Ireland and Holland

Ireland and Holland play each other today, in their final games of this World Cup. While they've only mustered one win from their 10 games not against each other, they can look back at a World Cup where some of their players came of age.

Ryan ten Doeschate, if the world hadn't heard of him already from his numerous spells in T20 sides worldwide, have certainly heard of him following his two World Cup centuries. Paul Stirling's big hitting feats have also seen him catapulted to stardom, as well as his spinning exploits alongside the excellent George Dockrell. William Porterfield's captaincy has been up there amongst the best in the tournament, and he's won many plaudits with the way he's handled himself and his team throughout the World Cup. And of course, the star of the show for the Associates this World Cup has obviously been Kevin O'Brien, with his astonishing 100 against England unlikely to be forgotten in a hurry.

The Group B "minnows" Ireland and Holland have both been far more competitive than their Group A counterparts. Ireland have given really good games to Bangladesh, India and the West Indies (and of course beat England) whereas Holland have at times been the better side in a few of their games. However, in some of those close games, they've lacked the experience and know how of big games to get over the line - something the bigger sides knew how to do (except England, obviously).

It's often spoken that a "golden generation" will happen every now and again with the minnows, before they drift off into obscurity. A prime example of this is seen in Kenya - semi-finalists in 2003 but massively struggling in this edition. The main reason for that - a lack of regular games against top class opposition. These Irish and Dutch sides could also be classed as a golden generation, but they will need to play regular matches against the big boys in order to keep match sharp, and to improve their skills.

Both of these teams are in Europe - only a short hour long flight away from England. This summer, Sri Lanka and India will visit English shores for test and ODI series. Wouldn't it make perfect sense for Ireland or Holland to become involved in these games? We've seen in the seven-match borefest between Australia and England that bi-lateral ODI series can get slightly dull after a while, so why not introduce an associate side for a tri-series?

Administrators should enjoy it, as Ireland and Holland would bring plenty of vocal fans, as well as getting rid of the unneccessary dead rubbers that often finish series. It benefits the players of the test sides involved, as they are able to motivate themselves to play against new, different opposition, rather than groundhog day against the guys they've been slogging away against all summer. And it benefits the associates more than anyone else, as they are given the much needed experience of regular top-class cricket, where skills can be practiced and developed. And it attracts their players to remain in green or orange colours, instead of trying for moves to bigger sides. Surely this is a great idea for everyone?

This Ireland side could certainly be seen as a golden generation. They've got a young captain, young bowlers and a youthful batting line up. If allowed to develop and grow, they could really create some shockwaves in world cricket over the next few years. However, if not, they could fall apart, and not even be competitive (see here Kenya '11). If the ICC are serious about the development of the associate nations, they have to include teams like Ireland and Holland (and even Kenya, Canada, Scotland, USA, UAE, Italy and the Vatican City) in regular games against the regular countries. Yes, the fixture list is congested, but if pointless fifteen match ODI series between New Zealand and West Indies is changed to a five match tri-series including Afghanistan, then surely the benefits will be far greater than the few extra dollars from Star Sports. We've seen at this World Cup that the minnows are ready to take on the big boys - and don't forget Sri Lanka won the World Cup in 1996 only a few years after being considered minnows themselves.

"Saffers, Saffers everywhere..."

I am lucky enough (or unlucky enough) to be in South Africa throughout this World Cup. While there are some obvious advantages (weather, for one), it does mean I have to put up with the pro-Protea drivel ahead of the inevitable semi-final choke.

Part of the "South Africa is the greatest" hype machine is the "everyone else is rubbish and cheating and don't deserve to win and won't win because South Africa is the greatest" angle. That includes badmouthing all the other teams, by pointing out that they're fulled with Protea rejects. So aren't as good as the real deal.

Take this article as an example. Not content with finding every person who's ever been to Southern Africa, and shoehorning them in as traitors, they're also backhandedly getting their excuses in early. If England win, South Africa win because of Trott, Strauss, Prior and KP. If Kenya win, it's because Jonty Rhodes is their fielding coach. And if Australia win it's because they wear green and gold too.

This general South African feeling of annoyance that their boys are turning out in the blues, greens, reds and blacks of the other nations is not without a slight amount of hypocrisy. I don't know much about Peter Davies, but reading his next blog, he speaks eloquently about how well Imran Tahir bowled. Pakistan born and bred Imran Tahir. The elephant in the room.

I can understand South African frustration that for one reason or another, some of the best players in world cricket have slipped through their fingers. And as an England fan who's seen Pietersen, Trott, Kieswetter and Lumb play this year (don't forget Eoin Morgan... but that's another story) I have accepted that there will be some sniping and bitterness from the South African cricket fraternity. But now, on behalf of world cricket, I'm humbly asking you to quietly stop. The moment Imran Tahir kissed the badge on his chest was the moment the "imported cricketers are ruining the game" argument lost all it's credability.

So no moaning at Ryan ten Doeschate that he went orange instead of green, OK?

World Cup Opening Weekend

I'm contractually obliged in my new role as a Yahoo CommenTweeter not to massively slag off the ICC. So this isn't going to be the whole "The World Cup is stupid, the ICC is stupid" blog that this could have been.

Instead, I'm more questioning the logic of the fixtures. So far we've had three fixtures. India v Bangladesh was the obvious opening fixture, so no complaints with that. It had great atmosphere, great rivalry and was overall a good game (even if one side were always going to dominate it).

Sunday's games have been a bit different. Kenya played New Zealand, and Sri Lanka played Canada. Two obvious minnows against two established members of cricket's upper echelons.

While this World Cup is in it's infancy, surely the organisers would want some good, competitive games in order to ignite interest and excitement in the tournament. Two crushing defeats (which let's be honest, were always going to happen) didn't offer that. The ICC decide upon who plays each other, and when. Surely it would have made more sense to see a New Zealand v Australia, or Sri Lanka v Pakistan or something like that. That would have been more interesting, more engaging, and given this tournament an explosive start. As it is, we've stuttered into the World Cup, and it will need something much more exciting to kick start it and get us going.

So my non-anti-ICC point is that they could have picked better games to get us going, rather than the ones we saw today.

However, the ICC are a fantastic organisation, as are Yahoo, and Reebok, Hero Honda, Reliance, Castrol and Wonga.com