• 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.

Question

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Is it good or bad for the game if the Canadas, Hollands or Irelands of the world defeat Bangladesh, Zimbabwe or Kenya?

Especially with regards to Bangladesh.
 
Last edited:

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
I need to make an apostrophe patrol picture. Angry angry angry.

Think it would be a huge kick in the the teeth for Bangladesh - but it's needed for Zimbabwe to, as ever, point out just how messed up the place is.
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Is it good or bad for the game if the Canadas, Hollands or Irelands of the world defeat Bangladesh, Zimbabwe or Kenya?

Especially with regards to Bangladesh.
Given that the former are part of the world cricket "family", I'd view it as a positive if for no other reasons than it justifies their inclusion in major events and encourages further development of the game in those countries.
 

C_C

International Captain
I think it'd do cricket more harm than good if bangladesh/zimbabwe manages to lose to holland or canada. Any other team, i'd say sure- it'd do cricket a whole lot of good in those nations if they beat a decent team.
 

NZTailender

I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Beating Zimbabwe, yes. Bangladesh and Kenya, no. Those two teams should be streets ahead of the likes of Canada, Bermuda and Holland.

Zimbabwe needs a regime change but thats OT.


If Bermuda, Canada or Holland were to beat one of the top 8 nations, then it'd be good for cricket.

Davison 145* to lead Canada to victory over England, anyone? :p
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
For me the answer is quite simple.

If the country in question has a decent domestic structure and produces a high number of home grown players (eg Scotland, Netherlands, Ireland, Bermuda) then it is a very good thing for the growth and global strength of the game.

If the counrty is made up of ex-pat players and have issues producing domestic players (eg Canada and the USA in the Champions Trophy) then it is a negative thing that does little to reward nations for investing in doomestic structures.
 

nightprowler10

Global Moderator
For me the answer is quite simple.

If the country in question has a decent domestic structure and produces a high number of home grown players (eg Scotland, Netherlands, Ireland, Bermuda) then it is a very good thing for the growth and global strength of the game.

If the counrty is made up of ex-pat players and have issues producing domestic players (eg Canada and the USA in the Champions Trophy) then it is a negative thing that does little to reward nations for investing in doomestic structures.
Couldn't have said it better myself. BTW, did this question pop up after the near defeat of Bangladesh at the hands of Canada?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
All I ask is: why would it make any difference?

It'll be forgotten a few months down the line, just like Canada beating Bangladesh was last time.
 

Pup Clarke

Cricketer Of The Year
All I ask is: why would it make any difference?

It'll be forgotten a few months down the line, just like Canada beating Bangladesh was last time.
I don't think it will be forgotten Richard.As Goughy said it will defiently help the likes of Scotland and Ireland develop and get more people playing cricket.
 

savill

School Boy/Girl Captain
For me the answer is quite simple.

If the country in question has a decent domestic structure and produces a high number of home grown players (eg Scotland, Netherlands, Ireland, Bermuda) then it is a very good thing for the growth and global strength of the game.

If the counrty is made up of ex-pat players and have issues producing domestic players (eg Canada and the USA in the Champions Trophy) then it is a negative thing that does little to reward nations for investing in doomestic structures.
Agreed, although it may not be a huge scale victory due to the opposition, it will surely show a sign that these nations are delevoping quickly - although Ireland seem to have a few players from other countries qualifying through residency.

I think Holland could well develop into a strong ODI side, with players like RTD, Van Bunge etc. It's nice to see that there is talent coming through from the Netherlands, and I'm sure that if money was invested into improving grass roots/domestic structure they can really kick on.
 

Tomm NCCC

International 12th Man
Interesting point, I think it would actually be good, showing that they can compete at a decent(ish) level of competetiveness
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
It would be a slap in the ICC's face if Bangladesh come unstuck against Bermuda, but that clearly will not happen. Obviously the theory that playing the strongest nations will help them grow as a cricketing nation will be proved to be so much cant if, by some miracle, they actually did contrive to lose. It'd be bad news for the ICC, but good news for cricket's pretensions of spreading the gospel outside the traditional countries.

Zimbabwe are really only a test nation in name now & Kenya have had their own issues too. Of all the possible upsets Ireland turning Zimabawe over would've looked the most likely before the World League, but yer Micks hardly covered themselves with glory. Canada have a puncher's chance aganist Kenya, but as Goughy & others observe, their squad's make up is primarily ex-pats. There are only three native-born Canucks &, of those, Davison & Billcliff were Australasian-raised, leaving Kevin Sandher as the sole real McCoy born-and-raised Canadian.

This being so, I do wonder how they're allowed to get away with it. I thought after the UAE's team in 1996 regulations were introduced to make sure teams had to have a certain number of local players?
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Well, really, it depends if having a higher number of elite teams is better for cricket, or having a higher overall number of somewhat competitive teams is better for cricket.

Personally, I'd much rather see Bangladesh make themselves test quality and justify thier status than have another almost-there-but-not-quite Bangladesh-esque team that the other teams can batter around regularly.

But really, I don't see one victory doing a great deal in either case - only domestic competition growth will do that.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
It would be a slap in the ICC's face if Bangladesh come unstuck against Bermuda, but that clearly will not happen.
Willing to put an extension on the time you have Sinaed et al in your avatar on that-'un? :p

Against nothing, I might add.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
That's the price you pay for such finality in your comments...

If you make them, you must put your money where your mouth is IMO... :sleep:
 

luffy

International Captain
The first thing i thought was "That it would be good for Cricket", but then when i actually thought about it, if those 3 teams maybe lost against much weaker teams, it could almost be a diasaster(sp) as it will be a big kick in the guts to those teams, and they may never recover from it.
 

Top