Home > Cricket Development > Opinion: ICC new WCQS 5 Div format…

Opinion: ICC new WCQS 5 Div format…

ICC website hasnt been updated yet, but ACC website has the new 5 Div format for WC qualification……. it doesnt change anything until 2008 though, so the 2007 Div III and the 2007 Div II (moved up from 2008) are still the same with the same releagation and promotion rules…… Since ACC site has the thing documented pretty well, I have no reason to believe that they are misunderstanding the ICC structure. However, it is confusing why the format was changed midway, and why it is not updated on ICC’s website.

Div III for 2009 has been changed to a 6 team tournament instead of 8…… this is because its no longer the first stop after regional qualification. The first stop after regional qualification in 2008 will be Div V, top 2 from there will participate in Div IV in 2008 along with the 4 bottom ranked teams from 2007 Div III. The top 2 from there will participate in Div III in 2009 alongwith bottom 2 from 2007 Div II, and 3rd and 4th from Div III 2007.

The only 2 countries that I see benefitting from this are Afghanistan and Nepal (assuming they are one of the hand picked sides in the 2008 Div V). They are the only ones, and perhaps Jersey, that can complain that teams like Caymans and Tanzania are weaker than them but get to play in Div III. Otherwise, for everyone else, its the same, except that they dont go into wilderness for 2 years.

Categories: Cricket Development
  1. August 30, 2006 at 11:42 am

    One question is….. why is Afghanistan already in Div V? Did they place the 3rd ranked teams in every regional tournament in this div?? or is Afghanistan specifically hand picked?? I dont think it would be specifically hand picked because otherwise they would have mentioned that 4, and not 3, highest ranked teams from across regions will be in this div.

    Now, if we assume that the 3rd ranked team from every region will be in Div 5, then the Div 5 lineup looks like the following:

    Cook Islands

    [and the 3 highest ranked teams from all regions look like the following]
    Singapore [or is it Japan because they beat Cook Islands or Bahrain because they beat Afghanistan in the Emerging nations trophy?]

    In any case, there is still some confusion and the ICC needs to clarify it.

  2. August 30, 2006 at 12:50 pm

    We had it confirmed from their Board’s secretary on Beyond The Boundary that Norway are in Division Five, so I think it’s safe to assume that it’s the next ranked teams after the Division 3 qualifiers. Although who knows with the ICC.

  3. Hossain
    August 30, 2006 at 1:21 pm

    ACC said five countries from Asia region are in contention for 2011 WC qualification, and I believe Nepal is going to be the fifth country. So, I don’t see any place for Singapore in WCL. Japan is more likely to be included in WCL-5.

    Anyway, as Nasir said, this div 5 seems to be tailor made for Afghanistan and Nepal.

  4. Hossain
    August 30, 2006 at 1:37 pm

    From http://blogs.cricinfo.com/btw/archives/norway/

    ” A huge bonus is available for the Division 2 teams, with the winners not only promoted to the European Division 1 in 2008, but also a place in the new ICC World Cricket League Division 5 in 2007-08. This team will receive $20,000 towards preparation of that event, the venue of which is still to be decided. “

  5. August 30, 2006 at 1:40 pm

    I think ICC is likely to use the regional tournaments as to find the ‘best ranked team in all regions’……

    Given that….. at the momment….. despite being quite weak, Japan may be one of the teams that they handpick………… Nepal did beat Hong Kong, and they have been quite consistent with the standing in Asia, so they would probably be the next pick…….. Would Jersey be the third pick?? They beat Norway in the league game…….. Certainly it is better than Mozambique, though Bahamas may be a reasonably strong team as well……

    ICC at least needs to clarify what they are going to base the rankings on….. do they mean regional standings? Regional 4th standings were Nepal, Japan, Mozambique, Jersey and Bahamas. If you ask me, then Bahamas, Nepal and Jersey are stronger than the other 2 and these should be picked……………

    Or perhaps the 3 remaining spots will be given to the regional ranked teams from the qualifiers in 2008……….

  6. Hossain
    August 30, 2006 at 3:13 pm

    From Cricket Europe-

    The play-off matches in the ICC Trophy Ireland 2005 and the qualifying event in Malaysia have enabled the ICC to produce one-day rankings for the top 20 non-Full Member countries. These countries can therefore be deemed to be ranked 11-30 in one-day cricket.

    11. Kenya
    12. Scotland
    13. Ireland
    14. Canada
    15. Bermuda
    16. Holland
    17. UAE
    18. Namibia
    19. Denmark
    20. Oman
    21. USA
    22. PNG
    23. Uganda
    24. Fiji
    25. Nepal
    26. Qatar
    27. Cayman Islands
    28. Kuwait
    29. Italy
    30. Zambia

    According to this ranking, Nepal (25), Qatar (26), and Kuwait (28) are the three highest ranking countries that are not yet included in the WCL. If my assumption is right, that would mean as many as four ACC associates going to play in WCL-5. From an Asian perspective, that would be great, but I am wondering how other regions would be going to take it.

  7. August 30, 2006 at 3:25 pm

    I dont think they are going to use these rankings since after regionals of 2006, these are outdated …… probably they are just going to look at the 4th ranked team in every region….. and select those 3 that performed the best against their opponents who may be there in an ICC League…….

    My guess is those would be Nepal (beat HK who are in Div 3), Japan (beat Cooks who are in Div 5) and Jersey (beat Norway who are in Div 5).

  8. August 30, 2006 at 4:15 pm

    I have a contact at the Jersey Cricket Board. I’ll e-mail him and see if he knows if Jersey are playing in Division 5.

  9. Ram
    August 30, 2006 at 6:31 pm

    Well….Has the ICC suddenly realized that ‘promising countries’ need to be incorporated somewhere in the scheme of things for WC 2011 qualification?…A look at the new structure of the 5 Div WCL reveals that Div 5 will have some of the most promising countries that’ve all benefitted from the Development program in the last 5 years or so…For the 3 qualifiers that’ll be hand-picked, I’m sure one of them will be Nepal…As for the other two, I hope they are Japan and Hellas, though I believe it maybe Jersey instead…I guess the only country that’ll anyway miss out on this is Chile…

    I think it’s high time the ICC relooked its player eligiblity rules…I guess when the ICC defined the current rules, it was more to encourage countries to start playing the game….But not so now when promising countries are being affected…Maybe, the ICC can alter its rules in such a way that the current rules stand for Affiliates while the newer and stricter rules apply to Associates, who can get a larger share of the ICC funding…In this way, not only would expat-based countries not get any undue funding, this would also encourage them to stop ‘importing’ expats and instead organize development programs in their own country…World Cup qualification will only be open to Associates while the Affiliates will have a league of their own…If these Affiliates still continue to field ‘strong’ expat-based teams, they may dominate Affiliate cricket but will not progress to the Associate level…I feel the current elgibility rules should stand in order to encourage more countries to take up the game…While this may not be possible for 2011, it’s worth looking at for 2015…I guess there wouldn’t be any problems/protests with making Canada/USA/UAE affiliates while Hellas or Japan becomes Associate…I also think these small countries should be tackled similar to WI either by combining all of them into one team (Fiji, Cook Is, Vanuatu, Samoa) before granting Associate status or by merging them with the region’s Test team (Bermuda, Cayman Is)….

  10. August 30, 2006 at 10:15 pm

    Chile is too weak….. the only country that will miss out, out of their own dumbness, is Greece……

  11. August 31, 2006 at 12:42 am

    The merging of teams is not possible under the current rules, and the teams that are involved would actually lose out both financially and with oppurtunities for players, and hence have no interest in doing so. This was told to us at Beyond the Boundary from the chairman of the Guernsey Cricket Board when we put the question of a combined Channel Islands team to him. The West Indies only remain for historical reasons. And you only need to look at the various selection squabbles the West Indies have had over the years to see why combining teams is not the way to go.

    Anyway, I spoke to my contact at the Jersey Cricket Board, who is their cricket manager, and as far as he knows, they missed out on Division Five when they lost to Norway in the European Division Two final.

  12. rego
    August 31, 2006 at 4:03 am

    you want to make UAE, Canada, and USA associates?..I don’t think that is an option ICC will ever look at..and frankly isn’t one that I would be keen on as well..

    I think keeping the same eligibility rules for the affiliates is the problem we are facing..Norway Oman Qatar Bahrain are all affiliates..they are the ones who should be reassessed.

    I don’t how Chile comes into the picture here..They are far too weak.and seems to me that just because they have a decent website that promotes the sport there quite effectively, people seem to be paying more attention to them than is required.

    Japan are also rather weak in comparison to other sides especially in Asia. Thats another problem with this regional selection of countries. Fiji are probably as good as Kuwait Bahrain or Singapore who have no chance of any qualification. Japan is probably worse than or as good as Thailand or Maldives.

  13. August 31, 2006 at 4:20 am

    And Ram, I think that there would be howls of protests from the respective boards if Canada, UAE and USA were moved down a level as you suggest!

  14. Ram
    August 31, 2006 at 10:26 am

    I don’t think making these countries Affiliates should evoke protests from them….Who protested in USA when Project USA was scrapped?…Who protested in Canada when Eddie was fired in a farcical move?…Was anyone concerned in the UAE when Sharjah was banned as an international venue by the Indian govt resulting in lack of matches for the venue and country?….As far as I can see, this is probably the best way to not only ensure countries with indigenous sides thanks to good development programs in place get their fair recognition so that they can improve but also hope that these expat-based countries can get their act right and make genuine efforts to mainstream the game..

    About the smaller countries, enough has been already said and done….I just have a doubt about Bermuda: Have they really improved in the last few decades?….Does WC qualification necessarily mean improvement?…Their recent results in the Stanford 20:20, not to mention their thrashings in UAE and England (against 2nd XIs) don’t seem to indicate much…

  15. August 31, 2006 at 10:34 am

    So you’re seriously suggesting that the Canadian Cricket Association would be absolutely fine with being demoted in international cricket? That really is one of the craziest things I’ve ever read on the internet.

    And by the way, the USACA did protest when Project USA was scrapped. And Candian cricket fans did protest when Eddie Norfolk was sacked.

  16. August 31, 2006 at 10:36 am

    Have Bermuda improved over the last few decades. Let’s see…… They came 9th in the ICC trophy in 1997 and 2001, and came fourth in 2005, and got to the Intercontinental Cup semis in the same year. What do they have to do before you consider them to have improved? Win the World Cup?

  17. August 31, 2006 at 10:38 am

    Sorry to triple post, but it should be pointed out that the thrashings Bermuda got in the UAE were at the hands of a UAE team featuring players who are ineligible to play for the UAE internationally, the ex-pats who haven’t fulfilled the ICCs strict (despite what some say) qualification criteria.

  18. August 31, 2006 at 10:39 am

    Besides which, as long as Canada, USA, UAE, etc fit the requirements for an associate country, and they do, they’re going to remain an associate country.

  19. August 31, 2006 at 11:24 am

    So if Jersey is not there, it is highly unlikely that Japan will be either……. but given that ACC said that 5 asian countries are there in the overall league, I dont think Bahrain, or Singapore are there either……………

    So what is going on??

  20. August 31, 2006 at 12:16 pm

    The ICC don’t seem to be letting us know, which is nothing new. The secratary of the Norweigian Cricket Board posted a comment on Beyond the Boundary today, and she wasn’t aware of the structure. The countries taking part in the tournament don’t even know the structure! The ICC really are just crap at distributing information!

  21. August 31, 2006 at 1:18 pm

    its very ad hoc running of a world body………

    First, changing the format midway is not a good idea after publicizing it for 1 year……. and then, if you change it, then also at least update the ICC website………..

    I have a feeling that the Jersey, Nepal and Japan would be the ones selected for Div 5….. they just dont know it yet!!

  22. Ram
    August 31, 2006 at 1:29 pm

    Andrew….OF course, the respective boards are indeed going to create a fuss when the ICC behaves in such a way but how else do you think can the playing field be levelled?….OR, If the relegation from Associate to Affiliate status doesn’t sound good, have another membership level above Associate and below ODI/Test status….For this level, promotion from Associate status can be based on the extent of mainstream players involved in the game…Will it now be acceptable if these promising countries get a higher share of ICC funding?….The problem with this structure is the promising Affiliates like Chile will now find it difficult because they’ve to first graduate to Associate status, which depends on the expansion of their domestic league, which in turn will be difficult in the absence of sufficient funds….

    P.S. I mooted such an idea NOT to discourage expat-based teams like Canada/USA/UAE but to encourage the promising countries currently being overlooked…

  23. August 31, 2006 at 1:56 pm

    Chile promising? Out of the affiliates in the Americas, they’re ranked 7th. They came third out of four in the Americas Division Three tournament, only beating Brazil. And they played their first international in 1893. They’ve only progressed that much in 113 years, and you call them promising? I see little promise, apart from having a reasonably good looking website, that hasn’t been updated since April.

  24. August 31, 2006 at 2:03 pm

    I think basing ICC funding on how many players are ex-pats is a very bad idea. There was an almighty fuss when Italy were prevented from picking Joe Scuderi in the 2001 ICC Trophy, although he was an Italian citizen, and had played and coached in Italy for at least five years. It led to Italy pulling out of the tournament.

    The ICCs rules on player eligibility are quite strict, despite what some might say. Stuart Heaney, for example, was unable to play for Canada in the ICC Trophy in 2005, despite being born in Canada. To give you a comparison, Owen Hargreaves was able to play for the England soccer team when he had never even set foot on English soil in his entire life.

  25. rego
    August 31, 2006 at 4:32 pm

    Ram.. I think demoting UAE, USA, and Canada is an absolutely absurd idea that simply cannot be done. The three countries would never agree to it, and ICC would never go down such a road. These countries have been associate members for over 30 years and have played in the world cup. Revoking their status sends a signal to other countries that they might indeed move backwards as well! Chile doesn’t even need to be talked about.for aformentioned reasons. Ram, I think the ICC has enough funds to distribute to both UAE/CAnada/and USA and to some of the emerging developing nations. I think these countries still deserve funding because they have such good teams within the eligibility rules. Isn’t performance the bottom line in any sport?

    Andrew, it was a fully eligible UAE side that thrashed Bermuda. I think the thrashings came because Bermuda were playing in Gulf conditions.

  26. Ram
    August 31, 2006 at 5:08 pm


    What makes these 3 countries special when despite being Associates for decades, they’ve failed to produce any player from their mainstream population?…On the other hand, look at Afghanistan or Uganda who’ve blossomed with completely indigenous sides over the last 3 years or so…Will UAE/Canada/USA ever be able to show such improvement despite having much better facilities comparatively?…In any case, if the relegation is not possible, why not have another membership level above Associate status as I mentioned above?

    About using performance as the bottom line for funding, I’ve a couple of points: First, we must remember that cricket is not soccer where the main aim of development is to make the weaker countries perform better and NOT to introduce/popularize the sport there. In case of cricket, the game will NOT become popular if it’s confined to the expats…Second, what if to enhance performances, these countries start importing players from overseas rather than starting development programs using ICC funding?

  27. rego
    August 31, 2006 at 11:44 pm

    I don’t think another level is possible..The best move is to work with USA, UAE, and Canada and kickstart their development programs.

    In regards to performance, I understand that a development program is necessary and spreading the game amongst the locals is also necessary to popularize the sport. However, ultimately what are we looking for in competitive sport? To WIN. and if UAE, Canada, and USA are winning by the rules then thats fine. The fault is in ICC’s Eligibility rules. The best method is to consciously develop the sport amongst the locals in these countries to make them even stronger.

  28. September 1, 2006 at 12:51 am

    Some people seem to be under the impression that rather than let ex-pats do something to promote the game, we should sit back and just wait for the non ex-pat population to spontaneously take up the game. It isn’t going to work. Let the ex-pats play for now. They still have to do something for the sport in their countries before they can play, and as I say time and time again, the ICC has the strictest eligibility requirements of any sport. If the country starts to get some success with the ex-pat population, it’s going to get some attention from the non ex-pat population. For example, Canada’s win over Bangladesh in the last world cup made the FRONT PAGE of at least one Canadian newspaper. Success means increased media coverage, which means increased awareness. Ex-pats also get their kids interested in the game, and they can get their school friends interested in the game. There are anecdotal stories of this happening in Canada and the USA. Give the ex-pat based teams time. Yes they’ve already had time, but they’ve not had this amount of time with the increased funding and support that the ICC is now providing.

    Ex-pats can lead to a succesful national side made up totally of indigenous players. Look at Brazil in soccer. Soccer was originally played there entirely by ex-pats.

    Let’s get away from the ex-pat thing. It isn’t the problem. The problem lies with the ICC. Their eligibility rules on ex-pats are not the problem (they’re the strictest of any sport), but the eligibility rules that allow a player such as Ed Joyce to play for Ireland more than 30 times and still move to play for England. The other problem is the lack of information provided. Scorecards from the recent tournament in Tanzania were posted on the ICCs website 48 hours after games finished in one case! What is the point of the media in the non-test countries covering the game when the ICC aren’t even giving them press-releases?

    During the recent Americas Championship, an American TV station featured footage from a rock/paper/scissors tournament, but no mention of the USAs performance in the cricket. When someone e-mailed into complain, they were told that they had recieved no information about the tournament, and if they had they would have given it a mention.

    In some countries, people aren’t even aware that their country has a cricket team, until they are told by a member of the ex-pat population. The ex-pat population are doing more than the ICC to promote and spread the game we love. In some cases, they set up the national board. In Chile, despite the game being played by locals for more than 100 years, it took some Australian ex-pats to set up the national board! The ex-pats shouold be congratulated on what they’re doing for the game, not villified like some people on this website seem to be doing.

  29. September 1, 2006 at 12:52 am

    And one more thing Ram. You say:

    what if to enhance performances, these countries start importing players from overseas rather than starting development programs using ICC funding?

    They can’t just import players from overseas and have them play for their national side straight away!

  30. rego
    September 1, 2006 at 1:52 am

    Andrew..couldnt have put it better…Lets not get tough on the ex-pats who are working for benefit of the sport in the country. You just have to look at the Canadian Cricket website to look at the number of letters and emails from locals asking about the sport because of the success of the team.
    i think we’ve all established that the problem lies with ICC and their rules.

    This is totally off the topic and just a random thought..I’ve always wondered why Henry Osinde didn’t play for Uganda!..just a rhetorical statement.

  31. Cuen Lucas
    September 1, 2006 at 7:58 am

    “During the recent Americas Championship, an American TV station featured footage from a rock/paper/scissors tournament, but no mention of the USAs performance in the cricket. When someone e-mailed into complain, they were told that they had recieved no information about the tournament, and if they had they would have given it a mention.”

    Sorry to go way off topic here but….

    A rock/paper/scissors tournament? I’ve seen ESPN cover some strange things in the past but whoever covered this takes the cake. But it shows that Americans will watch anything competitive, so there’s always room for cricket to make it’s mark.

    As for the latter part of what Andrew said, if scorecards are up on the net, so it looks like people should try and e-mail these to this (or any other) network, to try generate some coverage. Not all the sports networks will accept these right away, but even if one or two do, it’s a victory nevertheless.

  32. Sayed Shah Aminzai
    September 4, 2006 at 12:26 am

    I am just puzzled by all those statistics! Is there some one who can tell me about my country Afghanistan’s Position and chances in the WC 2011? What is our future?

  33. September 4, 2006 at 2:43 am

    For Afghanistan to qualify for the 2011 World Cup, they must do the following:

    2008: Top Two of ICC WCL Division Five
    2008: Top Two of ICC WCL Division Four
    2009: Top Two of ICC WCL Division Three
    2009: Top Six of ICC World Cup Qualifier

  34. Azam Khan
    September 4, 2006 at 7:24 am

    Dear Sayed Shah,

    Don`t panic as we`ve got a very good team, just pray for the success of the team & Inshallah we have the capability to qualify for the world cup 2006. Andrew thanks for your statistics regarding Afghanistan & we also have the chance to qualify for WCL Div Three if our team win the ACC trophy 2008 or be the second, third…….. best if UAE, Oman & HK are in the final(as they have already qualfied for WCL Div II & III 2007 but they`ll be promoted or vice versa which depend on their performace).

    Am I correct?

  35. September 4, 2006 at 11:39 am

    No, the structure of the WCL has changed. The above way is now the only way for Afghanistan to qualify for the 2011 World Cup.

  36. Bensti
    September 4, 2006 at 9:11 pm

    Chile IS one of the most promising nations in terms of development.
    They are about where Tanzania was four years ago, in terms of their junior program.
    Their junior program is having a big impact with 2045 kids involved in modified cricket initiatives in 2005 compared to just 205 kids in 2003.
    In the early days of a serious development program it is impossible to judge much by looking at the the results of the senior team.
    By 2010 or 2011 about half of the national side will be born and bred and then we can begin to see some obvious benefits.
    Not many people were interested in Tanzania 4 or 5 years ago but that was when their program was in its infancy.
    Rather than wait for results at senior level, it would be interesting to identify and talk about the nations where a serious development intitiative is taking place, preferably in its earliest stages.
    Thats mainly what I am looking at researching in the next 12 months.

  37. rego
    September 4, 2006 at 10:54 pm

    I don’t think Chile are where Tanzania were 4 years ago in terms of the development of the national team. Tanzania have been playing under East Africa for more than 20 years, and so the cricket culture has been around. I think the only reason everyone thinks Chile is promising is because they have done a good job with their website!!. Nothing more!. They have one of the weakest senior teams around. Hell Bhutan and Iran have thousands of kids playing. Tonga, Vanuatu, Samoa have thousands of kids playing. I don’t see why Chile gets soo much unecessary attention.

  38. Bensti
    September 4, 2006 at 11:40 pm

    1. Tanzania had no indigineous players in their national team four/ five/six years ago.
    Cricket was a sport being kept alive by a population of dedicated Tanzanians of South Asian heritage.
    The actual playing numbers and participation rates were also very low.
    But that has really changed now, with about 10 indigenous players in the national senior squad and around 4000 people playing the sport.
    At the rate the sport is growing in Chile, in five years they should have about the same numbers as Tanzania does now and about the same number of indigenous players in the national team as Tanzania does now as well.
    Remember Chile’s development program only really began in 2002/03.
    This isn’t to say Chile are the only country on the verge of something much bigger.
    There are at least 10 other countries that are experiencing similar rises in playing numbers, including Cuba which is in the early stages of something really exciting if the levels of improvement can be maintained.

    2. I get a little bit of information via websites but I try to speak to people involved in the process directly.

    3. By the way, Bhutan, Iran, Tonga and Samoa do not have thousands of kids playing yet….well not according to their own official participation figures.
    Vanuatu certainly does.
    I think Iran is one that will jump up quite quickly though, both in terms of junior development and participation rates and accordingly, improvement at senior level. I’m looking foward to following their progress.

  39. September 5, 2006 at 1:32 am

    Chile are too weak right now…… Argentina U13s and U15s played some games against them and they were pretty much mock matches !! Chile was finding it difficult to cross 50……

    In terms of development, they have decent numbers, their teams are also indegenous……… they ARE promising, but we are looking at about 10-15 years……. not 4-5 years………………. Argentina are much more promising than them in the next 4-5 years………

  40. September 5, 2006 at 3:15 am

    I do not know how much it is true that expat based countries will suddenly become crazy about a game if their team shows some good results…….. expat based countries are expat based because hardly anyone really cares about the game over there…….. When no one cares, no one will get all excited about winning either………

    Take the example of Ghana beating Czech Republic in the Fifa World Cup, and what that game has done to the people following the team in that country, versus what Canada beating the Bangaldeshis did to Canada in 2003?? Absolutely nothing……. did the premier of Ontario say that they would like to sponsor the game in which THEY have beaten a test team?? no, he said that its a great sport for the immigrants, and that they would like to patronize the immigrants playing it blah blah blah……….. front page news yes, but how many mainstream Canadians joined the ranks of the Canadian U15 team today??? How many?? 1?? 2??? zilch??!?!?!

    And how many people come to watch the national team in action in Canada or UAE??? How many people watching the USA v Australia game on TV in 2004????

    This is all nonsense about the expat based suddenly becoming interested in the game if their team does well……….. it is nonsense because it has never happenned, and will never happen either……… people follow the game if they play the game, or at least understand the rules………. Canada or UAE, or even USA have enough achievements in Cricket to be at least getting some of their mainstream players into the game…….. but they dont….. UAE has cricket on TV all the time, but the Arabs dont tune in to watch……. why??

    Regarding very strict rules of qualification……. there are puny rules of qualification if you are a citizen……. perhaps that is something that the ICC cannot help, but the fact remains that the rules are worthless in that regard…….. a guy CAN get off the boat and walk straight into the national team after JUST 100 days of clerical work in ANY cricket club in that country, or even at the national board……… 100 days is negligable…… nobody had heard of Stuart Heaney or Geoff Barnett before the Canada/Bermuda/Zimbabwe tri series……. when the Canadian association announced their names, they came in and completed their residency requirements……. they had NOT been played club cricket in Canada or anything like that for the past 4 years………

    Now…… my question is what is the difference between Nepal and UAE?? or what is the difference between Jersey and Norway????? the difference is actually that of economy, expats and immigration…… not cricket………… in fact, a born and bred cricket team from UAE is probably going to get thrashed by Nepal……. and a born and bred team from Norway doesnt even exist !!!……… if Nepal had EXACTLY the same non existant system and argulably corrupt administrators that they have today BUT had an economy and immigration like UAE, what is to say that they would not have been World cup semi finalists today?? This is all nonsense when you realize that things that have nothing to do with cricket are becoming variables in this situation……..

    Finally, while I am saying all this…… I do not agree with Ram that the associates in UAE/USA and Canada should be demoted…… firstly, this cannot be done, and secondly, this will never be done……..

    I think if the ICC were to just incorporate some of the more promising teams in their funding and playing schedules ALONG with the expat based teams if their standard was higher, I would be ok………. unfortunately, there are only 4 teams that can probably beat UAE today, Scotland, Ireland, Netherlands and perhaps Kenya………….

    The promising countries that I would like the ICC to also incorporate are Nepal, Uganda, Afghanistan, and perhaps perhaps Argentina (I would need a seperate thread to defend this choice if someone complains)……….. The reason is that unless the ICC gives them attention right now, they will be forced to forget about local development and go around to look for imported players just to improve their standings and come into the limelight……. either that or they will have to make outrageous statements like the Afghan coach :):)

    Another question for all of you is…… why are we talking about mainstreaming when the expats cant even keep their kids in the game in USA/Canada and UAE ??? first these countries have to become strong born and bred teams, only then can we all talk about mainstreaming…….. and if it is not possible to become strong born and bred teams, then the reasons have to be looked into why that is not possible….. didnt Canada have 3-4 mainstream players in the 1979 WC team???? why have they become an expat based team today and still suck at the game???

    It is because of all this that I suggested that you introduce a development factor…… then rank the teams, and fine, you can give extra funding to top 6 overall, but also give extra funding to the top 6 teams that have development factor of higher than 60-70…………….. all of Nepal, Uganda and Afghanistan will probably be incorporated like that, and Netherlands can get incorporated even if next time they dont end up in the top 6……..

  41. Ram
    September 5, 2006 at 7:12 am


    My question is: What’s the significance of the current promotion from Affiliate status to Associate status if that’s neither reflective of the cricketing standards nor the extent of mainstreaming/public interest in the sport there?…As I see it, ALL the ICC wants for this promotion is an expansion of the domestic structure, which can more easily be achieved by targetting expats rather than looking to mainstream the game…This promotion signifies NO ‘real’ development/improvement, which basically defeats the whole purpose of having two levels of membership….

    Anyway, if relegation is not practically feasible, as I said earlier, why not have another membership level above Associate and below ODI, the promotion to which is based on the extent of mainstreaming of the game?…How else can the ICC weed out the expat based teams from getting their share of ICC funding?

  42. September 5, 2006 at 10:44 am

    They dont have to weed them out, they will get automatically weeded out…… expat based teams tend not to get any better beyond a certain point……… born and bred teams do……. Why is Netherlands better than UAE today when UAE practically decimated Netherlands in 1996 WC with a much stronger team??? Namibia, Denmark and perhaps Uganda will overtake UAE given a little bit of time…….

    But this process would be a lot faster if the ICC were to fund the ‘right’ countries as well, in a timely manner……..

    The significance is actually there…….. (I) the normal mode is that the expats play, (II) then their born and bred kids play and raise the standard basically to start making money off other countries, (III) then the born and breds get some of their mainstream friends into the game and playing numbers grow, (IV) then the mainstream players get more mainstream players etc. etc. So the game gradually gets mainstreamed……….

    The problem with USA and Canada is in (II)……. born and bred kids are not getting into cricket……… there are reasons for this and the ICC needs to rethink its policy…….. the problem with UAE seems to be some strange thing, i cannot put my finger on it, but it seems that the Arabs dont want to play the game………. and if they dont want to play, I dont see how someone can force them to…….

  43. Ram
    September 5, 2006 at 12:02 pm


    Yes, of course they’ll get weeded out but after how long?….Why spend ICC money on these teams till then when instead it would be invaluable for the promising countries?

    About the significance, I agree with the 4-step process you pointed out but the way it’s happening as I see it is countries progress from Affiliate to Associate status in (I), with the result they don’t get ICC recognition for progressing to (II) and beyond…maybe the ICC should look at another membership level for progressing to (III) or higher….that way there’s a greater incentive for the boards to mainstream the game…

  44. September 5, 2006 at 2:09 pm

    Ram, the ICC is confused about this whole thing as well…… on one hand they tell UAE to get arabs to play the game……. but none of that sort is ever mentioned to USA or Canada, Canada being a stronger team than UAE in rankings……….

  45. September 5, 2006 at 2:22 pm

    Nasir, you seem to think that a player need only spend 100 days working in cricket in a country. This is not the case. With David Hemp, Heany, Davison, Barnett and so on, this was the case, as they were already nationals of the country (Born there with the exception of Barnett). You may think that isn’t that strict (I do happen to think it should be tightened a little), but remember that in most other sports, it is possible to represent a country without ever even setting foot in it. Owen Hargreaves did this recently for the England soccer team. (And by the way, John Davison spent two years playing and coaching in Canadian club cricket before he ever made his debut for them.)

    In any other sport, David Hemp or Stewart Heany would have been able to play for Bermuda/Canada without ANY other eligibility requirements being met. Still think cricket is less strict than other sports?

    If they have no ties to the country, they also have to have lived in the country for a minimum of 183 days (ie. 6 months) in each of the preceding four years. So if someone emigrates from India to Canada, and does not become a citizen with 3 and a half years, they can not play for the cricket team until that 3 and a half years is up. And even then, each team is limited to two players in each eleven man team.

  46. September 5, 2006 at 4:20 pm

    Cricket is not soccer, we are talking about playing numbers of around 5K, while in soccer you talking about numbers in millions in a country …….. the eligibility rules need to be even stricter….. the current rules are making countries ‘hire’ professionals to come and play the game over there……… Ujjwal Achariya recently mentioned that Nepal was considering dropping their home grown players and ‘hiring’ Indian players who ‘qualified for Nepal’ instead in order to improve their standard and get ICC funding and oppurtunities………. why should a country have to do that which probably is much better than all of Hong Kong, UAE, Singapore, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait if only home grown players are considered….. Norway is nothing compared to Jersey if the 10 expats, who honed their skills on the streets of Pakistan, are taken out………

    The 183 residence requirement per year is not for citizens is it?? I think it is only for deemed nationals and nationals ………

    As I mentioned, its a problem that is going to stay unless the born and bred teams improve their standard………. ICC should assist, as a special case, the top 6 of these countries………… Nepal, Uganda, Afghanistan and 3 others……… if the ICC were to do that, you would not see an expat based team in the top 10 below test level within 10 years………

  47. September 5, 2006 at 4:52 pm

    I’m not saying cricket is soccer, just that your argument that cricket eligibility rules are slack is just plain wrong. It is stricter than any other sport, in all of which it is possible to represent a country without even setting foot in it. As I said, Stewart Heaney would not have needed any other eligibility criteria in any other sport. He did in cricket, so you can not possiblty say cricket does not have strict eligibility rules when compared to other sports.

    The residence requirement is not for citizens, no, but the ICC did used to have a residential requirement even for citizens, but got into trouble when Italy were prevented from picking Joe Scuderi in the ICC Trophy. They changed that regualtion because if it remained, and they did restrict citizens as much as they were doing, they’d lose a court case on grounds of either discrimination or restraint of trade. The current regulations are still stricter than most sports and are essentially a compromise to avoid such a court case. The requirements are fine as they are. As I said, you can only pick two non-citizens at any one time and they have to have had spent almost four years in the country anyway. (That regulation is actually dropped for tournaments involving full members, which I think should change). It’s a two or three year residential qualification in most other sports, and with no limit on how many “deemed nationals” they can pick. So again, cricket is stricter than other sports on that requirement.

    If Nepal “hire” these Indian players, the only way they can play for Nepal before their residential qualification is up is by getting Nepali ctizenship. And if Nepal has lax citizenship criteria, the problem lies with the Nepalese government, not with the ICC.

    You still have to remember, that in some cases the entire cricketing infrastructure in a country was set up by ex-pats, in some cases including the national board. They sometimes run the development programs in the country, and actually probably do more than the ICC in trying to promote the game to the “indigenous” population. The ICC seem to be operating on a policy of funding the top of the game first. And performances by an ex-pat based team can inspire the native population to take up an interest in the sport. Look at the Canadacricket.com website, where letters show that they are taking an interest in the sport. The Canadian cricket weblog is run by a born and bred Canadian. And there is some evidence that born and bred players are getting into the game at the lower levels. (The women’s team is made up almost entirely of players born in Canada from my memory) The problem in Canada is that the established clubs prefer to concentrate on short term success rather than long-term development. Again, not the ICCs problem.

    There are promising signs in some countries. At the European Championship Division Four recently, out of the four teams, 3 had squads where around half the players were born and bred in the country, in some cases are the kids of ex-pats, showing up your claim that ex-pats often struggle to get their kids interested in the game. See the comments here for details: http://caughtbehind.com/btb/european-championship-division-four-final-day-report

    The main problem isn’t with the ex-pats, it all lies with the ICC. In most cases, the ex-pat community do more for the game in a country than the ICC themselves. Concentrating on this ex-pat issue is a distraction from the real problems in the devlopment program, which is run essentially as a “jobs for the boys” program, with only the two regions that are run separate from the ICC showing any real success and improvement with their devlopment program. So get on the ICCs back, not the ex-pats.

  48. Bensti
    September 5, 2006 at 7:34 pm

    The ex-pat v born and bred arguement is not one that is easy to define because the circumstances vary from country to country.
    In some countries the ex-pats have done a marvellous job teaching born and bred players how to play the game.
    This is particularly significant in Thailand, Indonesia, Chile, Cuba, PNG, Italy and Malaysia to name but a handfull.
    On the other hand we a case like the USA where it would appear that born and bred citizens are in some instances being discouraged from taking up the sport.
    Generally, ex-pats in America dont like even talking about mainstreaming THEIR GAME.
    Many many times, people who called for an initiative to include mainstream Americans were dubbed racist or accused of trying to “whiten” up THEIR GAME.
    Something has to be done to make ex-pats in some countries see that they are the teachers of the game, not the sole owners.
    If they love the game and believe in it like they say they do then they must accept that their role is to do more than just play.

    So I agree in part with Nasir and also Andrew. They both have valid points.

  49. September 5, 2006 at 10:42 pm

    USA have a particular problem with mainstreaming the game over there……. there seems to be a hidden policy NOT to mainstream the game for some reason……… UAE perhaps doesnt mind if Arabs take up the game, but concerted efforts have never been made to being them in, and I get a feeling that Arabs DONT WANT to play cricket which they define more with the South Asian population……….. Canada dont really have either of these problems, except for the fact that mainstreamers are NOT coming into the game, not even at the U13 level…… they need to investigate why that is happenning, but at least they have Bagai, Sandher and George Codrington who are born and bred players…………. but still, Canada is actually way far behind the other countries like Scotland, Ireland and Netherlands, and I also think their standing amongst the top 6 is due to imports, not even their expats……. a Canadian team without Barnett, Davison, Heaney and Bilcliff may not stand a chance even against the likes of UAE and Namibia……. who knows……..

    Regarding Nepal, many Nepalese born people migrate to India when they are under 4-5 years of age, and then grow up as Indian citizens………. it is these people that Nepalese cricket was after to bring them in, because they could have qualified for Nepal after just 100 days of work in Nepal…… it is the same case as Davison or Billcliff……..

    Regarding USA, it is a fact that the second gen south asian immigrants are 90% NOT into cricket……. one of the biggest reasons for this is that they look at the game as a cultural tradition, and not a sport…….. it is also because they want to integrate with the overall population, at school, in the park, in the neighbourhood………… you can very easily take this number to 90% INTO cricket if the game was mainstreamed, if the south asian second gen saw it as a sport that everyone plays……..

    I gave some views on this in detail a while back below:


    About being able to play only 2 non citizens….. that is wrong….. you can play all non citizens if you want………. the only restriction is that you play only 2 deemed nationals (residency of 4 years), and the rest can be ‘nationals’ (residency of 7 years), not necesarily citizens…….. the current Oman team in the ACC Trophy had only 1 omani national in the team…………

    Andrew, I think I will ask a simple question…….. if you have $1 million to bring a cricket team up to New Zealand level in 5 years, would you give that to Nepal or Hong Kong??

  50. rego
    September 5, 2006 at 11:11 pm

    Ultimately, what we are trying to measure is performance. UAE, Canada, and USA have been performing at the associate level for quite a while now and so there is no question of cutting funding, or neglecting them. They are within ICC’s eligibility rules and are performing well under them, and so if anyone should get the blame, its ICC. Nasir, if someone is a citizen of a country he should be allowed to play for his country no matter where he lives. It doesn’t matter whether he has helped develop the sport in his country. He is afterall a citizen!!! Heaney, Barnett, Bilcliff and Davison therefore have every right to be playing for Canada.

    On the other hand, what we’ve seen in the past is that only when the mass local population takes up the sport can a country progress beyond being consistent performers at the associate level. We have seen this with both Kenya and Bangladesh. In view of that, Afghanistan, Uganda, and Nepal have to be encouraged as well.

    Nasir its not a question of giving to either Nepal or Hong Kong. ICC’s role is to give money and support every country under its reigns, and thats what it is doing. The ICC can work with countries like Hong Kong and UAE to encourage the sport amongst the locals. Each country has to be regarded differently. You cannot even compare UAE and USa because they are totally different situations.

  51. September 5, 2006 at 11:51 pm

    rego….. you didnt answer my question…….. would you give the money to Nepal or Hong Kong if the objective was to get a team performing well in 4-5 years time??

    Regarding citizenship….. I didnt say that citizens should NOT be allowed to play the game if they have lived all their life in another country…….. the question here is a social one……. a citizen is allowed to roam inside and out of the country freely, and is allowed to vote and take social security benefits…… it does not make sense that a person who is allowed to do all that should NOT be allowed to play cricket for that country………

    What I said was….. that the ICC needs to have some other variables in addition to just ‘standard’, because standard can be artificially manoeuvred, and if the basic population is not following the game, it does not raise the profile of the sport by some good results…………….. e.g. USA, Canada and UAE…………. 5-6 letters, 1 asking ‘if Jon Harris thinks that cricket is more popular in South Asia than in Canada’ !!!!!! does not mean that the sport is getting a higher profile………. but getting the mayor to play that cricket match by Eddie Norfolk was definitely a way to raise awareness and profile of the sport…..

  52. September 6, 2006 at 1:14 am

    Regarding citizenship….. I didnt say that citizens should NOT be allowed to play the game if they have lived all their life in another country…….. the question here is a social one……. a citizen is allowed to roam inside and out of the country freely, and is allowed to vote and take social security benefits…… it does not make sense that a person who is allowed to do all that should NOT be allowed to play cricket for that country………

    Hang on….. if you think that, why are you always having a go at Davison, Heany, Hemp, Barnett, etc? They are citizens, and were BORN IN THE COUNTRY with the exception of Barnett. So should they be restricted or not?

    Do you at least accept that cricket has stricter eligibility requirements than any other sports?

    About being able to play only 2 non citizens….. that is wrong….. you can play all non citizens if you want………. the only restriction is that you play only 2 deemed nationals (residency of 4 years), and the rest can be ‘nationals’ (residency of 7 years), not necesarily citizens…….. the current Oman team in the ACC Trophy had only 1 omani national in the team…………

    Someone whos lived in the country for seven years has probably played a significant amount of cricket in the country. Seven years residence for a non citizen is hardly slack compared to two or three years in other sports is it? Again, it is not possible for a non-citizen to walk off the boat and straight into the cricket team. When will you admit that?

    Regarding Nepal, many Nepalese born people migrate to India when they are under 4-5 years of age, and then grow up as Indian citizens………. it is these people that Nepalese cricket was after to bring them in, because they could have qualified for Nepal after just 100 days of work in Nepal…… it is the same case as Davison or Billcliff……..

    Then whats the problem? They were born in Nepal and are therefore NOT ex-pats. They should have very little eligibility requirements to meet to play for Nepal if they were born there. By the way, I actually think Billcliff shouldn’t be able to play for Canada, for the same reason that Joyce shouldn’t be able to play for England.

    Canada is actually way far behind the other countries like Scotland, Ireland

    In the ICC Intercontinental cup game between Ireland and Scotland, which was the last game the two played, both teams had four players born outside the country. I think the numbers may be similar for the Netherlands. All the associates do it. And I asked you ages ago, if the test teams are allowed to pick all these “ex-pats” (Pietersen, Strauss, Symonds, etc) why should the non-test teams be restricted from doing so?

  53. September 6, 2006 at 1:20 am

    I almost forgot…. regarding your million dollar question.

    If I was the ICC, Hong Kong and Nepal would get the exact same amount of money, as they are both associates. If I had the million dollars personally, I’d keep it for myself obviously!

    But if I had to give it to one of Nepal and Hong Kong, I’d give it to Nepal. NOT because of the ex-pat issue, but because Nepal show much more consistent performances at senior level, and a hell of a lot of promise at Under 19 level. I was actually tipping Nepal as the next test nation (after Kenya) as far back as 2001.

  54. September 6, 2006 at 1:25 am

    Andrew….. I think I should ask you a question first……. should a cricket team represent the state of cricket in a country or not?? Should it represent participation levels, infrastructure, coaching systems, passion, govt support (or lack thereof) ….. or not?

  55. September 6, 2006 at 1:55 am

    A team should represent the country. John Davison was born in Canada. He represents Canada. He is Canadian. Now answer my questions.

  56. rego
    September 6, 2006 at 7:23 am

    Nasir…lets just get one thing straight sport is about representing your country..if you are eligible to represent your country then whats the big deal? If the team represents participation levels, infrastructure, coach, then excellent, the country should be doing well, if these are of good quality. I think i did answer your question on Nepal and Hong Kong. I don’t think they deserve different amounts, $500,000 dollars each to be exact.

  57. September 6, 2006 at 3:03 pm

    Rego/ Andrew……

    The first thing is that both of you and I disagree on this one point. Both of you think of that a team is fine if it is legally eligable………. I dont think it is fine, I think you need to look deeper…….. thats where a lot of other things are answered………..

    I will give you an analogy…… lets say that a state were to judge how good a school is based on the average top 10 SAT score in that school……… now lets say there is a school A, that work very hard on the students, and the top 10 ends up getting an average of 1000……… their next 100 also have an average of 1000…… lets say there is another school, B, which sucks, but they enroll 20 new students just before the test who are very bright, and their top 10 ends up getting an average of 1100………… their next 100 have an average of 500 (representing the school in real terms) …….

    If the state decides blindly that the oppurtunities and the funding for ‘improvement’ needs to be given to school B, it is foolish……….. there is nothing to improve…….. they didnt do anything to get to that level in the first place…………….

    Sport IS about representing your country……… Please dont give me the argument that Davison CHOSE to become Canadian because he considered Canada to be his real country or something………. Davison lived in Australia all his life, tried to make it in the Australian set up, couldnt move beyond domestic level, then with his career going down, he decided to use the oppurtunity from Canada to play in the World Cup …… a certain Shaun Udal also sent a query to Scotland just before he got picked for England…….. this is ok, people try to further their careers using whatever oppurtunity they have……… I believe Davison STILL plays in Australian domestic to improve his skills, as does Bilcliff…… and Barnett’s name still shows up on NZ current domestic scene………….. Canadian club system is not doing anything to improve or sustain these people either…..

    If the national board or govt SENDS a home grown player abroad for improving his skills, its one thing………… this is not that case………..

    Now, coming to whether I am ok with this or not…… I am not……. but I do realize that there is nothing that can be done about this without starting a whole debate about discrimination……………

    Thats for citizens……..

    coming to deemed nationals and nationals……. if you were to disallow deemed nationals, you would see a much better picture of where cricket stands in the world today……….. and a much more accurate one as well…….. the team that would rise up would have SOMETHING in place, either playing numbers, or infrastrucutre, or govt backing, or coaching….. it would have SOMETHING going for it………

    I say all of these things from the point of view of time……. if you want to see some teams come up in the next 5-10 years, then you have to move beyond expat based teams to born and bred teams………. otherwise, you can always wait for 100 years and see what happens…….. eventually it will work itself out ……..

    A US work visa is for 6 years……… if I were a club, and I hired a professional cricketer from Pakistan to come and play in my club for 4 years, the player is going to become eligable to play for US after that time !!! this is the dumbest thing you would ever see………

    Whether cricket is getting established in a country or not depends upon a number of things, and only 1 of them is standard….. there is image, passion, playing numbers, patronization numbers, infrastructure etc. etc……. without all of these, there are no roots of the process and it cannot be expected to ‘improve’…… that is precisely the reason why you only see all of US, Hong Kong, Singapore, Canada going backwards or staying at the same positions they were in 1967………..

    But I also know that the ICC is never going to change their qualification criteria…… which is why, the suggestion was that you use a development factor, and give oppurtunities and funding to the top 5-6 teams having extremely high development factors………..

  58. Cuen Lucas
    September 6, 2006 at 4:24 pm

    Andrew, when you talk about representing one’s country, representing the cricketing development system (and the entire populace of the country in question) is part and parcel of the whole thing. So is a team of hired pros really representitive? And if so, what are they representing?

    Now I’m going to go out on a limb here..

    Development is tough work, mainstreaming more so, now if you allow teams to import players for and say that there should be no developmental rewards,
    then what reward is there for those boards who are prepared to do the really hard work?
    They’d go through a considerable effort and expense to create a team that is truly reflective of their country, cricketing system and in most cases culture, only to be beaten by a team made mostly of cricketers who learnt their cricket in the test nations?!? That’s not on in my books.

  59. Noire
    September 6, 2006 at 5:10 pm


    Regarding Nepal, many Nepalese born people migrate to India when they are under 4-5 years of age, and then grow up as Indian citizens………. it is these people that Nepalese cricket was after to bring them in, because they could have qualified for Nepal after just 100 days of work in Nepal…… it is the same case as Davison or Billcliff……..

    Ur this comment is totally baseless!! Okay I give u that shakti Gauchan did a bit of that coz his dad was in the indian army! But all the rest have been playing cricket in Nepal since young except Amir Akhtar. But we dont count Amir as a player yet!! Pls refrain for such baseless info. Yhx

  60. Noire
    September 6, 2006 at 5:16 pm


    Ujjwal Achariya recently mentioned that Nepal was considering dropping their home grown players and ‘hiring’ Indian players who ‘qualified for Nepal’ instead in order to improve their standard and get ICC funding and oppurtunities……….

    I heard that too..But I wud b there to protest such hideous doing from our association of cricket thru our fan club which is in the pipeline to forming. And I m sure my other fan colleges wud do the same…We dont need no Indian or other ppl playing to develop our cricket!! I so wish foreigners rnt allowed in our team, even if we were to lose to Myanmar in 2 balls in next edition of ACC!!!!

  61. September 6, 2006 at 6:10 pm

    Noire…… what are you complaining about?? where did I say that current Nepalese team is bred in India? I said that Nepal COULD HAVE done that, and THEY WERE THINKING OF DOING THAT, but didnt…….

  62. rego
    September 6, 2006 at 6:16 pm

    I don’t think we are talking about a team of “hired pros” per say. Singapore is the only country that I know off that has actually lured professionals into their system with money. Expats also contribute immensely to the development of cricket in their countries. They run coaching camps, they put the country on the cricketing map, they help with funding, and ultimately most of them settle down in their adopted countries. I don’t think there are many situations where Pakistani students live in places for 4 years and play on the national team!

    Nasir you’re analogy doesn’t really work. If I’m right, school A represents Nepal, and Uganda etc, while school B represents the UAE’s and the Canada’s. I don’t think the next 100 in Nepal have scores of 1000. Nepal has about 20 players who are capable of actually performing at the international level for them. You could give the next 100 a score of 500.

    School B (Canada, USA) have much stronger player bases than Nepal or Uganda. I think a Canada A would be able to beat Nepal.

    The fact is that Davison, Barnett, and Heaney are all either born in Canada or Canadian citizens and that makes them eligible to play for Canada. That doesn’t mean Canada should stop developing its own players, and drop Davison or Barnett if it finds better homegrown players. Canada is fortunate to have such players and are entitled to make full use of them. If Nepal had Nepali players playing India, i don’t understand why they are not using them!!. The point is they cannot find any quality players who are better than the ones coming out of Nepal. The whole Afghanistan team is educated and has learnt their cricket in Pakistan. Is that wrong? Ofcourse Not! Half the Scottish and Irish teams have learnt their cricket in England. Is that wrong? ofcourse not! Cut Canada USa and the rest some slack and acknowledge the fact that Nepal and Uganda just aren’t good enough yet.

  63. September 7, 2006 at 12:00 am

    Rego….. thats your point of view……. you are entitled to it, and it is also the point of view of the ICC………….. I understand it…… I dont agree with it, but I understand it…………………..

    Regarding the analogy……. by saying the rest, I meant born and Bred Canadians………….. a team of born and bred Canadians can beat Nepal??? I think a team of born and bred Canadians will get thrashed by Nepal………….. as will a team of born and bred UAE players…………. of course this is all conjecture……. forget Canada A which will probably also have the expat players……

  64. rego
    September 7, 2006 at 1:10 am

    I do believe UAE, Canada, USA would benefit immensely from mainstreaming the sport in the local population. However I don’t think they ought to be punished or dealt with harshly right now. As you might recall from my post on your Development Factor post, i don’t disagree with it because it will probably force these countries to kickstart their development programs.

  65. Noire
    September 7, 2006 at 3:56 am


    Nepal has about 20 players who are capable of actually performing at the international level for them.

    I strongly oppose to this! We have many more players sidelined. If only we had more games we cud have used and experimented with newer players. I know this guy, who is good enough to play from any 1st team for priemer league clubs in UK ( Premier leagues are the ones after counties and minor counties div in UK) but dont come even into 33 men closed camp coz he is not gd enuff for Nepal team. So I believe we have many more players..atleast 150-200 very very good player.

    And we dont have any players who played in India except for Shakti Gauchan, as I mentioned earlier. And he was once the best youth player for Mumbai and praised by legendary Sunil GAvaskar….and we have utilized him to the fullest.

    But I agree, Nepal has a long long way to go. We are a good fielding and bowling outfit..with a bit of experience we can easily give a light scare to some of the ODI teams…but when it comes to batting…We will falter and woudlnt really be suprised if we have an ashmed loss.

  66. dr gul khan
    September 7, 2006 at 4:21 am

    I think nepal should field best availible team…including expats……
    Reason: You already have the passion for the game there..only thing needen is better results…and cricket will really take off in nepal…
    You guys have been too harsh on canada ,uae and usa…
    Ireland,scotland and holland are no better.
    There is no future for cricket in holland….it doesnot even make the to 20 of sports here…And half of the team is expat….
    ten Doeschate,Stelling,Reekers,Schwazinski,Kervezee,Kashif

    Scotland and ireland have there share of australians and south africans….
    And they dont get people to the ground for a Ireland Vs Scotland match…Only when they play atest nation they get people to the ground

  67. Hossain
    September 7, 2006 at 10:14 am

    I agree with Dr Gul, if Ireland, Scotland, and Holland can pick players from England, Australia, NZ, and SA and get all those hooah as developing cricket nations, why should Nepal hold herself back from playing few players from Indian leagues ?

    Also, I don’t think mixing few expats in the Neplase team will hurt the development program in the country, it is not like Nepalese cricket is under threat of being taken over by a big immigrant population living the country.

  68. Noire
    September 8, 2006 at 1:57 am

    I dont mind if its ppl living in Nepal for all his/her life…and is now a proper Nepalese citizen. Coz they have been paying tax and stuff to the nation and its only gd if they get all the facilities other native citizens get.

    In Nepal we have a policy to play players with only Nepali citizenship..and to acquire this, u have to work and stay in Nepal for atleast 15 years…which is a long time!

    If there are ppl of this origin I wudnt really mind…coz s/he has a right to be called a Nepali..and shud get the facilities…But I wudnt want just any Indian or players from subcontinent to come, stay for a year and start playing for the national team. That is just so wrong! What abt all our players who have scarificed their life playing and developin the sports..Non of our players are ever paid…and even if they are paid…it wud b sth ur parents wud give u for pocket money! So… I m in strong opposition in Nepal hiring some expats…even if they were to take us to WC 2011 or wutever…we dont wanna b another UAE full of Indians and Pakis. Sorry, thats not just right!

  69. rego
    September 8, 2006 at 5:56 am

    Noire..I’ve played against Nepal and I’ve played with some of the Nepalese players. I’ve talked to them enough to find out alot about the standards of cricket in the country. You say you have a friend who is good enough to be playing 1st division club cricket in England. I don’t think he should have a problem playing for the Nepali national team in that case. He should probably be one of the best cricketers in Nepal. Shakti Gauchan who I agree is one of Nepal’s best ever cricketers hasn’t even gone past the club stage in England! I don’t even see how Nepal has 150-200 players who are capable of sustaining the level that Nepal performs at presently. Nepal doesn’t have an A team and most of the players are U-19s. If you were to remove Shakti Gauchan Mehboob Alam Binod Das Veswakhar and Malla…Nepal would not go beyond the group stage of an ACC Tournament. This is not the case with Afghanistan, Malaysia and Uganda to the same extent.

  70. Noire
    September 8, 2006 at 8:03 am

    Yes I read it somwhere you played for Thailand once upon a time…and when u did cricket was still developing. It still is. My friend was in the U-19 team that was the runner up in U-19 WC in NZ. And he played with Binod, Shakti and all. I have played with him, Sharad and few other players of age level players myself. And I only know how good they are…having played with them more than you! And I can bet my bottom’s dollar that we easily have 150-200 player in Nepal. But I said they were good..not like the best 11 we have in our team today.If that was the case, we wud have seen different players in ever tournament. And I wudnt disagree that Nepal wud not perform as good as they have if we took our 1st 11 in the reverse order.

    And I agree to you sayin that Shakti hasnt gone past even the club stage. He played in England for a team I just mentioned, the priemer teams..the ones after counties and minor counties. They are the best top 10-12 teams in the region. I never said he made it to a country 2nd or 3rd team. And I m here in England, and I play for a club who plays in those primer division. So I know the standard of the players here…and probably I can guess the standards of players back home..compared to whom I have played with. Besides I played with them some 3-5 years back…and they must have improved vastly!

    And that friend of mine, Pramod Basnet, can easily play for a club like ours. And he doesnt come even in the closed camp of 30 before any tournament. And Shakti played for a club just like mine. And our club does boast of overseas players like Chris Wood (who plays for Aus A, but we were lucky to have him..as he was way over standard to these primer clubs), Chris wood (both play for Waga in Aus).

    And abt AFG Malaysia and Uganda, I dont even wanna comment..coz I hardly know much abt them!

    And I never said Pramod cud b playing for any major or even minor county! Just to clearify!

  71. rego
    September 8, 2006 at 10:04 pm

    Ok first of all…if you’re friends Pramod is so great, he should be in the Nepalese team. I think if what you’re saying is true, he must be an exception. You’ve played with the Nepali boys 3 – 5 years ago..I played with them last november and last year. I think they were all quite developed. You might have 150- 200 good players, but how good they is easy to see looking the Nepalese national team. Nepal have a great team, and alot of the boys from the Nepali team are capable of playing Grade A for the club im playing for here in Australia. If Nepal have got 150 guys as good as ppl like Shakti, Sharad, and Binod Das, who are just waiting on the sidelines, you should be trashing UAE, Bahrain, Afghanistan and the rest, and you shouldnt be having so many 17 and 18 year olds in the Nepali side. Unfortunately, as we have seen from Nepal’s recent performances, that is not the case. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against Nepali cricket. Nepal’s cricketing future is extremely rosy, however as of now, Nepal just don’t have the depth in quality at the senior level, and thats why they aren’t beating teams like UAE.

  72. September 9, 2006 at 2:22 am

    Getting back to WCL Div 5…… I cannot forsee the ICC considering anyone below Nepal, Japan, Mozambique, Bahamas and Jersey for the remaining 3 spots……… It just would not be right to consider Singapore and knock out a 4th ranked team from some other region……….

    Now, this 8 team tournament could not have been a league tournament anyway, it will probably be a 2 group tournament with cross over matches…… so they could have just had 10 teams in Div 5, incorporating all the 4th ranked teams………

    I am quite sure that this tournament is being held to assist Nepal, and perhaps even Jersey…… ICC doesnt care much about Japan, Mozambique or Bahamas…………

    So the question is, who is stronger between Japan, Bahamas and Mozambique?

  73. rego
    September 9, 2006 at 3:45 am

    haha about time we focused on smth more important..You never know..ICC might look at this in terms of strength of region and might give Singapore a go over Bahamas or MOzambique…Singapore are certainly aloot stronger than Japan Bahamas or Mozambique..I find it very unfair that a team as weak as Mozambique should even have a chance of qualifying for WCL Division 5, when teams like Bahrain Qatar Malaysia Singapore who are much much stronger have no chance.

    Anyways if thats the way ICC is going to go, I think Japan should be given a chance. They have improved considerably over the last few years, and have quite a few locals on their side.

  74. Noire
    September 9, 2006 at 4:20 am

    Rego mate!

    U r making a hill of a stone! I never said he was as gd as Shakti, Sharad or Binod. And I didnt say the rest 8 were equally good. If they were, I wudnt be here, and Nepal wudnt be playing ACC…they wud now be focusing on Champions Trophy or their last two games against Australia..or India..or wutever the tour card suggests. And I never said Pramod was as gd as them…if he was he wud be in the team. I was just defending to someone mention we have just 20 players. No team can survive with just 20 players. As a matter of fact, about 20 very good players have left the country for further studies or earning money. So that wud mean our team with be playing with below par players. Its not the case! See where I am coming from.

    And I m not sayin we are the best in the region eiher. And about so many 17-18 years old…wuts the deal! Majority of our players are older..the younger ones are Sharad and Malla…but I think they have deserved to play there..dont u think so? After all their performance. And Malla esp did perform well in ACC too. And u must know how old Binod, Shakti, Alam,Paresh are…and the rest who have come to scene like Dhirendra Chand, Rajkumar Pradhan and Mahes Chettrie are older too! So wheres the question of 17-18 years old?

  75. September 18, 2006 at 11:20 am

    ok…… here is a strange thing……

    The ICC has not yet confirmed the EAP qualifier for Div 5…… we were assuming that it would be Cook Islands because they got second placing over Japan, but the ICC has not listed them in automatic qualifiers for Div 5, and instead say that the EAP qualifer will be confirmed later.

    So as of right now, the situation for Div 5 is that Afghanistan, Argentina, Norway and Botswana are confirmed, one EAP qualifier will be confirmed, and the other 3 are going to be subjective choice by ICC.

    Why is this happenning? Cooks should have gotten automatic qualification based on their standing in the EAP qualifer.

    Also, I am not sure if I like the fact that the regional tournaments from 2008 will probably not even be held because there is no point to them except for academic interest. And given that regional tournaments from 2008 will not be considered, Greece has lost out big big time. It seems they have taken their cricket back by at least 10 years. Pity, because they were a strong team, with some following as well. Now they can do whatever they want, but they are not going to be in the global tournaments till at least 2010.

    Plus this 5 div strucutre is a very ad hoc one by the ICC, and I dont think they have planned about how it is going to be streamlined beyond 2009. The older strucutre at least was regular and organized.

  76. September 19, 2006 at 4:16 am

    I’m sure that the 2008 regional tournaments will provide teams for the 2010 WCL Division Five.

  77. September 19, 2006 at 11:21 am

    Bensti mentioned a while back that Tanzania cricket development program started only 4-5 years ago, and Chile are at the sae level right now………. I have confirmed that the national development program in Tanzania for juniors, esp the first time black kid players, did start 6 years ago. Their current performances may be a result of that, it may not be.

    But i dont know if Chile’s junior development program is anything close to when Tanzania started out 6 years back.

  78. December 14, 2006 at 12:08 pm

    After 3 months, the ICC has finally confirmed the participants of Div V tournament.

    Cook Islands

    The top 3 are the subjective ICC choices, while the bottom 5 were the next ranked teams in the regions.

    The tournament SHOULD be dominated by either of Afghanistan or Nepal, especially given the fact that it is being held in Nepal. Probably Singapore is the other capable team looking to challenge these 2 under Nepalese conditions.

  79. Ram
    December 14, 2006 at 3:39 pm

    Well…In a normal world, the presence of superior teams should add to the quality and anticipation expected of a World level tournament..But in this case, the presence of Afghanistan/ Nepal coupled with the fact that only the top two would qualify to Div 4, makes their presence rather unwanted…Clearly, neither of them is going to benefit from thrashing teams way below their level; not only that their presence would rob promising teams like Argentina or Jersey from progressing to the next stage where they would’ve had to take on the bottom 4 from Div 3…An Argentina v Italy type of contest would’ve been a mouth-watering prospect…All the more reason for the ICC not to just concentrate on the top 6 in Div I but also on the next 10 below Div I so that such potential mismatches/farces can be minimized…Hopefully, once the ICC gets an idea on the relative strengths of teams, it should have a better system in place for the WC 2015 qualifiers…

  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: