WCL Div 2 in Namibia

For discussion of any non-Zimbabwean cricket.
User avatar
jaybro
Posts: 7470
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:36 am
Supports: MidWest Rhinos

WCL Div 2 in Namibia

Post by jaybro » Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:04 am

The World Cricket Division Two league tournament is starting on April 20th in Namibia. The tournament will have six participants all vying for ODI Status !!!!

Hong Kong will start favourites and really they should already status of not for the debarcle at last years’ CWCQ where they lost it, considering the class of a few of their batsman I think they’re pretty safe to finish in the top 4 which will regain status.

PNG are the other side who entered the CWCQ with status and lost it, they’ll be hoping to regain it also, the four remaining sides are Canada who had it and lost it a while back, whilst both Namibia & the USA have had temporary status for ICC tournaments before, Oman are the only side to not ever played an ODI.

Personally I’m hoping Namibia finish in the top four the rest I’m not that fussed about, I’m sure we’d see Namibia play Zimbabwe fairly regularly which I think is a good thing for cricket in Africa.

Also hoping the USA get ODI status considering the power they could become if the sport kicks off over there, also you’d think they’d be keen to use their status and play a decent amount of ODI’s. That was my biggest issue with Hong Kong & PNG when they had it they barely used it.
1.G.Flower 2.B.Taylor 3.M.Goodwin 4.A.Flower 5.D.Houghton 6.N.Johnson 7.T.Taibu 8.P.Strang 9.H.Streak 10.R.Price 11.H.Olonga 12.A.Campbell

Kriterion_BD
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:41 am

Re: WCL Div 2 in Namibia

Post by Kriterion_BD » Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:34 pm

USA has reallly come up in the last year or so (since they got a new admin). The fact that they are in contention for ODI status is a wonderful proof. Yes, ODI status seems to be expanded from 16 to 20 teams now. Still its a good effort for the USA if they can crack the top 20. They've spent so many years languishing in WCL 3 and 4.

Hoping either Nepal or Scotland top the table.

Does the top placed team in World Cup League 2 automatically get promotion to Super League replacing the 13th ranked side in that competition?
(my cricket podcast) https://aewahid.podbean.com

User avatar
jaybro
Posts: 7470
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:36 am
Supports: MidWest Rhinos

Re: WCL Div 2 in Namibia

Post by jaybro » Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:17 pm

No the Dutch are still in the new ODI league
1.G.Flower 2.B.Taylor 3.M.Goodwin 4.A.Flower 5.D.Houghton 6.N.Johnson 7.T.Taibu 8.P.Strang 9.H.Streak 10.R.Price 11.H.Olonga 12.A.Campbell

Kriterion_BD
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:41 am

Re: WCL Div 2 in Namibia

Post by Kriterion_BD » Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:51 pm

jaybro wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:17 pm
No the Dutch are still in the new ODI league
I mean if the Dutch finish last place, will the top finisher in League 2 replace them for the next cycle? I believe so.

I really don’t like the idea of status being decided by promotion/relegation. I love that the top 20 teams are given ODI status, but they should have capped it to those teams. There should be a certain prestige in status and permanence lends prestige IMO. For Tests and ODIs. Don’t mind that T20I status has been granted to everyone.
(my cricket podcast) https://aewahid.podbean.com

User avatar
jaybro
Posts: 7470
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:36 am
Supports: MidWest Rhinos

Re: WCL Div 2 in Namibia

Post by jaybro » Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:27 pm

I don't mind more sides getting ODI status but I feel it's just a smoke and mirrors type move by the ICC to show despite them reducing the WC to a 10-team format they are still trying to 'grow the game'

Facts are most of these associates with ODI status barely play ODIs because the big sides rarely want to play them whilst the costs to host ODI games are very expensive, so even though the USA & Oman may get ODI status the facts are they will barely use it.

To me it's a half-arsed effort from the ICC, they need to to send more funding to the associates or give them more opportunities to play the big sides.

From a Zimbabwean point of view luckily for them the new ODI Championship will give them the chance to start playing the big sides more regularly, but I'd like to see them fill in the gapes by playing the other seven sides with ODI status to help grow the game whilst also giving them the chance to try out new players.
1.G.Flower 2.B.Taylor 3.M.Goodwin 4.A.Flower 5.D.Houghton 6.N.Johnson 7.T.Taibu 8.P.Strang 9.H.Streak 10.R.Price 11.H.Olonga 12.A.Campbell

Kriterion_BD
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:41 am

Re: WCL Div 2 in Namibia

Post by Kriterion_BD » Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:40 am

jaybro wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:27 pm
I don't mind more sides getting ODI status but I feel it's just a smoke and mirrors type move by the ICC to show despite them reducing the WC to a 10-team format they are still trying to 'grow the game'

Facts are most of these associates with ODI status barely play ODIs because the big sides rarely want to play them whilst the costs to host ODI games are very expensive, so even though the USA & Oman may get ODI status the facts are they will barely use it.

To me it's a half-arsed effort from the ICC, they need to to send more funding to the associates or give them more opportunities to play the big sides.

From a Zimbabwean point of view luckily for them the new ODI Championship will give them the chance to start playing the big sides more regularly, but I'd like to see them fill in the gapes by playing the other seven sides with ODI status to help grow the game whilst also giving them the chance to try out new players.
To be fair to the ICC, "growing the game" can't really be done simply by expanding the world cup to n teams. I'm excited about the 2019 World Cup because I think the tournament will be keenly contested. I think all 10 teams will win at least 2 games the reason being that 9 games is a lot of time both for good teams to slip up, and weaker ones to "have their day". In a 12 or 14 team tournament, yes, you'd have the likes of Scotland upsetting Pakistan or UAE hammering Bangladesh, but there would also be plenty of 75 all out drubbings where a NZ or Australia would chase a target down inside 10 or even 5 overs. That being said, I'm in favor of a 12 team world cup with either the same format (all teams play the other 11 sides) or with Super 8/6s following a group stage.

But having a 14 or 16 team world cup for two reasons. First, quality would suffer as there would be plenty of mismatches when the likes of Nepal take on South Africa. Secondly, the objective of growing the popularity of the game won't really work. Scotland and Netherlands have played in world cups on mutliple occaisions before and it hasn't transformed cricket into a popular game of the masses. That really only happens organically, and in recent times has only occurred in the subcontinent (Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and now Nepal). I suppose Ireland could also be counted as a country with a decent following of the game.

In order to spread the game, there has to a more grassroots effort IMO. As an example, in the US the entire team is made up of "immigrants". Yes, several members of the team may have been born in the US, but they are originally from cricket playing countries. Eg Steven Taylor of USA who's parents are from Jamaica. For cricket to gain a foothold in the US, we need a far more bottom up approach. Almost every major city in the US has a cricket club, dominated by Indian and Pakistani immigrants. Those club members need to ensure first that they get their own kids interested in cricket. Sure they may be more drawn to basketball, or american football, but get them cricket literate and following the game at some level. Then offer to volunteer to teach the kid's physical education class about cricket. I believe that PLENTY of young American kids would love to learn about cricket and play it. That interest must be cultivated and that requires sustained effort. With America's massive population all you need is to get 1% of the kids hooked on cricket. You can never compete with baseball, basketball, ice hockey, or even lacrosse, but you don't need to.

This model would work in Canada as well. And could then be replicated in many other countries.
(my cricket podcast) https://aewahid.podbean.com

User avatar
jaybro
Posts: 7470
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:36 am
Supports: MidWest Rhinos

Re: WCL Div 2 in Namibia

Post by jaybro » Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:12 am

So much wrong with that Kriterion so much 🤯🤯🤯
1.G.Flower 2.B.Taylor 3.M.Goodwin 4.A.Flower 5.D.Houghton 6.N.Johnson 7.T.Taibu 8.P.Strang 9.H.Streak 10.R.Price 11.H.Olonga 12.A.Campbell

Kriterion_BD
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:41 am

Re: WCL Div 2 in Namibia

Post by Kriterion_BD » Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:12 pm

jaybro wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:12 am
So much wrong with that Kriterion so much 🤯🤯🤯
In order to grow the game in say Canada, you need two main things. Money and fan interest. A third thing would be good governance. By having an ODI league, 3 smaller sides (Ireland, Afghanistan, Netherlands) are getting a significant boost in bilateral series with the top teams. That means they will get significant revenue from the broadcast rights and sponsorships. Will it generate fan interest amongst the Dutch? I highly doubt it. Even inclusion in a world cup does nothing to the fan interest in Canada or Netherlands.

The sad fact is that cricket is a extreme niche sport in 90% of the countries on earth.

The reality is any growth cricket will experience, will be very piecemeal with an average of 1 or maybe 2 countries added every 10 years (Sri Lanka in the 1980s, ZIM in 90s, BD in 2000s, IRE/AFG in 2010s, Nepal in 2020s).

What the ICC should be doing is pumping a lot of money into grassroots cricket awareness campaigns in USA, Canada, China, Russia and maybe in countries like France, Germany, Brazil, Japan, Iran, and Turkey. These are all countries with large populations (except Canada) and big economies, where you only need to garner 2-3% of the population's interest in order to get a large player pool - which will automatically ensure a decent standard of cricket.

We should continue to invest in the Netherlands and Scotland because they have a long history playing the game and are already very decent sides (ranked in the top third of the world's 32 ODI teams).

But pumping money into Qatar or Fiji makes no sense whatsoever, or expanding tournaments just for the sake of inclusion.
(my cricket podcast) https://aewahid.podbean.com

Kriterion_BD
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:41 am

Re: WCL Div 2 in Namibia

Post by Kriterion_BD » Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:06 pm

Forgot to mention this point:

I think the opportunity for Ireland, Netherlands, and Zimbabwe to play 24 ODIs over 2 years against other sides is more beneficial purely from a cricketing standpoint than playing in 5-6 games (of which 1-2 games would be against other minnows) in a World Cup every 4 years. Going to the WC and losing every game doesn't have many benefits.

Now the financial payout of a WC might be greater than that of 4 or 6 home series via the ODI league. Now for ZIM having $1 or 10 million makes no difference: players will still be unpaid, grounds will still not have floodlights, etc. IRE and NED would make good use of any money, but its important to note that the leading Associates are getting more money now than during the Big 3 era.

Its true the World Cup has an emotional value that can't be quantified. For that reason alone, I support a 12 team WC with either the same format as the one we have now...or 2 groups of 6, followed by a Super 6/8 stage plus knock-outs.
(my cricket podcast) https://aewahid.podbean.com

User avatar
jaybro
Posts: 7470
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:36 am
Supports: MidWest Rhinos

Re: WCL Div 2 in Namibia

Post by jaybro » Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:39 pm

Yes investing money into these Countries is essential for growth but the best way to grow interest in the game is to actually get people interested in the game and the best way to do that is by watching their nation on TV at a big even like a WC

The people in Canada won't be interested in the game by following 'limited scorecard updates' on their PC of Canada v Oman in WCL2, but watching John Davison smash the quickest WC century against the West Indies will gain their interest, as would have watching Canada smash Bangladesh at the same WC.

I think if you ask most people how they got into cricket it will be from watching a game on TV, for the smaller nations who don't have Test Status the World Cup was always their big event, now they have nothing the only thing to realistically play for is the 13th spot in the ODI championship which comes around every what two years??

The World Cup in every sport is not just about 'winning' it's about watching your nation no matter how small or out classed they are on the big stage of the World Cup, the ICC say that nobody wants to watch Australia smash Nepal, but looking back at the last World Cup there were few matches that ended up in drubbings, and the facts are that sides like Scotland & Afghanistan who were on the end of some drubbings have improved out of sight to the point that Afghanistan have qualified for a 10 team World Cup and Scotland have beaten Sri Lanka & England in recent times.

World Cricket has never been in a better position to host a 14 or even 16 team World Cup with the strength of the associates now, it's been said before but Fifa is going to a 48 team world cup but the ICC is going backwards. If you want a smaller format with the top sides that's what the ICC Champions Trophy was for, but they've canned that too. The real issue is the ICC are just doing what India want and India don't care for anyone but themselves that's a fact.

It would be interesting to see how you would react if Bangladesh missed out on the World Cup? It's a real possibility of happening too if they continue down this 10 team bullshit, really there haven't been any players come through since Shakib, Mushy & Tamim who have had nearly the same amount of success, so once those guys are gone you'd think Bangladesh will find themselves in the Qualification tournament, lets see how you feel then?
1.G.Flower 2.B.Taylor 3.M.Goodwin 4.A.Flower 5.D.Houghton 6.N.Johnson 7.T.Taibu 8.P.Strang 9.H.Streak 10.R.Price 11.H.Olonga 12.A.Campbell

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest