Nope. All 10 teams are in the one group so it means nothing.WI all out for 204.
Does the final impact on World Cup Seedings/Groupings? (when is the cut-off to decide that?)
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nope. All 10 teams are in the one group so it means nothing.WI all out for 204.
Does the final impact on World Cup Seedings/Groupings? (when is the cut-off to decide that?)
Geez that was awkward. Pommie seems like a really nice bloke but he was caught off guard then. Would have been great to hear more of Raza's thoughts on the 10 team WC.The most unfortunate thing about the soap opera in Cape Town is that its distracted the cricket world from the travesty of these qualifiers. I suppose it's too much to ask to have people pay attention to things that matter in the long term...
In any case, here's my team of the tournament:
Kyle Coetzer (Sco) - 276 runs @ 55.20
Evin Lewis (WI) - 316 runs @ 39.50
Rahmat Shah (Afg) - 280 runs @ 35.00
Brendan Taylor+ (Zim) - 457 runs @ 65.28
Mohammad Nabi (Afg) - 291 runs @ 41.57, 12 wickets @ 25.66
Sikandar Raza (Zim) - 319 runs @ 53.16, 15 wickets @ 17.60
Najibullah Zadran (Afg) - 254 runs @ 63.50
Jason Holder (WI) - 219 runs @ 36.50, 15 wickets @ 21.13
Roelof van der Merwe (Ned) - 16 wickets @ 12.25
Safyaan Sharif (Sco) - 17 wickets @ 13.94
Mujeeb Ur Rahman (Afg) - 17 wickets @ 16.41
It's worth noting that the man who scored the most runs across the tournament (Brendan Taylor), the man who scored the second most runs across the tournament (Sikandar Raza), one of the men who took the most wickets across the tournament (Safyaan Sharif), the men who made the two highest scores in an innings (Tony Ura and Calum Macleod) and the men who had the best figures in an innings (Rohan Mustafa and Mohammad Naveed) will all miss out on the World Cup.
Sikandar Raza used his speech for being Man of the Tournament to rally behind all the teams that missed out, and received a lot of twitter love from all the players at the tournament for it.
Beautifully said.The most unfortunate thing about the soap opera in Cape Town is that its distracted the cricket world from the travesty of these qualifiers. I suppose it's too much to ask to have people pay attention to things that matter in the long term...
In any case, here's my team of the tournament:
Kyle Coetzer (Sco) - 276 runs @ 55.20
Evin Lewis (WI) - 316 runs @ 39.50
Rahmat Shah (Afg) - 280 runs @ 35.00
Brendan Taylor+ (Zim) - 457 runs @ 65.28
Mohammad Nabi (Afg) - 291 runs @ 41.57, 12 wickets @ 25.66
Sikandar Raza (Zim) - 319 runs @ 53.16, 15 wickets @ 17.60
Najibullah Zadran (Afg) - 254 runs @ 63.50
Jason Holder (WI) - 219 runs @ 36.50, 15 wickets @ 21.13
Roelof van der Merwe (Ned) - 16 wickets @ 12.25
Safyaan Sharif (Sco) - 17 wickets @ 13.94
Mujeeb Ur Rahman (Afg) - 17 wickets @ 16.41
It's worth noting that the man who scored the most runs across the tournament (Brendan Taylor), the man who scored the second most runs across the tournament (Sikandar Raza), one of the men who took the most wickets across the tournament (Safyaan Sharif), the men who made the two highest scores in an innings (Tony Ura and Calum Macleod) and the men who had the best figures in an innings (Rohan Mustafa and Mohammad Naveed) will all miss out on the World Cup.
Sikandar Raza used his speech for being Man of the Tournament to rally behind all the teams that missed out, and received a lot of twitter love from all the players at the tournament for it.
You were correct. How far has West indies cricket plummetted to be stuck playing in this tournament.Afghanistan and the Windies would be my tip to qualify.
You were correct. How far has West indies cricket plummetted to be stuck playing in this tournament.
Turns out this is even more egregious than I thought.
One of the few constant criticisms of World Cups of recent past was the length, at six weeks or so maybe it is a tad long. I thought, well, 10 teams isn't much of a World Cup but it might make it a bit more concise like the FIFA World Cup and Champions Trophy, maybe there is a method to the madness. Turns out much to my disgust casting four nations out to the boondocks of world cricket saves a grand total of one match over the length of the tournament. It's still going to be six weeks long.
Even forgetting the Associates, we are kicking out TWO FULL TEST PLAYING NATIONS from the biggest event in world Cricket. And one of those nations is an emerging market a canoe ride from England.
Let's hope so, the 10 team world cup was gaining some criticism in mainstream media but it stopped with the ball tampering stuff. Hopefully Australia doing poorly at the WC will change that.I think a lot more people will be having this epiphany in 16 months from now.
Fantastic stuff! Best world cup structure since 1992 in Australia.
The criticism about previous tournaments taking too long is only because of the lightweights who have no chance of progressing to the next round. They have to play their matches too and time ticks by, interest wanes.
The tournament treads water until these no-chance teams get knocked out. That's why it drags and doesn't feel as though it really starts til the latter stages.
This has more of a best of the best feel to it, befitting a world cup. Rather than using it as a promo tool with propped up Gold Coast/GWS equivalents running around.
The new kid on the block Afghanistan have earned their spot. No gimme leg up by having 16 teams or whatever.
Not the posts about how having minnows involved will lead to greater interest and more test nations down the track?If anyone ever doubts the truth of presuppositionalism, I will direct them to this post.
Not the posts about how having minnows involved will lead to greater interest and more test nations down the track?
Same as others have entered previous tournaments with novelty/new teams as being great for the game
Will be great because it's only the stronger nations / will be great because there are lots of new nationsWhat is this a response to?
Will be great because it's only the stronger nations / will be great because there are lots of new nations
If I have a predisposed view to the former, fine. Others have a predisposed view to the latter.
The results have been there for everyone to see. We've had previous tournaments that have had the stronger nations only. And we've seen world cups that have included lots of minnows alongside the stronger nations.And they cannot both be right, can they? So it is right to debate which is the actual truth, even if will take until the event itself before worldview change will actually happen. Alas, you are yet to muster up the evidence to prove your presupposition to be accurate.