Jump to content

The Official Cricket Thread


Kroitzz
 Share

Recommended Posts

Re: Official Cricket Thread

The ICC confirm that in the next world cup there will be only 10 teams. So no place for the small teams. Gotta feel for ireland

I want these team given a chance to improve so they can play test cricket one day. Ireland deserve to be in the tournament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Official Cricket Thread

I want these team given a chance to improve so they can play test cricket one day. Ireland deserve to be in the tournament.

Well the problem is that they may deserve it-but look at the horrible showings of some of the other associates-their is talk of a relegation system (two tier system) that will be put into place and a 50 over world league which they will participate in. Lets face it -the tournament was too long, and could probably only have been hosted in Asia.

So short term its a good solution, medium/long term associate teams must be further assisted by the ICC (and maybe England and a couple others could give back players not of their country (by birth)):P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Official Cricket Thread

Well the problem is that they may deserve it-but look at the horrible showings of some of the other associates-their is talk of a relegation system (two tier system) that will be put into place and a 50 over world league which they will participate in. Lets face it -the tournament was too long' date=' and could probably only have been hosted in Asia.

So short term its a good solution, medium/long term associate teams must be further assisted by the ICC (and maybe England and a couple others could give back players not of their country (by birth)):P[/quote']

Still, Netherlands competed in some games. I just think their should be 2 matches on every day if they were to stick with the current format. Less games for associate members to find their feet in the group would be better.

Don't get me started on that last part :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Official Cricket Thread

Still' date=' Netherlands competed in some games. I just think their should be 2 matches on every day if they were to stick with the current format. Less games for associate members to find their feet in the group would be better.

Don't get me started on that last part :P[/quote']

yeah dont worry -the WI have an Aussie in their rank also..

Well at least in 20/20 they should be competitive-and as a tournament whether its two or one game per days it can become unwieldy-and next thing you know its held in Asia every second tournament.

For the 2019 event, the 10 teams will be decided by qualification.The ICC also announced that the new one-day international league due to run between April 2011 and April 2014 will incorporate relegation and promotion from 2019.

The event is to run separately to the Cricket World Cup to add more meaning to 50-over matches outside the tournament.

Ireland obviously bore the brunt of the decision-lets hope they dont go down the road like Kenya and screw up.:o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Official Cricket Thread

yeah dont worry -the WI have an Aussie in their rank also..

Well at least in 20/20 they should be competitive-and as a tournament whether its two or one game per days it can become unwieldy-and next thing you know its held in Asia every second tournament.

For the 2019 event' date=' the 10 teams will be decided by qualification.The ICC also announced that the new one-day international league due to run between April 2011 and April 2014 will incorporate relegation and promotion from 2019.

The event is to run separately to the Cricket World Cup to add more meaning to 50-over matches outside the tournament.

Ireland obviously bore the brunt of the decision-lets hope they dont go down the road like Kenya and screw up.:o[/quote']

Yeah Nash but he wasn't a loss for us :P

Ireland have a reasonably old team don't they? So it could be hard for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Official Cricket Thread

I personally feel it's a very poor decision and the ICC have shown their true colours. For years they have been claiming they want the sport to be more global and spread the sport, but this is totally an opposite step. I'll admit at the start of the tournament, I felt the world cup was too long, the format of two groups of 7 was too much and that I felt their would be too mant one-sided contests. But, I was well and truely proven wrong.

Barring Kenya, all the associates put up good performances. Canada certainly ruffled Pakistan and Australia's feathers. We all know what Ireland did and Netherlands were just short on a couple of occasions too. Add to all that the fact that arguably the strongest associate side of all (in recent times), Afghanistan, were not there (i think there associate status was not confirmed before the associates qualifiers), I think the associates have come on leaps and bounds. Excluding them is outrageous. There could quite easily have been a pre-tournament qualifying period (as has been suggested for 2019). Even if the money gods wanted to ensure that the likes of India, Australia, etc definitely made it, they could have said the top 4 or 6 automatically qualify (maybe through their ICC rankings) and then the others go into 2 qualifying groups of 5 and 2 from each group go through from a pre-main event tournament. Isolating the associates for 9 years to fend for themselves was definitely not the way to go :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Official Cricket Thread

I personally feel it's a very poor decision and the ICC have shown their true colours. For years they have been claiming they want the sport to be more global and spread the sport' date=' but this is totally an opposite step. I'll admit at the start of the tournament, I felt the world cup was too long, the format of two groups of 7 was too much and that I felt their would be too mant one-sided contests. But, I was well and truely proven wrong.

Barring Kenya, all the associates put up good performances. Canada certainly ruffled Pakistan and Australia's feathers. We all know what Ireland did and Netherlands were just short on a couple of occasions too. Add to all that the fact that arguably the strongest associate side of all (in recent times), Afghanistan, were not there (i think there associate status was not confirmed before the associates qualifiers), I think the associates have come on leaps and bounds. Excluding them is outrageous. There could quite easily have been a pre-tournament qualifying period (as has been suggested for 2019). Even if the money gods [b']wanted to ensure that the likes of India, Australia, etc definitely made it, they could have said the top 4 or 6 automatically qualify (maybe through their ICC rankings) and then the others go into 2 qualifying groups of 5 and 2 from each group go through from a pre-main event tournament.[/b] Isolating the associates for 9 years to fend for themselves was definitely not the way to go :(

i kinda agreed with this that top 4 or 6 (seeded teams ) should automatically qualify for the WC but the problem is the sponsorship money and other monetary benefits will not be achieved if there is a pre-event for the minnows.

i mean in a WC if india plays canada or australia its almost same for us. We are still going to watch the match but if a tournament where India (other subcontinent teams) doesn't play then you won't make much money. organising the event.

and to add to that ICC or the organizer are not ready to start matches at

the same time. I mean if group matches could start at same time then it will consume less event time (even football WC finishes in 3-4 weeks with 32 teams).

I agree that this decision is kind of lame. you can have your 10 best team play for a champion's trophy which initially was the main idea behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Official Cricket Thread

Yeah Nash but he wasn't a loss for us :P

Ireland have a reasonably old team don't they? So it could be hard for them.

Yup-as I said in a short term arrangement its fine IMO. In the long term cricket needs to be developed world wide.

Can't say Nash was too much of a plus for us either-more of a Chanderpaul really :(

I felt the world cup was too long' date=' the format of two groups of 7 was too much and that I felt their would be too mant one-sided contests. But, I was well and truely proven wrong.

[b']Barring Kenya, all the associates put up good performances. Canada certainly ruffled Pakistan and Australia's feathers.[/b]

The tournament was too long-the media pays most of the bills and even they were bored or nonchalant-and a couple sensational games does not change that.

Did the associates really played out of their skins or did the stalwart teams NOT play to their lofty standards- or (running out of ors to paddle up this creek :D )maybe a mixture of both. Can the associates consistently beat test ranked teams-doubt it at the moment. So let them play 20/20 -really don't want another Bangladesh/understrength Zimbabwe. Instead have A-teams do more tours to the associates and vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Official Cricket Thread

Yup-as I said in a short term arrangement its fine IMO. In the long term cricket needs to be developed world wide.

Can't say Nash was too much of a plus for us either-more of a Chanderpaul really :(

The tournament was too long-the media pays most of the bills and even they were bored or nonchalant-and a couple sensational games does not change that.

Did the associates really played out of their skins or did the stalwart teams NOT play to their lofty standards- or (running out of ors to paddle up this creek :D )maybe a mixture of both. Can the associates consistently beat test ranked teams-doubt it at the moment. So let them play 20/20 -really don't want another Bangladesh/understrength Zimbabwe. Instead have A-teams do more tours to the associates and vice versa.

bangladesh is quite good in 50 overs and ZIM used to really good before political turmoil.

It is upto individual country and its cricket board to develop and popularize cricket. I mean Kenya were a decent team before 2004. it got a decent coach , a fair bit of luck and a few good performances for them to qualify from their group during 2003 WC. but since then kenya is by far the most mediocre teams to play in a big event.

It is similar to why India has no football team challenging for asia cup or something like that. we do not have grass root level system for football. a few academies here and there and a few soccer crazy states.

so what i feel is the government and the cricket boards collectively should try to instill cricket into their systems and not just ICC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Official Cricket Thread

so what i feel is the government and the cricket boards collectively should try to instill cricket into their systems and not just ICC.

Bangladesh has played 246 odis won 68 -highest scores against Zimbabwe so not as good. from cricdude.com

The ICC strategic plan :http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/the-icc/about_the_organisation/strategic_plan.php

Places emphasis on development and government interference like in Zimbabwe is frowned upon. So the ICC by issue of its membership tends to guide boards (who are subsidized by governments not run by them)' date=' and provide services etc.

[b']Kumar Sangakkara has quit as captain of Sri Lanka's one-day and Twenty20 sides, three days after the defeat by India in the World Cup final.[/b]

Nice bloke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Official Cricket Thread

Yup-as I said in a short term arrangement its fine IMO. In the long term cricket needs to be developed world wide.

Can't say Nash was too much of a plus for us either-more of a Chanderpaul really :(

Chanderpaul was awesome! I've noticed that there seems to be a negativity around him. Is he past it you reckon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Official Cricket Thread

Chanderpaul was awesome! I've noticed that there seems to be a negativity around him. Is he past it you reckon?

yup-he WAS awesome, hes was past it about two years ago. Number of reasons-***** side, hes a loner most of the time and hes lost that desire to win. During an earlier debacle he led the West Indies team after the players union called for a strike-never been forgiven by some players like Gayle etc. Since then hes been tolerated being *a loyal servant of the game*. For him to flourish the team has to have stroke players so he can graft and nudge the ball around, instead we have big hitters-Pollard etc. So while he works on his average we keep losing at bit like the Arsenal Complex:D

Note how he was not considered for captaincy since the board chose captains they could control-Sammy/Nash (vp).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Official Cricket Thread

yup-he WAS awesome' date=' hes was past it about two years ago. Number of reasons-***** side, hes a loner most of the time and hes lost that desire to win. During an earlier debacle he led the West Indies team after the players union called for a strike-never been forgiven by some players like Gayle etc. Since then hes been tolerated being *a loyal servant of the game*. For him to flourish the team has to have stroke players so he can graft and nudge the ball around, instead we have big hitters-Pollard etc. So while he works on his average we keep losing at bit like the Arsenal Complex:D

Note how he was not considered for captaincy since the board chose captains they could control-Sammy/Nash (vp).[/quote']

Shame there, sounds a bit like Boycott from what I've heard of him. WI still need to produce more players like him, I think they will be a force in shorter formats of the game but all these sloggers won't do anything in tests.

Sammy is very average and Nash is worse. He only went to the Caribbean because he got dropped from state cricket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Official Cricket Thread

Shame there' date=' sounds a bit like Boycott from what I've heard of him. WI still need to produce more players like him, I think they will be a force in shorter formats of the game but all these sloggers won't do anything in tests.

Sammy is very average and Nash is worse. He only went to the Caribbean because he got dropped from state cricket.[/quote']

Agreed-but in the Caribbean 20/20 is the money spinner, so most players tend to go for that. Talent remains unfortunately the desire and sacrifice to play test cricket is not there. Those two were appointed because they are not troublemakers-Gayle /Lara tended to be bigger than the game here-thus the board went to the safe option. Dwayne Bravo was seen as a viable option-however form has dipped and his temperament is questionable..

Theres an old joke here about how Lara would get injured whenever Carnival is taking place here and then you would see him partying at all the fetes with pals Dwight Yorke and Russel Latapy, Bravo is the same (cousins too:D)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Official Cricket Thread

Agreed-but in the Caribbean 20/20 is the money spinner' date=' so most players tend to go for that. Talent remains unfortunately the desire and sacrifice to play test cricket is not there. Those two were appointed because they are not troublemakers-Gayle /Lara tended to be bigger than the game here-thus the board went to the safe option. Dwayne Bravo was seen as a viable option-however form has dipped and his temperament is questionable..

Theres an old joke here about how Lara would get injured whenever Carnival is taking place here and then you would see him partying at all the fetes with pals Dwight Yorke and Russel Latapy, Bravo is the same (cousins too:D)[/quote']

Still, replicating the likes of Ambrose, Walsh, Marshall, Garner, Sobers, Richards should drive the cricketers and you can't match them while playing T20.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Official Cricket Thread

Still' date=' replicating the likes of Ambrose, Walsh, Marshall, Garner, Sobers, Richards should drive the cricketers and you can't match them while playing T20.[/quote']

:D sorry its more about the bling-the Pollards/Bravos are in it for the money mate. We are a bunch of people on a few rocks who were binded by the thought of integration and putting one over our colonisers- best encapsulated by the Clive Loyd/Viv Richards sides. Then infighting and insularity took over and since we never had formal institutions like cricket academies to guide the new generation-it became everyone for themselves.

This era is dead and gone:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Official Cricket Thread

Wisden has named only four cricketers of the year for its 2011 edition because of the spot-fixing scandal surrounding three Pakistan players.

Wisden :the revered publication has selected five players since 1926, but has picked only Tamim Iqbal, Eoin Morgan, Chris Read and Jonathan Trott this time.

Wonder what was the criteria?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Official Cricket Thread

Wisden has named only four cricketers of the year for its 2011 edition because of the spot-fixing scandal surrounding three Pakistan players.

Wisden :the revered publication has selected five players since 1926' date=' but has picked only Tamim Iqbal, Eoin Morgan, Chris Read and Jonathan Trott this time.

Wonder what was the criteria?[/quote']

Is this a joke? Trott deserves it. If they are going to choose mainly English players why doesn't Cook get a go? Tendulker has been in great form along with Kallis.

Chris Read???

I must not understand what this award is for...

Australia play Bangladesh later today. Stupid tour...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Official Cricket Thread

Is this a joke? Trott deserves it. If they are going to choose mainly English players why doesn't Cook get a go? Tendulker has been in great form along with Kallis.

Chris Read???

I must not understand what this award is for...

Australia play Bangladesh later today. Stupid tour...

Only players who have never been selected for the award before can be named a cricketer of the year. Tendulkar was named in 1997, although I can't for the life of me find Kallis on the same list. He's been awarded something by Wisden for definite though.

Read was awarded for leading Notts to the County Championship title, but I find it hard to believe that there isn't anybody else more deserving. Cook's achievements in Australia didn't count for this year's award, apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Official Cricket Thread

Only players who have never been selected for the award before can be named a cricketer of the year. Tendulkar was named in 1997' date=' although I can't for the life of me find Kallis on the same list. He's been awarded something by Wisden for definite though.

Read was awarded for leading Notts to the County Championship title, but I find it hard to believe that there isn't anybody else more deserving. Cook's achievements in Australia didn't count for this year's award, apparently.[/quote']

Okay then...If they have been the best I don't see what the problem with them getting an award twice is.

Odd. Cook would have really deserved it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Official Cricket Thread

Wisden has named only four cricketers of the year for its 2011 edition because of the spot-fixing scandal surrounding three Pakistan players.

Wisden :the revered publication has selected five players since 1926' date=' but has picked only Tamim Iqbal, Eoin Morgan, Chris Read and Jonathan Trott this time.

Wonder what was the criteria?[/quote']

this is not shocking. infact wisden cricketer of the year award is misleading.

wisden leading cricketer of the year award can be awarded twice. 2010 was sehwag..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...