LA ICE-E, you may also be interested in an alternative set of rankingsLA ICE-E said:can you give me the exact link please
Are we having a "who can post the most crap" competition in this thread or something?shortpitched713 said:Just goes to show that Netherlands is a pretty crap side really. Namibia would beat them any day.
Denmark and USA far too low in those rankings.chekmeout said:LA ICE-E, you may also be interested in an alternative set of rankings
http://caughtbehind.com/btb/team-rankings/
Thought it was pretty clear sarcasm. Never mind, I didn't mean it.Neil Pickup said:Are we having a "who can post the most crap" competition in this thread or something?
Holland qualified for the World Cup. Namibia didn't. Go figure.
Apologies. Didn't read it as that!shortpitched713 said:Thought it was pretty clear sarcasm. Never mind, I didn't mean it.
They why the hell did your list include many games from pre-2000 then? Can't have it both ways...LA ICE-E said:All those games are from 2000 to 2002 and now that ICC given more attention to the associates..they must have improved some what...with the intercontinental....HPP countries playing ODI's etc...
lol you aint getting the point...1 point was that since some of the people said upsets dont happen in cricket there was prove that it does....now the other point was that netherlands and other associates have improved now more that they were being icc introducing world cricket league and having the HPP...etcNeil Pickup said:They why the hell did your list include many games from pre-2000 then? Can't have it both ways...
So says someone who used games as far back as 1965 to try and boost his argument...LA ICE-E said:All those games are from 2000 to 2002
Not really, seeing as some of the "upsets" didn't even involve the sides you claimed, and pretty much all of the recent "upsets" involved the 2 most recent promotions to the highest level...LA ICE-E said:lol you aint getting the point...1 point was that since some of the people said upsets dont happen in cricket there was prove that it does.
did you not get what i said? the games i used back from 1965 was to show that upsets do happen in cricket...and if teams who lost to Lincolnshires etc beat a test team i think you can call that a upset...now here a whole different point i made saying that the games were from 2000 is that now the associates are surely better then they were in 2000 etc because they are playing more...get it? 2 different points being made.....marc71178 said:So says someone who used games as far back as 1965 to try and boost his argument...
24th February 2003: Kenya beat Sri Lanka is recent to me......17th June 2004: Ireland beat West Indies-had most/(or some how ever you look at it) of the players from the current team...19th October 2001: Kenya beat India....etc upsets did happen with most of the sides i claimed and no not all recent upsets were involved the 2 most recent promotions to the highest level...well it depends what you call recent....marc71178 said:Not really, seeing as some of the "upsets" didn't even involve the sides you claimed, and pretty much all of the recent "upsets" involved the 2 most recent promotions to the highest level...
So the ICC has got it under control, yes?LA ICE-E said:lol you aint getting the point...1 point was that since some of the people said upsets dont happen in cricket there was prove that it does....now the other point was that netherlands and other associates have improved now more that they were being icc introducing world cricket league and having the HPP...etc
hong kong is a separate teamshortpitched713 said:The CCA is full of ****. Its going to be very hard for China to get up to international standard if there isn't any grassroots interest in the sport. Right now it would probably be the Hong Kong side(full of expats) plus a couple token players from other places.