The ICC is one signature off from cutting the number of teams by 2 in the next world cup…… in addition to that, the suggested format is one crappy one, with a team making winning all games at the same level as the team beating only the associates (plus Ban and Zim)!

In 1996, I remember that SA were unbeaten in 1 pool, while WI, barely made it through after losing to even Kenya….. in the qtr final, WI beat SA….. that was SA’s “one bad day”…… there was some discussion about this format being not the best, and the ICC went forward with a newer format where the first round was not as “predictable”

But I guess, now we want the predictability back……

I have compiled a list of the 11 closest games that featured associates and they came out losers by a small margin. Please feel free to suggest any games that I may have missed which were closer, and also give your pick of the 3 closest games from this list. Please note that sometimes a game becomes very competitive at some point during the match (e.g. Netherlands v England 1996, Namibia v England 2003 WC, Kenya v Aus 2003 WC), but I did not include those games, as they eventually fizzled out for a one sided ending. Also, this list has included Srilanka (1975-1981), Zimbabwe (1983-1992) and Bangladesh (1985-2000)

1987 - NZ beat Zim by 3 runs
NZ - 242/7 in 50 overs
Zim - 239/10 in 49.4 overs (Houghton 142*, Butchart 54)

2007 - WI beat Scotland by 4 wkts with 1 ball left
Sco - 152/7 in 30 overs
WI - 165/6 in 29.5 overs (target 165 in 30 overs)
WI needed 30 off 3, 14 off 2, and eventually 9 off the last over. This is the closest, in my opinion (after Zim’s defeat to NZ by 3 runs in 1987) that an associate came to beating a Test team and lost.

2002-Australia beat Kenya by 5 wkts, with 5 balls left
Ken - 204/9 in 50 overs
Aus - 205/5 in 49.1 overs
Not many people know about this match, and it looks quite amazing given that Australia were not only the world champions at that time, but they would go on to win the 2003 world cup as well, with ease, within 6 months of this game. Australia needed 19 runs off 12 balls with Shane Watson and Brett Lee playing. Ongondo bowled an 18 ball over, and the game was sealed. I dont remember how it became so tight for the Aussies, but both Martin Suji (10-1-22-0) and Maurice Odumbe (10-1-28-0) had a lot to do with this.

2007 - Bangladesh beat Canada by 13 runs
Ban - 278/5 in 50 overs
Can - 265/7 in 50 overs (Barnett 77, Bilcliff 93, Mulla 44)

Sri Lanka beat Zimbabwe by 3 wkts with 4 balls left
Zim - 312/4 in 50 overs
Sri - 313/7 in 49.2 overs
I remember this being on the same day as the Pakistan/WI opening match in the 1992 world cup, but it still got a lot of attention in Pakistan. Zimbabwe batted first to pile up a total, that nobody had chased down successfully before that. In fact, Sri lanka needed 100 runs of 11 overs with 5 wkts left in the end, but a 61 ball 88 by Ranatunga saw them through.

1999 - SA beat Kenya by 24 runs
SA - 220/7 in 50 overs
Ken - 196/10 in 48.1 overs (Tikolo 67, Odoyo 41)
Kenya needed 25 runs off 19 balls with 3 wkts left when odoyo was dismissed followed by a collapse for 1 run.

2006 - Bangladesh beat Kenya by 20 runs
Ban - 231/10 in 45.5 overs
Ken - 211/10 in 49.2 overs (C Obuya 45, Mishra 4
Kenya needed 24 runs off 2 overs with 3 wkts remaining in the end, but lost all wkts for 4 runs.

2002 - WI beat Kenya by 29 runs
WI - 261/6 in 50 overs
Ken - 232/10 in 49.1 overs
Kenya needed 44 runs off the last 24 balls, with Tikolo batting at 93, but they were all out within the next 15 runs.

1999 - Zimbabwe beat Bangladesh by 3 wkts with 3 balls left
Ban - 257/5 in 50 overs (Mehrab Hussain 101)
Zim - 261/7 in 49.3 overs
Zimbabwe needed 15 to win off 16 balls when Alistar Campbell was dismissed at 97. Bangladesh could not apply enough pressure on the tail to take more wickets.

1999 - Zimbabwe beat Kenya by 3 wkts with 4 balls left
Ken - 199/8 in 50 overs
Zim - 200/7 in 49.2 overs
Zim needed 3 runs from 10 balls, but some tight bowling by Tikolo saw him pick up 2 wickets, with still the 3 runs to get from the last over. The winning runs were scored by Murray Goodwin who made 76, and it was a fumble that saw them make the winning runs.

2003 - Zimbabwe beat Kenya by 5 wkts, with 6 balls left
Ken - 225/6 in 50 overs
Zim - 230/5 in 49 overs
Zimbabwe needed 12 off 12 balls with 5 wkts left, and for some reason, Tony Suji was chosen to bowl the critical 49th. And Heath Streak wrapped it up for Zimbabwe by hitting some big blows.

I have not included one other game in this list, in which Kenya lost to Bangladesh by 2 wkts in 2006 (24 balls to spare), and another in which India beat Bangladesh by 4 wkts and 10 balls to spare in 1998. There was no reason in particular for excluding these games, except for keeping this article from becoming a never ending one

Current ICC’s ODI ranking system only includes match results, and the strength of the teams. It does not cater to the margin or manner of the matchup. Scotland’s defeat to WI on the second last ball of the match was essentially the same as some other associate losing to WI by 10 wkts or 150 runs.

There is something quite wrong with this approach. FIFA, in their rankings update in 1999 used to take margins, importance of matches, regional strength and home advantage into account. in 2006, they removed some of these from their system because the rankings were not coming out as accurate.

However, Cricket is not Football. Cricket as a regular calendar and at least the ODI test teams HAVE to be play each other regularly. Even for the associates, to have an ODI status, there is a limit to the teams they would get as opposition. So the reasons why margins were kicked out of FIFA ranking system do not apply to cricket.

ICC’s ODI ranking system should be upgraded so that losers can also get points (and essentially get on the table).

The simplest method that I had in mind for this was to award the points to the loser based on this:
1 point for getting 60% of the target, or defending the score till the 30th over (60% of the overs)
2 points for getting 80% of the target, or defending the score till the 40th over (80% of the overs)

The winner will get 5 points for winning the game, and in addition to that, they can take the above mentioned 2 points if they manage to either chase before 30 overs, or dismiss the opposition before they even reach 60% of the target. Of course, the team’s relative strength should still be taken into account, and it would not be a bad idea to take the home advantage into account as well.

In fact, it would be interesting to apply this ranking system to the last 2 years of international cricket and see what kind of a table we get.

After reading up on their squad, I realized that they have 4 players in their side who have played first class cricket, and 2 were even in the recent game against UAE, with David Botha making a century.

The other 2, Sean Silver and van der Westhuzen, have played the first class games against SA provincial opposition, and Sean Silver, who is 17, did quite well against one of them.

They are in the same group as Nepal, Aus and Sri. So far, we have only focussed on Nepal as having a chance to cause an upset….. maybe we should not discount Namiabia either.

Btw, if they beat Nepal, would that be an upset?

80% of Namibia’s total!!

This is the 3rd game in the last one month when Namibia folded meekly in their first innings, then fouhgt back with the ball, and the second innings total was commendable. However, this time around it was a one man show, as after Snyman, who is 194*, the next highest score in Namibia’s second innings is 13.

I came across this article in CricketEurope today. I realized that there is still a misconception about the exact nature of what happenned.

First of all, the following lines are in bad spirit:

“But Pakistan’s spoiled superstars were beaten fair and square by a dedicated Irish squad who were the better team on the day, and no amount of fiddling with the rules will save them if they and their masters don’t face up to the lessons of that match.”

One has to keep in mind that Pakistan was one of the 3 countries that actually supported the ODI status for the top 6 associates, and also convinced the others along with NZ and SA to this change. Secondly, singling out Pakistan, and refering to ‘masters’ is in fact objectionable. Also, singling out Pakistan, when it is very clear (and it should be VERY clear after the whole ‘monkey’ affair) about who calls the shots in ICC and International cricket, is also objectionable.

Pakistan can talk about a change in format all that it wants, but it would not really matter. It wouldnt matter even if they were the sole hosts. The loss to the ICC due to an early exit of Pakistan is no more than the loss it would face if it were SA, Eng or Aus who got elimated.

I can give it to anyone in writing, that even if Pakistan had been knocked out like it was, but India had made it all the way to the final, it would have been touted as a very succesful world cup. Secondly, when the Big8 talk about weak teams, they mention Zim and Bangladesh in the same breath. Its not that the criticism is ONLY against Ireland making it through BECAUSE its an associate. The criticism is against the concept that teams that actually have no chance of making the semis are pitched into a 28 game league.

I have discussed this topic and the possible formats etc elsewhere, so I will not go into that here. This posting was just to point out my surprise at Rod Lyall’s article, who usually is wonderful and insightful to read.

Our usual topic for these player migrations is Ireland/Scotland/Netherland viz a vis England, but now it seems Ugandan players want to qualify for Australia.

Frankly, I dont really know the solution to such a problem.

The result is a little odd given that UAE beat Namibia in Namibia a month ago, and also given that Namibia were dismissed so cheaply on Day 1. But it has been probably the best intercontinental game for a while.

For, UAE, despite the fact that they back their born and bred players these days, what cannot be ignored is that what keeps them even at this level are the expat players. Even in this game, Khurram Khan both with bat and ball, and Saqib Ali. The interesting thing is of course that Fahad Al Hashmi, not just born and bred, but an Arab, was the highest wicket taker in the first innings.

Sun 17
10:00 local, 02:00 GMT  Group D - England Under-19s v Ireland Under-19s
Royal Selangor Club, Kuala Lumpur

Possibly the best match for an upset for an associate. Interestingly, it will take place on the first day of the WC. Ireland have 2-3 guys who have played ODIs for their country, and England is traditionally not a super power at the U19 level. I have seen Greg Thompson play against SA(or was it India) and he looked like a compact player with a lot of confidence.
Mon 18
10:00 local, 02:00 GMT  Group A - New Zealand Under-19s v Zimbabwe Under-19s
Johor Cricket Academy Oval

I dont know why I am pointing out this match, except for the fact that NZ is usually the weakest team at U19 among the test teams, so if Zim U19 cannot beat them, their future doesnt look too rosy either.
 
Mon 18
10:00 local, 02:00 GMT  Group C - Nepal Under-19s v Sri Lanka Under-19s
Penang Sports Club
Nepal will have a very tough ask this time around. I would think that their team is not as strong as it was in 2006, plus they had a much easier  pool last time with England in it (they should have won that game). Chances of beating Sri are remote, but I would have to say they are higher than beating Australia…… and Nepal has to beat one of them in order to go through to the quarters, which is their goal this time around.
 
Tue 19
10:00 local, 02:00 GMT  Group C - Australia Under-19s v Nepal Under-19s
University Sains Malaysia, Penang
 
Tue 19
10:00 local, 02:00 GMT  Group D - Bermuda Under-19s v England Under-19s
Kinrara Academy Oval, Kuala Lumpur
I guess this would just be funny to see if Bermuda actually has some talent, or do they suck at this level as well.
 
Wed 20
10:00 local, 02:00 GMT  Group A - Malaysia Under-19s v Zimbabwe Under-19s
Institute Perguruan Temenggong Ibrahim, Johor
We know that Malaysia is not the second strongest team in Asia, but as far as their games in U19 are concenred, this and the game against NZ has to be their best bet.
 
Thu 21
10:00 local, 02:00 GMT  Group A - Malaysia Under-19s v New Zealand Under-19s
Johor Cricket Academy Oval

For this world cup, you would have to put your money on Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Australia to make the semis

I recently came across this article from Zimbabwe about not just the politicisation of Cricket in the Zim/UK-Aus context, but also about using cricket as some sort of a tool to make the statement.

People make statements on this blog as well about Zimbabwe, and also the underlying implication of every Zim related Cricinfo article is that Zim should be banned by the ICC. Everyone has the right to their opinion, but things have to be kept in perspective. ICC should NOT be making political statements, and ezines should not be pushing the ICC to do so. There is enough against Zim cricket administration on administrative grounds to be going after them rather than just doing so because of contemporary politics.

It is quite well known, as is also mentioned in the article above, that Cricket is not really the sport that the black population cares about that much, except for a few, in Zim. So thinking that banning Zim is going to suddenly put everyone under pressure in Zim, and going to make them long for the “glory days”, is silly, and is not going to send any message to anyone.

The implication that Zim is “not really interested” in playing cricket is however, a valid reason to put pressure on them regarding their test status. In early 2006, Zim was not that enthusiastic about giving a 5 ODI tour to Kenya ! ICC had to literally intervene and force Zim to play. This was not because of any other reason, but because Zim board was afraid that losing to Kenya would open the floodgates of criticism about their status. They didnt lose, but the 2-2 draw was enough to still open the floodgates. The fact that Zim has played only 11 ODIs outside of the World Cup in 2007, is not a good sign, and one cannot stop wondering why it is so difficult for the ICC to ask them to host at least the top associates.

An ICC committee gave their view sometime back that Zim should be playing in the intercontinental cup. This I thought was an excellent recommendation. If Zim was able to be victorious there, they would also have gotten at least the confidence to get back into test status. Right now there are test teams, intercontinental teams, and one team which is neither!

Britain banning Zim like this also puts pressure on Ireland, Scotland and Netherlands to follow suit. None of that is good for development of cricket because it is very unlikely that these countries would start getting games against Test opposition like Australia. Zim, Bangladesh etc are the best chances that the top associates had in order to make their case stronger for better funding and for a harder look by the ICC and other test playing nations.