Do we need them....?

[Rik]

Sorry, I got the wrong idea about that, but still I wouldn't just give them the points, it's a competition for all comers, those 2 points could mean the difference between a team like Kenya getting into the 2nd phase. That wouldn't be fair would it? "Sorry but you don't play tests so you can't claim those points" I don't think that would go down too well. Maybe the teams like Holland and Canada don't really bring anything new but Nambia have some talented players and could be a good team in the future, they could probably get a FC structure up in the next few years or just play in the South African competition in both OD and 4D games. I know most of the minnows get thrashed but it's good experiance and it brings something different to the Cup. As for a league to prove they are good enough, it's called the ICC Trophy like you said, and the 3 best teams from there play in the World Cup. How can it be any more fair?

 

[royGilchrist]

It used to be one team from the competition in the 80s, but Im not sure...

You are giht its not fair that they dont get equal points, but is it fair that a good side gets two points taken off just becasue it rained, thats worse...going probablity I think it would be safe to assume that the test side will win. And obviously this will only apply to rained out games. If the game is completed and the minnow upsets then they get all four points.

I persoanlly think that this scenario of teams forfeiting their matches, rained out games with minnows, and poor quality circket to witness in so many minnow games, impacts the WC negatively.

 

[Rik]

Well I'm for giving the points to both teams if it's evenly matched, but if a game is abandoned like one of the matches involving Sri Lanka in the 96 World Cup, and one team is miles ahead I would agree on the game being given to that team by default as was the case in that match. Sri Lanka were given the points on default against India because India were collapsing very badly when the game was abandoned. That would be fair. But just giving the points to the stronger team just because they are a Test Playing Nation I do not think is fair.

 

[Bazza]

Well if you notice last time we had 12 teams in the world cup. This time there were 14. I would like to see it constantly expand. Next time there could be 15 or 16 teams. They might also consider changing the format, eg 3x5, with top 2 into super six, or 4x4 with top 2 into straight knockout.

By 2007 it is possible Kenya could have test status, Bangladesh should be much more competitive and other nations like Namibia or Holland or Canada could have ODI status.

 

[Rik]

Namiba for me, they have a good climate, they can send 2 teams to the South African leagues and they really play with passion. And in JB Burger and Snyman they have 2 excellent prospects.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Of course we need them!

"We" are the Cricketing World, and trying to keep it to ourselves is never good. The more people that get the chance to experience our wonderful sport, the better. Re: English Premiership. It's 3-up and 3-down.

Re: a 14-team "super group" like we had in 1991/2 - would lead to an obscene surplus of matches. 91 games!

Although there will be more "no contest" matches than between the Test sides, there are always going to be non-matches between Test nations too. (VB Series 1st Final? Australia v India last Saturday? Sri Lanka knocking over Zimbabwe for 38?), we'll always get those matches like Namibia on Wednesday or WI-Kenya in 1996, that prove it's the right call.

Yeah, and why not ban the USA, Korea and Senegal from football World Cups, because they've never done much...

It'll happen, just not right away.

 

[anzac]

the 'minnows' don't need us (the Test Nations), but the game of cricket does!!!!

as I suggested in an earlier thread some time back I would like to see more 'A' / Academy teams from the 'Test Nations' playing in more tourneyments / tours with the 'minnows'. Good for both parties - the developing players get to experience rep & tour conditions & the minnows get more exposure against top flight players of a higher standard, rather than just constant exposure to other national teams at a similar level b4 coming up against the 'big boys'.......

 

[royGilchrist]

The question that needs to be asked is...

Is the inlcusion of the minnows in the WC the best and only way to improve their standard, and even if it comes at a cost of taking excitement out of the greatest spectacle in cricket?

The answer is a firm No.

 

[marc71178]

So how do we encourage the smaller nations.

Also bear this in mind - without them, we wouldn't have seen Davison's innings today.

 

[Rik]

So how do we encourage the smaller nations.

Also bear this in mind - without them, we wouldn't have seen Davison's innings today.

Most of us over here didn't see his innings at all...or ever will.

 

[Bazza]

True but I'm glad it happened, and I bet those who were lucky enough to see it enjoyed every blow! (With the exception maybe of a few die hard and possibly quite nervouse West Indian supporters!!).

 

[Langeveldt]

Well without the so called "minnows" we wouldnt have had

JB Burger and Van Vuuran's performances against England

Canada sinking Bangladesh

John Davisons incredible ton

Holland restricting India in Paarl

I also think they play the game in the best spirit possible, maybe the major nations should take a look (although admittedly they have less pressure on them)

Namibia, Holland and Canada have all shown themselves to be competent against the major teams, something we have not seen yet from Bangladesh (Oh except in world cup 99 )

 

[Bazza]

Namibia, Holland and Canada have all shown themselves to be competent against the major teams, something we have not seen yet from Bangladesh (Oh except in world cup 99 )

Maybe this shows that a nation shouldn't be given test status on the basis of a handful of ODIs? Many people have suggested Kenya or even Namibia/Canada would be more deserving of tests status, but maybe we shouldn't over react? Having 2 or 3 decent players putting up good performances should not be the basis of full test match status, especially if in 2 years time those players won't be around any more anyway (thinking Kenya/Tikolo here for example or Canada/Davison).