The shameful treatment of ICC Associate members

[MenInG]

In our interview with Ehsan Mani

"I expressed a big concern about the finances of the associates. Now, the ICC has been saying that they are giving the associates a chance to break through the glass ceiling and play Test cricket. However, if you look at this closely whilst taking the example of Ireland, you see that England play them once every two years for one ODI in Ireland. That’s all there is for Ireland. I made the point that the full members have no appetite to play regular cricket in any format of the game against the associate members. I also spoke about the attitude of the full members towards the associates which was exemplified by MS Dhoni’s comments during the 2015 World Cup when he said “I agree that the Associates should play more cricket against the Full Members but not India…..; we have a very busy schedule and do not have the space in our programme!”

One more point that I made was that the ICC will pay the associates like Ireland approximately $2.5m per year from 2016. When in reality, it should be getting between $8-10m a year if it is to attract players; to become professional cricketers and keep them. Otherwise, Ireland will continue to be a nursery for English cricket. All the good players such as Eoin Morgan, will be taken up by England or other countries. Additionally, when the associates such as Ireland, Afghanistan, Scotland, the United States, Netherlands, UAE and Nepal qualify for the World Cup they get a lot of benefits. These include government funding, sponsorships and a huge interest in the game in their respective countries. Then I also mentioned what soccer has done for developing the sport. I gave the example of how FIFA has developed the sport around the world and, in particular, in the United States.

FIFA had the vision to hold a World Cup there in 1994. As a result, soccer has a large number of participants and big following in the United States. In last year’s World Cup in Brazil, the US performed creditably, resulting in over 20 million viewers in the US watching some of its matches. This in turn translated into millions of dollars in revenues for FIFA. You really have to have the vision to invest for the sport and then you can reap the benefits."

 

[TheNightWatchman]

BCCI's proposal to make cricket a private member's club alone speaks out the fact that the Big 3 have no intentions to expand cricket. Especially considering they want a 10 team world cup. They might as well remove teams like WI and Bangladesh while they're at it. They clearly care for the betterment of their own respective boards. Ridiculous to say the least and a disgrace to the game

 

[Gabbar Singh]

He makes a fair point.

Any side which tours England (2 teams a year) should play at least 2 odis + 1 first class match against an Irish XI. And England should play 3 odis against them each year.

 

[the Great Khan]

Its a caste system. And we all know how that goes..

 

[Donal Cozzie]

Its an absolute travesty the way things are going. I may not even have a team to support in 10 years if the ICC get their wish. Sad thing is this close minded, pathetic approach to the game designed solely to make the rich even richer has come literally right as the open minded policies of the mid 90's early noughties ICC are coming to fruition.

Picture the mid 90's. Look at the state of Associate cricket then. You had a world cup with Kenya, who bar a win vs WI were resoundingly beaten in every game, including conceding 400 runs to SL. The Netherlands didnt win or compete in a single game, and the UAE were awful. The latter two Associates were expat filled nations with practically no home structure to speak of.

You could have argued at this point, after a successful 1992 tournament with zero Associates that this was proof of the Associates inability to achieve anything and thus the ICC could easily have closed the door on them forever. No doubt this, at the time, would've been a popular motion too.

But they didnt. The ICC back then were a much more progressive organisation than they are now. They saw the value in spreading the game far and wide, they saw the potential markets to break into and the had the backing of the member boards.

Eventually, the ICC decided to create a tournament for the sole purpose of spreading the game in the Associate world. It was hosted by an Associate nation and all the test playing nations participated in the tournament along with the leading Associates Bangladesh and hosts Kenya. There were three qualifying matches before the Quarter Finals, involving Kenya, India, Sri Lanka, West Indies, Bangladesh and England. The full members at the time didnt mind qualifying, after all the whole purpose of the tournament was to spread the game.

"What mystical tournament is this you speak of?" I hear you say. Well believe it or not it was a massive success. It was the Champions Trophy, the now full member only event the current myopic ICC felt fit to morph it into, for spreading the game isnt necessary in the eyes of the modern ICC.

Lets move to 2003, where Kenya made it famously to the semi finals, but Namibia were pathetically outplayed, as were the Dutch and Scots. Again the chance was there. The Associates had shown some improvement, but the ICC stuck to their guns. Change would be slow but over time big improvement will be made, we must continue spreading the game. So they actually increased the qualifying spots. Very progressive and inclusive.

2007. Ireland were magnificent but at times woefully outplayed. Bermuda were a laughing stock, Scotland,Kenya,Canada and the Netherlands came and went as if they never took part. Again the chance was there. The Associates had been given adequate preparation this time, and still, bar 2 Irish wins and a tie, they didnt show much. But again, the ICC didnt shut the door. They realised that India and Pakistan had to make it to the next stage to avoid a financial disaster, but the then outward looking yet flawed ICC still saw reason to keep the Associates in the competition. 6 was too much, a fair enough judgement, so they reverted back to 4.

The format was altered so as to make the big teams impossible to knock out, but the door was still wide open for the Associates. A fair decision all things considered.

2011. The Netherlands showed glimpses of quality, as did Canada vs Pakistan and Kenya vs Australia. But for the first time an Associate challenged and competed with a full member in every single game they played, winning 2 games and being involved with 2 very close losses. Finally, the inclusive nature of the past ICC was being rewarded with an Associate showing serious potential to join the Test fold. Also, for the first time in history, there was a vibrant,passionate and marketable Associate not in the WC but still very much a decent side. Afghanistan. What was the reward of the Associates and the decisions of the past ICC management for such obvious progress at long last?

The door was slammed shut and locked.

The new "modern" and totally backwards ICC management, focused solely on preserving Indian interests saw these teams as nothing but an expense, and sought to kill them off. All the years of waiting for improvement and one sided games were finally looking like they may come to an end, and the ICC shut the door in the face of those who had worked and been assisted for so long to improve.

Only a legal challenge overturned the decision, but the current ICC made its feelings well known. The Associates were no longer wanted. We dont need to spread the game. We have the IPL, Ashes, India series etc. to sell for ever and ever, you arent needed so buzz off.

In contrast to past events, where Kenya were given regular ODI's and Bangladesh given instant test cricket, the top Associates received virtually nothing for the next several years, forced to be content with games vs their fellow second class citizens

Now look at 2015. Scotland came and put in some impressive showings, including a 150 by Coetzer. A 150 by a Scottish batsman was inconceivable 8 years prior. Finally, the inclusive nature of the past ICC was showing results for all the qualifiers, with Ireland looking like a full member side themselves, Afghanistan impressing in spells and the UAE doggedly resisting in nearly every game. We had several tight games, wins over full members and lots of impressive players from all of the qualifiers for the first time ever.

The decisions to keep the Associates in the world cups made back when they could easily have been cut off were finally bearing fruit!!

"Too bad", said the ICC, you're still not wanted, and thus the door was effectively shut again. All that progress meant nothing.

Its not just world cups where this shameless attitude is evident. The ICC had an absolutely GOLDEN opportunity to hand all the nations outside the big 3 a desperately needed financial boost. Potentially a game changer. For you see, the past ICC spent ages on the USA market, plus the Chinese, trying and failing to establish a stronghold in the market. Ask yourself, what do these countries take VERY seriously??

The Olympics.

The biggest sporting event on the planet. The USA and Chinese cricket associations, as well as every single nation that takes the Olympics seriously would receive a financial boost from their respective governments with the aims of competing in the Olympics. Ireland could have a shot at a medal and Olympic glory, as would every nation.

This was the chance the ICC of old would have snapped at. A chance to broadcast t20 to a massive global audience of hundreds of millions in every single country, all the while the cricket boards across the globe receive funding boosts from their governments sporting departments and olympic councils without the ICC having to do anything. An absolute godsend.

They rejected the chance to be at the next Olympics.

Just ask yourselves, how was such a boneheaded, narrow minded petty decision made especially when you consider other sports fight tooth and nail to get in the Olympics, and here was cricket being offered it and rejecting it.

Here's the answer:

India didnt care about the Olympics. To the BCCI it was needless. We're well off as is, screw the rest. If we dont want to take part, no one can.

To the ECB and CA it meant a potential schedule clash to an Ashes series.

It was because of this the decision that would've benefitted 99.99 percent of cricket boards was rejected. No one else matters bar the Big 3 in this new system of cricketing governance.

Now that the Asia Cup is gone Afghanistans one shot at regular games vs the big guys is gone. The ICC dont care, they just cut Associate funding by 300 million to fund the Big 3 coffers why would they??

This is how cricket treats the Associates now. All the progress made since the 90s is irrelevant to the ICC, who at one stage provided the sole lifeline for Associates.

How great was that Big 3 takeover eh??

 

[Mamoon]

Cricket was meant to be an elitist game. The British Raj didn't allow Indian peasants to play this aristocratic game. We need to stay true to our traditions.

The beauty of cricket lies in how limited the number of teams are. This exclusivity is the soul of this game.

Good to see ICC has enough sense.

 

[BeautifulGame]

Its an absolute travesty the way things are going. I may not even have a team to support in 10 years if the ICC get their wish. Sad thing is this close minded, pathetic approach to the game designed solely to make the rich even richer has come literally right as the open minded policies of the mid 90's early noughties ICC are coming to fruition.

Picture the mid 90's. Look at the state of Associate cricket then. You had a world cup with Kenya, who bar a win vs WI were resoundingly beaten in every game, including conceding 400 runs to SL. The Netherlands didnt win or compete in a single game, and the UAE were awful. The latter two Associates were expat filled nations with practically no home structure to speak of.

You could have argued at this point, after a successful 1992 tournament with zero Associates that this was proof of the Associates inability to achieve anything and thus the ICC could easily have closed the door on them forever. No doubt this, at the time, would've been a popular motion too.

But they didnt. The ICC back then were a much more progressive organisation than they are now. They saw the value in spreading the game far and wide, they saw the potential markets to break into and the had the backing of the member boards.

Eventually, the ICC decided to create a tournament for the sole purpose of spreading the game in the Associate world. It was hosted by an Associate nation and all the test playing nations participated in the tournament along with the leading Associates Bangladesh and hosts Kenya. There were three qualifying matches before the Quarter Finals, involving Kenya, India, Sri Lanka, West Indies, Bangladesh and England. The full members at the time didnt mind qualifying, after all the whole purpose of the tournament was to spread the game.

"What mystical tournament is this you speak of?" I hear you say. Well believe it or not it was a massive success. It was the Champions Trophy, the now full member only event the current myopic ICC felt fit to morph it into, for spreading the game isnt necessary in the eyes of the modern ICC.

Lets move to 2003, where Kenya made it famously to the semi finals, but Namibia were pathetically outplayed, as were the Dutch and Scots. Again the chance was there. The Associates had shown some improvement, but the ICC stuck to their guns. Change would be slow but over time big improvement will be made, we must continue spreading the game. So they actually increased the qualifying spots. Very progressive and inclusive.

2007. Ireland were magnificent but at times woefully outplayed. Bermuda were a laughing stock, Scotland,Kenya,Canada and the Netherlands came and went as if they never took part. Again the chance was there. The Associates had been given adequate preparation this time, and still, bar 2 Irish wins and a tie, they didnt show much. But again, the ICC didnt shut the door. They realised that India and Pakistan had to make it to the next stage to avoid a financial disaster, but the then outward looking yet flawed ICC still saw reason to keep the Associates in the competition. 6 was too much, a fair enough judgement, so they reverted back to 4.

The format was altered so as to make the big teams impossible to knock out, but the door was still wide open for the Associates. A fair decision all things considered.

2011. The Netherlands showed glimpses of quality, as did Canada vs Pakistan and Kenya vs Australia. But for the first time an Associate challenged and competed with a full member in every single game they played, winning 2 games and being involved with 2 very close losses. Finally, the inclusive nature of the past ICC was being rewarded with an Associate showing serious potential to join the Test fold. Also, for the first time in history, there was a vibrant,passionate and marketable Associate not in the WC but still very much a decent side. Afghanistan. What was the reward of the Associates and the decisions of the past ICC management for such obvious progress at long last?

The door was slammed shut and locked.

The new "modern" and totally backwards ICC management, focused solely on preserving Indian interests saw these teams as nothing but an expense, and sought to kill them off. All the years of waiting for improvement and one sided games were finally looking like they may come to an end, and the ICC shut the door in the face of those who had worked and been assisted for so long to improve.

Only a legal challenge overturned the decision, but the current ICC made its feelings well known. The Associates were no longer wanted. We dont need to spread the game. We have the IPL, Ashes, India series etc. to sell for ever and ever, you arent needed so buzz off.

In contrast to past events, where Kenya were given regular ODI's and Bangladesh given instant test cricket, the top Associates received virtually nothing for the next several years, forced to be content with games vs their fellow second class citizens

Now look at 2015. Scotland came and put in some impressive showings, including a 150 by Coetzer. A 150 by a Scottish batsman was inconceivable 8 years prior. Finally, the inclusive nature of the past ICC was showing results for all the qualifiers, with Ireland looking like a full member side themselves, Afghanistan impressing in spells and the UAE doggedly resisting in nearly every game. We had several tight games, wins over full members and lots of impressive players from all of the qualifiers for the first time ever.

The decisions to keep the Associates in the world cups made back when they could easily have been cut off were finally bearing fruit!!

"Too bad", said the ICC, you're still not wanted, and thus the door was effectively shut again. All that progress meant nothing.

Its not just world cups where this shameless attitude is evident. The ICC had an absolutely GOLDEN opportunity to hand all the nations outside the big 3 a desperately needed financial boost. Potentially a game changer. For you see, the past ICC spent ages on the USA market, plus the Chinese, trying and failing to establish a stronghold in the market. Ask yourself, what do these countries take VERY seriously??

The Olympics.

The biggest sporting event on the planet. The USA and Chinese cricket associations, as well as every single nation that takes the Olympics seriously would receive a financial boost from their respective governments with the aims of competing in the Olympics. Ireland could have a shot at a medal and Olympic glory, as would every nation.

This was the chance the ICC of old would have snapped at. A chance to broadcast t20 to a massive global audience of hundreds of millions in every single country, all the while the cricket boards across the globe receive funding boosts from their governments sporting departments and olympic councils without the ICC having to do anything. An absolute godsend.

They rejected the chance to be at the next Olympics.

Just ask yourselves, how was such a boneheaded, narrow minded petty decision made especially when you consider other sports fight tooth and nail to get in the Olympics, and here was cricket being offered it and rejecting it.

Here's the answer:

India didnt care about the Olympics. To the BCCI it was needless. We're well off as is, screw the rest. If we dont want to take part, no one can.

To the ECB and CA it meant a potential schedule clash to an Ashes series.

It was because of this the decision that would've benefitted 99.99 percent of cricket boards was rejected. No one else matters bar the Big 3 in this new system of cricketing governance.

Now that the Asia Cup is gone Afghanistans one shot at regular games vs the big guys is gone. The ICC dont care, they just cut Associate funding by 300 million to fund the Big 3 coffers why would they??

This is how cricket treats the Associates now. All the progress made since the 90s is irrelevant to the ICC, who at one stage provided the sole lifeline for Associates.

How great was that Big 3 takeover eh??

Its not that BCCI didn't care about Olympics.But they are scared participating in Olympics might bring them under the purview of sports ministry and other laws.They will come under scrutiny which the BCCI netas don't want

And no it's not just BCCI who are against it .Most member boards are unfortunately against it becoz they won't get any revenue from Olympic games and will dilute the T20 WC which revenue they depend a lot on financially

 

[Slog]

Mani speaks a lot of sense and good post by [MENTION=136108]Donal Cozzie[/MENTION]

While I am not in favor of getting in as many associates as possible and lowering the overall standard of the game, there is not doubt that with the proper backing and environment associate nations have shown that they can up their levels.

What the ICC needs is to find a medium path which is why I dont understand its policies of either going all out with 14 or 16 teams as they have done and now the proposed 10 team WC

Cricket's big drawback n this respect is that an ODI games takes EIGHT hours so mismatches between Associates and the better Full member stand out. there is no shrtage of one sided batterings in any competition really regardless of the sport but cricket gets more attention and a bad rap for sth which is pretty common across all sports

Anyways [MENTION=136108]Donal Cozzie[/MENTION] and others in the know. What is the ICC's plan of associates in regards to T20. I thought the ICC was pushing for greater Associate representation in the World T20.

 

[ads101]

One thing I always see is they keep bringing up Morgan. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought Morgan eventually wanted to play for England one day anyway. Remember reading an interview when he was young saying he wanted to play for England. I think Morgan wants to play for a big team. Even if Ireland were competing in ODIs and test series regularly, not sure that would be enough for Morgan.

Better to assess the team in it's current state. We saw it be fairly competitive in the World Cup, it nearly qualified, beat two test nations West Indies and Zimbabwe, and finished above Zimbabwe in the end. In the world cup 2011 they beat England. Logic would dictate that Ireland would be able to compete at a similar level to Zimbabwe and Bangladesh atm. Hence it would make sense to allow them to play at that level. Makes little sense to shut them off.

Ireland is quite a bit ahead of the other associates now, it's both sad that they're shut off to just play with the associates now and not even given the chance to play on the world cup stage now. What's more they represent how an associate can rise and improve over time.

I feel perhaps the ICC/Top 3 act this way is because Ireland has a small fan base. All these associate countries have small fan bases, either small country, or cricket isn't a main sport there. Thus they see them less likely to be a country which can fill stadiums and generate revenue. Bangladesh while being weak team has always had that large fan base, thus the potential to grow. While I don't believe the difference between Bangladesh and Ireland is huge presently (Bangladesh are better though no doubt), I'm sure it will become a lot greater with years to come, I just see far more potential is Bangladesh growing in strength as a cricket nation.

 

[Slog]

One thing I always see is they keep bringing up Morgan. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought Morgan eventually wanted to play for England one day anyway. Remember reading an interview when he was young saying he wanted to play for England. I think Morgan wants to play for a big team. Even if Ireland were competing in ODIs and test series regularly, not sure that would be enough for Morgan.
.

I would disagree

Morgan would def have stayed with Ireland if they did play test cricket

 

[ForeverIndian]

Instead of wasting time with that IPL garbage , why can't BCCI arrange for Indian team to tour countries like Ireland and Scotland and give them more exposure to International cricket ?

 

[desi_launda]

IPL has become an important part of life during April-May for hundreds of million of Indians.It is not garbage,like it or not.

 

[Swanny]

IPL has become an important part of life during April-May for hundreds of million of Indians.It is not garbage,like it or not.

Imo most people who dont like it are turned off becoz its a t20 format.
I think they consider having a 40-40 overs format which was successful in england.

Instead of 16 matches for each team they should have only 8 matches for each team plus semis & finals.

 

[MenInG]

I see the regular bcci bashing has resumed.

I see the normal levels of intellectual debate are back as well for some

 

[Swanny]

I see the normal levels of intellectual debate are back as well for some

Judging from the no. of intellectual posts & bcci bashing posts in this & other thread i fully agree.

 

[ForeverIndian]

Judging from the no. of intellectual posts & bcci bashing posts in this & other thread i fully agree.

Oh please. You (or any BCCI fanboy ) don't have to those corrupt politicians in every thread.

 

[Swanny]

Oh please. You (or any BCCI fanboy ) don't have to those corrupt politicians in every thread.

i am all for the ipl becoz youngsters getting to share dressing rooms with best in the buisness & legends is a huge deal. Imo instead of t20 they should have a 40overs format for ipl

If a similar initiative but 40 overs instead of t20 is available for u16 & u19 it would be 10 times as effective as any domestic LO tourney.

We need more ipl like tourneys for various formats instead of even more pathetic ranji trophy, duleep trophy, mustaq ali tourney etc.

Wake up dude vinay koomar is our best domestic bowler. We need batsmen like amla, abd, sangakara, warner etc absolutely burrying such bowlers in domestics itself so coaches & players realise what real bowlers should be.

 

[Convict]

The biggest problem is not that there is a set group of 'elite nations'

It's that there is no mechanism or even a a set standard that would allow an associate to join the 'elite nations'.

 

[amit]

Cricket was meant to be an elitist game. The British Raj didn't allow Indian peasants to play this aristocratic game. We need to stay true to our traditions.

The beauty of cricket lies in how limited the number of teams are. This exclusivity is the soul of this game.

Good to see ICC has enough sense.

Worst post ever on Pakpassion and this coming from a guy who has scored over 50000 runs on PP

Cricket is meant to be a global gme. In India, its those people u called "peasants" who are producing the cricketers. Virender Sehwag, comes from a backward area in Delhi, Najafgarh. Dhoni, was a ticket checker in Railways before becoming a cricketer. Munaf Patel comes from a family which could not even afford sports shoes, and still he became a cricketer after his talent was spotted in a tennis ball competition for his village. If cricket didn't spread to the villages in India, India would have never been this strong we are now

And now, its time cricket spreads all over the world. Countries like Ireland, Scotland, Netherlands, Afghanistan & Nepal need a special help from the ICC. All of them need to be given 4-5 million each year and a proper cricket system be set up in these countries. The talent is there and Ireland, Afghanistan & Nepal are totally cricket crazy. Even Scotland & Netherlands have decent following, but they haven't been shown the path

 

[amit]

i am all for the ipl becoz youngsters getting to share dressing rooms with best in the buisness & legends is a huge deal. Imo instead of t20 they should have a 40overs format for ipl

If a similar initiative but 40 overs instead of t20 is available for u16 & u19 it would be 10 times as effective as any domestic LO tourney.

We need more ipl like tourneys for various formats instead of even more pathetic ranji trophy, duleep trophy, mustaq ali tourney etc.

Wake up dude vinay koomar is our best domestic bowler. We need batsmen like amla, abd, sangakara, warner etc absolutely burrying such bowlers in domestics itself so coaches & players realise what real bowlers should be.

40 overs IPL format will be good and better than the T20 IPL. With 40 overs, we can have matches in the evening from 6pm - 12pm which people can see in the evenings after work. In some days, 2 matches can be done as well with 1 match in the morning and 40 overs gives players enough overs to play proper cricket with a true contest between bat and ball

It will be a good idea if all T20 & ODI cricket was ended and replaced by 40 overs ODIs

 

[amit]

Imo most people who dont like it are turned off becoz its a t20 format.
I think they consider having a 40-40 overs format which was successful in england.

Instead of 16 matches for each team they should have only 8 matches for each team plus semis & finals.

I would rather increase the teams from 8 to 12 so that more players can get the opportunity. Each team will get 11 matches and plays the other team once. And we have 2 matches in a day. The 66 group matches done in just 33 days, followed by the playoffs

And also 40 overs like i said in the above post

 

[Convict]

Worst post ever on Pakpassion and this coming from a guy who has scored over 50000 runs on PP

Cricket is meant to be a global gme. In India, its those people u called "peasants" who are producing the cricketers. Virender Sehwag, comes from a backward area in Delhi, Najafgarh. Dhoni, was a ticket checker in Railways before becoming a cricketer. Munaf Patel comes from a family which could not even afford sports shoes, and still he became a cricketer after his talent was spotted in a tennis ball competition for his village. If cricket didn't spread to the villages in India, India would have never been this strong we are now

And now, its time cricket spreads all over the world. Countries like Ireland, Scotland, Netherlands, Afghanistan & Nepal need a special help from the ICC. All of them need to be given 4-5 million each year and a proper cricket system be set up in these countries. The talent is there and Ireland, Afghanistan & Nepal are totally cricket crazy. Even Scotland & Netherlands have decent following, but they haven't been shown the path

Well I can't fully agree with you.

If we're going to invest we have to decide which nations are actually worth investing in- as in which ones are starting to produce domestic players.

Afghanistan and Ireland are the two obvious ones.

Other nations are the UAE (not concerned about foreigners because most of the UAE population is foreign anyway), Scotland (best way to do this would be to have an England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales*) cup every few years.

*Wales to still compete as part of England everywhere else.

Nepal, PNG and Namibia are other countries worth investing in.

Maybe the Netherlands but they're always been dependent on expats and Australians/South Africans with Dutch grandparents

 

[Mamoon]

Worst post ever on Pakpassion and this coming from a guy who has scored over 50000 runs on PP

Cricket is meant to be a global gme. In India, its those people u called "peasants" who are producing the cricketers. Virender Sehwag, comes from a backward area in Delhi, Najafgarh. Dhoni, was a ticket checker in Railways before becoming a cricketer. Munaf Patel comes from a family which could not even afford sports shoes, and still he became a cricketer after his talent was spotted in a tennis ball competition for his village. If cricket didn't spread to the villages in India, India would have never been this strong we are now

And now, its time cricket spreads all over the world. Countries like Ireland, Scotland, Netherlands, Afghanistan & Nepal need a special help from the ICC. All of them need to be given 4-5 million each year and a proper cricket system be set up in these countries. The talent is there and Ireland, Afghanistan & Nepal are totally cricket crazy. Even Scotland & Netherlands have decent following, but they haven't been shown the path

None of these teams will ever be competitive at Test level. Bangladesh example is a case in point - 15 years, still a diabolical Test nation.

India and Pakistan were lucky to develop as Test nations in an era when it was possible. Dynamics of cricket have changed now, and hoping for these associates to compete at Test level is delusional.

India and Pakistan wouldn't have shed minnow status in this era either.

 

[#GreenRoars]

the game of power and dominance.
at first the British didnt allow asians to play cricket.
and now the same thing will happen, who will be the King ? wont allow others to play much cricket.

 

[amit]

None of these teams will ever be competitive at Test level. Bangladesh example is a case in point - 15 years, still a diabolical Test nation.

India and Pakistan were lucky to develop as Test nations in an era when it was possible. Dynamics of cricket have changed now, and hoping for these associates to compete at Test level is delusional.

India and Pakistan wouldn't have shed minnow status in this era either.

Just because Bangladesh haven't improved in 15 years, doesn't mean others wont improve. In 2001, Afghanistan were not even a ICC member, and did not even have a cricket team, 13 years later, they beat Bangladesh & Zimbabwe in away ODIs in Bangladesh & Zimbabwe. And 14 years later they played a cricket world cup

Ireland are already miles better than the overrated Bangladesh and if given test status, they will start beating teams like England, West Indies, Sri Lanka, Pakistan regularly within 5 years in home tests in Ireland

And I don't see Bangladesh improve even in next 20 years. Afghanistan & Nepal will overtake them soon

 

[Swanny]

I would rather increase the teams from 8 to 12 so that more players can get the opportunity. Each team will get 11 matches and plays the other team once. And we have 2 matches in a day. The 66 group matches done in just 33 days, followed by the playoffs

And also 40 overs like i said in the above post

Yes the point i wanted to get across is that we need this more than than aus, eng & sa.

We havent won one test series in sa & aus yet. If Bcci mantains the status quo there's no way of that happening ever.

The domestic coaches & players need to see what kind of efforts & skills are needed especially by bowlers to be sucessful in international cricket.

Have 40 overs tourneys for one to one & half month. Also have quotas for domestic coaches in each team so they get to learn as well.

 

[amit]

Well I can't fully agree with you.

If we're going to invest we have to decide which nations are actually worth investing in- as in which ones are starting to produce domestic players.

Afghanistan and Ireland are the two obvious ones.

Other nations are the UAE (not concerned about foreigners because most of the UAE population is foreign anyway), Scotland (best way to do this would be to have an England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales*) cup every few years.

*Wales to still compete as part of England everywhere else.

Nepal, PNG and Namibia are other countries worth investing in.

Maybe the Netherlands but they're always been dependent on expats and Australians/South Africans with Dutch grandparents

I mentioned the same countries only. Ireland, Afghanistan & Nepal are very very obvious

Netherlands had 14 homegrown players out of 15 when they played in 2003 World cup - http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/squad/434620.html . Adeel Raja was the only foreigner, but even he learnt his cricket in Netherlands. Netherlands need to be given the final push so that they don't scout Australians/South Africans with Dutch blood to play for them and instead get more homegrown players to play for them

Scotland is similar too. And I agree about Euro Cup cricket. It should be a 5 nation event with England, Ireland, Wales, Scotland & Netherlands

The only additions u mentioned were PNG, UAE & Namibia. Even I agree they should be given the special help. Maybe Kenya as well to get cricket back on track. PNG can be a strong team in future

 

[JaDed]

Its a caste system. And we all know how that goes..

Sad post.Doesn't say anything regarding the topic either.

 

[amit]

Yes the point i wanted to get across is that we need this more than than aus, eng & sa.

We havent won one test series in sa & aus yet. If Bcci mantains the status quo there's no way of that happening ever.

The domestic coaches & players need to see what kind of efforts & skills are needed especially by bowlers to be sucessful in international cricket.

Have 40 overs tourneys for one to one & half month. Also have quotas for domestic coaches in each team so they get to learn as well.

Yes. 40 overs and more IPL teams will improve the standard of domestic cricket. And each team should have Indian coaches as well, maybe not as the head coach, but someone in the coaching panel

 

[amit]

Its an absolute travesty the way things are going. I may not even have a team to support in 10 years if the ICC get their wish. Sad thing is this close minded, pathetic approach to the game designed solely to make the rich even richer has come literally right as the open minded policies of the mid 90's early noughties ICC are coming to fruition.

Picture the mid 90's. Look at the state of Associate cricket then. You had a world cup with Kenya, who bar a win vs WI were resoundingly beaten in every game, including conceding 400 runs to SL. The Netherlands didnt win or compete in a single game, and the UAE were awful. The latter two Associates were expat filled nations with practically no home structure to speak of.

You could have argued at this point, after a successful 1992 tournament with zero Associates that this was proof of the Associates inability to achieve anything and thus the ICC could easily have closed the door on them forever. No doubt this, at the time, would've been a popular motion too.

But they didnt. The ICC back then were a much more progressive organisation than they are now. They saw the value in spreading the game far and wide, they saw the potential markets to break into and the had the backing of the member boards.

Eventually, the ICC decided to create a tournament for the sole purpose of spreading the game in the Associate world. It was hosted by an Associate nation and all the test playing nations participated in the tournament along with the leading Associates Bangladesh and hosts Kenya. There were three qualifying matches before the Quarter Finals, involving Kenya, India, Sri Lanka, West Indies, Bangladesh and England. The full members at the time didnt mind qualifying, after all the whole purpose of the tournament was to spread the game.

"What mystical tournament is this you speak of?" I hear you say. Well believe it or not it was a massive success. It was the Champions Trophy, the now full member only event the current myopic ICC felt fit to morph it into, for spreading the game isnt necessary in the eyes of the modern ICC.

Lets move to 2003, where Kenya made it famously to the semi finals, but Namibia were pathetically outplayed, as were the Dutch and Scots. Again the chance was there. The Associates had shown some improvement, but the ICC stuck to their guns. Change would be slow but over time big improvement will be made, we must continue spreading the game. So they actually increased the qualifying spots. Very progressive and inclusive.

2007. Ireland were magnificent but at times woefully outplayed. Bermuda were a laughing stock, Scotland,Kenya,Canada and the Netherlands came and went as if they never took part. Again the chance was there. The Associates had been given adequate preparation this time, and still, bar 2 Irish wins and a tie, they didnt show much. But again, the ICC didnt shut the door. They realised that India and Pakistan had to make it to the next stage to avoid a financial disaster, but the then outward looking yet flawed ICC still saw reason to keep the Associates in the competition. 6 was too much, a fair enough judgement, so they reverted back to 4.

The format was altered so as to make the big teams impossible to knock out, but the door was still wide open for the Associates. A fair decision all things considered.

2011. The Netherlands showed glimpses of quality, as did Canada vs Pakistan and Kenya vs Australia. But for the first time an Associate challenged and competed with a full member in every single game they played, winning 2 games and being involved with 2 very close losses. Finally, the inclusive nature of the past ICC was being rewarded with an Associate showing serious potential to join the Test fold. Also, for the first time in history, there was a vibrant,passionate and marketable Associate not in the WC but still very much a decent side. Afghanistan. What was the reward of the Associates and the decisions of the past ICC management for such obvious progress at long last?

The door was slammed shut and locked.

The new "modern" and totally backwards ICC management, focused solely on preserving Indian interests saw these teams as nothing but an expense, and sought to kill them off. All the years of waiting for improvement and one sided games were finally looking like they may come to an end, and the ICC shut the door in the face of those who had worked and been assisted for so long to improve.

Only a legal challenge overturned the decision, but the current ICC made its feelings well known. The Associates were no longer wanted. We dont need to spread the game. We have the IPL, Ashes, India series etc. to sell for ever and ever, you arent needed so buzz off.

In contrast to past events, where Kenya were given regular ODI's and Bangladesh given instant test cricket, the top Associates received virtually nothing for the next several years, forced to be content with games vs their fellow second class citizens

Now look at 2015. Scotland came and put in some impressive showings, including a 150 by Coetzer. A 150 by a Scottish batsman was inconceivable 8 years prior. Finally, the inclusive nature of the past ICC was showing results for all the qualifiers, with Ireland looking like a full member side themselves, Afghanistan impressing in spells and the UAE doggedly resisting in nearly every game. We had several tight games, wins over full members and lots of impressive players from all of the qualifiers for the first time ever.

The decisions to keep the Associates in the world cups made back when they could easily have been cut off were finally bearing fruit!!

"Too bad", said the ICC, you're still not wanted, and thus the door was effectively shut again. All that progress meant nothing.

Its not just world cups where this shameless attitude is evident. The ICC had an absolutely GOLDEN opportunity to hand all the nations outside the big 3 a desperately needed financial boost. Potentially a game changer. For you see, the past ICC spent ages on the USA market, plus the Chinese, trying and failing to establish a stronghold in the market. Ask yourself, what do these countries take VERY seriously??

The Olympics.

The biggest sporting event on the planet. The USA and Chinese cricket associations, as well as every single nation that takes the Olympics seriously would receive a financial boost from their respective governments with the aims of competing in the Olympics. Ireland could have a shot at a medal and Olympic glory, as would every nation.

This was the chance the ICC of old would have snapped at. A chance to broadcast t20 to a massive global audience of hundreds of millions in every single country, all the while the cricket boards across the globe receive funding boosts from their governments sporting departments and olympic councils without the ICC having to do anything. An absolute godsend.

They rejected the chance to be at the next Olympics.

Just ask yourselves, how was such a boneheaded, narrow minded petty decision made especially when you consider other sports fight tooth and nail to get in the Olympics, and here was cricket being offered it and rejecting it.

Here's the answer:

India didnt care about the Olympics. To the BCCI it was needless. We're well off as is, screw the rest. If we dont want to take part, no one can.

To the ECB and CA it meant a potential schedule clash to an Ashes series.

It was because of this the decision that would've benefitted 99.99 percent of cricket boards was rejected. No one else matters bar the Big 3 in this new system of cricketing governance.

Now that the Asia Cup is gone Afghanistans one shot at regular games vs the big guys is gone. The ICC dont care, they just cut Associate funding by 300 million to fund the Big 3 coffers why would they??

This is how cricket treats the Associates now. All the progress made since the 90s is irrelevant to the ICC, who at one stage provided the sole lifeline for Associates.

How great was that Big 3 takeover eh??

Very well said. I agree with almost everything. The ICC, from 1992 - 2006 did many good things for Associates. They had even planned to give Kenya test status in 2005, but they didn't get it as their own board was corrupt and Kenya did not even have a Kenya 'A' team, so the youngsters performance could not be found out too

Cutting from 16 teams to 14 was justified in 2011 as Bermuda, except for that catch by Leverock, didn't have even a single moment to know of and were heavily beaten. Scotland and Netherlands were pathetic as well and Kenya who would have come with high hopes of making to the Super 8s, were disappointing, but they did beat Canada. Canada, were competitive against England and Ireland did impress. So about 3 associates capable of playing the world cup and having something to gain out of it, so 14 seemed the right number to keep the likes of Bermuda away

We can see Associates progress from this. Let's define a competitive match as something (might be debatable) like -

1. Losing by 75 runs or less
2. Losing by 5 wickets or less
3. Losing with less than 5 overs to spare (in full 50 overs match)
4. Associate winning

And lets compare Associates v Top 8 in world cups from 1996 with the above definition -

1996 - 2 / 12 (KEN v WI, NET v ENG)
1999 - 3 / 12 (KEN v SL, BAN v WI, BAN v PAK)
2003 - 6 / 19 (NET v IND, NAM v ENG, CAN v NZ, KEN v SL, KEN v IND, KEN v AUS)
2007 - 3 / 17 (CAN v ENG, IRE v PAK, IRE v ENG)
2011 - 7 / 16 (CAN v PAK, KEN v AUS, NET v ENG, NET v IND, IRE v ENG, IRE v IND, IRE v WI)
2015 - 4 / 16 (SCO v NZ, AFG v SL, IRE v WI, IRE v PAK)

In 2015, UAE were not upto the mark. Take out UAE and it becomes 4/12. If Netherlands had qualified, we could have seen 2-3 more entries in this list. In 2011, Zimbabwe won convincingly against Canada & Kenya, and Bangladesh won convincingly against Netherlands, so Associates v Full members becomes 8 / 20 in 2011. In 2015, Scotland came close to beat Bangladesh and UAE came close to beat Zimbabwe. Ireland, beat Zimbabwe. So Associates v Full members turns to 7 / 20 in 2015

In 2019, atleast 14 teams have to be there if we look at above post, but this time 2 Associates who could have impressed in 2015, but were not a part of the world cup were Netherlands and PNG, so there is enough depth in Associates, not to forget a emerging cricket crazy Associate in Nepal

Ireland must be a part of world cups and there has to be enough room to have atleast 3 more, ideally 5 more to make it 16 teams in 2019, but 14 is a absolute minimum. Teams like Ireland, Scotland & Netherlands will be strong in almost home like conditions in England. And Afghanistan have the bowlers to take the advantage and with their youngsters doing so well, we can expect their batting to get stronger. In 2019, expect atleast 8-10 matches to make the above list if a similar format of 14 teams in 2 groups of 7 is kept. Only the 2nd round can be changed by having IPL style playoffs. Also expect about 3-4 wins as well from Associates over the top 8 if included

 

[Donal Cozzie]

One thing I always see is they keep bringing up Morgan. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought Morgan eventually wanted to play for England one day anyway. Remember reading an interview when he was young saying he wanted to play for England. I think Morgan wants to play for a big team. Even if Ireland were competing in ODIs and test series regularly, not sure that would be enough for Morgan.

Better to assess the team in it's current state. We saw it be fairly competitive in the World Cup, it nearly qualified, beat two test nations West Indies and Zimbabwe, and finished above Zimbabwe in the end. In the world cup 2011 they beat England. Logic would dictate that Ireland would be able to compete at a similar level to Zimbabwe and Bangladesh atm. Hence it would make sense to allow them to play at that level. Makes little sense to shut them off.

Ireland is quite a bit ahead of the other associates now, it's both sad that they're shut off to just play with the associates now and not even given the chance to play on the world cup stage now. What's more they represent how an associate can rise and improve over time.

I feel perhaps the ICC/Top 3 act this way is because Ireland has a small fan base. All these associate countries have small fan bases, either small country, or cricket isn't a main sport there. Thus they see them less likely to be a country which can fill stadiums and generate revenue. Bangladesh while being weak team has always had that large fan base, thus the potential to grow. While I don't believe the difference between Bangladesh and Ireland is huge presently (Bangladesh are better though no doubt), I'm sure it will become a lot greater with years to come, I just see far more potential is Bangladesh growing in strength as a cricket nation.

You are correct, Morgans aim always was to play for England, but you have to understand, Morgan grew up watching England, Ireland didnt have any structure or future, so his aim was always to represent England.

The guys currently playing have grown up watching Irelands heroics in 2007,2009 and 2011. There is a future for the national side plus a potential career. Morgan never had that chance.

Mani speaks a lot of sense and good post by [MENTION=136108]Donal Cozzie[/MENTION]

While I am not in favor of getting in as many associates as possible and lowering the overall standard of the game, there is not doubt that with the proper backing and environment associate nations have shown that they can up their levels.

What the ICC needs is to find a medium path which is why I dont understand its policies of either going all out with 14 or 16 teams as they have done and now the proposed 10 team WC

Cricket's big drawback n this respect is that an ODI games takes EIGHT hours so mismatches between Associates and the better Full member stand out. there is no shrtage of one sided batterings in any competition really regardless of the sport but cricket gets more attention and a bad rap for sth which is pretty common across all sports

Anyways [MENTION=136108]Donal Cozzie[/MENTION] and others in the know. What is the ICC's plan of associates in regards to T20. I thought the ICC was pushing for greater Associate representation in the World T20.

Lol, absolutely meaningless window dressing. Sure, on paper 16 teams is perfect, 6 Associates get a world cup spot. Fantastic.

Then you realise 5 or maybe all of said Associates get 3 games in the preliminary round/qualifier 2.0 which are hidden behind the warm up games for India,Australia and England and get one measly game against a full member.

The t20 world cup, the one which everyone agrees should be expansive is actually the most restricted, with it being a glorified 10 team world cup where the Associates are shoved out the door right as the big teams start to play. A joke when you consider it could easily be 2 groups of 6 or even 7 since 3 or at least 2 games per day is easily achieved in t20.

 

[Gabbar Singh]

Instead of wasting time with that IPL garbage , why can't BCCI arrange for Indian team to tour countries like Ireland and Scotland and give them more exposure to International cricket ?

Even the English can't be bothered wasting their time (not saying it is a waste of time but thats what they feel) playing Ireland and Scotland more than they have to yet you want the Indians to make 'tours' there?

 

[amit]

You are correct, Morgans aim always was to play for England, but you have to understand, Morgan grew up watching England, Ireland didnt have any structure or future, so his aim was always to represent England.

The guys currently playing have grown up watching Irelands heroics in 2007,2009 and 2011. There is a future for the national side plus a potential career. Morgan never had that chance.




Lol, absolutely meaningless window dressing. Sure, on paper 16 teams is perfect, 6 Associates get a world cup spot. Fantastic.

Then you realise 5 or maybe all of said Associates get 3 games in the preliminary round/qualifier 2.0 which are hidden behind the warm up games for India,Australia and England and get one measly game against a full member.

The t20 world cup, the one which everyone agrees should be expansive is actually the most restricted, with it being a glorified 10 team world cup where the Associates are shoved out the door right as the big teams start to play. A joke when you consider it could easily be 2 groups of 6 or even 7 since 3 or at least 2 games per day is easily achieved in t20.

A format of 4 groups of 4, followed by quarter finals, semis & final will be the best possible format for World T20. It can later be expanded to 20 teams with 4 groups of 5

 

[amit]

You are correct, Morgans aim always was to play for England, but you have to understand, Morgan grew up watching England, Ireland didnt have any structure or future, so his aim was always to represent England.

The guys currently playing have grown up watching Irelands heroics in 2007,2009 and 2011. There is a future for the national side plus a potential career. Morgan never had that chance.




Lol, absolutely meaningless window dressing. Sure, on paper 16 teams is perfect, 6 Associates get a world cup spot. Fantastic.

Then you realise 5 or maybe all of said Associates get 3 games in the preliminary round/qualifier 2.0 which are hidden behind the warm up games for India,Australia and England and get one measly game against a full member.

The t20 world cup, the one which everyone agrees should be expansive is actually the most restricted, with it being a glorified 10 team world cup where the Associates are shoved out the door right as the big teams start to play. A joke when you consider it could easily be 2 groups of 6 or even 7 since 3 or at least 2 games per day is easily achieved in t20.

A format of 4 groups of 4, followed by quarter finals, semis & final will be the best possible format for World T20. It can later be expanded to 20 teams with 4 groups of 5

Also, Eoin Morgan played for Ireland u-19 and Ireland 'A' back in 2004-2006 before making his Ireland debut. For such a player to play for England, is totally ridiculous. He must have stayed with Ireland only and if Morgan had been with Ireland, Ireland would have made it to the quarter-finals in 2015 and maybe 2011 as well

 

[gani999]

There is a case for the associates to form their own rival ICC, and leave the big three out.

India, Australia and England may be the financial powerhouses of the game but they owe a lot of their wealth to the fact that the smaller associates play them on a regular basis. It is quite imaginable that the big three's money flow will be seriously reduced if teams like Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka or New Zealand decide to stop playing them.

Indian companies are not going to be very generous with their sponsorship if they face a situation where India will never get to play sides like Pakistan, Sri Lanka or South Africa. After all, how many tri-lateral series between the big three and the IPL can the audiences from the big three handle? The TV viewership will plummet and the sponsors will force the BCCI to act. It is the same with the other two.

On the other hand a rival ICC with Pakistan, South Africa, New Zealand, West Indies, Ireland, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka can be very competitive, given the quality of the cricketers in these countries. Sooner or later, the sponsors will also see it and then come in droves.

The big question now is as to whether the smaller asscociates will be united enough to stand up together against the three big bullies. Will Sri Lanka, for instance, stand up and show the finger to India, or will New Zealand do the same to Australia?

If the smaller associates can form a tight club and stay united, the big three will eventually fall in line.

 

[MenInG]

There is a case for the associates to form their own rival ICC, and leave the big three out.

India, Australia and England may be the financial powerhouses of the game but they owe a lot of their wealth to the fact that the smaller associates play them on a regular basis. It is quite imaginable that the big three's money flow will be seriously reduced if teams like Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka or New Zealand decide to stop playing them.

Indian companies are not going to be very generous with their sponsorship if they face a situation where India will never get to play sides like Pakistan, Sri Lanka or South Africa. After all, how many tri-lateral series between the big three and the IPL can the audiences from the big three handle? The TV viewership will plummet and the sponsors will force the BCCI to act. It is the same with the other two.

On the other hand a rival ICC with Pakistan, South Africa, New Zealand, West Indies, Ireland, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka can be very competitive, given the quality of the cricketers in these countries. Sooner or later, the sponsors will also see it and then come in droves.

The big question now is as to whether the smaller asscociates will be united enough to stand up together against the three big bullies. Will Sri Lanka, for instance, stand up and show the finger to India, or will New Zealand do the same to Australia?

If the smaller associates can form a tight club and stay united, the big three will eventually fall in line.

That's like Division 2!

 

[gani999]

That's like Division 2!

Maybe.

Possibly the rival league may face serious cash flow issues initially.

But the fact remains that cricket is still very popular in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa, New Zealand and Bangladesh. There will be sponsors in these countries who will be willing to pitch in the money. After all, the rival league will have more teams and can produce some very competitive cricket. It will also help nations like Ireland and The Netherlands get more games, in turn improving their cricket and the popularity of the sport in their countries. This will help the spread of the game.

While all this goes on the big three will be left sitting and watching themselves play each other. At some point their audiences will get fed up.

I tell you, it will work.

 

[cricketindiafan]

Kenya reached WC semifinals in 2003 WC, Mr Mani became ICC president in July 2003, by 2006 when Mr. Mani's term got over, Kenya was nearly dead as a cricket nation. What was the then ICC president doing and how did he help the associate nation then? Or has he suddenly developed an affinity for associate nations?

During his 3 years as ICC hairman, only associate nation to play more than 5 ODIs was Kenya which played 10 ODIs. Looking at last 3 yrs data, excluding the WC matches, Afghanistan have played 23, Scotland 20 and Ireland have played 17 ODIs in addition to a handful of T20s. Yes the number needs to be higher but the state of their cricket looks much better than what it was during Mr. Mani's time.

 

[amit]

Kenya reached WC semifinals in 2003 WC, Mr Mani became ICC president in July 2003, by 2006 when Mr. Mani's term got over, Kenya was nearly dead as a cricket nation. What was the then ICC president doing and how did he help the associate nation then? Or has he suddenly developed an affinity for associate nations?

During his 3 years as ICC hairman, only associate nation to play more than 5 ODIs was Kenya which played 10 ODIs. Looking at last 3 yrs data, excluding the WC matches, Afghanistan have played 23, Scotland 20 and Ireland have played 17 ODIs in addition to a handful of T20s. Yes the number needs to be higher but the state of their cricket looks much better than what it was during Mr. Mani's time.

Kenya declined more due to their own board being pathetic and the fact that they didn't have a Kenya 'A' team

It was when Ehsan Mani was ICC president, that the ODI status was expanded to 16 teams in 2005 and teams like Ireland, Scotland, Netherlands started getting more matches. And the state of associate cricket improved due to the efforts made during Ehsan Mani's time only

 

[Thivagar]

Cricket was meant to be an elitist game. The British Raj didn't allow Indian peasants to play this aristocratic game. We need to stay true to our traditions.

The beauty of cricket lies in how limited the number of teams are. This exclusivity is the soul of this game.

Good to see ICC has enough sense.

This is how you sounds like. "The world should be ruled by the elites of Western Europeans, no poor peasants like Pakistanis, Indians and Sri Lankans should attempt to excel in life. Besides, all these nations are full of corruptions, poverty and these people have no sense of organizing skills anyway".

 

[Thivagar]

Canada could have been an full ICC member but it was murdered by Ice Hockey.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

The biggest problem is not that there is a set group of 'elite nations'

It's that there is no mechanism or even a a set standard that would allow an associate to join the 'elite nations'.

The problem is that nations is not a sustainable way for a sport to run and grow.

Leagues where a player can reach the pinnacle irrespective of nationality is what will encourage and create growth of the game.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

None of these teams will ever be competitive at Test level. Bangladesh example is a case in point - 15 years, still a diabolical Test nation.

India and Pakistan were lucky to develop as Test nations in an era when it was possible. Dynamics of cricket have changed now, and hoping for these associates to compete at Test level is delusional.

India and Pakistan wouldn't have shed minnow status in this era either.

All the Bangla bashing will really come back to bite, because Bangla is the one example where this has actually worked. Short-sighted ppl on PP won't realize until their own team is battered into the dust by Bangla in the future. Which won't be too far either, because Bangladesh always up their game against Pakistan.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

There is a case for the associates to form their own rival ICC, and leave the big three out.

India, Australia and England may be the financial powerhouses of the game but they owe a lot of their wealth to the fact that the smaller associates play them on a regular basis. It is quite imaginable that the big three's money flow will be seriously reduced if teams like Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka or New Zealand decide to stop playing them.

Indian companies are not going to be very generous with their sponsorship if they face a situation where India will never get to play sides like Pakistan, Sri Lanka or South Africa. After all, how many tri-lateral series between the big three and the IPL can the audiences from the big three handle? The TV viewership will plummet and the sponsors will force the BCCI to act. It is the same with the other two.

On the other hand a rival ICC with Pakistan, South Africa, New Zealand, West Indies, Ireland, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka can be very competitive, given the quality of the cricketers in these countries. Sooner or later, the sponsors will also see it and then come in droves.

The big question now is as to whether the smaller asscociates will be united enough to stand up together against the three big bullies. Will Sri Lanka, for instance, stand up and show the finger to India, or will New Zealand do the same to Australia?

If the smaller associates can form a tight club and stay united, the big three will eventually fall in line.

Total misunderstanding of the economics here. Indian cricket is 100% self-sufficient. If that was done, we would simply expand IPL, pay the rebel countries players gigantic money to play IPL all year long and the rebel ICC would have no money to run cricket they way you want it to. You can say their cricketers are quality, but Pak, NZ, WI, SA etc cricketers can be paid by us for an expanded IPL 10 times what they would be paid by your rival ICC. Meanwhile Rival ICC would have no financial viability to fund the kind of cricket programmer you want to see. It's entirely unviable.

It's not big 3 bullying people who are making a mistake of caving in. If anything, India isn't pushing hard enough. We hold the whip hand absolutely and the other nations are lucky we are even playing with them and keeping those boards afloat. Fighting with India over this would be suicidal.

 

[Mamoon]

All the Bangla bashing will really come back to bite, because Bangla is the one example where this has actually worked. Short-sighted ppl on PP won't realize until their own team is battered into the dust by Bangla in the future. Which won't be too far either, because Bangladesh always up their game against Pakistan.

Yeah, we have seen that in every single cricket match in every single format post-99 World Cup.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

[/b]

Yeah, we have seen that in every single cricket match in every single format post-99 World Cup.

The level of the game itself was ridiculously poor for most of this time. The level of their game isn't abysmal anymore, and very soon it will be legitimately good. People don't tend to see change until it smashes them in the face.

 

[Mamoon]

The level of the game itself was ridiculously poor for most of this time. The level of their game isn't abysmal anymore, and very soon it will be legitimately good. People don't tend to see change until it smashes them in the face.

You are not making sense. You said Bangladesh have always raised their game against but the facts are emphatically contrary to your assessment.

We are awful in ODIs these days and they are improving. They won't be pushovers in this series and I won't be surprised if we lose a game.

 

[cricket geek]

There is a case for the associates to form their own rival ICC, and leave the big three out.

India, Australia and England may be the financial powerhouses of the game but they owe a lot of their wealth to the fact that the smaller associates play them on a regular basis. It is quite imaginable that the big three's money flow will be seriously reduced if teams like Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka or New Zealand decide to stop playing them.

Indian companies are not going to be very generous with their sponsorship if they face a situation where India will never get to play sides like Pakistan, Sri Lanka or South Africa. After all, how many tri-lateral series between the big three and the IPL can the audiences from the big three handle? The TV viewership will plummet and the sponsors will force the BCCI to act. It is the same with the other two.

On the other hand a rival ICC with Pakistan, South Africa, New Zealand, West Indies, Ireland, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka can be very competitive, given the quality of the cricketers in these countries. Sooner or later, the sponsors will also see it and then come in droves.

The big question now is as to whether the smaller asscociates will be united enough to stand up together against the three big bullies. Will Sri Lanka, for instance, stand up and show the finger to India, or will New Zealand do the same to Australia?

If the smaller associates can form a tight club and stay united, the big three will eventually fall in line.

I can assure you that New Zealand and South Africa will always go with the Australia and England no matter whatever happens?

 

[cricket geek]

Originally Posted bygani999There is a case for the associates to form their own rival ICC, and leave the big three out.India, Australia and England may be the financial powerhouses of the game but they owe a lot of their wealthto the fact that the smaller associates play them on a regular basis.It is quite imaginable that the big three's money flow will be seriously reduced if teams like Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka or New Zealand decide to stop playing them.Indian companies are not going to be very generous with their sponsorship if they face a situation where India will never get to play sides like Pakistan, Sri Lanka or South Africa. After all, how many tri-lateral series between the big three and the IPL can the audiences from the big three handle? The TV viewership will plummet and the sponsors will force the BCCI to act. It is the same with the other twn the other hand a rival ICC with Pakistan, South Africa, New Zealand, West Indies, Ireland, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka can be very competitive, given the quality of the cricketers in these countries. Sooner or later, the sponsors will also see it and then come in droves.The big question now is as to whether the smaller asscociates will be united enough to stand up together against the three big bullies. Will Sri Lanka, for instance, stand up and show the finger to India, or will New Zealand do the same to Australia?If the smaller associatescan form a tight club and stay united, the big three will eventually fallin line.

I can assure you that New Zealand and South Africa will always go with the Australia and England no matter whatever happens?

so now its up to Pakistan and sri lanka and we all know what are they capable of .

 

[CricketAnalyst]

You are not making sense. You said Bangladesh have always raised their game against but the facts are emphatically contrary to your assessment.

We are awful in ODIs these days and they are improving. They won't be pushovers in this series and I won't be surprised if we lose a game.

I said they raised their game. Until now the standard was pretty damn poor, so even a raised game was nowhere near enough to compete with what was until recently an excellent side.

Truth is they are now pretty decent and getting better, Pakistan is pretty decent and getting worse, so I wouldn't be slinging stones about an investment in them being a waste.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I can assure you that New Zealand and South Africa will always go with the Australia and England no matter whatever happens?

That's their prerogative at the end of the day, if they can get a decent slice of the pie handed down to them by Australia and England, why not?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Maybe.

Possibly the rival league may face serious cash flow issues initially.

But the fact remains that cricket is still very popular in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa, New Zealand and Bangladesh. There will be sponsors in these countries who will be willing to pitch in the money. After all, the rival league will have more teams and can produce some very competitive cricket. It will also help nations like Ireland and The Netherlands get more games, in turn improving their cricket and the popularity of the sport in their countries. This will help the spread of the game.

While all this goes on the big three will be left sitting and watching themselves play each other. At some point their audiences will get fed up.

I tell you, it will work.

I find myself in agreement with your arguments. International cricket has been effectively split up into two divisions anyway, arguably three. Those left out of the Big 3 should be looking to maximise their own fan bases, don't know about the others, but Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Bangladesh should have a fairly large fan base to tap into. Add in the other associate members and there should be some potential to build an alternative organisation. It would be like going back in time to when Australia and England dominated cricket, with other colonies having to fight their way in. In this league, Pakistan, Windies and Sri Lanka would be the teams vying for no 1 status with other teams looking to knock them off the perch. Obviously NZ and South Africa would be a big draw as well, but they might prefer to stay as secondary members in the Big 3 club.

 

[amit]

There is a case for the associates to form their own rival ICC, and leave the big three out.

India, Australia and England may be the financial powerhouses of the game but they owe a lot of their wealth to the fact that the smaller associates play them on a regular basis. It is quite imaginable that the big three's money flow will be seriously reduced if teams like Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka or New Zealand decide to stop playing them.

Indian companies are not going to be very generous with their sponsorship if they face a situation where India will never get to play sides like Pakistan, Sri Lanka or South Africa. After all, how many tri-lateral series between the big three and the IPL can the audiences from the big three handle? The TV viewership will plummet and the sponsors will force the BCCI to act. It is the same with the other two.

On the other hand a rival ICC with Pakistan, South Africa, New Zealand, West Indies, Ireland, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka can be very competitive, given the quality of the cricketers in these countries. Sooner or later, the sponsors will also see it and then come in droves.

The big question now is as to whether the smaller asscociates will be united enough to stand up together against the three big bullies. Will Sri Lanka, for instance, stand up and show the finger to India, or will New Zealand do the same to Australia?

If the smaller associates can form a tight club and stay united, the big three will eventually fall in line.

That's what I am saying here since last 2 days. Associates, alongwith Pakistan, Sri Lanka & Bangladesh must form a new ICC

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

That's what I am saying here since last 2 days. Associates, alongwith Pakistan, Sri Lanka & Bangladesh must form a new ICC

They could form their own version of the world cup as well, but obviously call it something else, like Associates World Champions Trophy. Not quite the glamour of the real thing obviously, but still a title with some big teams in there. Could make it along T20 format to appeal to a wider audience.

 

[amit]

They could form their own version of the world cup as well, but obviously call it something else, like Associates World Champions Trophy. Not quite the glamour of the real thing obviously, but still a title with some big teams in there. Could make it along T20 format to appeal to a wider audience.

Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Afghanistan & Ireland will be there too. Maybe have a 12 team World cup and call it "World Series Championship" or something like that to make it attractive and spread cricket to newer audiences

If new ICC starts to be a bit succesful, expect South Africa & New Zealand to join as well in about a year

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Afghanistan & Ireland will be there too. Maybe have a 12 team World cup and call it "World Series Championship" or something like that to make it attractive and spread cricket to newer audiences

If new ICC starts to be a bit succesful, expect South Africa & New Zealand to join as well in about a year

I would call it the World Cricket Council or, as it were, the WCC. Instead of moaning about the ICC being dominated by 3 countries, the rest of the boards should be showing some initiative and looking after their own affairs. The ICC has only cashed in on their own good organisation in their Big 3 leagues. But the disadvantage is that 3 teams don't make much of a world itinerary. There is plenty of scope for other teams to break off and create a much wider organisation, then perhaps they can arrange cross organisational series once in a while as suits both organisations. With the right organisation and marketing it could work.

 

[MenInG]

Legendary Scottish men’s cricket captain Kyle Coetzer has announced he will step down as captain of the team after today’s ICC Cricket World Cup League 2 tri-series fixture in Texas against the UAE.

The skilled batter has enjoyed an accomplished tenure at the helm of the national side and is now looking forward to getting out of the driving seat to relish in the game he loves and let new talent lead the squad through an exciting period.

Today’s match will be Kyle’s 110th as captain and 214th appearance for Scotland, making him Scotland’s third most capped player in history.

His impressive track record as a player and captain speaks for itself – he was behind Scotland’s first ever World Cup century, has had more ODI runs for Scotland than any other player, more wins than any other Scottish captain and in a watershed moment for Scottish cricket, captained his country to qualify for the Super 12s in the 2021 T20 World Cup.

Crowned the ICC Men’s Associate Cricketer of the Decade in 2020 and awarded an MBE for Services to Cricket in the same year, Kyle is a born leader who captained at under-15, under-17 and under-19 levels.

The 38-year-old Aberdonian has 6,843 runs under his belt to date and made history in 2015 when he struck Scotland’s first hundred in the World Cup – his 156 against Bangladesh was the highest score ever made by a batter from an associate nation at the time. While earlier this week his superb unbeaten century helped his team defeat the UAE.

Kyle Coetzer said: “I have thought long and hard about my decision to step down as captain of the Scotland men’s side and have decided this test against the UAE will be my last at the helm.

“It’s been an absolute pleasure to lead this group through various stages in our growth and development and captain my country and I will look back on the time with such fondness. I’m extremely proud of where we have got to and I’m even more excited with where this team can go to under its next leader.

“It’s been fantastic to see how the players are managing themselves on the field recently and to effectively have more than one leader out there has been a really positive and encouraging sign for me. It was this that made me feel it was the right time to share my decision and step down.

“I’m so grateful to have been able to impact this group of players and help Scotland through this phase of cricket that I’ve been involved in. I’ve certainly given it my all and I hope the players and fans also feel it’s been a positive experience. Although part of me is sad to be stepping down, I’m happy with where the team currently sits and I’m full of anticipation about what’s to come next for us all.

“My biggest driving force over years has been to help the team have everything they need and lead them in every way I can. Moving forward I have no desire to stop playing and will be giving everything I have to my fellow players and the next captain – going out and scoring as many runs as I possibly can for Scotland remains the focus.

“We have one more game in the USA and I plan to get my head down and try to enjoy the occasion. We’ve still got points to pick up in the next couple of series and heading towards the World Cup qualifier, we want to ensure we achieve automatic qualification for the qualifying tournament, which is a real motivation for me.

“I’m extremely proud and thankful for all the efforts of my teammates and everyone who has helped me along the way. It’s been a great journey so far and there’s going to be some more exciting cricket to play yet.”

Cricket Scotland Interim Head of Performance Toby Bailey said: “On behalf of all of Cricket Scotland, the coaching staff, men’s team and Scottish cricketing community, I’d like to extend a huge thank you to Kyle for all he has done during his time as captain. An incredible leader and cricketing talent, Kyle has made an unforgettable contribution to the game in Scotland, helping the team progress over the years and inspiring others.

“The captaincy is a fantastic opportunity for one of the leading lights in Scottish cricket to step up and take this team forward into an exciting new era for the sport in Scotland and I have no doubt there is a very capable new leader among them. We are all looking forward to seeing what Kyle continues to do on the field as a player and wish him all the very best for this next chapter.”

Kyle’s successor will be appointed before the team’s next series in July against Namibia and Nepal. The coaching team will decide on who takes up the role in consultation with senior players and Cricket Scotland Interim Head of Performance based on players’ leadership skills and presence, behaviour, strategy, values and passion for the badge.

https://www.cricketscotland.com/sco...e-coetzer-steps-down-after-legendary-tenure/

 

[MenInG]

Six inspirational stories from five Members showcase the impact cricket had on communities in 2021

The International Cricket Council today announced the six global winners of the ICC Development Awards 2021, showcasing the incredible work being done by Members to grow cricket and enabling more people to enjoy the sport in emerging nations.

Following the announcement of the 29 inspirational regional winners from five regions, the six global winners from Bahrain, Estonia, Namibia, Nigeria and Thailand were selected by a global independent panel consisting of 12 leaders including ICC Full Member Chief Executives, former international players and ICC Hall of Famers, media representatives and other members of the cricket family.

ICC Development Initiative of the Year – Cricket Namibia (link to video)

The global award for the ICC Development Initiative of the Year has been awarded to Cricket Namibia’s Ashburton Kwata Mini-Cricket Programme for increasing participation by a remarkable 71% despite the impact of COVID-19. The programme enables cricket to be played anywhere by anyone: on beaches, streets and in car parks, in order to keep communities engaged during the pandemic.

Dr. Rudie van Vuuren, President, Cricket Namibia explains: “The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in associated lockdown restrictions for individuals across Namibia, including the closure of schools, which demanded a creative solution to keep the cricket programme running. We took cricket into parking lots, onto quiet streets, beaches, netball courts and unoccupied, open pieces of land.

“We managed to access the grand total of more than 67 000 children in one-off engagements while more than 17,000 children played regular matches. This initiative has a core focus of connecting communities and improving lives by inspiring the Namibian primary school child.”

Nick Hockley, Cricket Australia CEO who was a part of the judging panel commented on Namibia winning the award: “Cricket Namibia demonstrated such ingenuity to maintain the programme during COVID-19, and resulted in incredible growth and a large number of participants who were able to take part and experience the game.”

100% Cricket Female Cricket Initiative of the Year – Bahrain Cricket Federation (link to video)

Bahrain has been awarded the 100% Cricket Female Cricket Initiative of the Year, as the Federation embarked on the historic task of setting up the country’s first-ever women’s cricket team. A heart-warming response saw almost 200 registrations and the BCF Women’s League was formed in December 2021, with the national women’s team coming as a direct result of the initiative.

Gurumurthy Palani, Committee Member of the Bahrain Cricket Federation remarked: “BCF is grateful to the ICC for conferring the prestigious 100% Cricket Female Cricket Initiative of the Year Award and recognising our efforts to drive women’s cricket in Bahrain. We are thankful to the ICC Asia office for their guidance and continued support.

“This award is going to have a tremendous impact in achieving our goals of advancing women’s cricket in Bahrain, and will turbocharge our growth by attracting more females to play cricket in the country.”

Belinda Clarke, former Australia international and ICC Hall of Famer on the voting panel said: “This is a start-up initiative that has created opportunities for a league and national team to be put in place in a short timeframe. The lengths the organization and players have gone to are amazing - for example training at 5am! There are plenty of positive benefits for women in Bahrain as they play their part in being role models for empowerment.”

ICC Associate Member Men’s Performance of the Year – Cricket Namibia

Namibia have claimed the global award for ICC Associate Member Men’s Performance of the Year for their victory in the winner-takes-all ICC Men’s T20 World Cup 2021 tie against Ireland. The Eagles chased down 126 for victory thanks to a sensational display of power-hitting from David Wiese and left-arm spin bowling from Bernard Scholtz, guaranteeing them a Super 12 spot at the Men’s T20 World Cup 2021 and an automatic qualification spot in the 2022 edition.

Dr. Rudie van Vuuren, President, Cricket Namibia said: “For a country with the most geographically dispersed 2.5 million people in the world and selecting our national side from only five premier league teams; to perform at this level requires a special ingredient. This special ingredient lies in the people of Namibia and the way cricket is run, played, and lived. Thank you to the ICC for recognizing our achievements, these awards will enable us to grow the sport we love and live for.”

Former West Indies international Samuel Badree commented on the award: “Their performances have been electric, appealing and engaging. They entertained and have us expecting more from them in future.”

ICC Associate Member Women’s Performance of the Year – Cricket Association of Thailand (link to video)

The outstanding performance of the year by an Associate Member in the women’s game has been awarded to Thailand for their win over Full Member Bangladesh at the ICC Women’s Cricket World Cup Qualifier. Nattaya Boochatham took five wickets to restrict Bangladesh to 176 from their 50 overs and a 90-run opening stand between Sornnarin Tippoch and Natthakan Chantham laid the foundations for a 16-run win. The historic victory was a significant step forward for Thai cricket, showcasing their development in the 50-over format in which they have recently received ODI status.

Shan Kader, Cricket Development Manager, Cricket Association of Thailand said: “We are extremely happy to receive this award for the ICC Associate Member Women’s Performance of the Year. It is a testament to the hard work and dedication that the girls, coaching staff, and the Cricket Association of Thailand have put into achieving these milestones time and again. We will keep pushing the boundaries to achieve excellence and inspire a new generation of Thai cricketers and new regions with similar demographics to push the envelope and make cricket a bigger and more global game.”

Former South Africa international Dinesha Devnarain said: “For an Associate Member to beat a Test playing nation is an unbelievable achievement and Thailand’s growth over the last two years has been remarkable. They continue to put in performances to meet the demands of international cricket.”

ICC Cricket 4 Good Social Impact Initiative of the Year – Nigeria Cricket Federation (link to video)

Nigeria have claimed the Cricket 4 Good Social Impact Initiative of the Year award for their cricket programmes as a tool for engaging and assisting in the development of internally displaced refugees as a result of violence within the country. Over 2,000 children are involved in the programme, which deploys coaches to teach cricket skills, as well as provides humanitarian aid to the significant number of people impacted by these issues.

Uyi Akpata, the President of the Nigeria Cricket Federation said: “With a couple of thousand introduced to the game, and a boys and girls team involved in the State’s secondary schools’ tournament, we have seen cricket largely contributing to addressing the issues of integration and inclusion of disadvantaged children in the country. On behalf of the almost 2,000 students in the Benin IDP Camp and two million children in various camps, we accept this special recognition.”

Beth Barrett-Wild, Head of the Women's Hundred & Female Engagement at the England and Wales Cricket Board said: “Through this programme cricket is acting as a lifeline of hope to thousands of refugees in Nigeria. This is an inspirational project that has the ability to truly transform lives.”

ICC Digital Fan Engagement of the Year - Estonia Cricket Association

The global award for the ICC Digital Fan Engagement of the Year was won by the Estonian Cricket Association for their wide-ranging digital initiatives aimed at driving fan engagement in the country and beyond. Among their initiatives, their donation to India’s fight against COVID-19 went viral, using their relationship with Australia legend Brett Lee to spread the word. The multi-platform campaigns resulted in an increase in audiences across all platforms, their YouTube following increased significantly to 52,800 and Instagram to 77,568.

Stuart Hook, President, Estonia Cricket Association said: “It is a huge honour to win the ICC Digital Fan Engagement Award. We are extremely excited and almost couldn't believe it. This is a massive boost for us and really gives us that shot of adrenaline to get back to it, to push harder and spread the word of cricket in Estonia as wide and far as we can.

“This reinforced the fact that even though an association maybe considered small, the digital exposure to cricket in your country can be seen as fun, exciting, engaging and most importantly expose cricket as a viable sporting option - especially in non-traditional markets.”

Pholetsi Moseki, Cricket South Africa CEO and representative on the voting panel said: “Associate Members such as Estonia are doing an amazing job building their digital platforms and engaging with their existing and potential fans."

Speaking on the winners of the ICC Development Awards 2021, ICC General Manager – Development, William Glenwright said: “We are thrilled with the depth and breadth of award winners and initiatives that we have celebrated through the regional and now global ICC Development Awards 2021. Through the different performances, programmes and projects in 2021 we have seen not only the power our sport can have in enhancing communities in another difficult year around the world – but also the world-class cricket that is being played by our Members on the international stage

“Congratulations to all the award winners and in particular the global winners: Bahrain, Estonia, Namibia, Nigeria and Thailand. This is a proud day for our sport as we celebrate the incredible ways our Members continue to bring cricket closer to more people for them to watch, play and enjoy.”

The global winners have been chosen by a global independent panel of selected ICC Full Member Chief Executives, former international players and ICC Hall of Famers, industry experts, media representatives and other members of the cricket family.

Pholetsi Moseki, CEO Cricket South Africa

Dinesha Devnarain, Former South Africa international and South Africa Women’s U19 coach

Johnny Grave, CEO Cricket West Indies

Samuel Badree, Former West Indies international and broadcaster

Ashley De Silva, CEO Sri Lanka Cricket

Warren Deutrom, CEO Cricket Ireland

Sharda Ugra, Journalist

Nick Hockley, CEO Cricket Australia

Belinda Clark, Former Australia international and ICC Hall of Famer

Beth Barrett-Wild, ECB - Head of the Women's Hundred & Female Engagement

Karren Rogers, Facebook

Bernadette Gutmann, UNICEF

 

[MenInG]

 

[MenInG]

 

[sweep_shot]

I think Nepal is a possible future Test nation. People in Nepal seem to love cricket. They need more exposure.

 

[MenInG]

The third T20 World Cup 2024 Europe Sub-Regional Qualifier tournament has seen a world record broken in Finland.

At 18 years and 280 days, French opening batter Gustav McKeon became the youngest Men's player to score a T20I hundred, blasting five fours and nine sixes in a 61-ball 109 against Switzerland in Vantaa.

McKeon broke dasher Hazratullah Zazai's record by more than two years, with the Afghanistan opener's 162* from 62 balls against Ireland in 2019 scored at 20 years and 337 days.

McKeon's innings backed up a swashbuckling 76 from 54 balls against the Czech Republic, and the teenager leads the tournament for runs, with his tally of 185 coming at a strike rate of 161, and an average of 92.50.

Despite the century, McKeon's France couldn't finish the job, losing a final-ball thriller to their neighbours who chased down a target of 158.

Swiss skipper Faheem Nazir led at the top of the order with a 46-ball 67, with Ali Nayyer's late-over heroics ensuring the last-gasp victory.

Nayyer blasted 12 off the final three balls, including a four off the last ball to break French hearts, meaning that the pair sit level on two points in group stage action. Norway lead Group 2 thanks to two resounding victories over Czech Republic and and Estonia, with the pair yet to get off the mark.

Denmark, Italy one step from T20 World Cup 2024

In Group 1, Austria and Guernsey remain undefeated, with Luxembourg winless in two matches. Bulgaria and Slovenia are also yet to taste victory, but they play each other in Wednesday action.

Guernsey are favourites to top their group, though the Channel Islanders were pushed by Luxembourg in a 17-run win.

Luxembourg's Shiv Gill claimed Player of the Match honours with a 38-ball 47, but his effort fell in vein as seamer William Peatfield turned the match with three wickets.

The winner of the third Sub-Regional tournament will join Denmark, Italy, Jersey and Germany in the Europe Qualifier next year, as well as the European sides who fail to secure 2024 qualification through the 2022 tournament: Ireland, the Netherlands and Scotland.

Youngest Men's player to score a T20I century

Gustav McKeon - 18y 280d, France v Switzerland, Vantaa, 2022
Hazratullah Zazai - 20y 337d, Afghanistan v Ireland, Dehradun, 2019
Sivakumar Periyalwar - 21y 161d, Romania v Turkey, Ilfov County, 2019
Orchide Tuyisenge, 21y 190d, Rwanda v Seychelles, Kigali, 2021
Dipendra Singh Airee, 22y 68d, Nepal v Malaysia, Kathmandu, 2022

https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/2690154

 

[MenInG]

Namibia's win over Sri Lanka at the T20 World Cup provides "the biggest wake-up call" for the International Cricket Council (ICC), according to Eagles coach Pierre de Bruyn.

The Africans pulled off a stunning upset in the opening match of the tournament in Australia, beating the 2014 champions by 55 runs on Sunday.

That result sent shockwaves around the cricketing world, and De Bruyn hopes it will have a lasting impact for Namibia and fellow ICC associate nations.

"The associate countries have grown a lot, but it sometimes feels like they're under a carpet, that [the ICC] doesn't see what we do," De Bruyn told BBC Sport Africa.

"I know that all associate teams are frustrated with exposure, opportunities and funding - especially funding. I think that what has happened in the first two days of the tournament is a huge message to the world and the ICC."

A day after Namibia bowled Sri Lanka out for 108 in defence of 163-7, Scotland beat the West Indies - who are two-time champions - by 42 runs in Hobart.

In short, two associate nations, confined to the second tier of cricket's rigid hierarchy, had convincingly swatted aside two former World Cup winners while playing a brand of efficient cricket that belied their diminutive status.

Many outlets around the world have branded Namibia and Scotland as "minnows", but De Bruyn, ahead of Tuesday's Group A match against the Netherlands, bristles at the comparison.

"I think it's disrespectful," he says with all the seriousness of a JJ Smit hoick over midwicket.

"It all comes down to funding. It comes down to a country with 2.4 million people to have enough resources to develop players at 13 years old and to try their hardest to develop.

"I've got 16 players to choose from in the whole country. If I get two injuries or two Covid cases I have to play with 14 players - that's what the ICC doesn't get.

"We only have five cricket clubs. We don't have a provincial set-up in Namibia. I want to get a message out to the ICC regarding associate cricket. I feel that there is a huge responsibility to us as Namibia to do that again."

De Bruyn has a few ideas that he believes could bridge the gap between the haves and have-nots in the game.

He proposes a restructure to international cricket that would arrange tri-series involving two full member teams - such as England or India - and one associate team.

He has appealed to the ICC to take more responsibility and invest more funds in the grassroots infrastructure of these developing nations.

The 45-year-old is, however, realistic, acknowledging that the more established boards are not likely to make room for Namibia - who will co-host the 2027 Cricket World Cup - unless they can constantly offer a challenge on the field.

Sri Lanka, who secured a routine seven-wicket win over Namibia at last year's T20 World Cup, are just the third full ICC member that the African nation has beaten.

All-rounder David Wiese starred in an eight-wicket win over Ireland at last year's tournament and earlier this year, the Eagles claimed a 3-2 series win over Zimbabwe.

"Last year, we were skittled out for 96 against Sri Lanka," De Bruyn points out.

"Twelve months later, we've come here and played the perfect game against the Asia Cup champions. I can't tell you how proud I am.

"But that's in the history books. I told my players at training that there is good news and bad news. The good news is that there is another opportunity to announce themselves. The bad news is that yesterday is gone.

"It was the biggest moment of our careers but it doesn't guarantee that we'll go and beat the Netherlands. I'm already plotting and planning."

The Netherlands are filled with veteran players who have experience in the top franchise leagues around the world.

Colin Ackermann, Roelof van der Merwe and Tom Cooper are the standout names in a team that has been a standard bearer for associate cricket nations.

Should they win and Sri Lanka beat the United Arab Emirates later on Tuesday, Namibia will qualify for the Super 12s stage for the second successive T20 World Cup.

Doing so would likely see them progress as group winners and place them alongside England, Australia, New Zealand and Afghanistan in the next round. De Bruyn, though, is intent on keeping his team grounded.

"We have to, even though [with] moments like Sunday, you want to hold on to them for as long as possible," he says.

"You have to reset and focus on the next game and we've had one day to prepare for that. It's really tough. It's overwhelming for players and for me as a coach.

"It's not easy. I do feel the pressure. Our press expects that we need to do it [qualify] now. They're asking if we can make the semi-finals now! Success will bring that.

"Luckily I'm working with a group of players who are humble and there's a bigger picture. They've made history. It was an amazing day for international cricket as well as Namibian cricket."

BBC