"Zimbabwe will end up like Kenya" - Whatmore

Googly wrote:That's tough on Bangladesh and West Indies, seems that's cruel and unusual punishment. Bangladesh at home are tough to beat and WI are capable of a resurgence. The problem for them is if they spend 2-3 years playing tier 2 they will never compete against Tier 1 again. So two of the teams with potential will be used to drag us and affiliates up but at a big cost. Don't forget the test tours will also involve T20 and ODI which means less game time for those two teams against better opposition. Don't discount Holland either, if some of the South Africans have eligibility like our own Snater, they will be on a par with BD within a few years. When SA, Aus, India and England have dozens of players capable of playing at the highest level and then we have the license to play but lack the players it shows things aren't right.

Which is why so far the BCB and SLC have voiced their opposition to the 2 tier system. I hope both selfish boards fail in that endeavour. Speaking as a Bangladeshi fan, yes I absolutely believe Bangladesh can and will one day become a cricketing powerhouse due to the passion for the game, and the size of our player base. We are churning out a lot of decent cricketers for a while now, but I think we are finally starting to create some that could be the very best in the world.

That being said, up to the present, Bangladesh have done NOTHING to warrant being in a top tier ON MERIT. I believe we are strong enough to beat almost any team barring India and probably Pakistan at home in a Test match. But we have yet to do it. The BCB has done well to lay out flat pitches and allow our team to not only gain confidence of competing against top sides in drawn Tests, but also gained valuable points in the rankings. However, the time has now come to start making result oriented pitches even if that means losing some games we would have drawn otherwise.

Like Zimbabwe, Bangladesh are now facing a dearth of fixtures which is all the more ironic since we're actually a decent team to play against. Compounding the situation is the chaotic security situation in Bangladesh, like most of the rest of world, but people will still flock to France even if it means getting shot, blown up, or run the f**k over by a Mack truck. But in Bangladesh you could get an upset stomach, heaven forbid. OK yes, now you could get killed in Bangladesh as well, but only in a soft spot.

Thus, having guaranteed fixtures, playing in neutral venues if need be is better than Bangladesh not playing at all. We have the opportunity to win Division 2 and force our way into Division 1 on merit to boot.

eugene wrote: two tier system will only be used as long as Australia, England, and India are in the top 6. Once one of them sinks - which will happen, the system will no doubt be ditched. Does the two tier system mean that tier two nations will never play tier one?

Yes, except that AUS, IND, ENG will never fall below 6th. They have the money, and talent to ensure that they will always be at least in the top 6. There are only a dozen or so countries playing the game, being in the top 6 all the time is not difficult for those countries. Even if they do, such as India being 7th a year ago, it will merely be momentary until they get a nice 4 or 5 test home series and jump up the rankings.

So that is not something we have to worry about.

I wouldn't say never. India were one of the worst sides in cricket not all that long ago (15 years or so). Having money and people doesn't always equal results.

eugene wrote:I wouldn't say never. India were one of the worst sides in cricket not all that long ago (15 years or so). Having money and people doesn't always equal results.

Eugene, its a matter of rank. India was only poor overseas in the 1990s. In fact barring perhaps a decade in the 2000s, India has always sucked on the road. But they have made up for it at home. India were never "minnows" except for maybe when they first started playing cricket in the 1930s. But since the 1950s, ie almost 70 years now, India have been a fairly competitive team. Not as competitive as Pakistan or Sri Lanka, but competitive nonetheless. India was a poor side in that they were ranked maybe 5th or 6th, out of the same number of serious cricketing sides. SL and ZIM were minnows back then, and Bangladesh didn't even play. So yes, India may have been the "last" ranked cricket side, but they were still in the top 6.

The Big 3 will NEVER rank outside the top 6 precisely because they have the money and the player base. Money is important for obvious reasons (having facilities, hiring good coaches, funding developmental programs, other infrastructure expenses, etc). And having a large player base, ~20 first class teams in both India and England = 300 first class cricketers at any given moment, means that there will always be 11 decent cricketers to field at all times. In this regard, only Australia out of the big 3 might struggle. But then again, there are only 7-8 countries that have high interest in cricket and also play it at a high level. Thus, even a s***ty Australia side will struggle to be ranked 7th out of 8 or 9.

It just comes down to the money. If the Tier 2 games are entirely funded by the ICC it will be interesting to see how much they steal because the funding will be more transparent. Will the Tier 2 teams get the same revenues from the World Cups as the Tier 1 teams? Our cricket has imploded for a multitude of reasons, but the primary one has been wholesale thievery and if this move further reduces inflows it's going to get interesting. The top guys aren't going anywhere and will have to cut their sycophants loose and further impoverish the players. There's going to be a lot of squealing from the pigs at the diminished trough.

Kriterion_BD wrote:

eugene wrote:I wouldn't say never. India were one of the worst sides in cricket not all that long ago (15 years or so). Having money and people doesn't always equal results.

Eugene, its a matter of rank. India was only poor overseas in the 1990s. In fact barring perhaps a decade in the 2000s, India has always sucked on the road. But they have made up for it at home. India were never "minnows" except for maybe when they first started playing cricket in the 1930s. But since the 1950s, ie almost 70 years now, India have been a fairly competitive team. Not as competitive as Pakistan or Sri Lanka, but competitive nonetheless. India was a poor side in that they were ranked maybe 5th or 6th, out of the same number of serious cricketing sides. SL and ZIM were minnows back then, and Bangladesh didn't even play. So yes, India may have been the "last" ranked cricket side, but they were still in the top 6.

The Big 3 will NEVER rank outside the top 6 precisely because they have the money and the player base. Money is important for obvious reasons (having facilities, hiring good coaches, funding developmental programs, other infrastructure expenses, etc). And having a large player base, ~20 first class teams in both India and England = 300 first class cricketers at any given moment, means that there will always be 11 decent cricketers to field at all times. In this regard, only Australia out of the big 3 might struggle. But then again, there are only 7-8 countries that have high interest in cricket and also play it at a high level. Thus, even a s***ty Australia side will struggle to be ranked 7th out of 8 or 9.

You have a short memory, India were ranked 7th in tests cricket in January of 2015. From August 1999 to September 2000 they were ranked 8th.

eugene wrote:

You have a short memory, India were ranked 7th in tests cricket in January of 2015. From August 1999 to September 2000 they were ranked 8th.

Eugene my friend, I am disappointed you haven't noticed that I [nearly] always choose my words very carefully, being a fan of literalist interpretation. In my previous post I did state that the big 3 would never rank outside the top 6, so my bad. However, from my earlier posts (if not in this thread, other threads for sure) I was careful to note that the big 3 would never rank outside the top 6 for any reasonable length of time. I even mentioned that India was 7th ranked...lemme find the post. Haha, the post is on this very page.

http://zimcricketforums.com/viewtopic.p ... =20#p95583

Boom, India being 7th right there. I assure you my friend, my obsessive compulsive attention to detail is second to pretty much none :D

Of course any team can be ranked anywhere at a given point in time. However, in a long enough period, the Big 3 will not ever rank outside the top 6. You can write it down, or better yet print this post of mine. If I'm ever wrong, I'll be glad to eat humble pie.

There are 2 major determinants and 2 only. Money and talent, both of which India, England, and Australia have more so than any other cricketing nation. Name 4 countries that would outrank them, in any format, for any reasonable length of time. There aren't any.

The only way in which the Big 3 will consistently rank outside the top 6 to drop into a 2nd tier, is if those countries fall into the hands of ISIS or start having weekly terrorist attacks like Pakistan.

But presumably you only need to rank outside of the top six at a specific point and you get the chop? What if a loss of form by India coincides with the final rankings assessment?

eugene wrote:But presumably you only need to rank outside of the top six at a specific point and you get the chop? What if a loss of form by India coincides with the final rankings assessment?

That is of course a possibility, but only in theory. The cutoff won't be at an arbitrary point like May 17th or Novermber 3rd. It will be after everyone has completed series against everyone else. The league will operate on a 2-3 cycle. Less than that its impossible for all 7 teams to play each other, and more than that it drags on too long. Hence, by the end of the cycle, India will have played 3 home series which means 9-12 Tests and with the pitches India has no team will be able to win a series in India (England 2012 series notwithstanding). Thus India will likely go 7-2, at the very worst, and possibly 9-0 in those home tests, regardless of who they play. There may be a draw in there, but with Ashwin/Jadeja/Mishra on square turners, ain't nobody gonna be surviving on that. 15 years from, India will have another slew of spinners wreaking havoc on such pitches. Now overseas, India will likely lose or possibly draw a couple Tests in AUS/ENG/NZ/SA. If India produced square turners, those teams will lay out greentops and India will lose all games. End result India will be 9-9 in the cycle, or thereabouts.

Same for AUS and ENG. Now where do you reckon the smaller sides like NZ, SL, PAK, and a quota-based SA side will be? My guess is that enough of them will not be able to win 9 Tests to ensure that at least one of the Big 3 falls to 7th. It just won't happen.

Now if the ICC controls the pitch curation so that home sides don't just make whatever pitch they want, there is a SLIGHT chance of one of the Big 3 getting relegated. But even then it would 1% at most.

I just cannot see the likes of SL, NZ, or SA challenging the Big 3 consistently in any format, at any time. PAK has teency weency chance, and even that relies on them having a world class pace attack like the Wasim-Waqar days because their batsmen won't be winning them much anytime soon, if ever.

In the 2nd tier, it will be a straight shootout between West Indies and Bangladesh. Until the Afghan's develop their batting which will likely take another 5-10 years in which case it will become a 3 way fight for promotion. The West Indies could experience a resurgence if their pacers like Cummins, Gabriel, Joseph, and Holder develop into a world class bunch. Personally, I think Joseph has the potential to be an ATG fast bowler, not so sure about the others. But you only need 2 good fast bowlers with solid guys like Neil Wagner as support.

I don't see Ireland producing the kind of talent to win Division 2, but I can see them being competitive. I very much see Ireland as being a lower tier version of NZ...efficient, underrated, well managed, professional, a scrappy side full of fight, but ultimately just too small to challenge the heavyweights.

As for Zimbabwe, if they can retain talent or even bring some lost ones back which the structure and financial transparency of a 2 tier system may be able to provide, I can see Zimbabwe competing in the 2nd tier. Maybe not winning, but giving all the teams a hard fight. But if things go on as they have and are at present, I see Zimbabwe finishing at the bottom even in a 2nd tier with Ireland and Afghanistan.

Googly wrote:Well Taylor was the kingpin and even those half wits recognized that.

Given their history I would be suspicious of the players earning a chunk more if their performances don't justify it (which they don't!)

The problem is they look after the handful but leave the others hanging out to dry. They are despicable people.

I could be wrong and i base it on snippets that I read here and there, but, during the Taylor era there was 3/4 players up around the 6 figure sum in US bucks and a few players hovering 80+ such as Prosper,Ervine,Cremer.

The only one I am relatively sure on is Taylor was on 110k a year US.

Playing for Zimbabwe is relatively lucrative IF you are in the top echelon of players.

The guys who miss out are the fringe players, the ones not in the top ten. In a way though, in that respect I actually side with ZC because if you are at a quality that cant make the zimbabwean national 11, then you are only equivalent to a park cricketer in more developed countries and they wouldnt be earning more than 100 a game, they are well placed.

I'll use Kevin Kasuza as a random example.

Kasuza gets to travel, make a 100 bucks a game playing in front of a crowd, aticles and duiscussion on him, his cricinfo profile.

If Kasuza, at current talent level, immigrated to Australia for example, he would be playing third (or second at best) grade park cricket and would be extremely lucky to get paid, he would probably just get his fees waived. He certainly wont have any profile or have people talk about him on forums.

If i was a young cricketer who was not destined for superstardom, i would LOVE to have a zimbabwean passport. Its one of the clearest paths to test cricket.

The flipside is, to get to that level where the dollars roll in, they wont get much support on the journey, and will face some setbacks unique to Zim.

sixes fan wrote:thought so 2 Taps C, whoever is advising solo mire

is doing a bad hes talented & black 1 good innings &

he earns himself a top contract plus a guaranteed spot

in the side for the next 5 years irregardless of his scores

Welch, byrom, evans & co think they can crack england

& is as simple as cake.. whether they are immensly

talented or not only 1 of the might live that dream no ways

will they all crack the english side which will already

have sam curran & a mahmood, a rashid, jordan, ali,

balance they are ill adviced..Stay in zim suffer for 3-4

years with maybe no contract at all work your way up

& bammm you become an ozias guy & earn obscene

amounts but hey they want overnight success you

have to work for it everywhere & by the way some1

like byrom 2 seasons in the franchise & he will make the team

esp when we have chari, maruma etc as options

They may not make the England side but they'll make county cricket.