does the super 8 go to long

[marc71178]

They didn't. Losing a single game does not automatically make you substandard.

Both lost 2 games, thus meaning they didn't deserve to go through.

Thus they were not worthy.

 

[marc71178]

No, no way. You'll get better by producing better cricketers. And until you do, the games the predecessors of these players play in make no difference.

In spite of the clear evidence to the contrary...

 

[Richard]

Both lost 2 games, thus meaning they didn't deserve to go through.

Thus they were not worthy.

Not worthy to go through, yes.

Not ODI-standard any more, no.

 

[Richard]

In spite of the clear evidence to the contrary...

Which numbers approximately 0

 

[Prince EWS]

Which numbers approximately 0

I don't know why, but I love it when you do that.

 

[Richard]

 

[LA ICE-E]

And for the umpteenth time... if you go that far you should say every country that wants to gets a place in the finals... so we have a 200-team tournament.

Are you capable of getting that through your head?

How can i explain it to you, in a way all the countries do play in the world cup...but 16 makes it to the final...if you played 8 then that would leave out the last two test nations let a lone give the other countries a chance...playing in the world cup helps but a good infrastructure helps more...but playing in the wc raises the awareness a little bit plus its give little different flavor to the wc then your regular international cricket...

 

[marc71178]

Which numbers approximately 0

Bangladesh > 0, no matter how you try and dress up the 0 in fancy fonts and colours.

 

[Richard]

How can i explain it to you, in a way all the countries do play in the world cup...but 16 makes it to the final...if you played 8 then that would leave out the last two test nations let a lone give the other countries a chance...

Yes, and that's absolutely fine (not that Ban, never mind Zim, deserve Test or ODI status) - the World Cup qualifiers are about giving other countries a chance, the finals should be about the creme-de-la-creme.

but playing in the wc raises the awareness a little bit plus its give little different flavor to the wc then your regular international cricket...

That's nought but a pipedream.

 

[Richard]

Bangladesh > 0, no matter how you try and dress up the 0 in fancy fonts and colours.

Evidence that Bangladesh are ODI-class = 0, regardless of formatting.

 

[Nemesis27]

IMO, Ireland have been better than bangladesh thus far. They haven't disgraced themselves by any means, although they are yet to verse NZ, Aus or Sri which are far superior than anything they have faced thus far, (except for SA, but IMO SA= Overated)

Bangladesh on the other hand have been whipped by New Zealand, Australia and Sri lanka. Might beat the West Indies and you just never know with England.

As for the length of the super 8's, its just right for me, but I do agree with the posters above regarding the Minnows, but as long as they can justify their spot in the super 8's by being competitive in the games which they play, its all good.

 

[marc71178]

Evidence that Bangladesh are ODI-class = 0, regardless of formatting.

So you're again denying that Bangladesh are improving and producing better players, in spite of what you yourself have said about some of the new players - way to contradict yourself.

 

[Jamee999]

Evidence that Bangladesh are ODI-class = 0, regardless of formatting.

vs Pakistan - WC 99
vs Australia - NWS 05
vs India - WC 07

Three wins against the "ODI-class" teams. Not huge, but three wins, none the less.

 

[Richard]

And 3 wins (especially the first, being a dead and quite-possibly-fixed game) is nothing in the way of evidence of being ODI-class.

 

[Richard]

So you're again denying that Bangladesh are improving and producing better players, in spite of what you yourself have said about some of the new players - way to contradict yourself.

I have indeed not denied either. I haven't contradicted myself at all - just because they have 2 or 3 good players does NOT make them ODI-class.

 

[LA ICE-E]

they have more than that and they have the 2nd best U19 team which is coming up...

 

[marc71178]

I have indeed not denied either. I haven't contradicted myself at all - just because they have 2 or 3 good players does NOT make them ODI-class.

Yes, you have denied it.

The initial discussion was about producing better cricketers, which is something Bangladesh have been doing, because of their wider exposure to top class Cricket.

Therefore it is more than 0.

You then start changing what you think you're talking about (and still denying what is obvious to everyone except you since you've decided that something can't happen so there's no way it can happen regardless of the evidence)

 

[Richard]

No, I haven't decided it can't happen.

Nor has exposure to top-class cricket possibly made a difference to the calibre of the likes of Shahriar Nafees Ahmed and Mashrafe bin Mortaza.

 

[Richard]

they have more than that and they have the 2nd best U19 team which is coming up...

And u19 cricket means sod-all, really. Many have excelled there and struggled to make it in the professional game.

 

[Prince EWS]

And u19 cricket means sod-all, really. Many have excelled there and struggled to make it in the professional game.

Nathan Hauritz batted #3 for Australia Under 19s once, and Vikram Solanki was the main spinner for England Under 19s once. Says a lot, really.