The Outsider Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 This is the sports page of Holland's most widely circulated newspaper : http://www.telegraaf.nl/telesport/ There is one 200-250 word article on it regarding today's cricket match.
Raghav_12 Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 Most of them are of South African origin. In fact, your post got me curious, so I checked their places of origin on their cricinfo profiles. Kervezee - South African born Barresi - South African born Cooper - Australian born Doeschate - South African born Zuiderent - Holland de Grooth - Holland Borren - New Zealand born Bukhari - Pakistani born Seelaar - Holland born Loots - South African born Westdijk - Holland born I had not done that detailed analysis on each player, but from names like that 9-10 outta 11 are dutch. (I have some confidence on my understanding of dutch names, courtsey my extended stay in Netherlands :-)). However they may have born anywhere and i find it hard to believe if somebody would have moved to Netherlands, just to be part of Netherlands team. In any case I'll take your point here. Holland too relies a bit on expats to put up a decent cricket team. If you think today's performance is going to get the average Dutch guy interested in cricket, you are kidding yourself. Most probably don't even know that their country has a team in the cricket world cup It does help in small measures, though will not bring any sudden change. I was in Netherlands when they had defeated Eng in 20-20 WC and people did talk about that in office. News was in newspapers and on TV as well.
The Outsider Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 I had not done that detailed analysis on each player, but from names like that 9-10 outta 11 are dutch. (I have some confidence on my understanding of dutch names, courtsey my extended stay in Netherlands :-)). However they may have born anywhere and i find it hard to believe if somebody would have moved to Netherlands, just to be part of Netherlands team. In any case I'll take your point here. Holland too relies a bit on expats to put up a decent cricket team. I am not saying they moved back to Holland from South Africa or other countries to play cricket. They are probably children of families who moved back to Holland, had spent their childhood in cricket playing countries, and continued playing in clubs in Holland. Just as it happens in US and Canada where kids of Asian families continue to have an interest and play cricket. That does not mean there is a local popularity for the sport. It does help in small measures, though will not bring any sudden change. I was in Netherlands when they had defeated Eng in 20-20 WC and people did talk about that in office. News was in newspapers and on TV as well. I really doubt it, but in any case I don't see the value this slight change adds in contrast to the disservice it does to the premier cricketing tournament. Perhaps it was unavoidable to have them there till the T20 WC was not around. But following the T20 WC there is no value gain from having them play the ODI WC.
Ultimate_Game Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 World Cup should have as many teams as possible and 16 would be the ideal no. of teams for the world cup. It's the format of the tournament that's the problem and not the no. of countries/teams taking part in it. If you bar emerging or associate nations from contesting the world cup, how will cricket grow and expand as a sport? I would love to see the likes of Afghanistan, Nepal, Netherlands, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Kenya participate in the world cup in the future as this is the only time I can see these teams, and like Netherlands today (or Ireland in 2007 or Kenya in 2003 and 96) would love to see a surprize or two!
Pak_Forever Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 If the Indian football team receives a 0-10 hammering from Brazil every month for the next 5 years' date=' will the standard of football improve in India?[/quote'] You really think Indian football team will be the same as it is right now, if they play Brazil on monthly basis? This sounds more like a massive boost for a non-existence sport in a country like India, and surely with such regular competition, fan following, talk, media exposure and domestic play will definitely improve. ICC doesn't have to get rid of minnows, they just need a better shorter format and need to invest better on minnow teams (better facilities, regular visits of A-B teams of Test level teams to those countries etc to give them continuous exposure). Increasing 16 teams for T20 is a good move, but if you will have only 10 teams playing 50 over format, then future of minnows wlil only be made up of sloggers. Sri Lanka improved, Bangladesh has improved, Ireland has improved, Holland seems to be going in the right direction, it may take time but growth of this game is vital for the survival of this game in the long run.
Pak_Forever Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 This is the sports page of Holland's most widely circulated newspaper : http://www.telegraaf.nl/telesport/ There is one 200-250 word article on it regarding today's cricket match. Well atleast there's one report on cricket.
cricket_asia Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 yes they must,because they too must have a chance to play against stronger teams.some teams meet the giants only in the WC.it will help to gain the test honor if they could beat few test playing nations however the amount of the number must be reduced like 2
gaurav92 Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 If this format has to survive, I say only 10 teams should be allowed. The Top eight in the rankings are picked, and the next 8 compete against each others to get the 2 spots (Yes even Bangladesh compete). Otherwise if we see Canada, Kenya and Scotland getting jack hammered, there wont be much attention in the other nations for Cricket, we need good games in the World Cups, with even teams competing against each other.We may keep the associates in T20 World Cup nevertheless. Grouping should be Group A (5 teams). Group B (5 Teams). 1) Each Team plays one against each other (Round Robin). 2) Top 4 from each group gets selected for the QFs 3) Then there is a SF and a Final. 4) So Total games would be 10 in each group from the group stage (10 X 2 ) = 20. 4 QFs + 2 SFs + 1 Finals = 27 Games in all. Its a short and sweet World Cup, and more importantly, it gives more chances of an evenly contested World Cup. So if a minnow like Holland makes it to the WC via the qualifiers ahead of say Zimbabwe, they have to compete against good sides in their group and that will be good to see, that a deserving side has got a chance to play against the Big sides. OTOH if we do not regulate it, A side like Kenya will be nailed dismally (Like they were against NZ), and it will be a one side contest, that crowds don't want to see. In a nutshell, WC should be of a short span between good sides, so that the games aren't boring for the crowd. Also reducing the 40-50 games to 27 games (as I mentioned above) will make the WC far more convenient for everyone. Otherwise , this 50 over format is going to suffer In T20s, we can have 16 teams contesting, as T20 can give more surprises than the 50 over format, because of its shorter duration, and the popularity of sport can be further spread via the T20s.
broken_wings Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 If this format has to survive, I say only 10 teams should be allowed. The Top eight in the rankings are picked, and the next 8 compete against each others to get the 2 spots (Yes even Bangladesh compete). Wake up mate. Bangladesh is in TOP 8 ! You mean, WI (who are currently No.9) !
Ranjha Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 No one except the south asians in canada give 2 sh*ts about the sport of cricket...we dont need canada in the wc...all these minnows should be kicked out..no one carEs for cricket in their country..its only the immigrants or expats w.e. BS. for a few inidividuals WE ARE RUINING THE BIGGEST AND MOST PRIZED TOURNAMENT OF THIS LOVELY GAME. KICK MINNOWS OUT!!!!
Ranjha Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 There should only be 8 teams in the wc...not even 10. lets leave the experimentation for t20 worldcups....
broken_wings Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 How would you decide which 8 teams to play in WC ? Why Ind, Pak, NZ to get free ride ?? Lets have a "Pre-Qualifying" Tournament with 16 teams and then decide which 8 team to progress ! How about that ???
gaurav92 Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 Wake up mate. Bangladesh is in TOP 8 ! You mean' date=' WI (who are currently No.9) ![/quote'] http://www.espncricinfo.com/rankings/content/page/211271.html Ok. Theres a tie in the ratings. Anyways, Till the next WC comes, I am sure Windies will get ahead of Bangbros :)
Hindustani Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 There should only be 8 teams in the wc...not even 10. lets leave the experimentation for t20 worldcups.... 10 are needed as WI/BD can't be left + this will bring one non cricket playing nation in the cup, something which is needed.
gaurav92 Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 ^TOH PHIR 14 AUR 12 MEIN KYA FARAK HAI ? :hmmm: AREY BABA ITNA BORING WORLD CUP NAHI CHAHIYE HUMEIN, ACHE MATCH DEKHNE KI KYA KASAM KHAAYI HAI KYA AAPNE ? jAB DEKHO KENYA, NAMIBIA, ZIMBABWE KO SUPPORT KARTE REHTE HO :mad:
Gotham Cronie Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 I don't mind the minnows. It's the fact that there is only 1 match a day is the problem.
riwi999 Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 I would say minnows should first have exposure playing more cricket with quality teams instead of just other minnows. For example, Netherlands and Ireland could play much more cricket with England. Even if they play with second teams of England, it will be valuable experience for them. With this sustained exposure and experience, they will get better and better and then be more competitive when it comes to the World Cup. Now I am not sure minnows should play in the World Cup unless they are of a certain standard. Just because ONE of the minnows could upset ONE of the big teams in ONE freak match of the tournament, is no reason to flog 36 matches involving minnows. Not unless the minnows themselves raise their level such that they become competitive, like I mentioned. Netherlands proved to be very competitive yesterday and THAT is the level we are talking about. If we however have to go with minnow games, I'd much rather have them wrapped up in as short a timeframe as possible. Have 3 games a day and get to the business end of the tourney in a week and a half, max two weeks. I believe this used to happen in previous World Cups but because of advertising/sponsorship etc, the whole thing is being stretched as long as possible. Which is maybe the core issue that nobody seems to want to talk about. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say you don't want a tournament that goes on and on and at the same time say you cannot host more than a game a day because it affects advertising revenue. If we had got this stage of the tournament done within a week and a half, and some of the minnows had not quite as pathetic as they have been, I think we would not even have been having this discussion. The ICC has taken an easy way out, culling the minnows from WC2015. I see their point but I would prefer it if they also had a road map for development of associate cricket, assuming they still care about it.
Zero_Unit Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 http://www.espncricinfo.com/rankings/content/page/211271.html Ok. Theres a tie in the ratings. Anyways, Till the next WC comes, I am sure Windies will get ahead of Bangbros :) I think you are forgeting one main big factor. WI's players are more into where the money is then playing for their COUNTRY unlike the players of BD. REmember how Gayle did not want a contract with WI because he wanted to be a free lancer? And from recently what I am seeing, the cricket of BD is just going up the standard not going down like WI. And now for the other comment you gave before about the top 10 team. Ok but what if (and that is a big WHAT IF) one of the associates goes through the 2nd round, meaning one of the TOP 9 will most likely pack it up and go home. In that case the associate that goes through the qualification round will finish in the top 10 for the WC. Now with that in mind how can the ICC say that the associates do not deserve a chance! I mean if they are good enough to pass the the next round then they deserve a chance to play ... (REMEMBER THE "WHAT IF" BEFORE BASHING). And to be honest, if WC was all about the top 10 team then how the F*** did INDIA and PAKISTAN exit the last WC so early? The only reason this WC has so many useless knockout games and consists team of 7 in each groups is because they want to make sure that INDIA and PAKISTAN dosen't get the same treatment like they did in the last WC if you have not noticed yet.
gaurav92 Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 ^The point is in the Last WC they had 16 teams, so they can be bifurcated in a group of 4, now in the current scenario there are 14 teams participating (like 03 WC) so there cannot be 4 groups, and hence there are 2 of 7 each. And lets be honest, the most deserving team must go through, isn't it ? Last WC format didn't allow India and Pak to come back after showing a dismal performance against a relatively weak side. And what happened after Ireland and Bangbros went through to the second round ? It made life easy for the other 6 teams, and now the competition was only between 6 rather than 8, so it decreases the impact and the interest levels of fans too.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now