• 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.

The Afghanistan Thread - Mk II

Xuhaib

International Coach
Kenya should be disappointed with their efforts just shows haw much they have fallen of the ladder since 03.
 

Kweek

Cricketer Of The Year
^Hahaha

anyway, very happy that even without RtD we are awesome! imagine Schiferli and Nannes opening the bowling!
first time in years I feel confidentish about dutch cricket..

Afghanistan have impressed but personally, I do hope it does get a lot of media coverage in Afghanistan, and not just the media attention to make it look like America did well for attacking Afghanistan...
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Im not sure of the wisdom of granting OD status to a nation with no infrastructure, little depth, no prospect of hosting games or a proven history of producing talent.

However, that is by-the-by.

Congrats to them for their achievement. They played some very impressive cricket by the sounds of it. Also, it is an uplifting story. Great that they have made some people smile.

Definately a feel good story.
 
Last edited:

Manee

Cricketer Of The Year
Congratulations to Afghanistan. I recall reading a few months back that they were an up-and-coming force but I suspected that it was in the five to ten year period rather than the one year period.
 

jeevan

International 12th Man
Im not sure of the wisdom of granting OD status to a nation with no infrastructure, little depth, no prospect of hosting games or a proven history of producing talent.

However, that is by-the-by.

Congrats to them for their achievement. They played some very impressive cricket by the sounds of it. Also, it is an uplifting story. Great that they have made some people smile.

Definately a feel good story.
Technically, it isn't something that was granted to them but something they earned by placing themselves in the top 6 of associate nations. They played every other similar associate nation to do so. These rules were made well before Afghanistan was a contender for such a slot, no bars were lowered for them and no strings were pulled.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Technically, it isn't something that was granted to them but something they earned by placing themselves in the top 6 of associate nations. They played every other similar associate nation to do so. These rules were made well before Afghanistan was a contender for such a slot, no bars were lowered for them and no strings were pulled.
All true. Afghanistan earned their place fair and square.

However, as I mentioned in another thread (not regarding Afghanistan on this point) is that the system seems flawed where 4 years of status is dependant on the result of a few games in a short period of time.

IMO, too much rides on one short tournament.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
If after four years of extra funding, if you can't place into the top six even accounting for a dip in form, do you really deserve ODI status?
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
I dont think it is a flawed system at all, teams are called World Champs for four years after winning few matches in a tournament. I remember India beat WI in 1983 and immidiately after that WI came ti India and humiliated us both in Tests and ODIs. Doesn't mean that India didn't deserve the tag of World Champs.

There will be always be weaker teams and there will always be one sided games, no matter what system we follow. It is a fair result for Afghanistan and hopefully this marks the beginning of a new era for the country and its people.
 

gunner

U19 Cricketer
who knows maybe we will see afghanistan vs pakistan as a rivalry to replace pak vs india.
 
Last edited:

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
If after four years of extra funding, if you can't place into the top six even accounting for a dip in form, do you really deserve ODI status?
It depends. A one off tournament is hardly the best way to gauge progress. I can understand an event being a qualifyer for the WC as it is one event to qualify for another (ignoring the fact that the next World Cup is years away). That part of the event makes sense.

But it makes no sense to give a 4 year status based on one event. Anything could happen.

A couple of injuries, maybe loss of form, players withdrawing, a bit of bad luck etc and a team like Ireland may have lost OD status. They are clearly the best Associate and yet they could have had it all taken away if a couple of results went the other way.
 
Last edited:

brockley

International Captain
I think its hard to look at afghansitan without first looking at the polictics of the situation 8-).
Ah got ya wind up :laugh:
Congrats Ghanis' on winning your first one dayer,no thumbs up smiley will have to do something about that :)
 

jeevan

International 12th Man
All true. Afghanistan earned their place fair and square.

However, as I mentioned in another thread (not regarding Afghanistan on this point) is that the system seems flawed where 4 years of status is dependant on the result of a few games in a short period of time.

IMO, too much rides on one short tournament.
It might be asking too much of amateur teams to turn out every year to prove themselves? Or even to be touring constantly to have more continuous feedback.

If you are recommending handing out similar level funding to, say 10 teams instead of 6, for the furtherment of the game, sounds good to me. There's enough money to go around.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
It might be asking too much of amateur teams to turn out every year to prove themselves? Or even to be touring constantly to have more continuous feedback.

If you are recommending handing out similar level funding to, say 10 teams instead of 6, for the furtherment of the game, sounds good to me. There's enough money to go around.
No there isn't. Instead of providing almost a useless amount of funding to the top six, they need to pick maybe two (picking the countries who have done well but also have the interest, infrastructure and administration) and really fund their infrastructure, domestic system, make sure they have a contigent of professionals playing.
 

jeevan

International 12th Man
If after four years of extra funding, if you can't place into the top six even accounting for a dip in form, do you really deserve ODI status?
No on the ODI status, but a case could be made for continued funding. What a Harbhajan or a Duminy collects from IPL for 12 games might fund an entire associate team (for Afghanistan, including full salaries for 20 people) for 12 months.

Heck, ICC can make each IPL franchise sponsor an associate country for a couple of million a year plus allowing one player not counting towards the 4 foreign quota.
 

jeevan

International 12th Man
No there isn't. Instead of providing almost a useless amount of funding to the top six, they need to pick maybe two (picking the countries who have done well but also have the interest, infrastructure and administration) and really fund their infrastructure, domestic system, make sure they have a contigent of professionals playing.
How much is the funding involved here? A few million goes a long way, depending on which country we are talking about.

Problem I have with your point of view is that it is impossible to predict if Afghanistan might turn out to be better than, say Netherlands, in 4 or 8 years. On zero money they will not. For a couple of million a year?
 
Last edited:

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
No there isn't. Instead of providing almost a useless amount of funding to the top six, they need to pick maybe two (picking the countries who have done well but also have the interest, infrastructure and administration) and really fund their infrastructure, domestic system, make sure they have a contigent of professionals playing.
Countries like Afghanistan will always have enough interest because of their proximity with India/Pak, Infrastructure is something they will depend on ICC and on India/Pak, Administration should not be a criteria, because none of the Asian countries have decent administration.

I would rather have ICC money (and effort) utilized on building infrastructure in a country like Afghanistan where the scope of survival/progress of cricket is much more than a country like say Canada/USA, which will never be able to recognize cricket as some sort of national sport followed by the mainstream population.

And if at all there was enough interest in these countries, they will not need ICC money/effort to build the infrastructure.
 
Last edited:

Top