ishtiaq_ctg
Tape Ball Star
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2018
- Runs
- 936
Athar Ali Khan is so bad that he's good. He's literally having an orgasm right now




Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Athar Ali Khan is so bad that he's good. He's literally having an orgasm right now![]()
![]()
![]()
So Group A will have Srilanka ,BD, Aus ,WI,Eng ,SA. This will be an interesting group
Yes.
I think it is better for Bangladesh because this group is a bit easier than the other group (New Zealand, Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan).
So Group A will have Srilanka ,BD, Aus ,WI,Eng ,SA. This will be an interesting group
Scotland top Group B and join India, Pakistan, New Zealand, Afghanistan and the Runner up in Group A
Bangladesh finish 2nd in Group B and join England, Australia, South Africa, West Indies and the winner of Group A
Realistically
Group A - India, Pakistan, New Zealand, Afghanistan, Scotland, Ireland/Namibia.
Group B - Australia, England, South Africa, West Indies, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh
I'm a fan of associate nations but this is just ridiculous.
Will it also mean at least one of AFG, SCO, Nam/Ire (whoever finishes 4th or above) will get direct super 12 entry in next year's WC?
Realistically
Group A - India, Pakistan, New Zealand, Afghanistan, Scotland, Ireland/Namibia.
Group B - Australia, England, South Africa, West Indies, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh
I'm a fan of associate nations but this is just ridiculous.
Will it also mean at least one of AFG, SCO, Nam/Ire (whoever finishes 4th or above) will get direct super 12 entry in next year's WC?
Why is it ridiculous? The groups were made based on the international T20 rankings at the time (ensuring in a way that all those bilateral T20 matches weren't ultimately meaningless). Afghanistan were ahead of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka on merit.
Bangladesh lost to Scotland and deserve to be in the tougher group.
Why is it ridiculous? The groups were made based on the international T20 rankings at the time (ensuring in a way that all those bilateral T20 matches weren't ultimately meaningless). Afghanistan were ahead of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka on merit.
Bangladesh lost to Scotland and deserve to be in the tougher group.
Yeah. Rules are pretty fair.
Good job, ICC.
Bangladesh should've been in the other group but they lost to Scotland and thus ended up with Sri Lanka.
Nothing unfair here.
Ridiculous because ICC changed the rule after tournament has started. As per original rule, SRL and BD would have predetermined seedings of A1 and B1 as long as they qualify, which made sense.
Now you have a group consisting of Scot, Afghanistan, and Nam/Ireland.
No it's not. That's nuts. Who made these rules? ICC original rule made perfect sense to give predetermined seedings to SRL and BD.
How is that fair that rules were changed AFTER tournament was started? You can already guess why they changed the rule.
As per original rule, SRL and BD were A1 and B1 as long as they qualify to super 12, which made perfect sense.
Now in one group you have Scot, Afghanistan, and possibly Namibia.
The original rule was an absolute travesty as it rewarded incompetence, there was no jeopardy involved at the qualification stage. I'm glad that the ICC saw sense.
Where are you getting that rules were changed after tournament has started? Any source?
I checked Cricinfo, ICC website, and Wikipedia. I haven't seen anything regarding rule change.
I am not sure what you are sulking about but rules were not changed. The qualifications scenario was always the same..How is that fair that rules were changed AFTER tournament was started? You can already guess why they changed the rule.
As per original rule, SRL and BD were A1 and B1 as long as they qualify to super 12, which made perfect sense.
Now in one group you have Scot, Afghanistan, and possibly Namibia.
Where are you getting that rules were changed after tournament has started? Any source?
I checked Cricinfo, ICC website, and Wikipedia. I haven't seen anything regarding rule change.
If Sri Lanka and Bangladesh qualify from the first round, they will retain the seedings of A1 and B1 respectively for the Super 12s
The rules were changed prior to the tournament starting.
This is the primer from the ICC website dated 16th of October: https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/2284474
ICC has released another statement after this: https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/2284474. That's before the tournament has started.
I think an established team like Bangladesh shouldn't complain about such a minor thing. They are not an associate side.
What minor side? I gave you proof of ICC ORIGINAL statement regarding rules of the tournament. Then you give me something where they supposedly now changed the rules just 1 day before tournament started.
How can anyone take such tournament seriously? Their original rule made sense because it was based on team rankings even if SRL and BD had to play qualifier round. There must have been a reason why they put that rule into place ORIGINALLY.
What minor side? I gave you proof of ICC ORIGINAL statement regarding rules of the tournament. Then you give me something where they supposedly now changed the rules just 1 day before tournament started.
How can anyone take such tournament seriously? Their original rule made sense because it was based on team rankings even if SRL and BD had to play qualifier round. There must have been a reason why they put that rule into place ORIGINALLY.
It is something very minor.
Your outrage is cringeworthy.
Dude its not about being outraged or not. All I did is show you what the ORIGINAL ICC rule said. Then they changed it and now they have group with 3 associates, which is dumb.
Dude its not about being outraged or not. All I did is show you what the ORIGINAL ICC rule said. Then they changed it and now they have group with 3 associates, which is dumb.
What minor side? I gave you proof of ICC ORIGINAL statement regarding rules of the tournament. Then you give me something where they supposedly now changed the rules just 1 day before tournament started.
How can anyone take such tournament seriously? Their original rule made sense because it was based on team rankings even if SRL and BD had to play qualifier round. There must have been a reason why they put that rule into place ORIGINALLY.
Surprised that you called Afghanistan an associate.
For the record, Afghans have been beating Bangladesh in T20 for a while now. They won 3-0 last time. They are a better T20 side than BD.
You knew what I meant by "associate" team. In t20 anyone can beat anyone I get that.
We beat them handily in World cups in both T20 and ODI but that's beyond the point.
They Put the rule in so Bangladesh and Sri Lanka don't get rewarded for Mediocrity. Bangladesh should have either directly qualified or beaten Scotland. They should be just happy they are going into the next round. If it wasn't for Oman terrible fielding and inexperience, Bangladesh would be buying a ticket to go home.
I really don't know what you mean by associate team.
Afghanistan are not an associate. Neither literally nor figuratively.
Ireland are no longer an associate too.
You are being very confusing here.
In T20, Afghans are better than Bangladesh and possibly Sri Lanka too.
All I am saying is that Group A is certainly not the easier group as you have claimed. That is all. As a BD fan like yourself, I would rather fancy our chances in Group B.
I also tried to justify their original rule because to me that actually made sense because you see now SRL could easily lose to NED by big margin and still wind up in Group B that way. The original rule was a failsafe for such event to occur.
All I am saying is that Group A is certainly not the easier group as you have claimed. That is all. As a BD fan like yourself, I would rather fancy our chances in Group A
I also tried to justify their original rule because to me that actually made sense because you see now SRL could easily lose to NED by big margin and still wind up in Group B that way. The original rule was a failsafe for such event to occur.