Home > Bermuda > News: Jamaica anhilate Bermuda in Stanford 20/20..

News: Jamaica anhilate Bermuda in Stanford 20/20..

Bermuda all out for 74 in 19.4 overs
Jamaica 75/1 in 5.5 overs.

Bermuda is one pathetic cricket team, which begs one to ask the question about Canada who lost out to Bermuda in an ODI match recently. Certainly, if Bermuda, with their near full team, is giving this kind of a performance in a format that should REDUCE the disparity between strong and weak team to some extent, God help them in the ODIs, and also in their quest to become a test nation. ICC seems to be entertaining the idea of Bermuda become a test nation once. I think you would need to have more than 2000 registered cricketers in the country to achieve that, and Bermuda cant help it over there in this regard.

What surprises me is that Bermuda have been playing cricket non stop, against West Indies domestic teams, against UAE, against English county second elevens and even against Guernsey. In addition to that it is, I think, also the middle of their domestic season so their players should be match fit and should have had their eye in as well. What I find disheartening is that the team said their thrashing against UAE was an eye opener, then the games against Zim were an eye opener, and now, they have said that this thrashing by Jamaica is an eye opener. The only thing I can guess from this is that they are blind, because eyes cannot be opened any wider.

It is really nobody’s fault. Bermuda are in the world cup fairly and squarely. They had an upset victory against UAE, which promoted them forth above UAE and Namibia, two teams that were perhaps a little stronger than Bermuda. UAE proved that in Jan by thrashing Bermuda 4-0 in a series, in which they fielded their second team in 2 matches. The only problem is that the ICC is hell bent upon THESE 6 teams, at the same time excluding some which do have some potential, and perhaps if nothing else, a tournament can be held to give the others a chance to prove themselves against the likes of Canada and Bermuda, will be appreciated. Scotland, Ireland and Netherlands are fine, but Canada and Bermuda are problematic.

Now the spanner in the works would be if Canada were to beat Kenya !. That would really confuse everyone.

I do not understand the logic of getting Zimbabwe and Bangaldesh to play against Bermuda and Canada. Zimbabwe and Bangaldesh should have played the stronger associates to create some rivalry and excitement over there.

Categories: Bermuda
  1. Ram
    July 22, 2006 at 8:30 pm

    Of all the performances that Bermuda have putup ever since they qualified for the WC, I think this must go down as their worst one..It now seems that these two teams are going to make a mockery of the ICC trophy qualification system come WC next year, adding fuel to the claims of those who consider the presence of non-Test teams as diminishing the quality and public interest in the tournament..

    Now, the performances of Bermuda (and Canada) must serve as an eye-opener for the ICC more than the respective national boards..I think the ICC would be better of in ensuring quality over quantity in the World Cup qualifiers they conduct every fourth year because it must remember that these countries will be severely put under the microscope in the WC; the best way to ensure only quality teams get through to the WC is to have a round-robin format without any groupings or knock-out matches..

    The ICC must remember that merely getting more teams to play cricket isn’t going to help much if they don’t show the desired on-field performances because ultimately that’s what matters..They can add however many teams they want to the regional tournaments but from the WC qualifiers, only the best should emerge..

  2. July 23, 2006 at 4:10 am

    I agree that the format should be round robin and perhaps double league round robin to ensure that one upset here or there does not push an incompetent team into the ODI status, or games against Test countries when they cant handle it……..

    12 teams with single round robin would make 66 games, and if 4 are played in 1 day, thats 17 days…………. i dont see how that is possible so the double league is out of the question…….

    10 teams with single round robin would make 45 games (12 days) and a double league would make 90 games (23 days)…… and thats probably what has to be done by the ICC…… I do not think thats a lot of games (well, at least for 1 team it is not a lot), but I feel that is something that must be done to ensure that the best 6 teams get in for the ODI status so that they can take their game to the next level…… Bermuda is likely to kill whatever interest there is in that country with disheartening defeats like this one, week after week………

    The existing WCQS Div 2 and 3 can very easily be tweaked to allow for only top 10 teams to particiapte in the WC Qualifer……

  3. Ram
    July 23, 2006 at 2:36 pm


    Yes, it’s difficult to have a round-robin tournament involving more than 10 teams..anyway, looking at the Associates, I don’t see any team other than Sco, Ire, Net, Ken, Afg, Nep becoming seriously competitive by WC 2011…So, maybe the WC 2009 qualifiers can involve 8 teams playing each other in a double round-robin format that involves 56 games (14 days) to ensure that the quality of such a tournament is high…10 teams is fine but is 90 games over 23 days too big a financial ask for the ICC?

    But, the point is the ICC needs to get over the Bermuda-Canada-USA-UAE fixation and instead concentrate on Afg and Nep..

  4. July 23, 2006 at 6:03 pm

    I think the idea of a 10 team round robin is good, but a double round robin too long for most Associates to realistically afford.

    Better I think would be to have teams 7 to 14 play a round robin tournament. The top 4 then go through to a second tournament, also round robin, with the current top 6 to determine the new top 6. This is close enough to the current system not to upset the boat too much, but also should remove any freak results from affecting the positions.

  5. July 23, 2006 at 7:17 pm

    Ram, the question is, HOW can the ICC get over USA-Bermuda-UAE-Canada fixation when these teams qualify fair and square through the system? The only way in the current scenario would be to subjectively ignore teams that do well in the ICC trophy or other qualifying events, which the ICC doesnt want to do, and even I am not personally that much of a backer of that model. The only thing the ICC should do is to fix its player eligibility structure. That way some of these teams like USA, Canada and UAE would not be able to ‘forge’ their cricketing structure by putting forth expat based teams, and the ‘real’ associates would come up.

    Nick, why would a 21 day tournament be too much for the associates? I think even the current ICC trophy is 21 days. The squad size can be increased so that everyone does not have to play every game.

  6. Ram
    July 23, 2006 at 8:33 pm


    I agree that changing the player eligibility rules would be one way for these expat-based Associates to get eliminated so that the ‘real’ Associates benefit from getting to play the WC…But I think a double round-robin format would go a long way in ensuring only the 6 best teams get through.

    But then again we’ve a dilemma here: Do we want a weaker Malaysia or Bermuda to qualify for the WC ahead of stronger expat-based teams?..While these indigenous teams may benefit from exposure, the probability of seeing Aus-USA type mismatches is increased, which is not what anyone wants.

  7. July 24, 2006 at 2:07 am

    The rules are foolish, so they need to be changed anyway……

    Even after changing the rules, if the expat based team makes it to the world cup, after a proper tournament, so be it…. Nothing can be done about that…… but at least it would be lesser of a problem…….

    One of my suggestions for the ICC has always been that they should not tie development funds with standard ONLY. They should also take other things into account. That would mean that Nepal would get more funds than say UAE, and hence would be able to develop their team further without first having to finish in the top 6 of the associates….

  8. July 24, 2006 at 2:25 pm

    Well…. i just realized that my numbers were silly….. ICC cannot have a 23 day tournament with every team playing 18 games !!!! its just too much cricket, perhaps even 2 times what would normally considered a lot of cricket……

    One thing that could be done was to make the Div II into double round robin (6 teams – 30 games for Div 2), and the ICC Trophy into a single round robin…… though that would still be 66 games with 12 teams, that can be finished in 22 days at 3 games a day……. I think 22-23 days should be doable for most associates……

  9. Ram
    July 24, 2006 at 8:09 pm

    Nasir..A couple of points..

    First, the scheduling error you pointed out…My proposal would’ve meant teams playing 14 games on the trot, which is not a good idea!

    Second, about the development funds, I’m not sure if the ICC takes this into account but the amount allocated to a country must be dependent on its cost of living….Undoubtedly, a US dollar is worth much more in an African/Asian country than in a European or South American country, yet the ICC allocates equal money to each of its Associates/Affiliates..

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: