does the super 8 go to long

[corza_nz]

i think its not too long at all. maybe if they wanna shorten it they could put 2 games a day maybe but i dont think thats needed, better to put emphasis on a game at a time. and i think theres no way you should shorten it by 2 pools of 4 or anything else because everyone playing everyone is a true indication and ensures the best teams go through.

[LA ICE-E]

Originally Posted by pup11

I think the main reason why the Super 8's seem to be a bit too long is because the minnows are playing in the Super 8's so that dilutes the competitive nature of the Super 8's a bit.



As far as minnows getting better as the tournament progresses, i think the opposite is taking place with the Bangers as they are getting worse by each passing game.



The same though can't be said about Ireland.

The thing i really get irritated by is that one day, people says bangladesh isn't a minnow anymore and the other day you say no they still are? What the hell? either they are or they aren't, if bangladesh is a minnow, WI doesn't look much better at the moment...

[Craig]

Originally Posted by James

I think the problem is that there isn't the nature of knock-outs so the games don't really give you that edge of your seat feeling.

Why can't we just have Quarters/Semis/Finals like the Football World Cup?

Yeah I agree, makes sense

Originally Posted by LA ICE-E

because people complain that its not fair and all that crap when a team like india gets out...
well not enough games i guess...because remember fifa world cup has the round of 16 too...so may be they will have knockouts when the formats expands...

Well if teams like India get knocked out, then unless it was a freakish bowling or batting spell, poor umpiring or things out their control, then it is nobody else's fault that they got knocked out, except their own.

[pup11]

I have never said that Bangers are no longer minnows, the tag still remains with they untill the day they don't start winning more consistently.



They certainly do have the players to improve but they still have a long, long way to go.

[Craig]

It really annoys me that people continually put down Bangladeshi cricket. If by that logic should New Zealand have lost Test status in the 26 yearsit took them to win a Test match, and even accounting for World War II you have 18-20 years before the first Test match win and teams like Sri Lanka I don't think were too crash hot either when they came in.

If it was Zimbabwe I would agree, but to continuelly discredit them is an insult to them. Who in the last year had looked more likely to beat Australia in a Test? That's right it is Bangladesh.

I mean we all know the South Africans crack at the first sign of real pressure (I'm not including) in the crunch games, just look at the World Cup in 1999 what have they done against Australia as well? And let's not start on England.

There I've said it. Anyway I'm rambling and so I'll stop.

Rant over.

[Mahindinho]

Originally Posted by Craig

It really annoys me that people continually put down Bangladeshi cricket. If by that logic should New Zealand have lost Test status in the 26 yearsit took them to win a Test match, and even accounting for World War II you have 18-20 years before the first Test match win and teams like Sri Lanka I don't think were too crash hot either when they came in.

Agreed, mostly

I'd suspect that, in that 18-20 years, NZ played fewer Test series than Bangladesh have. SL had the benefit of being a stop-off point for the boat between Eng and Aus/NZ, I think, so had some exposure before becoming a Test nation...and they had some genuinely decent players, e.g. Roy Dias -- I reckon SL were granted Test status a bit late, while Bangladesh's came too early.

The problem with the lesser nations is that the bigger ones just don't want to play them -- e.g. count the number of times SL were granted an Eng or Aus tour before 2000. India, in particular, have been less than supportive of Bangladesh. How are they going to get experience without playing the big boys?

But I'm digressing mightily.

If India and Pak were in the Super8, I reckon fewer people would be complaining -- things are always more exciting when your teams are still involved, no matter how much you appreciate the game as a neutral. The problem is, they just weren't good enough.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by marc71178

In your mind.

Pretty well no-one with any sense regards Bangladesh as a Test or ODI class team. Except for in the small pockets where they've performed half-decently, one of which we're currently inside (or maybe were a week ago).

Bearing in mind that 2 of said 8 clearly showed themselves to not be worthy, I think you'll have to revisit your views...

They didn't. Losing a single game does not automatically make you substandard.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by LA ICE-E

Ok again WORLD vs "Champions"... only "champions" are worthy to be in the champions trophy while the rest of the world gets a chance to compete in the WORLD cup...you're right it takes many years of construction but doing well in a world cup raises its name in w/e country....its like saying australia/trinidad & tobago didn't deserve to be in the fifa world cup...look at how it raised soccer in those country...it does help because people take note when you country is doing better than most of the other the countries...

And for the umpteenth time... if you go that far you should say every country that wants to gets a place in the finals... so we have a 200-team tournament.

Are you capable of getting that through your head?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by jonty_rhodes

the minnow teams are only going to get better by playing the top class nations and gaining that match experience.

No, no way. You'll get better by producing better cricketers. And until you do, the games the predecessors of these players play in make no difference.

Bangladesh are a good example of this.

Not really, they're a good example of being repeatedly thrashed and gaining, to date, nothing.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by LA ICE-E

The thing i really get irritated by is that one day, people says bangladesh isn't a minnow anymore and the other day you say no they still are? What the hell? either they are or they aren't, if bangladesh is a minnow, WI doesn't look much better at the moment...

It's the problem of the over-hastiness of those who are keen on elevating Bangladesh above their station.

Maybe if they waited until they'd actually done something of note, it might help.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Craig

It really annoys me that people continually put down Bangladeshi cricket. If by that logic should New Zealand have lost Test status in the 26 yearsit took them to win a Test match, and even accounting for World War II you have 18-20 years before the first Test match win and teams like Sri Lanka I don't think were too crash hot either when they came in.

Me, I don't feel NZ should have been playing Tests in the 1930s and 1950s, either.

Or South Africa in the 19th-century, either, but that's a different story.

Sri Lanka, though, are completely different, as are Zimbabwe, Pakistan, India and West Indies. They are examples of how top-level promotion should be done.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Richard

No, no way. You'll get better by producing better cricketers. And until you do, the games the predecessors of these players play in make no difference.

I disagree there. The profile of cricket in a country could easily be raised by a World Cup appearance, especially if they make the Super 8 - fluke or not.

If Bangladesh didn't play serious cricket at international level against top quality sides, I doubt there would be nearly as many people playing the game there.

There's no doubt in my mind that this new generation of young players is infinitely better than the previous generation of Bangladeshi cricketers, which is showing that, even at a huge cost to the integrity of statistics of records and the quality of international cricket overall, increased exposure for Bangladesh is doing something positive.

[Richard]

Yet in the past teams have produced quality cricketers before their admission to the top level.

I honestly think that if you have a well-structured domestic system and cricket being played, quality cricketers will emerge. I don't believe constant thrashings can possibly raise the profile of the game in a place where said team is on the receiving end.

[Prince EWS]

Hmm... I really don't see how increased exposure of the game - especially with a national team to follow - could not raise the profile of the game in the country, even if they do get belted more than not.

The very fact that a site like Bangla-Cricket exists is testament to that IMO.

It's quite clear that Bangladesh are not test standard nor ODI standard - however they are improving - even if not by enough - all the time. The difference between the Bangladesh that showed up in the CT and the Bangladesh that showed up in this WC is very notable - whether you can chalk that up to their presence in higher-level cricket or not is debatable (especially given the fact that the most significant improvement seems to have occurred directly after they finally played a string of games against opposition of a similar standard to them..) however what it will have done in terms of exposure and profile for cricket in Bangladesh is fairly obvious IMO...

[Richard]

The difference between Bangladesh that showed-up in early 2003 and the one that showed-up in late 2003 was massive, too. But the one of late-2004 and all the time until this WC was little different to the previous one.

As I say - Bangladesh have several times taken a step forward then rapidly taken it straight back. It's perfectly possible that that'll happen again here (if 1 single victory over India really counts as much of a step anyway).

I can see a reason why playing at a level you do not deserve to play at can have a negative, never mind no positive, effect, as I mentioned. Getting thrashed all the time - I just can't see how, in the end, that won't reflect badly. Sure, some fans will support them through all - but a perpetually losing team will eventually fall out IMO.

I honestly believe Bangladesh would be better playing a level of cricket where they can compete. Not be unequivocally best - there's no use them playing the Bermudas and USAs of this World either, not at all. They need to play teams that will challenge them and not annhailate them. And they need a domestic structure - because at the end of the day, that's all that will produce cricketers.