Uae

[Daemon]

I've got no gripe with players who move for non-cricketing reasons and then end up representing their adopted country down the line at all. I do think players who actually move for cricket playing international cricket for their new sides takes away some of the point of national sides though.

I definitely get the whole 'arbitrary lines on a map' argument, but the whole international cricket setup is basically built upon arbitrary lines on a map. If we're going to call that out as being pretty pointless -- and I appreciate the philosophy -- then we pretty much have to do away with the national cricket sides altogether, or at the very least get rid of qualification rules. I think that'd detract a lot from the game for a lot of people.

Fair enough. I keep having mixed feelings about this issue and what you said does make sense to me atm.

I agree with your first paragraph but it's unfortunately a bit hard to police isn't it?

 

[kiwiviktor81]

So the HK team has more young talent, more depth, and are generally more professional.

But the UAE qualified for the CWC and Hong Kong didn't. Sounds a bit weird.

 

[cnerd123]

But the UAE qualified for the CWC and Hong Kong didn't. Sounds a bit weird.

Rains a lot here and facilities are ****.
Players are quite inexperienced. Also smaller talent pool.

What UAE has going for them is great facilities and a strong domestic structure. Players in the UAE nat setup get to play a lot more and train better than HK's.

Honestly quite surprised to see UAE qualified anyways tbh. Unexpectedly good performance from them.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Bermuda are in Division Four. Their cricket has fallen off a cliff since the glory days of Dwayne Leverock.

Hemp off playing First Grade cricket here in Melbourne.

 

[NUFAN]

He isn't. He's 43.

Yet he's in the Top 5 Associate players in the world.

Was 42, is 43.