India will tour Bangladesh in December

[tooextracool]

Well yeah because they boycotted their important matches where they had a good chance of winning. Now what did you want ICC to do for this ?.

did i say the ICC should do something about this? all i said was that credibility was lost because the better teams didnt go thro to the next stages....

In 1992 Pakistan benefitted from Weather, In 1996 SL benefitted from Boycotts. In 2003 it was kenya & Zimbabwe, It is part and parcel of game you can not change it..

SL would have gotten through anyways...in that wc all you had to do was to beat the minnow teams to reach the quarters and SL beat them and india...clearly there was no case about whether they should have or should not have reached the QF.

NZ won more matches in first round, in Super Six NZ & Kenya both won 1 match each, NZ denied Kenya a chance to perform against them by boycotting their game and they had to pay the price for it. 2003 world cup was a tested format and everyone knew that points would be carried forward to the next round. Unfortunately NZ didn't think that Kenya were going to qualify for super six and thats why they didnt care.

and again how does that prove that kenya were better than NZ?or the fact that kenya deserved to be in the super six or the semis for that matter?

Yes, they were lucky against SA and failed to win against other quality teams.

care to explain why they were lucky?IMO any of those top teams(bar australia) are capable of beating the others on their day....WI played better on that day and they won its as simple as that. theres no element of luck whatsoever.

Yes, Kenya were lucky but deserving.

thats really quite stupid of you to bring that up again....when a team won more games than them, and the other team played better cricket and if it werent for the weather would have gone through how can you say that kenya were deserving.....winning games from boycotts does not count as deserving!!

If you are going to count Kenyan and WI performances then who won against SL ??

yes because the best way to determine which team is better is by looking at performances against the third team.....cut the b/s, even if you look at it your way, we have to look at performances against SA... WI beat SA,WI beat kenya, WI lost to SL.....kenya lost to SA, kenya lost to WI and kenya beat SL.....that makes it 2-1 in favour of WI.

IMO WI played pathetic cricket.

yes they were pathetic when they beat SA and kenya....brilliant deduction sherlock

If we are talking about who deserved what, then take a look at the 1992 World Cup and you will know that SA were the most deserving but they didn't win thanks to the weather. Their SF didnt really have anything to do with their on-field performance. You keep bringing the weather as if it was a kenyan conspiracy to keep WI & SA out.

again you fail to see the point and continue to bring up irrelevant stuff about the 92 wc.....SA played well,and yes they were ultimately ****ed by the DL system but there was no way you could prove to me that they were going to win that game against england....22 from 11( i think) and you're certain that they deserved to win that game?rubbish

Really ?? Even if it is Kenya & Canada ? I thought no one would watch if these two countries played in the finals.

im sure many people would watch that final if both kenya and canada played excellent cricket in the tournament and deserved to get into the finals.

Anyways, You are late by 12 years, you should have questioned England and Pakistan's spot in 1992 finals..

why are you obsessed with 92? do you still live in 92?
i dont think you could prove that SA deserved to go in ahead of england for reasons mentioned earlier....as for pakistan yes they didnt deserve to go through but they played brilliantly when they did.

If the format was not good why didn't they change it in 1999 ??

did i say that the format was not good? i said that the icc changed the format because they felt that credibility was lost......

ICC can admit whatever they want, No matter what format they try, IF countries are going to boycott their matches against minnows, minnows will qualify again for the next round.

yes and time and time again i say " do they deserve to by performances on field?" i think not.

 

[marc71178]

there was no way you could prove to me that they were going to win that game against england....22 from 11( i think) and you're certain that they deserved to win that game?rubbish

23 from 13 that became 22 from 1.

What people neglect to mention when they bring this game up is that when England were batting in the slog overs, the game was suddenly slowed, meaning only 45 overs were possible in the time allowed.

Remind me again how SA were penalised?

 

[Sanz]

did i say the ICC should do something about this? all i said was that credibility was lost because the better teams didnt go thro to the next stages....

Credibility was lost because some countries boycotted the tour and not because some minnows made to the next round. Zimbabwe made it to the second round in 1999 as well, there was no credibility lost then ?? England was still the better team than Zimbabwe.

and again how does that prove that kenya were better than NZ?or the fact that kenya deserved to be in the super six or the semis for that matter?

Did I say Kenya was the better team ? In the Super Six Kenya and NZ both won only one match each (against Zim) so it is hard to say on that NZ performed better than in Kenya in the Super Six round. Kenya deserved their place in the super six because they won 3 important games and they were denied their chance to perform in the 4th one. If NZ was so sure of beating Kenya then they should have played them.

care to explain why they were lucky?IMO any of those top teams(bar australia) are capable of beating the others on their day....WI played better on that day and they won its as simple as that. theres no element of luck whatsoever.

And you think Kenya can't beat those teams on their day ?? FYI, Kenya have so far beaten India, WI, SL, ZIM in ODIS. WI were lucky because SA were penalized one over for slow bowling. It was SA's poor descipline in the field that cost them the match. If that is not luck then I dont know what is.

thats really quite stupid of you to bring that up again....when a team won more games than them, and the other team played better cricket and if it werent for the weather would have gone through how can you say that kenya were deserving.....winning games from boycotts does not count as deserving!!

In my book it does, because Kenya were denied an opportunity to play. Does SL world Cup SF match in 1996 ring a bell ?? Was that undeserving too??

WI didn't win more games than Kenya, weather or no weather. If WI played 5 games, Kenya also played 5 games to win those 3 games.

yes because the best way to determine which team is better is by looking at performances against the third team.....cut the b/s, even if you look at it your way, we have to look at performances against SA... WI beat SA,WI beat kenya, WI lost to SL.....kenya lost to SA, kenya lost to WI and kenya beat SL.....that makes it 2-1 in favour of WI.

Yeah right and SA and Kenya are 1-1 with that logic. SA Lost to WI, Kenya lost to WI, Kenya beat SL, SA drew SL, SA Beat Kenya. Go on and derive some more logics to prove your point, you wont be able to change my opinion though.

yes they were pathetic when they beat SA and kenya....brilliant deduction sherlock

The simple fact that you point WI's wins over a minnow like Kenya and their lucky win against SA proves my point that West Indies played poor cricket.

again you fail to see the point and continue to bring up irrelevant stuff about the 92 wc.....SA played well,and yes they were ultimately ****ed by the DL system but there was no way you could prove to me that they were going to win that game against england....22 from 11( i think) and you're certain that they deserved to win that game?rubbish

And how are you certain that NZ were going to beat Kenya or England were going to beat Zimbabwe ?? I am sure you have some scientifinc method to prove that.

im sure many people would watch that final if both kenya and canada played excellent cricket in the tournament and deserved to get into the finals.

Let me repeat, Let's start fixing matches so that India-Pakistan or India-Australia can reach the finals and that will fill up the stadiums anywhere in the world.

why are you obsessed with 92? do you still live in 92?
i dont think you could prove that SA deserved to go in ahead of england for reasons mentioned earlier....as for pakistan yes they didnt deserve to go through but they played brilliantly when they did.

I dont live in 1992, just giving you some examples explaining who deserved what. If I can not prove that SA deserved to go ahead of England, you can prove it either that WI or England (and not Kenya) deserved to go to next round in 2003. It is your assumption that WI was going to win against BD, NZ was going to win against Kenya and England was going to win against ZIM.

did i say that the format was not good? i said that the icc changed the format because they felt that credibility was lost......

Why dont you support your repeated claims where ICC says that World Cup 2003 credibility was lost because Kenya made to the SF ??

 

[Sanz]

23 from 13 that became 22 from 1.

What people neglect to mention when they bring this game up is that when England were batting in the slog overs, the game was suddenly slowed, meaning only 45 overs were possible in the time allowed.

Remind me again how SA were penalised?

SA needed 22 of 13 balls. As for game being slowed down in slog overs when England was batting, Well I dont think you remember anything about that game, why dont you watch the tapes of Dermot Reeve batting in the slog overs and tell us how slow his inning was.

As for SA's loss I am sure from 22 in 13 to 22 in 1 was really very deserving win for England.

I am almost done with this thread, unless you or TEC come with anything better. Thank you very much for replying to my posts.

 

[biased indian]

again you fail to see the point and continue to bring up irrelevant stuff about the 92 wc.....SA played well,and yes they were ultimately ****ed by the DL system but there was no way you could prove to me that they were going to win that game against england....22 from 11( i think) and you're certain that they deserved to win that game?rubbish

i dont think DL was used in 1992.

if i am correct they used to take into account the least run scored overs and found the target score thats y SA target didnot come down

 

[biased indian]

23 from 13 that became 22 from 1.

What people neglect to mention when they bring this game up is that when England were batting in the slog overs, the game was suddenly slowed, meaning only 45 overs were possible in the time allowed.

Remind me again how SA were penalised?

that the reason which helped ENG win in 92
two overs where reduced for SA in which ENG has given aa maiden and a one run over thats y only one run was reduced from SA target when they lost 12 balls

 

[Sanz]

im sure many people would watch that final if both kenya and canada played excellent cricket in the tournament and deserved to get into the finals.

Euro just lost its credibility, 2/3rd of the Stadium is empty in the Czech Vs. Greece Semi Final.

 

[Neil Pickup]

SA needed 22 of 13 balls. As for game being slowed down in slog overs when England was batting, Well I dont think you remember anything about that game, why dont you watch the tapes of Dermot Reeve batting in the slog overs and tell us how slow his inning was.

As for SA's loss I am sure from 22 in 13 to 22 in 1 was really very deserving win for England.

I am almost done with this thread, unless you or TEC come with anything better. Thank you very much for replying to my posts.

Try reading what's posted.

The 1992 Semi Final at the SCG was a 50-over match and South Africa's run-rate was so disgustingly slow that only 45 England overs were possible, meaning England - through no fault of their own - ended up losing the five last overs of the innings (and, like you say, the way Reeve and Lewis were going it could have been another 40 runs quite easily).

This then left South Africa 253 off 45 overs with the chance to pace themselves for all 45 available overs, meaning they could go for the slog from 35/36 rather than waiting until 40/41 as England had to.

Yes, the rain-rule employed then was unfair in the situation, but I have absolutely no sympathy for the South Africans because England were short-changed badly in that situation anyway.

Doing a quick D/L on the stats, England making 252-6 off 45 overs translates to SA being set (294*0.95) = 279 in their 45 - and they were never going to get close to that by the time that infamous rain came.

 

[Sanz]

Try reading what's posted.
the way Reeve and Lewis were going it could have been another 40 runs quite easily

Did you know that Lewis and Reeve didn't come to bat until the 40th and 41st over. I just fail to understand that If Reeve and Lewis weren't even in the crease how they were going to add another 40 runs ??

Height of assumption, I would say, the way you folks talk here you assume that everything would England's way in every match.

And you have the audacity to call Amit and Group as 'Terrace Group'.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Did you know that Lewis and Reeve didn't come to bat until the 40th and 41st over. I just fail to understand that If Reeve and Lewis weren't even in the crease how they were going to add another 40 runs ??

Height of assumption, I would say, the way you folks talk here you assume that everything would England's way in every match.

And you have the audacity to call Amit and Group as 'Terrace Group'.

Er, what?

Looking at the D/L method (clearly a colonialist, imperialist idea with the sole aim of suppressing India, obviously), 252-6 off 45 equals 294 off 50.

 

[marc71178]

If NZ was so sure of beating Kenya then they should have played them.

And blow the security issues that meant that the team didn't want to travel?

There are some things bigger than Cricket.

 

[Sanz]

Nice try Neil, You still haven't answered how Reeve and Lewis could have scored 40 more runs if they were not even in the crease.

As for D/L method , You wont find me cribbing about any ICC rule, weather, Rain or format after every Indian loss.

 

[marc71178]

Did you know that Lewis and Reeve didn't come to bat until the 40th and 41st over. I just fail to understand that If Reeve and Lewis weren't even in the crease how they were going to add another 40 runs ??

At the end of the 45th Over, Reeve and Lewis were both not out and both scoring at well in excess of a run a ball and for the time of innings well settled...

5 overs at 8 an over would've been more than possible.

 

[Neil Pickup]

They were at the crease.

The South Africans' slow over rate meant that under the Tournament Rules [unfair as they were and have now been changed], England had to end their innings after 3.25 hours (?), with five overs of their fifty remaining, with no compensation.

 

[Sanz]

And blow the security issues that meant that the team didn't want to travel?

There are some things bigger than Cricket.

Well, then they should have played better in the Super Six. Dont tell me that they were expecting to win the world cup after winning only one game there that too against zimbabwe which was such a strong team without Andy Flower.

Remember 1999 world cup, Australia qualified to the Super six with ZERO points but went on to win the Cup.

 

[Sanz]

At the end of the 45th Over, Reeve and Lewis were both not out and both scoring at well in excess of a run a ball and for the time of innings well settled...

5 overs at 8 an over would've been more than possible.

Yes sure, And they would not have lost any wickets, as I said every thing would have gone England's way.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Yes sure, And they would not have lost any wickets, as I said every thing would have gone England's way.

Nonetheless, the target should by rights have been more that what it was (and on average 294 if the D/L tables are anything to go by) and wasn't because of the SA timewasting.

Both teams were screwed over in that game, not just the Proteas.

 

[Deja moo]

i dont think you could prove that SA deserved to go in ahead of england for reasons mentioned earlier....as for pakistan yes they didnt deserve to go through but they played brilliantly when they did.

Why dont you say the same for Kenya then ?

Kenya played much better cricket than NZL in the super sixes.

1)Both teams defeated Zim.
2)Kenya played better than NZL vs Aus.
3)Kenya gave India a scare. NZL crumbled.

Kenya were "granted" a game by NZl in 2003 , Pak were granted a game in 92 by the rain gods.Both made the next stage in the corresponding World cups.

Why dont you substitute the word 'Kenya' for 'Pakistan' in that highlighted sentence ?

What stops you from saying' "as for Kenya ,yes they didnt deserve to go through but they played brilliantly when they did "

By your logic , if WC 2003 lost its credibility , so did WC 92.

 

[marc71178]

2)Kenya played better than NZL vs Aus.

Erm, no they didn't - Kenya batted and made 174-8 in 50 overs and Australia won with almost 20 overs to spare.

NZ reduced Australia to 84-7 and only Bevan and Bichel won it for Australia.

By your logic , if WC 2003 lost its credibility , so did WC 92.

Rain is part of the game though

 

[Deja moo]

Rain is part of the game though

Considering the regularity of matches and tours being boycotted by some teams , the same must be said about boycotts