Do we need them....?

[RickyPonting14]

Do we need teams like Bangladesh, Canada, Namibia etc

I think that they should just make a format without them and only keep the normal teams. They are just a watse. If I would keep one of those teams it would be Kenya. I think there the best out of them.

What do you think?

 

[luckyeddie]

... which is just the same as saying "let's just allow Premiership teams in the FA Cup".

 

[Eclipse]

No we need them but the ICC needs to support them better and help them in threre development.

I dont know about you guys but when I am 40 or 50 I want to see nations like Canada, Bangladesh and Kenya etc... all being well established test nations who are very compeditive and have a good FC structure.

 

[Rich2001]

Do we need teams like Bangladesh, Canada, Namibia etc

I think that they should just make a format without them and only keep the normal teams. They are just a watse. If I would keep one of those teams it would be Kenya. I think there the best out of them.

What do you think?

Personally, I think they should.

Because how will they ever improve their games just playing weak opposition like themselves, at least the big teams; they can learn from them and if they pull off a win than the publicity they get if quite amazing. I heard after Canada's win over Bangladesh the national newspapers had pages and pages devouted to the cricket team (and you know how far down cricket is as a national sport)

Also just the minows approach to the games, they are all up for it and give it their all no matter how badly they are playing or being beatten... how many top teams can you say do that, and their fans are the same - there for the moment and just being able to experiance the big occasision - Ok take the Indian sistuation for example, the Holland side haven't won a game and probabley not likley to, yet everyone is excited and keep their sprits high whereas India win a game and then lose one, but their fans completly write of their side and demand heads roll and write off all changes of going through and start talking of the next World Cup, yet they are still in a very high chances of going through.

 

[Kiwi]

Just remember every nation has to start somewhere. While it is not doing the better teams any good it is great for cricket in these lower countries.

I have been very suprised by the level they are playing. No team can really take them too lightly.

 

[Rik]

Although I'm all for Canada being at this World Cup, some of their players just look totally out-classed. Joseph Harris has scored barely any runs at a strike rate of around 40 runs per 100 balls, appauling in One Day cricket. Canada's real problems are when they loose 2 wickets after a decent start and then Harris and one of the other batsmen scratches around and knocks the run rate often below 2 runs an over. I think Nambia have a future in International Cricket. Canada don't really, the lack of any FC Structure and the weather over there really counts against them. Maybe the ICC should support teams which have the potential to get a good domestic structure up and running?

 

[luckyeddie]

snip
Canada don't really, the lack of any FC Structure and the weather over there really counts against them.
snip

I'm told that they do actually get a summer in Canada, which is more than we do in England:P

 

[Langeveldt]

We dont need them, but they certainly need us...

They get little exposure to the top sides, and they are not going to get better unless they play more against the likes of Aus, England etc. I think Namibia and Kenya especially have a good future ahead of them.

The enthusiasm that they have brought to the WC has been brilliant, and their team spirit also..They play their cricket in the spirit it should be played.... I think the world cup would be all the poorer without them, and it certainly means a lot to all the guys that are competing for the minor teams, a once in a lifetime experience for them....

 

[Simon]

its important for the development of the game to have them in the cup. the only way for them to get better is to play against the best teams. and a world cup every 4 years is their only chance to show what they can do.

 

[Top_Cat]

Saying we don't need the minnow teams typifies the elitism present in cricket which has prevented the game from spreading far and wide.

Exactly the same question was asked when Sri Lanka, New Zealand an even South Africa in the 30's were struggling. Now they're world-class teams.

And yes we DO need them. We need them to do well too to promote the game in their country and be more competitive because without that support, Cricket would just shrivel up and die.

 

[krkode]

Yes, considering cricket has one of the largest fan bases in the world, compared to most sports (I would think only soccer has more fans than cricket), it's played by considerably few countries.

The game needs to spread!:P

 

[Langeveldt]

Saying we don't need the minnow teams typifies the elitism present in cricket which has prevented the game from spreading far and wide.

Exactly the same question was asked when Sri Lanka, New Zealand an even South Africa in the 30's were struggling. Now they're world-class teams.

And yes we DO need them. We need them to do well too to promote the game in their country and be more competitive because without that support, Cricket would just shrivel up and die.

Yeh sorry, I suppose it made a good line though...

Personally along with Andrew Symonds's knock against Pakistan, Andries Burger was one of the most memorable moments of this cup to date...

 

[Rik]

Burger...(Andries or Jan Berrie? Which one will it be?) that guy seriously does look talented. That was his 1st list A 50 after about 15 games. He took the attack to the bowlers and fair play to him, he's also looking like a useful leggie. This is the reason why we need these types of sides playing regular ODIs, so that the young talent can shine.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Although I'm all for Canada being at this World Cup, some of their players just look totally out-classed. Joseph Harris has scored barely any runs at a strike rate of around 40 runs per 100 balls, appauling in One Day cricket.

Give Harris a chance Rik. He is a very good stroke player. IMO, he's the best bat on the team. He's only played 3 matches and has only gotten a decent stay at the crease but once. You can't judge a player so soon.

 

[Rik]

Give Harris a chance Rik. He is a very good stroke player. IMO, he's the best bat on the team. He's only played 3 matches and has only gotten a decent stay at the crease but once. You can't judge a player so soon.

I thought he was too...but then he spent 10 overs with Billcliff blocking any life out of the game against Bangladesh. Amazingly they still won.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Just 3 innings...

 

[royGilchrist]

New teams should be encouraged, but I odnt think playing them in the WC is a good idea. It makes the biggest spectacle in cricket boring and two drawn out with many one sided matches. Maybe each of these teams should be included in other tournaments or test sides forced to play with them or something like that.

This might sound radical but atleast if there is a washed out match with these lesser sides, the test team should be given 4 points by default, otherwise its just unfair, and the only way these teams make an impact is if their game is washed out.

 

[Rik]

This might sound radical but atleast if there is a washed out match with these lesser sides, the test team should be given 4 points by default, otherwise its just unfair, and the only way these teams make an impact is if their game is washed out.

That would take all the excitement out of the cup. A "lesser team" as you put it, would then have nothing to play for. If a team causes an upset then they should get the points no doubt about it. It's a World Cup, if a Test Playing Nation looses to one of the newbies then they should rightly loose points. In the current format, 2 Test Playing Nations will go out in the group stage, that would include whoever looses to a "lesser team", which is fair. Admittedly we did not need a team like Canada getting out for a record low score, that was them being purely outclassed, but since we've seen the time and time again with Bangladesh...why not just let them learn from their mistakes? If you take the "lesser teams" out of the World Cup you turn it into an elitist league and it's snobby, Cricket is a game open to everyone and anyone should be able to play. Saying "we only want the Test Playing Nations in the World Cup" is like snubbing any chance of promising nations becoming better. AJ (or JB) Burger showed that, he's played with great spirit and the Nambians have improved since their 1st match drubbing. I would reccomend giving them ODI status straight away, with players like Snyman and Burger they have 2 fine prospects and it would be a shame to see them wasting away in club cricket. I'm actually still in favour of just making the entire World Cup a big "everyone plays everyone" league so it's really fair. Then the top 4 go into the Semis and we can play matches to decide who comes where all down the list. It would allow people to play everyone else, and the current system doesn't help that way. The system I mentioned could end up with 3 teams all fighting for the last Semi Final slot...that's better than introducing annoying points carried forwards, if they deserve to be in the semis they don't need to carry points forwards.

 

[Rik]

Just 3 innings...

And since he will only be playing a maximum of 5 innings this WC it doesn't matter if he's played 3 or 35, he's still played the 2 weaker nations in his country's group and done not much. Look what AJ (or JB) Burger has achived in 3 innings...125 runs, H/S 85, Average 41.66, strike rate 102...

Harris has 44 runs in 33 innings average 14.66, H/S 31, strike rate 40.00

 

[royGilchrist]

first of all Rik, I was only talking about washed out, or rained out games, where yhe match could not be completed because of rain and both teams get 2 points each, like the WI/Holland game (Im not sure if that was Holland). That was totally unfair.

Secondly I think the most important goal of ICC for the WC should be to make it as exciting as possible. Thats it. Now trying to serve too many goals messes things up. I agree that its good exposure for these up and coming nations, but although each team getting 5 or so matches against quality opposition does help them, but still its not important enough to ruin the WC. It becomes so boring watching these crappymatches. I liked the way it was done before, where they had the ICC cup (I think thats what it was called) among the non test playing nations, and the winner got to play in the WC. Like they have the qualifying tournament for the WC, or like in English premiership where one team each year is relegated to division one and the best division one side coming into the premiership (english football is relatively unknown territory for me so I might not be completely right here in my facts). Imagine if division 1 and premiership were joined together, it will make for a host of boring matches which no would want to see.

We might be able to make the WC a month only, maybe even less, and the whole world would eagerly watch every game. As for the unpredictability of these games, there is no unpredictability, the minnows lose every freaking game against the better sides, now if someone is interested in the making of records for unusually one sided games then its fine, but people who like competetive cricket are at a loss. BTW beating Banlgadesh is no achievement, all of us know how poor BD is.

As for this concept of arrogance, and snobs, thats crap. The bottom line is these teams are not good enough, and we dont need to sacrifice the WC to make them slightly better. What if more teams of this sort come up in the future, lets say, UAE, Nigeria, Morocco, etc, will they also be allowed to play just becasue we dont want to be snobbish! I repeat myself when I say that maybe they should be given series against one test playing nation every year, or something like that. Or include them in other ODI tournaments.