Which Minnow do you support and why

[Langeveldt]

Zimbabwe and Namibia - Because I have been there and they are close to SA really! Namibia used to compete in the SA domestic competition.. Used to be very impressed with Zimbabwe and I hope one day we see competitive cricket from there again

 

[luckyeddie]

How can anyone not support the minnows? For the sport to progress the game must be spread around the world. If you look at the history of the game theres always been new sides entering test cricket, and very few have started well... look at sri lanka.. zim... new zealand, WI, and India even.... they all started very badly! But they were persisted with and eventually became sucessful.
One day for cricket to be as popular as football around the world there needs to be more countries playing... in 50 years i expect at least 15 test nations if not more with the amount of money being spent by the icc.
Shame on anyone who wants these teams to do badly! how will they progress if we dont give them a chance at this level?

Hopefully the person on here who continually advocates grinding the minnows into the dirt is not representative of proper cricket fans - and he certainly doesn't reflect the 'English' way of always siding for the underdog (thank goodness).

It would be a very boring world if all we had was a diet of big fish - besides, once in a while the little fish turn out to be piranha - and bite back.

Oh - welcome to Cricket Web - what a great first post.

 

[Langeveldt]

once in a while the little fish turn out to be piranha - and bite back.

Unless you're from Derbyshire, the only team worse than Somerset

 

[luckyeddie]

Unless you're from Derbyshire, the only team worse than Somerset

I can remember when we were good though - and worms have a habit of turning.

 

[Richard]

Disease!?? What's wrong with supporting the underdog?
It's pretty common in Australia, by the way. Just have a look at Eric the Eel during the Sydney Olympics. I think the main thing in supporting underdogs is that when they win, it's so emotional for the players, and it's the fact that they're trying the best and that's what sport's all about.

Maybe in terms of emotion, yes (Ebdon-vs-Lee in 2001 was one of if not my fave sporting moments) but I hardly see how Eric The Eel was an underdog - when he was the only one in his heat!
I don't like supporting underdogs - ie enjoying any fluked success they might have - because it detracts from the real picture.
That's not to say anything against underdogs like Eric The Eel - but like Bangladesh it's a completely different matter.

 

[Richard]

Exactly. Calling supporting the underdog a disease is one of the stupidest things Richard has ever said, and that's saying something. Honestly you have no heart.

When the Bangadeshis beat Australia, the emotion and joy they felt was great to see. I'm sure all the people back home supporting their nation were ready to celebrate in the streets but realise "Oh no, Richard won't like this, we better not."

Oh, for crying out loud.
When on Earth did I ever say the Bangladeshis were not entitled to be pleased?
What I said was that anyone else who was so should be ashamed of themselves. Yes, even the English. Because I, for one, knew what it would mean:
"How can they possibly be substandard?! They beat Australia ... ago!"
How is supporting your own team akin to supporting another team from your own just because they're big-underdogs?

 

[Richard]

Bangladesh arent minnows anymore. They have beaten a full-strength Zimbabwe, India, Australia and Sri Lanka in ODIs and cleanly swept the ODI series against Kenya recently showing that they are not minnows anymore.

Sorry, what?
Winning a single game against Australia, India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan (all of whom were either under-strength or under-motivated - sometimes seriously so) means PRECISELY NOTHING!!!!!! Nor does beating Zimbabwe or Kenya - Zimbabwe were categorically not "full strength" in 2003\04. They'd already lost most of their good players.

 

[Richard]

Ignore Richard, He is just afraid that Bangladesh might win the world cup before England does.

Err, yes, of course... I've shown so many signs of being despairingly pro-English-in-every-regard...
Bangladesh make one hell of a lot of players and teams (not least England, for that matter) look one hell of a lot better than they are, because their matches are mistakenly classed "Test" and "ODI".
Hence, international cricket would be better without them.

 

[Richard]

You realise that if we ruthlessly got rid of minnows, England would have lost its international status during the nineties!

Quite apart from the fact that England were nowhere near the status Zimbabwe have fallen to, in the 1990s England were in fact on the way up, and by-and-large performed far more credibly than they did in the 2nd half of the 1980s.

 

[Autobahn]

Maybe in terms of emotion, yes (Ebdon-vs-Lee in 2001 was one of if not my fave sporting moments) but I hardly see how Eric The Eel was an underdog - when he was the only one in his heat!
I don't like supporting underdogs - ie enjoying any fluked success they might have - because it detracts from the real picture.
That's not to say anything against underdogs like Eric The Eel - but like Bangladesh it's a completely different matter.

I'm sure the Tigers where pretty emotional when they beat Aus.

And while that particular sucess was flukey it does show there's talent underneath the current grime.

 

[Richard]

Richard, days are coming pretty fast than I expected, when you have to eat earth as you swore. So, wait patiently, rather than talking more stupid. Bangladesh is becoming better day by day and as a result you will see more and more people are backing Bangladesh. So you want it or not they will come good and beat the *** of England like their U19 team did with England U19 this year.

How did I guess idiots like you might resurface?
IF Bangladesh ever do beat England in the next 5 years or so, it'll show how badly England have fallen in ODIs. Nothing else.
And it might help you to get it into your thick skull that I am not one of those xenophobic anti-new-countries-in-cricket people the like of which you so gleefully try to paint me. I just don't like Bangladesh lowering the standard to the pathetic level they are currently at. It will cause me little pain to see England get beaten by Bangladesh if they ever do become good.

 

[Autobahn]

Zimbabwe and Namibia - Because I have been there and they are close to SA really! Namibia used to compete in the SA domestic competition.. Used to be very impressed with Zimbabwe and I hope one day we see competitive cricket from there again

How did Namibia do in the domestic comp? And don't some Namibians play in SA?

 

[Richard]

How can anyone not support the minnows? For the sport to progress the game must be spread around the world. If you look at the history of the game theres always been new sides entering test cricket, and very few have started well... look at sri lanka.. zim... new zealand, WI, and India even.... they all started very badly! But they were persisted with and eventually became sucessful.
One day for cricket to be as popular as football around the world there needs to be more countries playing... in 50 years i expect at least 15 test nations if not more with the amount of money being spent by the icc.
Shame on anyone who wants these teams to do badly! how will they progress if we dont give them a chance at this level?

Err, by playing at a level where they won't be routinely hammered?
Not wanting the sport to progress is different from not wanting the standard dragged down. Only New Zealand and South Africa have ever done that. Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, India and West Indies were all up to standard as soon as they started playing, even if they weren't quite good enough to start winning games instantly. There was no reason to suggest they shouldn't have been elevated when they were.
Bangladesh, however, clearly shouldn't have been.

 

[Richard]

Hopefully the person on here who continually advocates grinding the minnows into the dirt is not representative of proper cricket fans - and he certainly doesn't reflect the 'English' way of always siding for the underdog (thank goodness).

Nope, nor would I want to.

 

[steds]

 

[Bill_Monkau]

Minnows - a waste of money?


I am extremely reluctant to support any minnow. They're better off competing each other. To be included in tournaments with Test Countries is throwing good money after bad. It's the difference between professional and recreational, upbringing and mimicry, really. The only beneficiaries are those players/officials who’re lucky enough to represent the minnow countries. That is to say, with regard to the opportunity to travel around the world. Good for their general knowledge, one would think. In terms of conveying cricket experience to the locals, no chance, I'm afraid. The infrastructure of the minnow countries shouldn’t necessarily be the problem; it's the culture that’s lagging behind! To say nothing of the Governing Bodies' cloak-and-dagger! Nevertheless, it'd be nice to envisage some sort of promotion prospects for the minnow countries. Not very realistic, though. Mind you, the West Indies are struggling to avoid the Minnow Zone.

 

[crickmate]

Wow first post. But please change the font color.

I am extremely reluctant to support any minnow. They're better off competing each other. To be included in tournaments with Test Countries is throwing good money after bad. It's the difference between professional and recreational, upbringing and mimicry, really. The only beneficiaries are those players/officials who’re lucky enough to represent the minnow countries. That is to say, with regard to the opportunity to travel around the world. Good for their general knowledge, one would think. In terms of conveying cricket experience to the locals, no chance, I'm afraid. The infrastructure of the minnow countries shouldn’t necessarily be the problem; it's the culture that’s lagging behind! To say nothing of the Governing Bodies' cloak-and-dagger! Nevertheless, it'd be nice to envisage some sort of promotion prospects for the minnow countries. Not very realistic, though. Mind you, the West Indies are struggling to avoid the Minnow Zone.

 

[steds]

I am extremely reluctant to support any minnow.

Awww, come on. See the light and go Scotland

 

[crickmate]

You are the worst cricket supporter in this forum(probably in the whole world). It does not worth talking to you. You are that kind of guy who says, whatever happens, I am sticking to my point. Even if Bangladesh keeps beating all the team of the world regularly, you will say, the standard of all those countries has degraded, not that Bangladesh has imporved. So, whats the point of talking with such a moron. PERIOD.

How did I guess idiots like you might resurface?
IF Bangladesh ever do beat England in the next 5 years or so, it'll show how badly England have fallen in ODIs. Nothing else.
And it might help you to get it into your thick skull that I am not one of those xenophobic anti-new-countries-in-cricket people the like of which you so gleefully try to paint me. I just don't like Bangladesh lowering the standard to the pathetic level they are currently at. It will cause me little pain to see England get beaten by Bangladesh if they ever do become good.

 

[albo97056]

Only New Zealand and South Africa have ever done that. Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, India and West Indies were all up to standard as soon as they started playing, even if they weren't quite good enough to start winning games instantly. There was no reason to suggest they shouldn't have been elevated when they were.
Bangladesh, however, clearly shouldn't have been.

Zimbabwe won 1 test in their first 6 years
Sri Lanka....3rd test won in their 11th year
India... 3matches in 24 years
New Zealand took over 30! years to win their second match!!
Windies to be fair had a better start... but nothing too great...

How can you call that up to standard when bangladesh have only been playing 6 years? By what you're saying we should have to wait thirty years to see if bangladesh are any good.. and thats hardly supporting your argument is it?

Err, by playing at a level where they won't be routinely hammered?

Theyve already played at lower levels and they are obviously the best of the rest... how will they develop by hammering lesser sides?