As I watched the live stream of the Ireland vs Jamaica match it became clear that something was not right with the Ireland team.

The lack of intensity in the batting was surpassed when they bowled and fielded. It was probably the most lack lustre performance in the field since Ireland became a professional outfit. It had also seemed to have been a strange decision to leave out John Mooney for Stuart Thompson. For all his potential Stuart was batting too high at seven with Max Sorensen even more out of place at eight.

We now know that John Mooney was not playing because the stress related illness that he had apparently been enduring for some time finally overwhelmed him and he was to return home to his family. Anyone who has spent any time around the Ireland squad will recognise that the entire squad of coaches, support staff and players are also like a family.

And like any family there is the occasional dispute, usually resolved by the daddy of them all Roy Torrens, but like any good family if one member has a problem they will all rally round and offer support and protection from the outside world. That is what this inherently decent group of men clearly did to support John and their thoughts were with him rather than on a cricket match and only those with a heart of stone could criticise them for that.

This is a resilient bunch and they will bounce back and as a group will most likely be stronger for it.
While those watching from the outside would envy the life of a professional international cricketer who is getting paid for doing something he loves, it is easy to overlook the reality that despite the adrenalin rush of match days there is the many days of tedium.

In the last four years the majority of this squad have spent more than a year away from their homes and family. The county players have been away from home for even longer periods. Because Ireland has been so successful on the field it has added to the pressure off it.

Since February 2010 Ireland has visited the UAE 5 times, Sri Lanka, Netherlands and Trinidad twice each, Canada, Zimbabwe, Kenya, India, South Africa, Guyana and next week head to Jamaica for a second time. In addition to this of course there have been many matches in Dublin, Belfast and the North-West plus a visit to Edinburgh.

Exotic as that seems a great deal of it is spent in airports, on long haul flights and living out of a suitcase in a hotel. There is little opportunity to investigate the local countryside or culture. Days are spent going to and from the stadium for practice sessions or matches and then resting. Although loved ones occasionally travel out contact is more often by Skype, e-mail or smart phone. While they generally wouldn’t trade what they do for anything it is far from a nonstop glamorous lifestyle.

While all this was unfolding a rather bizarre piece of commentary and analysis was playing out on ESPN who are covering the Tournament. Ian Bishop was a genuinely fast bowler for Trinidad and the West Indies. In forty three Test matches he took 161 wickets at an average of just over 24 and also snared 118 victims in 84 ODI matches at an average of 26.5 with an economy rate of 4.33.

He was forced to retire from International cricket at the age of thirty because of recurring back problems. He certainly has the credentials to discuss the challenges of Test cricket and he is now a commentator on televised matches in many parts of the world. I would not have put him in the category of Ravi Shastri or Sunil Gavaskar, who, when they are commentating on matches involving India, are regarded as apologists for the BCCI.

However when a match involving an Associate country is televised the commentators, who are almost invariably ex Test players, generally do not even do basic research into the Associate team or their players and if they are not being patronising they are dismissive. There are some notable exceptions to this such as Nasser Hussain and David Lloyd but there are few others. What was even stranger was that prior to going back up to the commentary box, Bishop had a live conversation with Ireland coach Phil Simmons as they walked round the ground during the Jamaica innings.

The two men know each other for a long time having played together for Trinidad and the West Indies and are on good terms. Phil explained that the difficulty with this leg of the trip was there was little preparation and acclimatisation time as Ireland had to preserve its funds so that it could get proper pre- tournament time in Bangladesh prior to the World T20 Cup.

He went on to say that another issue had to be dealt with over the past couple of days. Ian Bishop is an experienced media man at this stage yet didn’t ask Simmons what the issue was and moved the conversation on to another topic. Now either Bishop wasn’t really listening to Phil’s answers or he knew what the issue was and didn’t think it was appropriate to elaborate on it given its sensitivity and the absence of an official Cricket Ireland statement on the situation.

When he resumed his commentary with Fazheer Mohammed Ireland’s hopes of winning were long gone. Bishop then launched into an analysis of why he no longer believed Ireland were ready for Test cricket. He said that after the 2011 World Cup he felt then was the time to give them Test status but the exodus of players since had left them bereft of depth. Other than Boyd Rankin and the retirement of Trent Johnson I am totally unaware of any exodus. I am aware of a lot of new faces in the squad and players who have secured county contracts.

His decision to judge Ireland’s suitability for Test status would appear to have been based on the two games against Guyana and Jamaica, when Paul Stirling and Ed Joyce were absent. There was no mention of Ireland’s historic Triple Crown winning performance last year or of their competitive displays against Pakistan and England.

There was, of course no mention of a 10,000 crowd at a match on a Tuesday in September when the kids are back to school. How many crowds of that size do you see in the Caribbean when the West Indies play?
He clearly ignored Phil’s explanation of the lack of preparation time. If he was aware of the John Mooney situation surely he must have recognised the impact that it would have on the players and if he didn’t know about the situation his failure to ask the question is lazy journalism.

Either way he should not have been making comments about the suitability of Ireland’s bid for Test status without doing the most basic of research. There were discussions in the commentary box about George Dockrell being presented with a cap prior to the match by Cricket Ireland President Robin Walsh. Jeff Dujon, the great former West Indies wicketkeeper, wondered why someone would be getting their first cap when they had been around for a good while.

One of the crew must have done a quick check on Cricinfo and announced that Dockrell had played 58 List A games which caused even more confusion. If they were that interested and they must have been at one level as it was referred to a number of times and they even showed a clip of the presentation, then a quick trip to ask Roy Torrens would have elicited the information that it was his 100th game for Ireland.

So why does any of this matter? It matters because Ian Bishop is a highly respected figure in West Indies cricket as is Jeff Dujon. Bishop has been on the ICC Cricket Committee and of course the ICC are finalising the “Big Three” led domination of international cricket.

The West Indies were conspicuous by their silence during the furore other than to say that they would do what is best for West Indies cricket. Bishop’s commentary style portrays that of a calm and reasoned observer who would not be making a comment without having given it a great deal of thought and research.

He is also a regular commentator in India and shares the box with Shastri and Gavaskar who are effectively employees of the BCCI. One thing is abundantly clear from the ICC proposals issue and that is that every country is more concerned about themselves and the development of the game is at best a distant second.

Bishop’s cheap words will unfortunately receive credence in certain quarters and will be welcomed by some on the political wing of the ICC. Some research on his part would have thrown up figures that he could have shared with his audience in support of his assertion.

Figures such as innings totals of 102,103,134,61,70,98 and 112 which were made in the period between when Bishop felt Ireland were ready for Test status and now. The problem with these figures of course is that they not totals made by Ireland but by the West Indies. Do those figures call into question West Indies suitability for Test cricket?

In their last five Tests West Indies have suffered three innings defeats, an eight wicket defeat and a solitary draw. Bishop questioned Ireland’s strength in depth, so his views on the West Indies performance when they lost both home Tests to Bangladesh because a number of the West Indies players were in dispute with the Board and wouldn’t play, should be interesting.

It is difficult enough for Ireland to reach the top level without being confronted by ill-considered nonsense passed off as in depth analysis. These inherently decent men deserve much better.