PDA

View Full Version : No no to weak associates, says Holding


AsifTheManRahman
February 20, 2007, 11:46 AM
Personally, I think it's ok for associates to play, as long as the ICC can come up with a format where advancing to the second round will be no walk in the park for the test playing teams. With the current format, the top eight teams in the ICC rankings are guaranteed places in the super eight.

http://img.cricinfo.com/spacer.gif
<!--- END OLD SSI: /navigation/WORLD_CUPS/WC2007/HEADER.html ---> Kick out all but the best Associate
Holding slams World Cup minnows
Cricinfo staff
February 20, 2007
Michael Holding has said that the World Cup will be devalued by the number of non-Test playing nations taking part.
Holding, the former West Indies fast bowler turned TV commentator, explained that only the top-ranked Associate country in the world should be allowed to take part as opposed to the top six as is the case now.
"I don't believe the World Cup should go on for as long as it does (almost two months) and that is partly because there are far too many teams in the competition who are not good enough to be there," he told Bermuda's Royal Gazette. "I've argued about this with the ICC for some time. I simply do not believe that if you come fourth in the ICC Trophy that you should be entitled to play in the World Cup.
"It doesn't make sense to me. What is gained by a team playing in the World Cup and getting absolutely hammered? In my opinion it is counter-productive. What I believe should happen is that all the non-Test playing nations should continue to play amongst themselves, to have their own competition where only the top-ranked country goes through to the World Cup.
"I see nothing wrong with giving the smaller teams the odd tour and a few games against the bigger teams from time to time. And I think the ICC should continue to invest in non-Test playing nations to improve their cricket and their infrastructure and things like that. But it's a big jump from that to having six non-Test nations all playing against the cream of the crop. It's not good for cricket."
Holding went on to say that he believed the tournament will be a success despite ongoing problems with stadium construction, soaring hotel prices, visa problems and reports of sluggish ticket sales. "There have been some problems in some aspects of the preparation, but the logistics of organising a World Cup which is spread out over a region made up of many sovereign nations, with different laws, governments and currencies, was always going to be hard.
"We tend to do things at the last minute in the Caribbean - it's part of our culture. Even on the morning of a Test match there's always people hammering in nails somewhere or somebody painting something. It's the same with tickets as well. People in the Caribbean don't buy tickets months in advance, they tend to do it on the day of the game or a couple of days before."


© Cricinfo

sadi
February 20, 2007, 11:52 AM
Well it makes sense to me. I think twelve team world cup would have been much better. I don't see Canada beating England or Scotland beating Australia anytime soon. There will be just too many meaningless game. Let them fight it out themselves and maybe top two teams make it through. Not all of them. I remember those old days when we really had to fight to get a chance to make it to world cup. Why should it be any different now? ;)

Orpheus
February 20, 2007, 11:52 AM
he told Bermuda's Royal Gazette
Not a bit diplomatic....

No shame in admitting they are bunch of lazy mofos....it went that low. They take pride in it.

akabir77
February 20, 2007, 11:55 AM
I think it should be only 12 teams and 6 in a goup...

In that way bd gets more games instead of only 3...

Tigers_eye
February 20, 2007, 11:56 AM
Holding is crazy.

His logic is full of flaws.

a) Two month long WC is because of the format not for the number of associates. If they make the super eight knockout system the number of games goes down drastically. One can calculate and devise different formats to increase the number of games. Instead of 8 teams playing 6 matches that could have been divided into two groups and played as round robin and then the top two goes to semis. Many combination can devised.

b) As for the minnows getting blown out, Can he not see the recent ODIs between full member countries? One-third of the matches are all blown out. What logic does he have of those games? Australia got blown out by the NZ. Pakis against SA, WI against SL and Eng against Aus and NZ. Its the aggressive nature teams are playing nowadays.

c) The minnows are inspired to get into WC. They taste how it feels. Without globalization Cricket can't capitalize the untapped market. Think of China, Japan Korea being a threat to Australia's supremacy.

It hurts me to see a walking cricket legend have no insight on how to improve the sport.

TheWatcher
February 20, 2007, 11:58 AM
I totally agree with Holding, the quality of the world cup should not have been deluted so much. I also think the twelve team format was the best one for World cup, that way Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, and top associate countries would get more matches in the tourny and chance of an upset would increase.

TheWatcher
February 20, 2007, 12:23 PM
c)[/U] The minnows are inspired to get into WC. They taste how it feels. Without globalization Cricket can't capitalize the untapped market. Think of China, Japan Korea being a threat to Australia's supremacy.
If I remember properly, Bermuda toured England last year where they were beaten by rainhill standard clubs. Also, they recently played few matches against club sides in Antigua (or in some other WI country), and they were again beaten in all matches.

As you can see Holding is not opposed to those countries visiting and benefiting from Test countries, but their standard at this point is just too low to participate in a big tourney like WC.

Cases are different for Kenya and Scotland, they are consistently beating their fellow associate countries and do deserve chances in a bigger league.

sadi
February 20, 2007, 12:35 PM
b) As for the minnows getting blown out, Can he not see the recent ODIs between full member countries? One-third of the matches are all blown out. What logic does he have of those games? Australia got blown out by the NZ. Pakis against SA, WI against SL and Eng against Aus and NZ. Its the aggressive nature teams are playing nowadays.



Well the difference between a minnow getting blown out and a test playing country getting blown out is we know who is getting blown out before the minnow game. Any team can getting blown out in a given day but on a minnow vs test playing country, it is always one sided against minnows.

Tigers_eye
February 20, 2007, 12:51 PM
Why point the finger on Bermuda's old away performance? They have a richer history than we do. They were the bottom ranked team in their group but qualified fair and square. Didn't they win against US by 113 runs? They posted a total of 232 against Zim at Zim very recently. I know BD at times failed to do that even against the same team same venue.

We must endure these blowouts and look at the big picture.

Kenya's run was phenominal last time.

Tigers_eye
February 20, 2007, 12:54 PM
We complain that the big brothers are not giving us chance. How would we improve?

The minnows have the same complaint. India don't invite us, you think from free will they will invite bermuda?? If not for ICC WC bermuda wouldn't have a chance to face the bullies.

Farhad
February 20, 2007, 12:55 PM
Im just happy our country's name's not in there anymore:)....And I dont agree with Holding. For starters, i would then have to agree with all the people who proposed a two tier system (with Bangladesh in the second tier):). More importantly, this tournament encourages the globalisation of World Cricket, and thats of utmost importance to me right now. Id go as far as to say its my highest priority. Higher than BD doing well and going up the ranks.
However, I agree with some of his points. Namely, the devaluation of the tournament. Although I think he should have thought about it a bit further. If he finds it to be that much of a problem (which i dont btw), let the associates play in their own group. Put them all in group one or something, the top two go to the next round.

Tigers_eye
February 20, 2007, 12:57 PM
Well the difference between a minnow getting blown out and a test playing country getting blown out is we know who is getting blown out before the minnow game. Any team can getting blown out in a given day but on a minnow vs test playing country, it is always one sided against minnows.
I take as blown out matches are bad and unattractive. Doesn't matter who is on the receiving end. At least it would allow big guns to rack up stats and not make useless complaints like Shane Warne on Murali's wickets.

Miraz
February 20, 2007, 12:59 PM
It's difficult to agree with Holding as a Tiger fan. He has got points in his arguments but again, the same arguments were used by David Hookes during our Australia tour.

I'd like a format like the champions trophy where the associates will play for two spots of the main round.

They can taste the World Cup (although preliminary round) at the same time best sides only feature in the main tournament.

12 teams divided into two groups. :)

TheWatcher
February 20, 2007, 01:03 PM
Why point the finger on Bermuda's old away performance? They have a richer history than we do. They were the bottom ranked team in their group but qualified fair and square. Didn't they win against US by 113 runs? They posted a total of 232 against Zim at Zim very recently. I know BD at times failed to do that even against the same team same venue.
Errr, Tigers_eye, I am not the one who is pointing at old history, it is you. Bermuda got beaten by West Indian clubs last month.

Can't recall Bermuda visiting Zimbabwe in recent times, are you talking about Zim-Can-Ber tri-series in West Indies, that took place last year ? As for us, did not we beat Zimbabwe by almost 150 runs in a neutral venue last year ?

TheWatcher
February 20, 2007, 01:09 PM
It's difficult to agree with Holding as a Tiger fan. He has got points in his arguments but again, the same arguments were used by David Hookes during our Australia tour.
Not quite so, if you are the best of the rest and miles ahead of countries below you, you do deserve to play better teams. Which is why I have no objection against Kenya and Scotland (neither does Holding).


I'd like a format like the champions trophy where the associates will play for two spots of the main round.
My point exactly, and according to recent World Cricket League in Kenya, Kenya and Scotland are those two teams.

Tigers_eye
February 20, 2007, 01:10 PM
On an another note:
The under 19 WC tournament allows team like Nepal to shoot down the hunters. If we don't let them have a chance in the next level the cricket itself will die out in those countries. Competing against Football, Basketball and other sports which is much better organized and financed.

If Bd were an associate team I would see 100% shunning of Holding in this site for sure.

Miraz
February 20, 2007, 01:13 PM
My point exactly, and according to recent World Cricket League in Kenya, Kenya and Scotland are those two teams.

Difficult to judge based on world cricket league.

Ireland and Canada are playing the final of the ICC Intercontinental cup (http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2006/OTHERS/ICC-CONT/) which is much more rigorous tournament. :)

Tigers_eye
February 20, 2007, 01:18 PM
Not quite so, if you are the best of the rest and miles ahead of countries below you, you do deserve to play better teams. Which is why I have no objection against Kenya and Scotland (neither does Holding).

However Mr. Holding is suggesting that a last time semi-finalist also stays out of the WC. Only Scotland should participate.
This is from BBC:

"Holding, part of the fearsome West Indies pace cortege of the 1980s, believes only the top-ranked associate country in the world (currently Scotland) should be allowed to take part."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/6379285.stm

billah
February 20, 2007, 01:22 PM
Some of us like what Holding is saying now. But a few years back, we did not like this type of analysis against us.

If it wasn't for the Test Status, I don't think our cricket would have advanced so quickly. Look at Bermuda, Kenya and others. We used to play and regularly lose to these guys in ICC. Now, we have left them in the dust. Specially in terms of infrastructure, emerging cricketer pool and sponsorships.

Without help from the big daddy, cricket will always remain confined in an exclusive club. Playing at these levels will give these countries a much-needed boost, just like it did for us...

TheWatcher
February 20, 2007, 01:28 PM
However Mr. Holding is suggesting that a last time semi-finalist also stays out of the WC. Only Scotland should participate.
This is from BBC:

"Holding, part of the fearsome West Indies pace cortege of the 1980s, believes only the top-ranked associate country in the world (currently Scotland) should be allowed to take part."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/6379285.stm
Scotland is top ranked among associate because Kenya already has a position in main ODI ranking. If Holding has nothing against Scotland he should have nothing against Kenya. At least, there is nothing here that said Holding spoke against Kenya, may be he just forgot that Kenya was recently demoted as an associate country.

Xavier
February 20, 2007, 02:06 PM
By those statements Holding proves that he doesn't know much of world cup history and the format of this edition.
The only problem with the minnows is that most of them are little countries (Holland, Scotland, Irealand... let alone Bermuda) that could never reach the standard of the test teams. If the ICC really worked on promoting the game in the whole world than we could have a real threat by the associates.
About the format: what is taking this wc to last so much is the quite sense-less super-8 not the presence of 6 associates.

zakirc
February 20, 2007, 02:20 PM
Despite all the arguments for and against Holding's comments, I guess everybody will agree that allowing the minnows play in the WC is 100% consistent with a very important goal of ICC these days, "Globalization of Cricket", at the same time it is also ensuring extra income from sale of media rights to more number of countries. I don't see the harm in allowing more countries to participate.

Maybe ICC can use a format like the U19 WC where there are two tiers of champions and this would allow emerging countries to have an intermediary goal, like we could target a more achievable "Plate" championship for WC 2007.

al Furqaan
February 20, 2007, 02:25 PM
I totally agree with Holding, the quality of the world cup should not have been deluted so much. I also think the twelve team format was the best one for World cup, that way Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, and top associate countries would get more matches in the tourny and chance of an upset would increase.

by holding's and your logic, bangladesh shouldn't be there either.

and as of a few weeks ago, england shouldn't have been there

west indies and pak are too unpredicatble so take them out,

SL and india can't win overseas so take them away.

NZ, uggg...

so WC 07 should just be a match between OZ and RSA...

Okelani
February 20, 2007, 02:47 PM
by holding's and your logic, bangladesh shouldn't be there either.

and as of a few weeks ago, england shouldn't have been there

west indies and pak are too unpredicatble so take them out,

SL and india can't win overseas so take them away.

NZ, uggg...

so WC 07 should just be a match between OZ and RSA...

NZ whitewashed AUS ,so RSA already champion.let's go home ,no need of worldcup.your logic just sucks:)
(if it wa s sarcastic , doesn't look so)
why NZ is UGGGG

TheWatcher
February 20, 2007, 03:37 PM
Some of us like what Holding is saying now. But a few years back, we did not like this type of analysis against us.

If it wasn't for the Test Status, I don't think our cricket would have advanced so quickly. Look at Bermuda, Kenya and others. We used to play and regularly lose to these guys in ICC. Now, we have left them in the dust. Specially in terms of infrastructure, emerging cricketer pool and sponsorships.

Without help from the big daddy, cricket will always remain confined in an exclusive club. Playing at these levels will give these countries a much-needed boost, just like it did for us...
Billah, nobody gave us a hoot when we were a team of Bermuda and Canada's standard. If ICC allowed so many associate countries to play in the WC back in the time, we would play in WC in Australia, 1992.

Also, even before 1997, our cricket infrastructure and talent base were far better than those are now in any associate country (may be except for Kenya). If you are trying to relate our past with those countries, you are fooling yourself.

Nobody is asking big daddy to stop giving big bucks to minnows either. I have no problem seeing Bangladesh hosting Bermuda for an ODI or two. But it is just too comical to see below club standard teams like Canada and Bermuda playing in World Cup. ICC has pushed the boundary too far in the name of development.

TheWatcher
February 20, 2007, 03:52 PM
We complain that the big brothers are not giving us chance. How would we improve?

The minnows have the same complaint. India don't invite us, you think from free will they will invite bermuda?? If not for ICC WC bermuda wouldn't have a chance to face the bullies.
Point taken. But the thing is- India is not Bermuda's big brother, India is Bermuda's great grandfather. Bermuda's big brothers are Kenaya, Scotland, Ireland, and Holland- Bermuda is getting fair amount of matches against them (lot more than we are getting against our big brothers).

Once again, I have no problem to see Bermuda and Canada in the big league once they outgrow the small league.

Pundit
February 20, 2007, 04:10 PM
Screw him. What he really should be saying is that the WI is not capable of holding a big tournament.

al Furqaan
February 20, 2007, 04:51 PM
If it wasn't for the Test Status, I don't think our cricket would have advanced so quickly.


exactly. debate over. discussion closed. holding is WRONG.

TheWatcher
February 20, 2007, 05:13 PM
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ffffff 1px outset; BORDER-TOP: #ffffff 1px outset; BORDER-LEFT: #ffffff 1px outset; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ffffff 1px outset">Originally Posted by billah

If it wasn't for the Test Status, I don't think our cricket would have advanced so quickly.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->exactly. debate over. discussion closed. holding is WRONG.
Yeah, the debate over, let us petition ICC to give Test status to all the cricket playing countries (including China, Japan, Panama,.....) in the world (as according to al Furqaan and Billah, that will just shoot up their progress) and we all will be a merry bunch :p

Mridul
February 20, 2007, 05:53 PM
it is just too comical to see below club standard teams like Canada and Bermuda playing in World Cup.

Which club standard are u referring to? Bangladesh & Zimbabwe are also not better than many clubs in the world.

Just watch out Bangladesh's game on Feb 25th and Feb 28th. Canada and Bermuda both team have the ability to shake the current Bangladesh team.

RazabQ
February 20, 2007, 06:00 PM
How quickly some of us become haughty. Minnow nations should absolutely play in the WC and they should absolutely get to face some of the top teams. You think Hungary (9) vs Korea Republic (0), 1954; Yugoslavia (9) vs Zaire (0), 1974; Hungary (10) vs El Salvador (1), 1982 were classics? Yet these matches played their part in helping make the Copa Mundial the global phenomenon it is today. Cricket needs to go global or any sport that requires 5-days to play with no-results (at the highest level) will very quickly get marginalized (you could argue it's already happening so in Windies & UK).

Having said that, ICC needs to do a better job of scheduling - the tourney should be no longer than a month.

TheWatcher
February 20, 2007, 06:15 PM
Minnow nations should absolutely play in the WC and they should absolutely get to face some of the top teams.
No one is actually arguing that point, no one is raising question why Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Scotland should play in WC. But, as I said, letting teams below them play in WC is just pushing the boundary too far.

You can't expect FIFA to let us play in their world cup, right ?

Xavier
February 20, 2007, 06:24 PM
No one is actually arguing that point, no one is raising question why Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Scotland should play in WC. But, as I said, letting teams below them play in WC is just pushing the boundary too far.

You can't expect FIFA to let us play in their world cup, right ?

Why not? FIFA world cup allows admittance to 31 teams that go through qualifiers, and 1 who's admitted as host country.
ICC allows 11 teams to be admitted and only 5 to reach world cup through qualifiers... though it is fair to say that competition in international football is much tighter than in cricket.

Mridul
February 20, 2007, 07:24 PM
No one is actually arguing that point, no one is raising question why Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Scotland should play in WC. But, as I said, letting teams below them play in WC is just pushing the boundary too far.


Lets look at the four other teams who are playing in the world cup.

Ireland:
- They have beaten Scotland last year
- They have scored 263 runs against England chasing 302 last year, which was their inagural ODI match
- Their player have scored 5 centuries in 8 ODIs so far
- Their run rate is 5.52
- Their scores in 8 ODIs so far: 263, 240, 274, 280, 276, 284, 308, 254. Average ODI score: 272

Netherlands:
- They have beaten Ireland
- They have scored 248 and 258 against Srilanka last year
- They lost by 2 runs against Scotland last month

Canada:
- They have beaten Kenya last month
- Only associate county to win a match chasing 300+ (against Ireland) last month
- Their wicket kepper batsman Ashish Bagai won the man of tournament last month in 6 nations ICC Cricket World League.

Bermuda:
- They have beaten Scotland last month
- They have also beaten Canada and Netherlands last year

My Conclusion:

All these 6 teams are very competative and any team can win on their given day. I would go for Ireland. They have the ability to qualify for Super Eight.

al Furqaan
February 20, 2007, 08:35 PM
the watcher, just remember that "below club standard" canada beat bangladesh in the most recent world cup.

minnow nations should definitely participate in the world cup. if nothing else it will show how far ahead bangladesh is, how far we've come, etc.

but more importantly, it gives cricket that popular boost in those countries. ireland, scotland, and holland are perfectly qualified for the world cup. canada and bermuda are a step down, but there is no need for this type of arrogance especially from a fan of a test nation which was an associate just the other day.

do i think the minnows will win any games? except for Ireland and Kenya, no. and even those 2 have an unlikely shot.

but why discourage them? they are the best of the rest, no matter how poor they are. and this is the World Cup, not the "Test Cup" or "Full members Cup"

TheWatcher
February 20, 2007, 08:46 PM
</PRE></P>
Mridul Look (http://www.icc-cricket.com/icc/odi/associates.html) at ICC associate ranking. Yeah, Scotland still loose matches against other associates, but majority of the time(69%) they win. I am not saying they are much better than four associates below them, but atleast they have created some gap with others. And all those stats you are talking about, they are mostly from matches where six top associates played each other.

It is useless now to argue whether Holding is right or wrong, nothing can be changed now. But look how Bangladesh fits in the picture- instead of our boys gaining some valuable experience from this big ocassion, against stronger oppositions, we will be playing majority of our matches against associates. ICC is using us to prepare Bermuda, Canada, and Scotland for WC. Instead of this, we could have given our boys a better preparation by playing West Indian FC sides, heck we could have stayed home and played some onedays against England-A. ICC wants to be a noble benefactor to those teams, fine, but why at our cost ?

Mridul
February 20, 2007, 09:02 PM
</PRE>

Mridul Look (http://www.cricketeurope4.net/DATABASE/ARTICLES/articles/000038/003830.shtml) at ICC associate ranking.

Yeah, Scotland still loose matches against other associates, but majority of the time they win. I am not saying they are much better than four associates below them, but atleast they have created some gap with others.



Yes it may seem they have created gaps by looking at the rankings. However, if you check their scorecards (http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchListCountry_ODI.asp?A=SCO) , most of their wins against minnows were very close. Ranking can be easily deciving. Ranking gap between us and the top 8 cricket coutries are also very big.

PoorFan
February 21, 2007, 02:24 AM
In a cricket perspective how boring, waste and bad it could be playing few more matches against associates once in a 4 years? World cup is a largest sport festival, where every nations has the right to participate in, for the sake of sport and festival. Some matches could be surely one sided and boring to top nations, but certainly not to those associates, who wait 4 long years and prepare for the largest show. Think about couple of young talented players of associate nations who may never be able to show up in their life time, unless given chance in such a biggest sports festival. How it's going to help him, his fellow mates, as well as country wide fans and players in that case? How does it bring enthusiasm and cheer to those associate countries, if only couple of nations get to participate in world cup every 4 years? Is this enough to associate more people with cricket in globe? I dont think so.

Not that every country is playing in world cup, only 16 of them, what's wrong with that? Yes, some of them could be worse than a club but so what? In football so many nations in world cup, could be worse than big club teams too! Does it matter anyway? If it does, then Coca Cola top ranked 8 to 12 country was enough for world cup foot ball, isn't it?

Mr. Holding should know that the world cup is not only for top ranked country and fans to cheer up, also belongs to associate country and fans.

Baundule
February 21, 2007, 05:33 AM
At first glance, one may find many reasons in support of Holding's comments. But ultimately, as Tigers_eye pointed out, he has many flaws. One sided matches are unattractive for sure; but at least we should know how good it can be for cricket. We all know how the popularity of cricket was enhanced when we got the chance to play in the world cup. It works as a great motivation.

Cricket, now a days, is not a game only for the aristocrats. It's a game for the public. Bangladesh is still a minnow; but in the last couple of years, our skills and confidence levels have improved. Playing against the big guns helped quite a lot. Why should not we support the same for the other weaker teams?

The performance stuff is not a permanent thing. People can improve with time. And this improvement can be measured not only by playing against the teams of equal strengths; but also against the stronger teams. In cricket, you can not jump to a high level overnight. Face a world class bowler once, you are dumped at the first delivery! Face him for the second time, you survive for an over. Face him for the third time, you are much less afraid. There is no alternative. You can not improve that much facing a mediocre bowler for 10 years!

Not so many countries are involved in playing cricket. In order to spread the game, more teams must be given the exposure. Even in football, where the game is already wide-spreaded, there are many one-sided games. I am sure, the weaker teams will catch up the bigger ones! Let's not forget the future.

Rabz
February 21, 2007, 09:02 PM
Tried to read all your posts, even though it could take painstaking long time.

In my opinion, World cup is the Carnival of that sport where only the best would battle out have the title "Champions of the world".

Not a place for second tier, third tier teams to participate.

16 teams is just too many. Yes, Cananda, Holland et all have a right to play with the big boys but not in this tournament. What Holding pointed out is right. ICC should be looking to arrange more tours and games between the associates and the full members, but cramping them once in a four year thing.

I like the old style. 10+2 should be the answer. 10 full members and 2 of the best associates should play in WC. Didnt we got our way into world cricket that way?? Didnt we had to wait untill 99 to play in the cup ? and we did that rightly so, by winning the ICC trophy.

Cricket and Football should not be compared. 32 countries in Football wc sometimes even seems to less given the shere number of countries play the game. Hec, every single country in this world play soccer. If iCC thinking of competing with FIFA, it just does not happen that way.

World cup should not be about meaningless games. Every single match should be exciting and challenging. Yes, some team are better than the other and may be one sided. but i fail to see how Holland can benefit from getting a drubbing from Australia.

For their development, they need to tour Australia and slowly progress like we did over the years. Not playing in once in a four year tournament.

Well, what the hec. Cuz teams like Bermuda playing, we actually have a chance of coming home with atleast 1 win....

Navarene
February 24, 2007, 11:47 AM
Its a riddle to solve why Ganguly became a minnow-wisher from winnow-basher all of a sudden (remember his comment on Bangladesh for a two tier system?). I wonder if he desperately looks for his 25th ton by playing minnows like Bermuda and changes his tune to support minnows accordingly. Here is the part of what he says now a days:

KOLKATA, Feb 24: Sourav Ganguly on Saturday supported the inclusion of little known sides in the World Cup, saying that the experience of playing against stronger teams would put them in good stead.

"It is the duty of stronger teams to support these teams to do better. If you do not play against these teams, they wlll not get exposure," Ganguly said.

Ganguly did not agree that the presence of sides like Bermuda, Canada, Ireland, Scotland and the Netherlands would rob the World Cup of its lustre.

"I don't think so. We are playing these teams only in the preliminaries," he replied.

Ganguly said India too had gone through the same stages of development as these sides taking part in the coming World Cup.

"We (India) also went through such phases when we started," he said.

Ganguly also felt that the established sides would not be lacking in motivation when they square up against the minnows.


More on http://cricket.indiatimes.com/Ganguly_supports_smaller_teams_at_WC/articleshow/1675637.cms

AsifTheManRahman
February 24, 2007, 11:54 AM
Well when you're coming back from rehab, you're a changed man. The same happened to Ganguly, I guess.

TheWatcher
March 8, 2007, 03:45 PM
All those warm-up matches got me thinking that I probably had underestimated the entertainment value of matches involving associates (well, may be except for matches involving Canada and Bermuda).

Rabz
March 8, 2007, 06:46 PM
The key point here is Bangladesh.

We lead the "minnow" pack.
Since we are playing so well recently and the improvement is so tangible...everyone has no choice but to shut up. Just using us as an example.

If we can move to the second round this time, it will be a perfect vindication of the need for development of the game...and hence the need for the chance of weaker team to play.

TheWatcher
March 8, 2007, 07:34 PM
The key point here is Bangladesh.

We lead the "minnow" pack.
Since we are playing so well recently and the improvement is so tangible...everyone has no choice but to shut up. Just using us as an example.
Nah, I think it is Kenya who leads the minnow pack now. Call it arrogence or whatever, I think we have proved in recent matches that we have graduated from the minnow pack and should be considered a true underdog. Our status in the cricket world is now what used to be the case for Zimbabwe during Flower-Streak's time.

If someone wants to criticize minnows, it will be foolish for them to relate us with them (Pointing learned it the hard way). As the NZ sports radio commentator said, you are not going to see pundits mentioning Bangladesh and minnow in the same sentence anymore. Funny thing is that minnows are the ones now trying to relate us with them so to shield themselves from criticism (some of the same teams that used to talk trash about us not long ago).

TheWatcher
March 19, 2007, 01:46 PM
Well, Holding was, atleast, right on the money about Bermuda.

Tigers_eye
March 19, 2007, 01:50 PM
But that doesn't give the right to bash others. He is too big of icon. I am a huge fan of holding the player. He is just openning himself to criticizm. Needs to shut his mouth.

This should also teach ICC schedule makers a lesson not to ink teams in the second round in near future (champions trophy). But I am sure intelligence can't be implanted/taught unless those people want to learn and rectify their own mistakes.

Xavier
March 19, 2007, 02:19 PM
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ffffff 1px outset; BORDER-TOP: #ffffff 1px outset; BORDER-LEFT: #ffffff 1px outset; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ffffff 1px outset">Ganguly did not agree that the presence of sides like Bermuda, Canada, Ireland, Scotland and the Netherlands would rob the World Cup of its lustre.

"I don't think so. We are playing these teams only in the preliminaries," he replied.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Quick quiz: in this sentence by Ganguly there are 2 words in excess. Guess which they are...:-D

IanW
March 19, 2007, 05:26 PM
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2" style="border: 1px outset rgb(255, 255, 255);">Ganguly did not agree that the presence of sides like Bermuda, Canada, Ireland, Scotland and the Netherlands would rob the World Cup of its lustre.

"I don't think so. We are playing these teams only in the preliminaries," he replied.

</td></tr></tbody></table>

Quick quiz: in this sentence by Ganguly there are 2 words in excess. Guess which they are...:-D

Dunno. Cant see the 2 words


I don't think so. We are playing these teams in the preliminaries,

I don't think so. We are playing these teams,

I don't think so. These teams are playing

Xavier
March 19, 2007, 05:32 PM
Wrong one mate... Ganguly doesn't care about associates presence in the world cup because: "We are playing only in the preliminaries" ...whether "these teams" are there or not!:lol:

ammark
March 19, 2007, 05:43 PM
Wrong one mate... Ganguly doesn't care about associates presence in the world cup because: "We are playing only in the preliminaries" ...whether "these teams" are there or not!:lol:

Good one :up:

Rudro07
March 19, 2007, 06:23 PM
No No to this holding