AbhishekS
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Location
- Mumbai, India
- Online Cricket Games Owned
-
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
In the next game is what the commentators said during the first over of the match.
20 Feb - Sri Lanka vs Canada
- Thread starter Gaurav_7
- Start date
StinkyBoHoon
National Board President
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
Perera was up in the high 80s, I had no idea he was so quick.
coupled with the fact he's obviously got a wicket taking knack and he's a pretty good lower order batsman he's a great find for sri lanka. 2 fast bowling all-rounders from there? you'd never have thought it.
coupled with the fact he's obviously got a wicket taking knack and he's a pretty good lower order batsman he's a great find for sri lanka. 2 fast bowling all-rounders from there? you'd never have thought it.
Gaurav_7
Executive member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2010
- Profile Flag
- India
Done that finally, from the past 15 minutes I was getting server errors.
ferg512
International Coach
Pretty sure hes not, its that speed gun that seems too hard for them to do anything about. Half the time it doesn't show up and when it does the speeds are wrong.
This is a joke really. Still a month to go of these associates getting hammered. I know they need to spread the game and stuff but come on. 12 teams wouldn't have been as bad. I can only see around 15 good games to watch out of the 42 group games. If the associates don't want to be kicked out then this is the time for them to stand up and win a few games and prove people wrong.
StinkyBoHoon
National Board President
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
I don't agree with this at all. It's not like ODIs don't throw up lots of one sided results anyway. south africa killed india by 135 runs earlier this year, new zealand chased down pakistan within 17 overs for 1 wicket lost. Those are horrible one sided results as well. The associates have won games at every world cup, how can you say "this is the time" it's not like it hasn't happened before.
maybe the format isn't great but it's not because of associates being included, if anything it's because the tournament is arranged to create a safety net for the big teams. If the associate nations are such jokes, let the big teams play them in straight knock out. but they won't do that because they're too scared ireland/kenya/zimbabwe manage to put in a good performance against someone and knock them out.
StinkyBoHoon
National Board President
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
the other point worth making about the associates is that the way the qualifiers work means you don't even get the best associate nations there.
it's not really surprising kenya got mauled by new zealand. they didn't win a game in the 2010 world cricket league. Scotland and Afghanistan were 2nd and 3rd, above canada, netherlands and kenya and they are the two associates not there.
it's not really surprising kenya got mauled by new zealand. they didn't win a game in the 2010 world cricket league. Scotland and Afghanistan were 2nd and 3rd, above canada, netherlands and kenya and they are the two associates not there.
ferg512
International Coach
This is what I agree with. The last tournament was good because the test nations had to win against the two minnows in their group. If they slip up and lose, unlucky thats their problem. I was more referring to the format if anything. No one wants to see the minnows get bashed for another month. The last one had the group stage over in 24 games which was more ideal. You have to agree that having the group stage drag on for 42 games is no good for anyone.
I saw someone talking about the football world cup before, and comparing it to the cricket world cup, but now I can't find it to quote it, so I'll just post this here as it relates to the format.
The way I look at it is Cricket is very similar to Football/Soccer, but in a way it's also different.
If you look at both World Cups, in both of them there's only eight teams that are going to win it. In Football maybe ten.
The difference is in football much worse teams will always be much more competitive. E.g. a few days ago we saw like the 90th placed football team in England Crawley Town only lose 1 - 0 to Man Utd. If the 90th placed cricket team in England versed Somerset, they'd just get obliterated. Same goes with international cricket, in football the 50th placed tea, in the world can be competitive with the best, but they're still not going to win the world cup, while in Cricket India vs whoever the 50th placed team is is going to be a joke.
IMO the best way is to run the World Cup with only 10 teams (all vs all, then semis/final), but run the Champions Trophy knockout style cup with the minnows every two years. So maybe with the Champions Trophy you have 16 teams, 4 groups of 4, they all verse each other (so they play three group games), then quarters/semis/final.
That will provide a base for the lesser teams to get two/three top matches every two years, but also have a marque world cup without these matches which we had yesterday.
Also it will help bring the Champions Trophy back, as IIRC the interest in it was really down.
The World Cup would then have have 45 group matches, plus semis/final. If you play two group matches a day that's under a month, which will solve the length of it.
The Champions Trophy will have 24 group matches, plus quarters/semis/final, which would ensure that it's quick fire, but also serve plenty of purpose.
The way I look at it is Cricket is very similar to Football/Soccer, but in a way it's also different.
If you look at both World Cups, in both of them there's only eight teams that are going to win it. In Football maybe ten.
The difference is in football much worse teams will always be much more competitive. E.g. a few days ago we saw like the 90th placed football team in England Crawley Town only lose 1 - 0 to Man Utd. If the 90th placed cricket team in England versed Somerset, they'd just get obliterated. Same goes with international cricket, in football the 50th placed tea, in the world can be competitive with the best, but they're still not going to win the world cup, while in Cricket India vs whoever the 50th placed team is is going to be a joke.
IMO the best way is to run the World Cup with only 10 teams (all vs all, then semis/final), but run the Champions Trophy knockout style cup with the minnows every two years. So maybe with the Champions Trophy you have 16 teams, 4 groups of 4, they all verse each other (so they play three group games), then quarters/semis/final.
That will provide a base for the lesser teams to get two/three top matches every two years, but also have a marque world cup without these matches which we had yesterday.
Also it will help bring the Champions Trophy back, as IIRC the interest in it was really down.
The World Cup would then have have 45 group matches, plus semis/final. If you play two group matches a day that's under a month, which will solve the length of it.
The Champions Trophy will have 24 group matches, plus quarters/semis/final, which would ensure that it's quick fire, but also serve plenty of purpose.
Cricketman
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Location
- USA
We will be taking a HUGE step back in the growth of the game if we limit it to just the top 10 teams. The 'minnows' have competed with the best, in fact one of them (Sri Lanka) won it in 96 to change the cricketing scene forever. Ireland beat Pakistan, Netherlands almost took India out in 03, Kenya went to the Semi Finals!
I think the number 1 priority for the ICC should be to spread the game. Places like Scotland and Ireland already have the infrastructure to become big cricketing nations, and there is a lot of potential in places like Afghanistan, Kenya, Canada, the UAE and of course the USA. The ICC is stuck in this 'good enough' attitude which makes me fume, how the hell can we have a sport that is predominantly played on the international arena with only 10 countries participating??
I think that an associate team should take part in all ODI series from now on, either in a triangular fashion or in a 'prelude' series to the real one. IE if India tours England, play a couple of ODIs and a T20 vs Ireland. Someone visits India, make a stop in the UAE for a quick tour. It won't mean much to the South Africa's and Australia's of the world (unless they lose of course) but will mean so much to the developing cricket nations!
I think the number 1 priority for the ICC should be to spread the game. Places like Scotland and Ireland already have the infrastructure to become big cricketing nations, and there is a lot of potential in places like Afghanistan, Kenya, Canada, the UAE and of course the USA. The ICC is stuck in this 'good enough' attitude which makes me fume, how the hell can we have a sport that is predominantly played on the international arena with only 10 countries participating??
I think that an associate team should take part in all ODI series from now on, either in a triangular fashion or in a 'prelude' series to the real one. IE if India tours England, play a couple of ODIs and a T20 vs Ireland. Someone visits India, make a stop in the UAE for a quick tour. It won't mean much to the South Africa's and Australia's of the world (unless they lose of course) but will mean so much to the developing cricket nations!
angryangy
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
I think you underrate the importance and scope of World Cricket League. Teams that get smashed don't learn a whole lot more than teams doing the smashing because they don't learn how to win. It's by being presented with opportunity and learning how to take advantage of it that teams improve their competitiveness. That's what the structure below ODI level is all about at the moment.
ferg512
International Coach
I really like this tbh. Although I suppose one would argue that the 'world' cup should have the world competing, I really like the idea of putting them in the Champions Trophy as it spices up that tournament with also keeping the smaller amount of games, which is what was so appealing about the champions trophy.
It really is ridiculous how they have scheduled this world cup though. There should be two games pretty much everyday when its test nation vs minnow,and then only one game on the days where the test nations play each other.
StinkyBoHoon
National Board President
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
nah, the truth is, without intensity, or something at stake, cricket is boring. football is not. watching man united run through a bottom of the league team is just as entertaining as a top table clash. in fact, maybe more so as the two more well organised teams cancel each other out.
in cricket wickets, big hitting, and i guess near misses are the exciting things. but if a team is on 300/2 who cares if they lose a wicket, who cares if they go for a big shot, hardly audacious with such a lead.
cricket needs balance to make it good. football just needs technical ability.
so lets look at the positives, the quarters, semis and final will all likely be very tense affairs as more evenly matched teams play. the minnow v minnow nations could be good and provide some interest and good battles. we've never seen many minnow v minnow matches at world cups before. here we can see ireland v bangladesh and the like. possible good matches.
i have to be honest, i don't get putting the associates in the chamions trophy is good. wouldn't it be cheaper just to scribble out the bit where it says "champions trophy" and write "world cup" all you're doing is changing the names of the two tournaments.
Last edited:
