Is ODI status been given out too easily?

[LA ICE-E]

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.

well guess what you don't get to decide if there's hope for me as a cricket follower or not. I know the difference but they can compete but not as frequently.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

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.

Not to mention it ****ing up the stats.

 

[Richard]

well guess what you don't get to decide if there's hope for me as a cricket follower or not.

No, but many others will come to simlar conclusions (plenty already have).

 

[Richard]

Not to mention it ****ing up the stats.

That's less of a problem than it might be - these days at least those who understand the game properly mostly accept stats only considering regular, top-eight ODI teams ahead of I$C$C-defined ones.

The less informed, though, don't make enough effort to. And of course you'll always get certain people who maintain they don't care about stats at all when making-up their minds on players.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

That's less of a problem than it might be - these days at least those who understand the game properly mostly accept stats only considering regular, top-eight ODI teams ahead of I$C$C-defined ones.

The less informed, though, don't make enough effort to. And of course you'll always get certain people who maintain they don't care about stats at all when making-up their minds on players.

Was talking more about this......
SR Tendulkar (India)
ST Jayasuriya (Asia/SL)
Inzamam-ul-Haq (Asia/Pak)
SC Ganguly (Asia/India)
RT Ponting (Aus/ICC)
R Dravid (Asia/ICC/India)

 

[LA ICE-E]

No, but many others will come to simlar conclusions (plenty already have).

oh so i need permission from dushbags if should follow cricket or not? I don't care why conclusion they may come to I'll still do what I want and if I want to follow cricket then I'll

 

[Richard]

Most people tend to care what others (douchebags excepted) think of them, though, that's the thing. There's no more than a tiny number of douchebags on this forum, of which hardly any have had any conversation with you.

 

[Richard]

Was talking more about this......
SR Tendulkar (India)
ST Jayasuriya (Asia/SL)
Inzamam-ul-Haq (Asia/Pak)
SC Ganguly (Asia/India)
RT Ponting (Aus/ICC)
R Dravid (Asia/ICC/India)

Aye, that's utter nonsense too. No-one should skip between ODI teams. It's dubious enough that people can change allegiance over time, never mind being simualtaneously eligable for more than one.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Most people tend to care what others (douchebags excepted) think of them, though, that's the thing. There's no more than a tiny number of douchebags on this forum, of which hardly any have had any conversation with you.

Actually no gotta do your own thing, doesn't matter what others think of you. That;s because there's only a few dooshbags here, the rest are pretty ok.

 

[Richard]

Actually no gotta do your own thing, doesn't matter what others think of you.

Oh dear.

Anyone who doesn't care what others think of them is always highly questionable to me.

 

[andruid]

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

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

What One World Cup appearnce where they won 2 matches overall? Hardly proves anything considering Kenya were appearing at their 4th consecutive World Cup had beaten Bangladesh, West Indies, and Sri Lanka and then still fairly strong Zimbabwe side on the field. That I digress from the pint of the topic is true but that issue had to be clarified.

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.

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.

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.

All the above points save the further point to the rather meaningless nature of the Label ODI International. If having ODI status, that is the right to have all one's 50 over Internationals listed as ODIs (something that is only stricctly true with the 16 teams that were at the 07 World Cup) was really worth something ie. real progress with funding/revenue, popularity and growth of the game in the teams involved then there would be an issue over anyold match being granted ODI status, but that is hardly the case.

 

[slugger]

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.

this is on the surface seems a clever reply... but there is a big difference to comparing those 8 teams ODI standards to the associates.. sure when they all started playing the game from the early 70's onwards.. they adapted to the new format and certainly begun all at the seem level.. but its not like they started playin the game a decade or two before then..

Aust first Test 1877 First ODI 1971 = 94 years of cricket exp.
Eng " " 1877 " " 1971 = 94 " " "
RSA " " 1889 " " 1991 = 102 " " " (-30) aparthied = 72 years.
WI " " 1928 " " 1973 = 45 " " "
NZ " " 1930 " " 1973 = 43 " " "
IND " " 1932 " " 1974 = 42 " " "
PAK " " 1952 " " 1973 = 21 " " "

In Reverse
SRL first ODI 1975 First Test 1982 = 7 years of cricket exp.
ZIM " " 1983 " " 1992 = 9 " "
BAN " " 1986 " " 2000 = 14 " "

anyway the point is at some time you have to allow X country to be granted a status all the above teams have won an odi some have won a wc (more than once )some not at all (even with a close to 100 years exp.) while SRL won with the atleast amount of cricket exp.

 

[irfan]

It seems to be far easier to get ODI status than it is to scrooge money out of Centrelink. Thinking of starting my own country, call it Irfania, recruit some Australian grade cricketers, play against UAE, HK and the like - qualify for the WC, get flogged by Gambhir, Sehwag and Hayden and then apply for developmental assistance from the ICC.

As long as my country doesn't get ruled by a crazy dictator, I'll still have ODI status and be recognised by the ICC. Seems to be the ideal money making scheme, as you don't even have to invest vast amounts of money back into the players, coz let's face it they're grade cricketers and should have a proper job anyway

 

[Burgey]

Well England have ODI status.

Says it all really

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Well England have ODI status.

Says it all really

Would be harsh for them not to have ODI status since they invented the game, no matter how crap they are.

 

[Natman20]

Associates need to play against international teams to develop. It happens in most sports so why not cricket. Its not like they are putting a huge dent on international calenders. If they never get experience against the best how are they meant to develop and finally break into the top teams. Now everyone would argue that they'd never make it but you just have to look at the success of Zimbabwe (for a while), the development of New Zealand over long term exposure and some competetiveness from the Bangladesh team.

So I am obviously saying that some associates should get a few international matches but only limited numbers per year and that if any other associate is better than them then they should be replaced on the calender etc.

 

[Richard]

this is on the surface seems a clever reply... but there is a big difference to comparing those 8 teams ODI standards to the associates.. sure when they all started playing the game from the early 70's onwards.. they adapted to the new format and certainly begun all at the seem level.. but its not like they started playin the game a decade or two before then..

Aust first Test 1877 First ODI 1971 = 94 years of cricket exp.
Eng " " 1877 " " 1971 = 94 " " "
RSA " " 1889 " " 1991 = 102 " " " (-30) aparthied = 72 years.
WI " " 1928 " " 1973 = 45 " " "
NZ " " 1930 " " 1973 = 43 " " "
IND " " 1932 " " 1974 = 42 " " "
PAK " " 1952 " " 1973 = 21 " " "

In Reverse
SRL first ODI 1975 First Test 1982 = 7 years of cricket exp.
ZIM " " 1983 " " 1992 = 9 " "
BAN " " 1986 " " 2000 = 14 " "

anyway the point is at some time you have to allow X country to be granted a status all the above teams have won an odi some have won a wc (more than once )some not at all (even with a close to 100 years exp.) while SRL won with the atleast amount of cricket exp.

I really don't see what you're suggesting here. The amount of time between playing your maiden Test is irrelevant to anyone who was playing Tests pre-one-day-cricket. They were all in the same basket. Though obviously there were variants, depending on who'd established a domestic one-day structure. However, the game was so ill-evolved at that time that it often didn't matter (West Indies won the first two World Cups and should have won the third, all without a domestic one-day competition).

Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe could justifiably have been given Test status at the same time as they played their first World Cups. Bangladesh have never at any point merited ODI or Test status. The above proves nothing.

 

[Richard]

Associates need to play against international teams to develop. Its not like they are putting a huge dent on international calenders. If they never get experience against the best how are they meant to develop and finally break into the top teams. Now everyone would argue that they'd never make it but you just have to look at the success of Zimbabwe (for a while), the development of New Zealand over long term exposure and some competetiveness from the Bangladesh team.

So I am obviously saying that some associates should get a few international matches but only limited numbers per year and that if any other associate is better than them then they should be replaced on the calender etc.

I don't see how being thrashed, be it constantly or 3 or 4 times per year, does any team any good. The only way you'll get better is by playing against those close to your level. And even if I$C$C were intent on encouraging mismatches, the games should never, ever have ODI status until they're a decent match.

It happens in most sports so why not cricket.

Because cricket isn't other sports, and shouldn't be compared to them.

 

[Richard]

All the above points save the further point to the rather meaningless nature of the Label ODI International. If having ODI status, that is the right to have all one's 50 over Internationals listed as ODIs (something that is only stricctly true with the 16 teams that were at the 07 World Cup) was really worth something ie. real progress with funding/revenue, popularity and growth of the game in the teams involved then there would be an issue over any old match being granted ODI status, but that is hardly the case.

I agree basically with what you're saying - provided I'm interpreting it rightly, that is. ODI status doesn't add any significant prestige - you can't create a cricketing culture artificially, only those involved at grassroots level can even have a chance of doing that (and at the end of the day, if the population don't wanna know, it don't wanna know and no-one can do anything with that).

If someone is attempting to give prestige to a team by giving it ODI status, they're going to be disappointed. So therefore, there's no point wrecking the integrity of the ODI game by giving status to joke teams like Bermuda.

 

[Athlai]

Reckon Bangladesh deserve their ODI tag but not their Test one. While they are not as good as the other teams yet, they certainly can compete. Teams like Ireland, Scotland, Canada etc. I don't mind so much considering how infrequently they play, though it would be preferable if they could play a full team.