.....I'm pretty sure he hammered Bangladesh, taking a hat-trick off of his first 3 balls.howardj said:I don't think the minnows really get anything out of being absolutely hammered. It's pretty obvious that the way for them to improve their standard of cricket is to have a decent domestic structure in place, and to play reasonably regularly against domestic teams from other countries. Incremental improvement - not being absolutely gazzumped by Chaminda Vass (as in the last World Cup) taking 9 for 1 (*slightly exaggerated*) against whoever it was
It doesn't really matter how the 7 big teams approach the "minnow". The "minnow" will face a challenge in playing a top side, and the challenge will be even better if the opposition is batting very attackingly. If they want to advance from "minnow" status, they better live up to the challenge.TIF said:Now what will happen if one of the "minnows" happens to qualify for the super-8s. Bangladesh do have a chance if they can beat one of India or Sri Lanka or have a good run-rate if it comes down to that. A few also have an outside chance.
Now if one of these minnows does get into the super-8s, do you seriously think that they will be in line for 7 more thrashings, considering that they already caused an upset in the 1st round to get there? Will the other 7 big teams look upon this "minnow" in the super-8 as a team over which they can improve their run-rate? Will reaching the super-8s do more harm than good for the "minnow" which finally gets there?
Zimbabwe also beat Australia in 1983, yet the ICC sensibly waited before taking the big plunge with themTop_Cat said:Zimbabwe beating England in 1992 definitely helped their cricket (got Test status the next year I believe).
How exactly did Pakistan throwing that game help Banglabesh, who are still atrocious?Top_Cat said:Bangladesh beating Pakistan in 1999 helped their cricket.
I can recall the Netherlands team in 1996 behaving as though they were on holiday.dontcloseyoureyes said:Also, I think it also gives them something to play for. Can you imagine how much of a thrill it would be for the players in teams like Ireland and Bermuda
I don't mean to be rude, but I strongly reccomend you invest in an Atlas.dontcloseyoureyes said:especially considering Bermuda is close to the WI and probably attain some large local support, to just participate in the World Cup?
My point is that those spots should not exist.dontcloseyoureyes said:Who cares how they play, they know that they might not even compete in the games they play, but they earned their spot there and they deserve to play in my opinion.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks.Langeveldt said:i think the minnows should play more cricket, and fewer world cup games.
Feel free to elaborate on how getting hammered improves your game.dro87 said:no... More teams should play in the world cup... Getting hammered is the best way of getting better...
And I advocate that ONLY these top 8 should be competing. After all, this is the WORLD CUP, not some demonstration tournament. It's to win a world championship in ODI Cricket, it's serious stuff.sirjeremy11 said:I agree with having the teams in groups of four. Basically, the top 8 (you know who they are) SHOULD advance through to the second round,
Point? They beat Australia in 1983 then beat England in 1992 then got Test status. As you said they sensibly waited until Zimbabwe had the infrastructure needed to hst a FC competition.Zimbabwe also beat Australia in 1983, yet the ICC sensibly waited before taking the big plunge with them
Bangladesh won the game, beating Pakistan which obviously helped them with their bid for Test status as well as the large grass-roots support for cricket. Whether Pakistan threw the game (was never proven, if I recall correctly, so the ICC couldnt really point to it as an example of match-fixing per se) is tangential to the point; Bangladesh won, Test status chances were improved. Justified or not, the connection seems pretty clear.How exactly did Pakistan throwing that game help Banglabesh, who are still atrocious?
Oh please; the WC isn't merely a to-win world championship. It's advocacy and a showcase for the game too. Every other sport with a world-cup has teams who won't win it (especially soccer) yet they quite easily accomodate lesser teams. Why should cricket be any different? It would be non-sensical to only include those teams at the top of the tree because otherwise it'll be the same damn teams every time, automatically ensuring very little audience participation from any other countries than those comprising the WI, SA, Aus, Eng, India, Pak, SL and NZ. Cricket has to have longer reach to survive ultimately and how on Earth is that reach supposed to extend without giving lesser teams a go? How are they supposed to get stuff like funding in their own country to improve their situation if the only incentive is to play against other similarly cash-strapped minnows?And I advocate that ONLY these top 8 should be competing. After all, this is the WORLD CUP, not some demonstration tournament. It's to win a world championship in ODI Cricket, it's serious stuff.
My point is that Zimbabwe were given test status after cricket had already been established in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe for at least 60/70 years. Zimbabwe weren't given test status becausethey trimphed against the eventually finalising English, they already had established infrastructure and heritage. Even then Zimbabwe head too prove it had quality criketers and the prospect of more on the horizon.Top_Cat said:Point? They beat Australia in 1983 then beat England in 1992 then got Test status. As you said they sensibly waited until Zimbabwe had the infrastructure needed to hst a FC competition.
They improved? in what game? I suggest you actually watch some footage of Bangladesh before you make such claims, because they've looked pretty awful to me.Top_Cat said:Bangladesh won the game, beating Pakistan which obviously helped them with their bid for Test status as well as the large grass-roots support for cricket. Whether Pakistan threw the game (was never proven, if I recall correctly, so the ICC couldnt really point to it as an example of match-fixing per se) is tangential to the point; Bangladesh won, Test status chances were improved. Justified or not, the connection seems pretty clear.
As for whether Bangladesh deserve Test status, they did and will improve. Their juniors are already showing signs of promise. They've been a Test side for a few years now and whilst they've been the international whipping boys to this point, I don't think it'll last too much longer.