2015 World Cup: 10 teams and no associates

[Cevno]

Have you seen the England team?

Chinese imports in Singapore are more 'native' than Indian/Pakistani imports in Canada.But that's besides the point.For countries like the Netherlands and Canada,that are Football and IceHokey crazy respectively,it will be very hard to convince locals to take part in a sport that only people from the subcontinent play in their country.

Who cares who plays as long as they are Canadian or Dutch Citizens?

Are you saying that expats should not play for Canada or Holland in any sport?
What about the France football team for example?

As much success as they get,will help in building interest there.
There are many countries in many sports with less interest in the sport there ,but the teams do decently still.

Edit-
@ Not specifically targetted at you ,but all those that are making this point.

 

[Furball]

Have you seen the Dutch Team? How many Dutch are there?

Of the team that played England at the World Cup:

Alexei Kerveeze - Namibian born but first represented the Netherlands at age 15.
Wesley Barresi - South African
Tom Cooper - Australian born, Dutch mother
Ryan ten Doeschate - South African born, of Dutch descent
Bas Zuiderent - Dutch
Tom de Grooth - Dutch
Peter Borren - New Zealand born, has been representing the Netherlands for 10 years
Mudassar Bukhari - Pakistani
Pieter Seelaar - Dutch
Bernard Loots - South African born, has only played cricket in the Netherlands
Berend Westdijk - Dutch

That's a pretty decent native contingent tbh.

 

[Furball]

What about the France football team for example?

What about the French team?

IIRC Patrice Evra was the only French player at the last World Cup who wasn't born in France.

 

[Furball]

Without getting the "natives" to embrace the game, You are not really developing the game

How do you suggest we develop the game in associate member countries when you're not giving the natives a chance to see their team in action?

How do you propose developing the game in Scotland without giving us a decent chance at qualifying for a World Cup?

 

[gvenkat]

How do you suggest we develop the game in associate member countries when you're not giving the natives a chance to see their team in action?

How do you propose developing the game in Scotland without giving us a decent chance at qualifying for a World Cup?

I never said that the associates should not be part of the world cup at all. There should only be a limited number, The bottom two ODI ranking teams should play a qualifiers with the Associates who finish in the top 4 and maybe the 4 best teams can go through.

If you are not even in the top 4 of the cellar dwellers, You dont deserve to be in the WC. Period

 

[Furball]

I never said that the associates should not be part of the world cup at all. There should only be a limited number, The bottom two ODI ranking teams should play a qualifiers with the Associates who finish in the top 4 and maybe the 4 best teams can go through.

If you are not even in the top 4 of the cellar dwellers, You dont deserve to be in the WC. Period

Absolute bull**** as usual.

 

[morgieb]

Of the team that played England at the World Cup:

Alexei Kerveeze - Namibian born but first represented the Netherlands at age 15.
Wesley Barresi - South African
Tom Cooper - Australian born, Dutch mother
Ryan ten Doeschate - South African born, of Dutch descent
Bas Zuiderent - Dutch
Tom de Grooth - Dutch
Peter Borren - New Zealand born, has been representing the Netherlands for 10 years
Mudassar Bukhari - Pakistani
Pieter Seelaar - Dutch
Bernard Loots - South African born, has only played cricket in the Netherlands
Berend Westdijk - Dutch

That's a pretty decent native contingent tbh.

Hmm 4/11 isn't that great IMO. Still, it's better than Canada and not significantly worse than Ireland or Scotland.

 

[Spark]

Who cares who plays as long as they are Canadian or Dutch Citizens?

Are you saying that expats should not play for Canada or Holland in any sport?
What about the France football team for example?

As much success as they get,will help in building interest there.
There are many countries in many sports with less interest in the sport there ,but the teams do decently still.

Edit-
@ Not specifically targetted at you ,but all those that are making this point.

This is all true.

How did that game turn out HZ?, it's always good to see the top teams like Australia and NZ play a close tight game, not a one sided game with an associate involved ...

Aus-NZ has actually been one of the best ODI rivalries of the past few years with some several really tense hard-fought series. WC match was a bit of a steamroller though.

 

[gvenkat]

Absolute bull**** as usual.

That's all you got? So a team that is 4th in the associates who can't beat the 1st of the associates is expected to beat the likes of SA, Ind and SL.. Superb logic mate..

 

[Cruxdude]

I never said that the associates should not be part of the world cup at all. There should only be a limited number, The bottom two ODI ranking teams should play a qualifiers with the Associates who finish in the top 4 and maybe the 4 best teams can go through.

If you are not even in the top 4 of the cellar dwellers, You dont deserve to be in the WC. Period

This seems like what the ICC has in its mind for the 2019 WC except that only 2 will get into the WC. Do not see the point of having a larger number of associates in this qualifier event.

 

[gvenkat]

This seems like what the ICC has in its mind for the 2019 WC except that only 2 will get into the WC. Do not see the point of having a larger number of associates in this qualifier event.

The likes of Zim, BD would have put a spoke to the qualifiers for the real fear of not making it.

 

[juro]

I never said that the associates should not be part of the world cup at all. There should only be a limited number, The bottom two ODI ranking teams should play a qualifiers with the Associates who finish in the top 4 and maybe the 4 best teams can go through.

If you are not even in the top 4 of the cellar dwellers, You dont deserve to be in the WC. Period

I think you are getting confused about the point of sporting contests. Sure, it is nice to win, but only 1 team (or individual) can come first.

How many teams have a realistic chance of winning the soccer world cup? Or the rugby union or rugby league world cup? How many athletes stand a chance of winning gold in the 100m sprint at the olympics? The answer to all the above, only a small fraction of entrants.

So why do they bother? Because the contest is an event. Some teams are there just to achieve their best, knowing they won't win the final, and if their best is to be knocked out in the first round, so be it. They won't complain, and neither should we.

 

[Bun]

so glad to see a team like ireland getting a lifeline. otherwise there was every chance they'd end up as a icc resource guzzling feeder for some other test playing nations.

 

[Howe_zat]

Aus-NZ has actually been one of the best ODI rivalries of the past few years with some several really tense hard-fought series. WC match was a bit of a steamroller though.

That's my point though. The idea that you know how good a match is going to be based on who's competing is ludicrous.

 

[vcs]

I think you are getting confused about the point of sporting contests. Sure, it is nice to win, but only 1 team (or individual) can come first.

How many teams have a realistic chance of winning the soccer world cup? Or the rugby union or rugby league world cup? How many athletes stand a chance of winning gold in the 100m sprint at the olympics? The answer to all the above, only a small fraction of entrants.

So why do they bother? Because the contest is an event. Some teams are there just to achieve their best, knowing they won't win the final, and if their best is to be knocked out in the first round, so be it. They won't complain, and neither should we.

[/thread]

 

[biased indian]

That's my point though. The idea that you know how good a match is going to be based on who's competing is ludicrous.

a NZ vs India game is expected to be a good contest compared to an Australia vs canada game

and given a choice to which game you will go...

 

[biased indian]

I think you are getting confused about the point of sporting contests. Sure, it is nice to win, but only 1 team (or individual) can come first.

How many teams have a realistic chance of winning the soccer world cup? Or the rugby union or rugby league world cup? How many athletes stand a chance of winning gold in the 100m sprint at the olympics? The answer to all the above, only a small fraction of entrants.

So why do they bother? Because the contest is an event. Some teams are there just to achieve their best, knowing they won't win the final, and if their best is to be knocked out in the first round, so be it. They won't complain, and neither should we.

one difference is that for every other sport there is some kind of qualifying needed i am not aware of how rugby union and league deal with it..as for soccer we all know how it is done..take Olympics..even usian bolt need to qualify for the same rt

agreed that cricket have very few team so does the field hockey but their also every one need to qualify based on something.as far as i am concerned the Bang and Zim also need to go through the qualifying process and restrict the teams to 12

 

[GIMH]

Only allowing four or six (etc) associates into qualification would just basically be an extension of what was proposed for 2015. It's still elitist and it still isn't a World Cup.

Every nation should have the opportunity to be at the World Cup. You can structure qualification into rounds if you must, so the bottom ranked teams play round one and so on, but everyone has to have a chance.

Either that or change the name of the competition to the Cricket Cup or something.

 

[Howe_zat]

a NZ vs India game is expected to be a good contest compared to an Australia vs canada game

and given a choice to which game you will go...

Ireland vs Bangladesh or South Africa vs West Indies?

I could go on. It's easy to say with hindsight which nations were or weren't competitive. That's not the point.

 

[Cruxdude]

Only allowing four or six (etc) associates into qualification would just basically be an extension of what was proposed for 2015. It's still elitist and it still isn't a World Cup.

Every nation should have the opportunity to be at the World Cup. You can structure qualification into rounds if you must, so the bottom ranked teams play round one and so on, but everyone has to have a chance.

Either that or change the name of the competition to the Cricket Cup or something.

Don't the associate teams play 50 over games among themselves? If so there is their opportunity to play the WC. Be among the top associates and play the qualifiers.