Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tehsin
Guys, missing the big picture here. Why would ICC bother the big eight with playing the associates or even Zimbabwe or Ireland? Better option, let them play each other and the two "lowly" test sides that the BIG would rather scrap. Best of both worlds. They are giving the associates exposure (1 match against a low ranked test side is HARDLY exposure) on paper and they are making sure IF A the top 8 does have to play an outsider, it's either the 9/10 or the best associate that survives the cut. Good on Ireland.
I would have preferred an expanded tournament that allowed the associates to play at least 2 or more matches. They don't get these chances often.
Here is the thing about rankings. Anyone know how many T20 Bangladesh has played in the past 3 years? Where is BCB? Where is ICC? We played less T20 then Afg and Ireland. That is a failure, primarily for BCB. You'd think BD would at least play 15-20 T20s yearly because it's a game that could be played twice in a day. Not that I'm suggesting that. (Unless that's the only way we can get the big guys to pencil us in in their BUSY IPL, errrr I mean, international schedule)
|
Teshin, your point on BCB not playing enough T20s is well founded I realise. It also exposes yet another weakness of the ICC who are supposed to be the governing body of cricket. They should play some part in ensuring that every country concerned plays a given minimum number of matches in each category of cricket, in a given year.