ICC Champions Trophy 2004

[Craig]

Originally Posted by anzac

wow how did you manage to quote & respond to the post on what seems to be 2 posts?????

Because I spelt "quote" wrong.

Originally Posted by anzac

Tuffey is more of a strike bowler, but his lack of pace can be limiting - hence my desire for another partner in crime for Bond...............currently the bowling only offers 2 such options (Bond & Tuffey) with Cairns potentially a 3rd, out of 6 bowling options (Oram, Vettori, Styris, Mills/Mason) - not enough firepower IMO to consistantly win series or esp a tourneyment.......

In all honesty Tuffey was pretty unthreatening during the South African Test series. He seemed to be used a "stock" bowler.

With some helpful conditions Chris Martin should be effective enough.

[ash chaulk]

u would have to say that cricket in the USA is like Gridiron in Australia - a very small community of teams but there are state championships.

[a massive zebra]

Originally Posted by Sehwag309

The US may never adopt cricket as many argue (read somwhere ) that cricket doesn't offer the same physical exercise that their sport has.

As soon as the US gets their hands on the game, they'll change it for the worse in order to make it appeal to the masses. America will never understand 5-day tests and I'm quite happy about that.

For one thing, the test calendar is crowded enough: we don't need to encourage more to join.

I think Bangladesh should be demoted to Associate status due to incompitence and Zimbabwe should be banned for bringing the game into disprepute. That would free the calendar up a little, increase the standard and prevent players from improving their records in a way not possible in the past - slaughtering Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

If this is done every Test would be a 'test'. Not just easy pickings and one sided afairs.

[Neil Pickup]

Originally Posted by a massive zebra

As soon as the US gets their hands on the game, they'll change it for the worse in order to make it appeal to the masses. America will never understand 5-day tests and I'm quite happy about that.

For one thing, the test calendar is crowded enough: we don't need to encourage more to join.

I think Bangladesh should be demoted to Associate status due to incompitence and Zimbabwe should be banned for bringing the game into disprepute. That would free the calendar up a little, increase the standard and prevent players from improving their records in a way not possible in the past - slaughtering Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

If this is done every Test would be a 'test'. Not just easy pickings and one sided afairs.

Kicking Bangladesh out would be a backward step.

[a massive zebra]

Originally Posted by Neil Pickup

Kicking Bangladesh out would be a backward step.

Even though they are useless easy pickings who help to unfairly boost modern Test players records. Kenya are better. 10 Test teams is too many and Bangladesh are maybe the 11th team in the world, although they did lose to Canada in the World Cup so that might be a little generous. Only Habibul Bashar, Mohammad Rafique and Mushrafe Mortaza are remotely close to Test standard. The rest are an embarassment at best.

See your point about builing for the future but why can that not be used in Kenya's favour. They have a better crop of players than Bangla.

[Neil Pickup]

Please..

The same could be sad of every other side that joined the Test arena in their early years. Five day cricket is nothing like one day cricket in terms of adaptation - I would confidently back Bangladesh to dispatch Kenya (and Mugabwe) in a First Class match.

Dav Whatmore has transformed the side.

[a massive zebra]

Originally Posted by Neil Pickup

Please..

The same could be sad of every other side that joined the Test arena in their early years.

No. Obviously Australia and England cannot have been too bad when they started for obvious reasons. West Indies were good when they started with Headley, Constantine, Martindale etc. Sri Lanka were a decent batting side when they started. Zimbabwe were not bad when they started - not easy to beat and far better than they are now. India and Pakistan were not bad when they started although admittedly not exactly the finshed article.

South Africa had the worst batting lineup ever when they started, Bangla have the worst bowling attack ever. New Zealand couldn't win a match when they started, but were not as bad as Bangla,

From my review you can see that it was fairly mixed and Bangladesh were certainly the worst side ever to be awarded Test status. Its undeserved.

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by a massive zebra

No. Obviously Australia and England cannot have been too bad when they started for obvious reasons. West Indies were good when they started with Headley, Constantine, Martindale etc. Sri Lanka were a decent batting side when they started. Zimbabwe were not bad when they started - not easy to beat and far better than they are now. India and Pakistan were not bad when they started although admittedly not exactly the finshed article.

South Africa had the worst batting lineup ever when they started, Bangla have the worst bowling attack ever. New Zealand couldn't win a match when they started, but were not as bad as Bangla,

From my review you can see that it was fairly mixed and Bangladesh were certainly the worst side ever to be awarded Test status. Its undeserved.

whats is this...why does everyone tonight seem to think Sri Lanka were a good team in the 80's.

Sri Lanka were a very poor team for about the first 10 years in test cricket

[Revelation]

Bangladesh's Test status came about due to asian politics. That's ALL. It had absolutely nothing to do with competence.

[Neil Pickup]

No one is disputing that the decision to award Bangladesh Test Status off the back of one decidedly dodgy ODI win over Pakistan was flawed (hence the reason it's not being repeated with Kenya).

Removing it would cause huge damage. Bangladesh's last four series have been as competitive as could be expected, if not better. Remember Multan?

[anzac]

Originally Posted by Craig

In all honesty Tuffey was pretty unthreatening during the South African Test series. He seemed to be used a "stock" bowler.

playing with injury as it appears & not fully fit / effective...........