In 2004, the the United States managed to qualify barely to participate in the ICC champions trophy, with the ICC essentially helping hoping that the exposure would promote the game of cricket in the United States. The USA was grouped with New Zealand and Australia. They promptly lost to the Kiwis by 210 runs and scored 65 runs against Australia, which was chased in just 7.5 overs. After the match, Ricky Ponting questioned whether a venue such as the ICC Champions trophy was "the right place for teams like the United States" to play. Oddly enough, they managed to win a warm-up game against Zimbabwe in that very same tournament.
Now, 14 years later, we have a series between two full members. One looks the part. They bowl well. They restrict opponents to miniscule totals when they bat first, and blow them away if the other team is chasing. The other team seems to have a second string composed of affiliate level players like the United States 14 years ago. The first team is Pakistan. The other team is Zimbabwe.
Whether or not you support Zimbabwe or not, the truth is that winning games by these margins says much about the state of cricket in that country. Even Pakistan, when it was at its most challenged in the past 10 years, was still producing quality cricketing performances and regularly doing well in ICC tournaments and Tests. If Zimbabwe cannot play its first choice cricketers, then how on earth can they afford to pay for their first class structure? If Zimbabwe's best domestic cricketers can't even put up a fight, even a nominal one in their home grounds, then why should they be a full member at all? it's not as if they're regularly playing Test matches. There are many better teams and many better ways to invest in the game of cricket.
Perhaps the time has come to question whether Zimbabwe should even be playing at this level when there are so many hard working and deserving teams just a tier below at the Associates level.
Now, 14 years later, we have a series between two full members. One looks the part. They bowl well. They restrict opponents to miniscule totals when they bat first, and blow them away if the other team is chasing. The other team seems to have a second string composed of affiliate level players like the United States 14 years ago. The first team is Pakistan. The other team is Zimbabwe.
Whether or not you support Zimbabwe or not, the truth is that winning games by these margins says much about the state of cricket in that country. Even Pakistan, when it was at its most challenged in the past 10 years, was still producing quality cricketing performances and regularly doing well in ICC tournaments and Tests. If Zimbabwe cannot play its first choice cricketers, then how on earth can they afford to pay for their first class structure? If Zimbabwe's best domestic cricketers can't even put up a fight, even a nominal one in their home grounds, then why should they be a full member at all? it's not as if they're regularly playing Test matches. There are many better teams and many better ways to invest in the game of cricket.
Perhaps the time has come to question whether Zimbabwe should even be playing at this level when there are so many hard working and deserving teams just a tier below at the Associates level.
