-
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.
Zimbabwe vs Holland
- Thread starter Rik
- Start date
Rik
Cricketer Of The Year
Admittedly we need to help these countries to improve their standards and become more competitive but I wouldn't take these teams out of the cup, Nambia proved they have a future after their performance against England, although they need to keep those standards up, the loss against Australia showed what can happen when they ease off.
full_length
U19 Vice-Captain
India - Australia
England - Pakistan
India - England
Kenya - Sri Lanka
were other one sided matches. While we should be cutting some slack for the weaker teams, it looks like they are under pressure to be more consistant than India, Pakistan, England and Sri Lanka, even South Africa...
THey've already done enough to add colour to the tournament.
Quickest WC century
Five wicket hauls against England and Sri Lanka
Win over Lanka
Restricted India to 204
And loads of other stuff.
Cricket has been guilty of criminal negligence of most of the world outside the British commonwealth.
Today things are looking up. Kenya is the real deal.
It's terrific that we see The Netherlands, Bangladesh, Canada, Scotland, UAE, Namibia, etc etc join the fun. They should have been in long back. We're fifty years behind, as it is. Gladly saner counsel has prevailed.
And yes, I think the test status thingie should be a separate consideration. ODIs should be used to promote the game. ODI status should be enough to become 'full members'.
And these teams should be a part of many more tournaments.
I'll name the one person, someone who everyone loves to hate, who takes a good share of the credit for this:
Dalmiya. When he took over there were around 45 member nations. Today there are around 84. That's two fold in less than a decade. Shows how much could have been done if people had got their priorities right earlier.
Moreover, there's actually money in cricket now.
I know there's a section that hates all of the above. They are the reason world cricket had been restricted to an elitist snobbish club for decades. Post WWII all the major test playing nations have been equally guilty of not moving forward. Pre WWII is a long time back, and then it was Australia and England who cop the blame though cricket was mainly an amateur's sport then.
England - Pakistan
India - England
Kenya - Sri Lanka
were other one sided matches. While we should be cutting some slack for the weaker teams, it looks like they are under pressure to be more consistant than India, Pakistan, England and Sri Lanka, even South Africa...
THey've already done enough to add colour to the tournament.
Quickest WC century
Five wicket hauls against England and Sri Lanka
Win over Lanka
Restricted India to 204
And loads of other stuff.
Cricket has been guilty of criminal negligence of most of the world outside the British commonwealth.
Today things are looking up. Kenya is the real deal.
It's terrific that we see The Netherlands, Bangladesh, Canada, Scotland, UAE, Namibia, etc etc join the fun. They should have been in long back. We're fifty years behind, as it is. Gladly saner counsel has prevailed.
And yes, I think the test status thingie should be a separate consideration. ODIs should be used to promote the game. ODI status should be enough to become 'full members'.
And these teams should be a part of many more tournaments.
I'll name the one person, someone who everyone loves to hate, who takes a good share of the credit for this:
Dalmiya. When he took over there were around 45 member nations. Today there are around 84. That's two fold in less than a decade. Shows how much could have been done if people had got their priorities right earlier.
Moreover, there's actually money in cricket now.
I know there's a section that hates all of the above. They are the reason world cricket had been restricted to an elitist snobbish club for decades. Post WWII all the major test playing nations have been equally guilty of not moving forward. Pre WWII is a long time back, and then it was Australia and England who cop the blame though cricket was mainly an amateur's sport then.
Simon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
i guess what i said was taken the wrong way, and i can see why. i love the idea of the minnows playing in the world cup, in fact i think there should be many more teams, hopefully by around 2019 we can have a world cup similar to footballs. 32 realatively competitive teams with teams playing less games, i would have like to see this world cup have been 3 pools of 15. top 2 from each get through to super 6 stage. my idea is long and complicated so i wont go into it here.
full_length
U19 Vice-Captain
ICC can't even handle a WC once in four years with <15 nations playing. 
You're right though. There should be a tier system, with more nations involved. Much better organized than this.
Also, the ICC knockout trophy could be the one for the first tier teams.. Otherwise, it's like two WCs of different formats.
I dont want the surprise factor taken away though- who'd have backed Kenya to beat WI in '96? WI were a strong team.
You're right though. There should be a tier system, with more nations involved. Much better organized than this.
Also, the ICC knockout trophy could be the one for the first tier teams.. Otherwise, it's like two WCs of different formats.
I dont want the surprise factor taken away though- who'd have backed Kenya to beat WI in '96? WI were a strong team.
Bazza
International 12th Man
Probably stronger than they are now?
Kenya beat a Sri Lanka team who have downed New Zealand and looks like West Indies too. No mugs!
Holland put up a decent fight in the end although they did lose by some distance against Zimbabwe.
I think we've already made the point they should be here, and I think everyone agrees too. Like I said, they should look to expand it every time.
Next time could be 15 teams in three groups, top 2 into Super 6. Then we could have 16 in four groups, top 2 into a straight knockout (more like football and probably a bit more exciting a bit earlier - can afford to lose one group game but no more after that). Time after that 18. Could go 6x3 or 3x6, but that is looking too far ahead to have any idea. By then they will know how things work, whether it is worth including (more of) these teams, etc.
Kenya beat a Sri Lanka team who have downed New Zealand and looks like West Indies too. No mugs!
Holland put up a decent fight in the end although they did lose by some distance against Zimbabwe.
I think we've already made the point they should be here, and I think everyone agrees too. Like I said, they should look to expand it every time.
Next time could be 15 teams in three groups, top 2 into Super 6. Then we could have 16 in four groups, top 2 into a straight knockout (more like football and probably a bit more exciting a bit earlier - can afford to lose one group game but no more after that). Time after that 18. Could go 6x3 or 3x6, but that is looking too far ahead to have any idea. By then they will know how things work, whether it is worth including (more of) these teams, etc.
