India will tour Bangladesh in December

[Deja moo]

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.

Ok , still doesnt show that Nzl were better than Kenya in the Super6es.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

did you even watch the 99 wc??zimbabwe beat both india and SA, so they made it thro not because of boycotts or the weather but by performances on field.....yes they played better than england in that tournament and there were no arguments when they got through as a result of that. that zimbabwe team is undoubtedly their all time best with neil johnson and murray goodwin both in the side.

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.

whats this about the super six that you keep talking about? that wc format takes into account performances throughout the world cup to decide who goes through to the semis....points from the leagues stage are carried through! NZ obviously played better cricket in the entire wc so they should have gone through!

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

thats absurd......they were genuine security fears there. its a bit like saying that murali didnt go to australia because he was scared that he'd get smashed out of the park....complete rubbish.

And you think Kenya can't beat those teams on their day ?? FYI, Kenya have so far beaten India, WI, SL, ZIM in ODIS.

for kenya to win a game against a test playing nation they require an extremely bad day from their opponents and they themselves should be having their very best day. why is it not surprising that those 4 test playing nations that they have beaten all happen to be the most inconsistent teams?

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 not luck at all....poor discipline is all part of the game.

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??

err what? in SL wc SF match they out performed india...ask any indian that and they'll tell you that they had no chance of winning that game. kenya hadnt even bowled a ball....how can you call that deserving?

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 and WI would have won 4 had it not rained, even if with the boycott WI would have gone through because they beat kenya....and dont come up with ludicrous statements like "how do you know they would have beaten b'desh?"

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.

umm incase you havent realised sherlock, that happened to be you're own logic....fine move that criticising you're own logic

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..

oh so now you call kenya a minnow dont you? all this time you've been going on about how kenya played better cricket than the WI and when i take into account the WI win over kenya you tell me that it was only "over a minnow". absolute b/s

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.

umm incase you havent realised....all this time you've been considering the boycott as a win over NZ....lets take the NZ vs kenya match as a tie.....NZ still end up with more points.
use the same method for the zim and england games and you'll find out who has more points

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. .

umm do you read?i said the team that plays better cricket deserves to be in the finals... so why bring up india-pakistan finals? if india and pakistan played the best cricket then and only then should they be in the finals.

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..

as i have said before...it is your assumption that kenya would beat NZ and Zim would beat england......thats the only way both those teams were going to go thro to the super six

 

[tooextracool]

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.

incase you havent been following the argument....kenya were granted a game by the rain gods(WI match) and they were granted a boycott!

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

simply because they didnt play brilliantly....how can you compare a team that went on to win every game after the rained out one to a team that went on to win just 1 game and that too against zimbabwe.......

 

[Deja moo]

incase you havent been following the argument....kenya were granted a game by the rain gods(WI match)




.......

no, they werent .

 

[tooextracool]

no, they werent .

the WI vs b'desh game was rained off, had WI won that game kenya wouldnt have gone through to the super six.

 

[Deja moo]

the WI vs b'desh game was rained off, had WI won that game kenya wouldnt have gone through to the super six.

If it hadnt rained in the eng-pak game in 92 , pak wouldnt have gone through.

 

[tooextracool]

If it hadnt rained in the eng-pak game in 92 , pak wouldnt have gone through.

do you not read? i said kenya were aided by rain and a boycott....care to remind me which pakistan game was boycotted in 92?

 

[Sanz]

did you even watch the 99 wc??zimbabwe beat both india and SA, so they made it thro not because of boycotts or the weather but by performances on field......

Well Zimbabwe didn't boycott, England Did, Kenya didn't boycott, NZ did. They had no control over Rain. Did they ?? Are you saying Zimbabwe were a better team than England in 1999 world cup ? Silly me, I thought England beat Zimbabwe easily in 199 world cup.

whats this about the super six that you keep talking about? that wc format takes into account performances throughout the world cup to decide who goes through to the semis....points from the leagues stage are carried through! NZ obviously played better cricket in the entire wc so they should have gone through!

And they did go to the super six round ?? Didn't they ?? Now dont tell me that they deserved it more than Kenya to go to the Semi Finals by winning equal no. of matches. Incase you didn't know the CF points in super six depended on who else qualified with your team and your performance against that team counts. Kenya, NZ & SL made to super six, Kenya won agains SL, NZ lost to SL, Kenya was awarded points against NZ because NZ boycotted the game. Kenya went to Super six with 4, SL with 2 and NZ with 0. What is the problem here ? Wasn't this format same in 1999 as well ?? Cut you BS and dont try to mislead people by claiming that NZ played better cricket entire WC or that the 1999 format takes into account performance throughout the WC, it only counts your performance against other teams qualifying for Super Six.

thats absurd......they were genuine security fears there.

Yes, we understand that, Just like the genuine security threats in Zimbabwe.

for kenya to win a game against a test playing nation they require an extremely bad day from their opponents and they themselves should be having their very best day. why is it not surprising that those 4 test playing nations that they have beaten all happen to be the most inconsistent teams?

And you are sure NZ couldn't have a bad day, right ?? And yes looking at NZ's recent performance they seem pretty consistant to me. I though Pakistan was the most inconsistent team in the world.

kenya hadnt even bowled a ball....how can you call that deserving?

And how can you call it undeserving, when they were denied a chance to perform ?? They deserved the point and NZ deserved it too.

yes and WI would have won 4 had it not rained, even if with the boycott WI would have gone through because they beat kenya....and dont come up with ludicrous statements like "how do you know they would have beaten b'desh?"

I dont know, how do you know that they would have beaten BD ?? You clearely have imagined a world cup of your own, Where there is lot of room for assumptions. If it had not rained, a would have beaten B, C would have beaten D, If C had not Boycotted, C would have beaten E etc etc. Well , WAKE UP !!, it's over now.

umm incase you havent realised sherlock, that happened to be you're own logic....fine move that criticising you're own logic

That's you logic, not mine. Dont put your foolish assumption on me.

oh so now you call kenya a minnow dont you? all this time you've been going on about how kenya played better cricket than the WI and when i take into account the WI win over kenya you tell me that it was only "over a minnow". absolute b/s

Well, yes Kenya was a minnow but it did perform much better for a team rated that low. In case you forgot, it beat 3 test nations SL, BD & Zim. Which is more than WI.(Here is an example which will help you understand things better, in 1999 England beat Zimbabwe easily, but zimbabwe beat SA & India and went to the Super Six, Who was better Zimbabwe or England ??)

umm incase you havent realised....all this time you've been considering the boycott as a win over NZ....lets take the NZ vs kenya match as a tie.....NZ still end up with more points.
use the same method for the zim and england games and you'll find out who has more points

Ohh, So this is what is all about. You wanted to split points between NZ-Kenya and Eng-Zim, didn't you ?? Why should England and NZ be awarded points for boycotting a match ?? How many times in the history it has happened before ?? I am glad that ICC didn't bow to Eng and NZ and they were kicked out of the tournament early. They deserved it.

umm do you read?i said the team that plays better cricket deserves to be in the finals... so why bring up india-pakistan finals? if india and pakistan played the best cricket then and only then should they be in the finals.

No you said, No one would watch a Kenya-Canada Finals. Do I care ?? Kenya didn't fix any matches, they went to the SF on the basis of their performance and some luck. They deserved it.

as i have said before...it is your assumption that kenya would beat NZ and Zim would beat england......thats the only way both those teams were going to go thro to the super six

You are wrong, that's not my assumption. I have never said anything of that sort. Prove it where I have said it. All I have said that Kenya and Zim were denied a chance to play and that's why they were awarded the points. You are the one who has been playing assumption game and wooven a whole world cup performances in your mind where there are lot of IF-ELSE scenarios are taking place. Good luck with that. (*Whispers* - the world cup is over)

 

[Sanz]

do you not read? i said kenya were aided by rain and a boycott....care to remind me which pakistan game was boycotted in 92?

Oh so it is undeserving only if it is washed out AND boycotted. Well to me it is not. If you boycott a game you pay the price for it. Even if it is my own country INDIA, my opinion would have been same for this kind of Security BS from them.

 

[tooextracool]

Oh so it is undeserving only if it is washed out AND boycotted. Well to me it is not. If you boycott a game you pay the price for it. Even if it is my own country INDIA, my opinion would have been same for this kind of Security BS from them.

incase you havent read my earlier posts i clearly said pakistan didnt deserve to go thro to the semis in 92.....my point was that kenya even with the boycott shouldnt have gone thro which just goes to show how lucky they were that the rain came down in the WI game...

 

[Sanz]

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.

I am sure from '22 in 13' to '22 in 1' was same as batting for 45 overs. Reeve and Lewis would have added another 40 runs in 5 overs with an avg of 8, but I am sure SA couldn't have made 62 odd runs in last 7 overs with an average around 9(assuming 294 was the final score ).

You should know that some of you guys have really added a new dimension to the whole 'Terrace Group' .

 

[marc71178]

I dont know, how do you know that they would have beaten BD ??

Because Bangladesh were absolutely useless in that Tournament?

 

[marc71178]

I am sure from '22 in 13' to '22 in 1' was same as batting for 45 overs.

How come?

22 from 13 (with few wickets left) is far from easy in a game with little meaning, let alone a WC semi final.

Losing 5 of the 50 overs is more than a little harsh on a side.

 

[tooextracool]

Well Zimbabwe didn't boycott, England Did, Kenya didn't boycott, NZ did. They had no control over Rain. Did they ??

yes and the point of this all is?all i said was that kenya didnt deserve to go thro......if getting points from rain and boycotts is what you call "deserved" then you are obviously out of your mind.

Are you saying Zimbabwe were a better team than England in 1999 world cup ? Silly me, I thought England beat Zimbabwe easily in 199 world cup.)

yes i am saying that zimbabwe played better in that world cup.....any englishman will agree with me on that because then went on to beat the 2 best teams in the group. if getting into the super sixes like that is not what you call "deserved" then what is?

And they did go to the super six round ?? Didn't they ?? Now dont tell me that they deserved it more than Kenya to go to the Semi Finals by winning equal no. of matches. Incase you didn't know the CF points in super six depended on who else qualified with your team and your performance against that team counts. Kenya, NZ & SL made to super six, Kenya won agains SL, NZ lost to SL, Kenya was awarded points against NZ because NZ boycotted the game. Kenya went to Super six with 4, SL with 2 and NZ with 0. What is the problem here ? Wasn't this format same in 1999 as well ?? Cut you BS and dont try to mislead people by claiming that NZ played better cricket entire WC or that the 1999 format takes into account performance throughout the WC, it only counts your performance against other teams qualifying for Super Six.

and it all comes down the the fact that kenya didnt deserve to go thro to the super six in the first place....the points that they got dont matter because they achieved them from boycotts..

Yes, we understand that, Just like the genuine security threats in Zimbabwe..

yes they were genuine threats.....whats more important you're life or the game? what kind of a stupid way is this to win matches?fill your country with terrorists and oh you've just gotten thro to the super six stage!

And you are sure NZ couldn't have a bad day, right ?? And yes looking at NZ's recent performance they seem pretty consistant to me.

no i have not ruled out the possiblity of kenya beating NZ.....you have taken it for granted that kenya would have beaten NZ and are granting them the points!!

I though Pakistan was the most inconsistent team in the world.

and remind me wise guy.....what happened to pakistan in the wc?all those other teams are inconsistent too as their performances vary from very good to very bad.....

And how can you call it undeserving, when they were denied a chance to perform ?? They deserved the point and NZ deserved it too.

they dont deserve the points unless they win the game! just because they got free points doesnt mean they deserved it with their on field performances!

I dont know, how do you know that they would have beaten BD ??

i thought someone like you would bring that up....let me remind you that even canada beat them in that wc so they were by far the worst team in that entire group. besides the were 32/2 chasing 244....only a fool would propose than b'desh had a chance of winning

You clearely have imagined a world cup of your own, Where there is lot of room for assumptions. If it had not rained, a would have beaten B, C would have beaten D, If C had not Boycotted, C would have beaten E etc etc. Well , WAKE UP !!, it's over now.

my point is solely that credibility was lost and even you yourself seemed to admit it indirectly when you called them a minnow team......it is over now and i will continue to believe that that was one of the worst world cups i've ever seen......

Well, yes Kenya was a minnow but it did perform much better for a team rated that low. In case you forgot, it beat 3 test nations SL, BD & Zim. Which is more than WI.

that third team that they beat only showed up in the super six stage,where WI didnt play....dont come up with stupid statements like that to try and convince people that kenya played better than the WI.....its not as though they should be proud with beating b'desh either.WI would have won more games had in that round, had it not rained....its as simple as that.

(Here is an example which will help you understand things better, in 1999 England beat Zimbabwe easily, but zimbabwe beat SA & India and went to the Super Six, Who was better Zimbabwe or England ??).

as i have said earlier, and as any sane people who watched that world cup will tell you....zimbabwe were better.....

Ohh, So this is what is all about. You wanted to split points between NZ-Kenya and Eng-Zim, didn't you ?? Why should England and NZ be awarded points for boycotting a match ?? How many times in the history it has happened before ?? I am glad that ICC didn't bow to Eng and NZ and they were kicked out of the tournament early. They deserved it.??).

i never stated that at all....we were looking at points got from deserved victories, and you quite intelligently decided to add kenya's 4 points from the boycotted games to their tally

No you said, No one would watch a Kenya-Canada Finals. Do I care ?? Kenya didn't fix any matches, they went to the SF on the basis of their performance and some luck. They deserved it.

incase you didnt read what i said i'll reiterate my point....i said that no one would watch a kenya-canada finals IF they didnt deserve to make it there...nobody shows up to watch 2 teams play poor cricket.
SOME LUCK?are you insane?

You are wrong, that's not my assumption. I have never said anything of that sort. Prove it where I have said it. All I have said that Kenya and Zim were denied a chance to play and that's why they were awarded the points.

you seem to think that kenya played better cricket than NZ and the WI and that they "deserved" to go through....how could they have deserved to go thro when they got their points from boycotts and were aided by the rain...

 

[Neil Pickup]

I am sure from '22 in 13' to '22 in 1' was same as batting for 45 overs. Reeve and Lewis would have added another 40 runs in 5 overs with an avg of 8, but I am sure SA couldn't have made 62 odd runs in last 7 overs with an average around 9(assuming 294 was the final score ).

You should know that some of you guys have really added a new dimension to the whole 'Terrace Group' .

SA knew they had 45 overs to bat and paced their innings accordingly, so under D/L would have been set 279 - which would have meant 47 were needed off 13 at the time of the rain.

It amuses me how you continue to resort to insults... I find it difficult to believe that suggesting that SA weren't the only side disadvantaged by the WC'92 rules is equivalently biased to rating Amit Mishra over Shane Warne.

 

[biased indian]

thats absurd......they were genuine security fears there

ya there was threat to the life of only NZ players since NZ had attacked Kenya prevoius year all yhe kenyans wehere angry at NZ

 

[biased indian]

you seem to think that kenya played better cricket than NZ and the WI and that they "deserved" to go through....how could they have deserved to go thro when they got their points from boycotts and were aided by the rain...

So ur saying that only kenya have benifted from boycott

what about SL in 1996 ,what about the olympics of 84,80 and all other games which had some kind of boycott.in every case its the one who was boycotted
is the non deserving one isnt it.u point could have been true if kenya had reaced semi only because of NZ boycotting them its not like that kenya had won games and that's what matter

 

[marc71178]

ya there was threat to the life of only NZ players since NZ had attacked Kenya prevoius year all yhe kenyans wehere angry at NZ

You really have no clue what you're talking about do you?

 

[V Reddy]

ya there was threat to the life of only NZ players since NZ had attacked Kenya prevoius year all yhe kenyans wehere angry at NZ

You should realise that they had already encountered such type of incident in Pakistan. When you had faced that ugly incident already , you tend to be extra-cautious while facing a warning of the same sort again

 

[Deja moo]

Because Bangladesh were absolutely useless in that Tournament?

So were they in 99 , until a certain last match vs Pakistan.

*Cricket is a game of glorious uncertainties*