HA..god is love Zorax (no homo)
I'm sorry, why are you still posting? Didn't I make it clear no one wants your opinions on this?
More like you dont want my opinion on this, but since you have no authority on this website, i will take great enjoyment in restating my position until your head explodes.
Also in case you didn't two other posters in this thread have also shared my position agreeing & seeing the sense behind what the ICC has done:
http://www.planetcricket.org/forums/2091347-post40.html
quote said:
Again, I agree with the 10 team decision. Skill gap in cricket is wide unlike in football like War mentioned so there can be a lot of 1 sided games so 10 teams is fine. But the selection of those 10 teams is what's NOT fine. Nobody here can justify this and this question is not being asked from ICC and the backing boards.
http://www.planetcricket.org/forums/2090652-post18.html
A typo, sure, how convenient
Yes it was a typo a very small typo that i reckon most sane people would have realized. But of course you are different, thus you wasted a whole posted arguing off of it. So it was actually very inconvenient to you, since you probably had something better to do at the time.
I've read through that awful post and you've not addressed the issue at all but have basically brought up irrelevant points in order to make yourself look smart.
Ok well what is the issue then?.
Plus no i dont try to make myself look anyway. I just post..
How fast the teams progress doesn't matter. What matters is that they have a chance to compete at the WORLD cup. The biggest even in the Cricket Calendar, which is watched by billions of fans, including many, many who would not have seen a game of cricket before because it's their country taking part in a Global tournament. Trust me, I know. And that's why it's a big deal to all players involved, it is why Jacob Oram was willing to cut his finger off to play in the WC if he had to, it is why Sangakarra stepped down to allow a new captain to mould the side by 2015, and it is literally one of the proudest moments of a player's life - to play the World Cup. This is the pinnacle of the sport. It is not just a 'stepping stone'. That's garbage. The fact that you even think that reflects how little you know about the sport and life in general.
I said the world cup is a stepping stone for the associate nations in their eventually path to play test cricket. I did not say it is a stepping stone for major top 8 nations, so your points about Oram & Sangakkara are totally irrelevant. Plus i reckon Oram if he still playing well, for the 2012 T20 world-cup if faced with the same situation would risk cutting off his finger to win a a major cup for new zealand in that format. Since although the 50 over cup is more of the pinnacle limited over cup given its been around longer - i can certainly see the T20 gaining similar prestige in the coming years.
Its ridiculous to suggest that how fast the minnows progress is not important. Yet at the same time, you are crying fowl that this decision from the ICC will kill cricket chances of being global - stunning contradiction!. Are you telling me then, that you would rather have future 50 over world-cups in which the minnows continuously get smashed (the odd cup upset aside). But if they continue to show no sign of progress that they may be good enough to play test cricket eventually at a fast enough rate or at all. That doesn't matter as long as they get a chance to regularly appear in this specific 50 over world cup??.
And it doesn't matter if T20 is the best way to globalize the sport or not. No one cares. That's not what we're discussing.
You may not care - but what you care about is not important. T20 begin the better or best way to globalizing is very relevant to this discussion, since you are the one leading the charge that this decision by the ICC to shut minnows out of the 50 over cup will kill the ambitions of the minnows & thus reduce cricket to being a colonial past time (i love this ha).
What the players care about is playing Proper cricket against the Top 10. The World Cup. It's the dream of every associate player. You just calmly ignore this fact.
They will continue to get that chance in the T20 format. Somehow you are failing to grasp this.
And FFS you first say T20 is not a proper representation of skills and then you say that if they impress in T20 they can play ODIs? WTF? Can you not see your logical flaw there? Let me spell it out for you. Good at T20 is NOT = Good at ODIs. There is no guarantee you will see an improvement in minnow's performances at World Cups if they first played a ████ load of T20s beforehand.
Ha love the condescending & horridly rude nature of this post.
. Its just an idea i put out their, wasn't suggesting it is the ultimate solution & im very open to having a sane respectable discussion about the suggestion - instead of these kinda of rude posting from yours truly. But i'll continue anyway ha..
Their was no guaranteed that Sri Lanka would be good a test cricket after 25 years after performances in world cups, for the same reasons. It is indeed a risk given being good in one-format does not guaranteed a player/team will translate that across formats - but its certainly not impossible & it tends to happen alot.
If minnows do well enough in the T20 cup, maybe you could have them play in few ODI series before the world cup with the big 8 nations in the 4 year period between tournaments - if one is so skeptical about them translating performance across formats.
Yes cricket is hard to spread. Explain to me how this move is going to make it any easier.
"Oh here, we have this new sport we want you to learn. It's long and complicated. However, your nation is never going to compete at our World Cup, so there really is no point for you to become good at it'
Real smart.
Thats your logic. Not the ICCs - so try not to further confuse yourself.
And the LBW law is the same in T20 and ODIs, by the way. If you can explain it one format you sure can explain it in another. Classic War, making no sense.
Classic Zorax, failing to follow the basic fundamentals of comprehension.
I never questioned whether the LBW is the same across all formats - thats is obvious. I am saying the law is very complicated to understand for some new fans in countries like America (which ICC has been trying to promote cricket in for the longest while) & Brazil who are accustomed to more simpler things & already have other sports they crave.
A football fan for eg only has the off-side rule to comprehend. Otherwise the game is fairly straight-forward & why it grows faster than any other sport on the planet.
Other major sports like Basketball, Hockey, Rugby, Tennis, Baseball im sure has its own LBW type rule which if you are not a long time follower of those sports, you probably would take a while to grasp. The complicated rules issue is not unique to cricket & is one of main reasons many sports unlike football dont grow fast enough.
And you follow that with even more rubbish; how is what sports are rising where anyways relevant to what we are talking about here? It isn't. It's fact that cricket is DYING in all those nations - thats all we need to know. Cricket isn't growing, shutting nations out from the World Cup is in no way fathomable going to help it spread.
You seem to suffering from early stages of Alzheimers - such a pitty since you are so young.
You are one screaming that cricket is dying & will not grow. Im showing you that other major team sports except for football, all are in the same boat when it comes to having a small group of competitive nations that play the sport & they all have issues with gaining new members that become competitive quickly enough compared to football. But they are all trying in some way to find the best way to get new nations playing competitively at a fast enough rate.
Since unlike your crazy assertion that how fast minnows progress isn't important. Sports governing bodies certainly do want fast enough progress.
Seriously War, just STFU.
Im quite enjoying getting you pissed actually. Im currently preparing my popcorn in anticipation of your temper escalating even further - this is pay-per view stuff.
----------
What time period? The last year? Because that's what Stinky's talking about. Stop talking nonsense.
Ok well he made no mention of the last year in that post. So hopefully your mind reading is correct.
His point is WI, BD and Zim have performed just as well as Ireland have in global competitions for the last year, and giving them an easy ride into the next WC and excluding Ireland simply because they are Test nations makes no sense.
So (with regards to the windies). Cant group them with ZIM or BANG regardless of how poorly they have performed in global competitions in the last year - they are better than that. Let Ireland play windies in a 5 match ODI series next week & watch windies blackwash them, then ill be looking for you Ireland lovers.
In this world cup given the amount of players injured a quarter final place for windies was as far as many expected from them & if those main players where fit they could have won those close games vs IND & ENG. Only if Windies had gone out in the 1st round then one could have complained.
You guys are simply trolling the non west indian contigent here on planet cricket. Wait till poster
Dare hears this.
----------
Someone mentioned Brazil re football, but didn't mention how Brazil selfishly changed the rules re World Cup qualification. They arrogantly wanted to qualify for a World Cup when they qualified automatically as holders, thus changing the rules. I say arrogantly because they knew they would qualify.
Dont let my friends in the football section of planetcricket here this sir, since this is horribly inaccurate.
Brazil did nothing of the sort. The simple reason why holders have to join the qualifying campaign to defend their crown instead have an automatic birth was to address the issue of the returning champions being at a disadvantage to their fellow competitors due to having not played a competitive match in the previous two years. The problem was amply demonstrated at the 2002 FIFA World Cup as France crashed out in the 1st round.
FIFA made this decision around 2001/02 - not Brazil sir.
BBC SPORT | WORLD CUP 2002? | Fifa makes major policy shift
----------
Had to laugh at Bangladesh having an inquest into their World Cup failure yet England don't seem to be having one! No doubt they've already made their minds up it was the loss of Pietersen and Broad, bad luck, a long Ashes tour and a whole host of other feeble excuses. You don't lose a QF by 10 wickets if there isn't a problem, you don't lose to Bangladesh and Ireland if there isn't a problem.
Never mind eh, always next time, except with it being much tougher and no Holland's to just about beat, England may struggle even more as I'm sure selection policy won't change, we'll keep picking Test players, inexperienced players and T20I level players
I would say those where the the reasons for England bad performance in this world cup. Since the 2002/03 Ashes tour its been increasingly evident that playing the cup after such a long tour really hampers England's progress & performances. Which is why the ECB has now stopped this from occurring in the future.
But even if England had a fully fit KP & Broad they still would have lost heavily to Sri Lanka IMO (although they may or may not have lost to Ireland or BANG, since upsets do happen in almost every world cup since 1983), ENG ODI is not great, its solid & its has certain limitationS (lack of a 90 mph quick bowler like other teams) that even at full-strength in Sri Lankan conditions they would have still gotten a trashing.
I do agree however that our ODI selection tendencies can be improved, since ENG always pick alot of test players who are clearly not suited for ODIs and useles bits of pieces all-rounders.
), make it to at least the semis of the World T20. It would be heartbreaking to see more Irish being imported to England killing cricket further in Ireland, don't let that happen, keep fighting.
, that is heading towards paranoia
