able to attempt qualification for the World Cup, play regular matches and attempt to improve both grass-roots and elite talent pathways to full International level, a process likely to take at least 10 years. But with an eight-year gap between Cups, there exists the chance that the fifty-over game will have fallen into irreparable decline or even been eradicated completely.

Without question, Ireland are the team closest to making the step to the next level - and may have surpassed both Bangladesh and Zimbabwe already. They are the archetypal Big Fish in a Small Pond, identified by the ICC not as "too good for affiliate" but "too small for the Big Time". Sadly, Ireland are in a category all of their own and stand as the nation shafted by Haroon Lorgat's arbitrary nature. As they produce quality cricketers, (faint) hope grew for an Irish Test team. It is all now gone.

The debate isn't whether Cup is suited best to a ten- or fourteen-team format, the big picture is that the ICC has made a sweeping reform to the game's Showpiece to benefit smaller "Full" members at the expense of growth. Globally, cricket is far from being in a safe position and thus growth is required to ensure that cricket doesn't become confined to its heartland - now, proudly the subcontinent. When growth is required, it behoves administrators to focus most on strengthening their weaker elements. Here, the opposite has happened and more revenue has been funnelled into wealthy coffers.

To exclude Ireland, a team whose performances everyone has admired, simply because they haven't yet broken into the big time is wrong. If their displays at the last two Cups and ICC trophy dominance aren't reason enough to include them in the planning for 2015, then surely their administration is: there's good reason to think that the Cricket Ireland is more transparent and better administered than counterpart organisations in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangaldesh, Zimbabwe and the West Indies.

The exciting new ODI League may have been initialised to save the fifty-over format. That comes as cold comfort for players like Kevin O'Brien and William Porterfield, who though young now, probably won't get a chance to strut the big stage again. The ODI revolution may come years too late for the smaller nations in world cricket.

You've seen Team GB, now try Team Celt.

In the midst of an international break in which England plays Wales and following the revelation that Team Great Britain will compete at the London 2012 Olympics it got me thinking: who would win a contest between England and the rest of the British Isles? This led me to begin playing with the idea of an all-Celtic Eleven.

The Celts were the original inhabitants of Great Britain and much of Western Europe. Now, Celtic languages, for example Gaelic or Welsh, are spoken predominantly in Brittany, Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man and Ireland. The Celts (or Britons, as they became known in England) were relocated into the farther reaches of the islands upon invasions from first Rome and subsequently Danes and Vikings. The areas these invasions remained unable to conquer, very broadly speaking, are those which remain fiercely proud of their Celt heritage and from whom we can choose our team.

This means our combined squad comes from Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Northern Ireland and would need to have today's players prepared to such a state to contest a one-off match against the best the English - and their fancy new non-inflected Indo-European language - could muster.

We can break down the players available either by position or by nation. Perhaps the easiest way would be to select the walk-up starts and fill in the gaps that may create in the squad. Like Barney Ronay when selecting his Team GB squad for the 2012 Olympics, in the interest of fairness we're going to include players from all four nations. We'll go with a 4-4-2 formation for familiarity.

First selected must indubitably be Gareth Bale, the Welsh left-winger who's recently won plaudits as the best player in the world. He may be the one World Class player that Team Celt could boast. To his right would probably sit Scotland's Charlie Adam and Darren Fletcher in central midfield. All three are proven Premiership performers and the centre-mids blend nicely Fletcher's harrying defensive style with Charlie Adam's sublime left peg. The other wing goes to Man United stalwart Ryan Giggs - no questions asked. The world's favourite Welshman would also captain the side.

One of the strikers must go to Kenny Miller, formerly of Rangers and who's just signed for Bursaspor. Statistically speaking, he was one of the best forwards in Europe last year - though few who saw him play in person would agree - and he is almost unquestionably the best forward the Celts could put forward. He has played very well both as the lone striker and in tandem for Craig Levein's Scotland. Here endeth the walk-ups - the remaining six positions, plus seven bench spots are all up for grabs.

The Centre-backs are more tricky. James Collins is one frontrunner, but has steady competition for the role from Aston Villa teammate, Irishman Richard Dunne. Sean St-Ledger has performed admirably in the green of Ireland and must be considered, as could Swansea City's Welshman Ashley Williams and Northern Irish duo Jonny Evans (of United) and Aaron Hughes (of Fulham). The only Scot with the quality in this position could be Wolves' Christophe Berra. In order to help with evenness, the positions go to Collins and Hughes.

Full-backs are again, a coaching minefield depending on what you set out to accomplish. Defensive? Maybe we could go for United's John O'Shea, who could also provide cover for offensive monster Bale. More offensively minded? Then we could lean towards the overlapping play of Everton's revelatory Irishman Seamus Coleman or Tottenham's Scottish right-back Alan Hutton. Also with strong cases are Ireland's Kevin Foley and Stephen Kelly while Chris Gunter of Nottm Forest (Wales) can play on both sides. The edge here goes to the experience of the marauding Hutton and the dour O'Shea, with Coleman unlucky to miss out.

Even farther back, the choice of goalkeeper is a three-cornered one: Wales' Wayne Hennessey, Ireland's Shay Given or Scotland's Craig Gordon. Even though he's been displaced in the Manchester City lineup by Joe Hart, Shay Given is still perhaps one of the top ten Premiership custodians - not something you can say about the solid Sunderland man Gordon or Wolves' exciting youngster Hennessey.

A forward partner for Miller is now the priority. His partner could be Irish and out of form - Robbie Keane, Irish and consistent - Kevin Doyle or Welsh and flamboyant - Craig Bellamy. Bellamy's resume is superior to Doyle's and so wins that battle. Unfortunately for the likeable Keane, he has bounced from club to club without convincing anywhere for two years now which lessens his case. I like also the unpredictability and madness brought by Bellamy.

This gives us our starting XI, so now it's time to choose our seven substitutes. With the midfield populated by stars, it's right to select Wales Captain Aaron Ramsey, a Rolls-Royce of a player. Spartak Moscow's Irish winger Aiden McGeady was bumped only by the presence of Giggs and Bale and so gets a guernsey. To reinforce the defense, I've opted for Coleman and Jonny Evans, while West Bromwich Albion's left-sided dynamo Chris Brunt takes his place as Bale's back-up. Youth loses out to experience in goal - Gordon over Hennessey, leaving only the reserve striking role to fill. To change the game a little with his ability as a target man and finisher, the only choice is Kevin Doyle. Unlucky to miss is Leicester's Welsh centre-mid, Andy King.

And that leaves us with a team looking like:

	Shay Given (Ire)
Alan Hutton (Scot)	Aaron Hughes (NIR)	James Collins (Wal)	John O'Shea (Ire)
Ryan Giggs (Wal) (c)	Darren Fletcher (Scot)	Charlie Adam (Scot)	Gareth Bale (Wal)
	Kenny Miller (Scot)	Craig Bellamy (Wal)

Sub: Gordon (GK - Scot), Ramsey (Wal), McGeady (Ire), Coleman (Ire), Evans (NIR), Brunt (NIR), Doyle (Ire).

I'd back that team to do well against most international squads. Now if only we could convince FIFA that it's a good idea ...

Balanced Sports published on Soccerlens

Matthew Wood of Balanced Sports has been published again on Soccerlens - one of the world's pre-eminent football blogs -taking a look at Jermaine Pennant's ill-advised words on playing for England or for Ireland.

World Cup Cricket: The time for Ireland to step up has come

In their recent appearances at the World Cup, Ireland's results have belied their status as one of cricket's "minnows". In 2007 in the Caribbean they infamously defeated Pakistan, tied with Zimbabwe and triumphed over Bangladesh; this tournament they've already upset heavyweights England behind a whirlwind middle-order display and their group stage efforts are only just half completed. There's plenty good argument that they should maintain full ODI status once this Cup concludes. Credit where credit is due - they've earned their stripes and deserve to reap the benefits.

When they defeated arch rivals England last week, Ireland proved themselves once and for all the strongest of the ICC's affiliate nations. Time and again they've defended their status as the strongest paupers around and the ICC should recognise now that their setup, fraught and import-dependent as it is, is strong enough to challenge superior programmes. They may not necessarily win, but that's merely an inconsequential detail: in any fixture between a top-five cricket nation and a bottom-five side the result is a near certainty anyway. Ireland have the same odds of upsetting Australia in Australia as Bangladesh; in neutral fixtures they may have a better chance of a masterminding a boilover.

They are themselves capable of playing some very good cricket and outmatch their affiliate counterparts by some considerable distance. Some would suggest that an Irish side would further water down international competition, but in truth if these nations are allowed to compete at the World Cup then the competition is weakened enough already. By admitting unready nations to these tournaments, the ICC has made a rod for its own back: only Ireland of the affiliates (and Kenya four years before) have announced their presence with any kind of definitive display.

Bangladesh, the last country admitted permanently to the ICC brethren, provides the best precedent for the proescution. Before their happy 2007 World Cup campaign, their cricketing highlight came on a damp day in the south of England when Mushrafe Mortaza (can someone tell me why he wasn't selected for this event?) led them to a win over the 2005 Australian Ashes tourists in a triangular ODI series. With their Kevin O'Brien-inspired big win last week, Ireland have surpassed this achievement already. The Tigers are the archetypal case of "failure to thrive" and mimic the Zimbabwe teams of the mid-90s, inconsistent sides with a few good players.

The largest obstacle Ireland's path is the lack of a top-flight domestic competition. In football, FIFA requires any World Cup hosts to have a top level home league; the ICC similarly looks not just at results but at grass-roots development. Unfortunately for Ireland, their best players - Eoin Morgan and Ed Joyce, most prominently - are attracted to the county circuit and thus the country risks that these stars will be lost to the lure of Test cricket. This talent drain, combined with a former reliance on expats like Trent Johnston and Jeremy Bray, suggests Ireland are temporarily punching above their weight and so are likely to be drawn back into the Affiliate pack. A grand total of only thirteen fully professional Irish cricketers also doesn't bode well for promotion.

Should Ireland be serious about entering the ODI circuit as a full member, junior development must be their first priority. Ireland has positives in achieving this: a European home base and administration small enough to be unhampered by bureaucracy. Perhaps the country's greatest cricket advantage derives from its great weakness: proximity to England. Where Bangladesh has enough cricketers to stock a first-class system, Ireland does not, meaning elite Irish players need to find competition on distant shores. The best way of ensuring an evolving junior programme comes through the excitement bred by major competitions. Placing an Ireland side in the County Championship could nurture a breeding ground for young Irish cricketers and provide a pathway for their best talents. It could also serve as a developmental yardstick, allowing them (and the ICC) to see how much the sport had grown.

In the most brutally honest terms, Ireland aren't going to win the World Cup any time soon, but so what? When the ICC allows a country full status, it isn't an admission that the country is ready to actually compete. Bangladesh haven't thrilled anyone with their performances on the world stage; neither has Zimbabwe, despite short periods of improved play; Sri Lanka were effectively patsies until their improbable 1996 World Cup triumph - the major nations' whipping boy for nearly twenty years. This is a neat, but flawed comparison as in those countries cricket isn't the underground sport it is in Ireland. However, the fact remains that the ineffective administration shown by Bangladesh over the past ten years means there's severe doubt as to Bangladesh ability to ever field a threatening side. As painful as it is, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe just make up numbers.

Admittedly this is a harsh assessment of both Zimbabwe and Bangladesh and doesn't take into account the sociological, political and geographical unrest suffered by both nations over the past decades. Those factors - and Ireland's insolvency - contribute to a changing cricket world, one where a two-tier system is almost irrevocably in place. Cricket, whether we like it or not, is now a divided across "have" and "have not" lines": and if Ireland wants to join the lower tier, then why stop them?