• 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.

Is ODI status been given out too easily?

Is ODI status given out too easy?


  • Total voters
    36

Janus

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
shocking stuff, and their about to loose to Scotland so I really wonder why Ireland even bothered to field a team. If the quality can't be played then they shouldn't be playing at all. It's like the Spanish football team going to the World cup with players from the Segunda...
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
I don't see why the only games termed "ODI" shouldn't be those between two ODI-standard teams, and never have.

I wouldn't even give World Cup games between, say, East Africa and New Zealand or Canada and England ODI status. And certainly not these nonsense games like Hong Kong vs Bangladesh or Ireland vs New Zealand.

If it must be done, I'd split the thing up. "Senior" ODIs (between ODI-standard teams) and "Junior" ODIs (between a ODI-standard team and a substandard one or two substandard ones).

Certainly, the fact that Bermuda vs India, never mind Bermuda vs Canada, is classified the same as New Zealand vs Sri Lanka, makes a mockery of what cricket has always stood for. The elite merit a status above that of the non-elite, unlike in most other sports.
Agree in principle, but that would have meant the semi-final of the WC in 03 not being classified as an ODI which would make a mockery of the whole tournament.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Why?

TBH I don't think, even if it did, it'd be any more of a mockery-making than the fact Kenya got there ITFP.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Because if the early stages of the WC are ODIs yet a semi-final isn't, then that implies that the earlier games are more prestigious. There is only one limited overs cricket match more prestigious than a WC semi-final, regardless of the opposition.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I think ODI status confers the prestige on what deserves it.

The team's long-term performances is more important than any one-off nature of a game.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
That's not really the point though. If you play for your team in a WC final, you should get an ODI cap for it. I know you are set on how you feel about this, but I think for a tournament, all games within it need to be given equal status. A bit like the fact that the Havant & Waterlooville players have notched up a few pro appearances due to their FA Cup run last season, and Liverpool/Swansea players similarly get appearance credits against them (and goals conceded :cool:)
 

LA ICE-E

State Captain
You are correct in saying that ODI's are generally seen as a lesser form of cricket, when placed next to Test matches.

However, letting countries which are patently sub-ODI standard (such as Bermuda) play official ODI's is, IMO, unacceptable. In practice, there is also little difference between Test-class games and ODI-class games. As such, we can afford to maintain consistency where the classification of the two forms of cricket are concerned. Bangladesh, FWIW, are closer to being ODI-class than Test-class, but they are not quite there.

To sum up, cricketing records (whether they be Test or ODI) should not be distorted by the proliferation of minnows. It makes the standard of cricket look poorer and leads to the stigmatisation of some talented cricketers as 'minnow-bashers' and the like. Undue hype may also be built up around certain players, as well.
Yeah they are susstandard right now but almost every country was substandard in the beginning with only small chances of upsets but eventually they become better.

IMO, this is slightly naive reasoning - particularly given that Bermuda's performances in the 2007 World Cup were nightmarish, to say the least.

These nations should not, I don't think, be allowed to qualify for such an event, as they reduce the intended prestige of the tournament (World Cup's and Champions Trophies, for that matter, have been devalued by the presence of minnows). They may also wreck the confidence of the minnow nations (this theory is currently being played out at Test-level with Bangladesh, FFS).
Bermuda made it there by a miracle they performed really well when it mattered (in the icc trophy) but really drooped down in form afterwards. They won't have ODI status after 2009 if they play like that. So you can't really make a prejudice about the rest of the top associates by that.

shocking stuff, and their about to loose to Scotland so I really wonder why Ireland even bothered to field a team. If the quality can't be played then they shouldn't be playing at all. It's like the Spanish football team going to the World cup with players from the Segunda...
This isn't the world cup and again not much they could have done until they put players on contracts.to have a full strength team.

Not really, IMO. If you're good enough to compete regularly with the ODI-class pack, you're good enough to have played a ODI. And not otherwise.
A lot of countries didn't really compete when they 1st got it but they later stepped up their game as time went on. Plus they need to get games with the top regularly then.
 

LA ICE-E

State Captain
I think ODI status confers the prestige on what deserves it.

The team's long-term performances is more important than any one-off nature of a game.
I think the world cup confers the prestige it deserves it. World Cup > than ODI's and it's stats and what have you.
 

archie mac

International Coach
Tbh I think they should give every country ODI and 20/20 status, who cares?:sleep:

And if they win the ODI WC then they can have Test status:ph34r:
 

LA ICE-E

State Captain
Tbh I think they should give every country ODI and 20/20 status, who cares?:sleep:

And if they win the ODI WC then they can have Test status:ph34r:
well i think they should have less stricter rule for 20/20 status and have it for more countries, then a tougher criteria for odi status then the toughest criteria which is basically saying you have to be a cricketing nation then you get test status become a full member.
 

archie mac

International Coach
well i think they should have less stricter rule for 20/20 status and have it for more countries, then a tougher criteria for odi status then the toughest criteria which is basically saying you have to be a cricketing nation then you get test status become a full member.
Yes I would be happy with that:happy:
 

Jonty Lathwal

U19 Debutant
Take into account this match as one example. I don't have a problem with such games or the Asia Cup which has featured the UAE and Hong Kong being played, but really must they be given ODI status, when it proves nothing except players go out and boost their career averages and the minnow cops a massive defeat, which does nothing for the players confidence, who wants to lose by 290 runs? And this game still doesn't prove that James Marshall is suddenly good enough for the New Zealand, rather he is still crap and should not be withing a 10km radius. If he does suddenly kick on and actually does something against a real team, then all the power to him, but I still don't think it should count as an ODI, rather as a List A game (not even played in Ireland FFS).

Of course we can't forget about the perfomances of the UAE and Hong Kong as well, the massive hammerings been given out as well. What purpose is there for those games to have ODI status, when it doesn't really change our opinion of said players anyway? Big deal that Virender Sehwag or Suresh Raina got runs against Hong Kong, it doesn't really change my views on both players. And what have Netherlands, Canada or Bermuda have justification for having ODI status as well (including Ireland)?

The World Cup is about as far as I would go ITBT.

(I did delate the double thread of this, but that was through an error in the thread title)


Ireland is a better team than any othet associate.......

and they have proven in the world cup......:)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
That's not really the point though. If you play for your team in a WC final, you should get an ODI cap for it. I know you are set on how you feel about this, but I think for a tournament, all games within it need to be given equal status. A bit like the fact that the Havant & Waterlooville players have notched up a few pro appearances due to their FA Cup run last season, and Liverpool/Swansea players similarly get appearance credits against them (and goals conceded :cool:)
Meh, I don't TBH. I think as long as the points and results count, it doesn't matter what the status of the games is. And PLEASE don't make football analogies - there is virtually no status system in football, classification of games is as good as non-existant. A game is a game and that's about it.

I'd imagine most Kenyan players would be rather more pleased to have reached a World Cup semi-final than to have ODI caps myself TBH.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Yeah they are susstandard right now but almost every country was substandard in the beginning with only small chances of upsets but eventually they become better.

A lot of countries didn't really compete when they 1st got it but they later stepped up their game as time went on. Plus they need to get games with the top regularly then.
Nonsense. The first teams to play ODIs (Australia, England, West Indies, New Zealand, Pakistan, India) were all ODI-class from the start; Sri Lanka essentially were when they were brought in not long after; Zimbabwe won their debut ODI, showing they obviously emphatically were; and South Africa most certainly were when they returned to the international scene to play their debut ODI.

In fact it wouldn't be off-the-cuff to say that no-one has yet gone from substandard in ODIs to ODI-standard. That's not to say Bangladesh won't, of course, but they still haven't despite playing the things for 20-odd years now. With all others, there's a huge question-mark over whether they will and until they do their games do not deserve ODI status.
 

LA ICE-E

State Captain
Nonsense. The first teams to play ODIs (Australia, England, West Indies, New Zealand, Pakistan, India) were all ODI-class from the start; Sri Lanka essentially were when they were brought in not long after; Zimbabwe won their debut ODI, showing they obviously emphatically were; and South Africa most certainly were when they returned to the international scene to play their debut ODI.

In fact it wouldn't be off-the-cuff to say that no-one has yet gone from substandard in ODIs to ODI-standard. That's not to say Bangladesh won't, of course, but they still haven't despite playing the things for 20-odd years now. With all others, there's a huge question-mark over whether they will and until they do their games do not deserve ODI status.
There's no reason World Cup stats and ODI stats have to be 100% overlapping.
Well to me they are ODI standard to you they are not. Nothing but opinions here. May be you have too high of standards, hell australia at one point was at a whole different level then the rest of the countries should have had super odi status?
 

andruid

Cricketer Of The Year
Given that in its current form it does not mean eff all I couldn't be bothered if the ICC decidied all 50 over international matches ever were ODIs
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Well to me they are ODI standard to you they are not. Nothing but opinions here. May be you have too high of standards, hell australia at one point was at a whole different level then the rest of the countries should have had super odi status?
Nope, Australia were never anywhere near as far ahead of the other seven (sometimes eight when Zimbabwe were still good) as the ODI-standard teams were ahead of the non-ODI-standard ones.

If you really can't see that the top eight teams are on a totally different level to anyone below them, and that the difference between eighth and ninth is probably about twice the size, if not twenty times that, of that between eighth and first, there's frankly not a lot of hope for you as a cricket follower.
 

KiWiNiNjA

International Coach
Not just with the associate nations, but with "all-star teams", for lack of a better word.

Why the **** should Asian XI vs African XI be giving ****en ODI status. :@
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Indeed, that too is ridiculous.

I actually think Asia vs Africa is the least stupid of the "non-regular" teams given ODI status of late, and the "Rest Of World XI" and "Tsunami relief" matches were far more stupidly given it. If the players could be persuaded to take Asia vs Africa seriously (and if Africa could once more become something more than SA) then I actually think those games have some potential. But it's obvious no-one really cared much for them when they were played and they should never have been ODIs.
 

Top