NZ Vs Bangladesh 3rd ODI

[Pup]

Well NZ won the toss and elected to bowl which the crowd would have been annoyed about and rightly so because now Bangladesh are 9/93 of 37 overs

Daniel Vettori has 5/7 from 6 overs

What a disgrace.

[Dirko]

Yep all our for 93

Dan the man took 5/7 of 6...

Surely this is not good for cricket. The ICC need to look at a tier competition.
For one-dayers

Top tier
Australia
South Africa
New Zealand
India
Sri Lanka
Pakistan

Lower tier
England
West Indies
Bangladesh
Ireland
Zimbabwe
Kenya

For Tests
Top tier
Australia
South Africa
Sri Lanka
India
England

Lower tier
Pakistan
New Zealand
West Indies
Bangladesh

Maybe reintrodue Zimbabwe, look at Kenya or Canada, Ireland, Scotland etc

Look at a promotion/relegation setup...

[Pup]

NZ are now 0/62 from 4 overs

Brendan McCullum is 49 from 18 balls.

[Pup]

All over.

The black caps passed the score of 93 at the end of the 6th over

McCullum made 80* from only 28 balls.

What a disgrace. At least the crowd got some value.

[Dirko]

All over.

The black caps passed the score of 93 at the end of the 6th over

McCullum made 80* from only 28 balls.

What a disgrace. At least the crowd got some value.

Value...they've basically missed out on a innings and a half !

They should play a 20/20 to give them a bit more to laugh at...

[Pup]

All over.

The black caps passed the score of 93 at the end of the 6th over

McCullum made 80* from only 28 balls.

What a disgrace. At least the crowd got some value.

Value...they've basically missed out on a innings and a half !

They should play a 20/20 to give them a bit more to laugh at...

Thats what i was trying to say, At least they got a little entertainment. Imagine if NZ cruised to the score in 20 overs and that was it.. I know what i would rather.

I agree on the 20/20

[spell_check]

All over.

The black caps passed the score of 93 at the end of the 6th over

McCullum made 80* from only 28 balls.

What a disgrace. At least the crowd got some value.

Value...they've basically missed out on a innings and a half !

They should play a 20/20 to give them a bit more to laugh at...

Thats what i was trying to say, At least they got a little entertainment. Imagine if NZ cruised to the score in 20 overs and that was it.. I know what i would rather.

I agree on the 20/20

So it would have been better if NZ paced the innings to win in 19 overs?

I love the idea of the promotion/relegation system, except for one thing. Zimbabwe should not be considered at all - not for anything. South Africa were isolated because of the Apartheid; so should Zimbabwe.

[Pup]

So it would have been better if NZ paced the innings to win in 19 overs?

No they did exactly what they should have.

I just worded it wrong.

[Hondo]

On Zimbabwe - Mugabe is a dictator yes but there is no apartheid. In fact, Mugabe came to power in 1980 after a revolution to sack the previous Govt who supported apartheid. There are elections coming up however unfortunately the oppostion party leader looks to be no less of a potential dictator than Mugabe so Zimbabwe still has a ways to go. Interestingly, altho Mugable is a dictator the human rights abuses are not quite what the Western media would have us believe. It is more the corruption and a basket-case economy causing the issues rather than armed conflict. Why am I a sudden expert? I had a long social chat with a Zimbabwean doctor working in Australia.

On a tiered system for cricket I vote No. At one stage the West Indies, India, Pakistan, NZ were all in the same boat as Bangladesh is now. There were one-sided results like there are now however the best way to get competitive is to play the best. It will take some time but that's sport. Setting up a tier creates a 'poor cousin' sub-division and the teams in it will not improve as fast as they could. What if Australia in the mid 80s were relegated and could only play minnows for a few years? The ACB would have gone broke. Was it better for the Aussies to get flogged by the West Indies and harden up or go out and thrash Sri Lanka a few times and cover up the cracks instead.

If England were relegated to a second tier in the one-dayers do we think the England Cricket Board would agree to missing out on the financial gains from playing the likes of Australia and South Africa? No chance .... Ditto any other cricket board especially on the sub-continent.

[locky801]

Brilliant Post Hondo, agree entirely

[spell_check]

So it would have been better if NZ paced the innings to win in 19 overs?

No they did exactly what they should have.

I just worded it wrong.

They did it here too, when Australia A thrashed Sri Lanka in 2002/03 I think, instead it was a 25 over each match.

[spell_check]

On Zimbabwe - Mugabe is a dictator yes but there is no apartheid. In fact, Mugabe came to power in 1980 after a revolution to sack the previous Govt who supported apartheid. There are elections coming up however unfortunately the oppostion party leader looks to be no less of a potential dictator than Mugabe so Zimbabwe still has a ways to go. Interestingly, altho Mugable is a dictator the human rights abuses are not quite what the Western media would have us believe. It is more the corruption and a basket-case economy causing the issues rather than armed conflict. Why am I a sudden expert? I had a long social chat with a Zimbabwean doctor working in Australia.

On a tiered system for cricket I vote No. At one stage the West Indies, India, Pakistan, NZ were all in the same boat as Bangladesh is now. There were one-sided results like there are now however the best way to get competitive is to play the best. It will take some time but that's sport. Setting up a tier creates a 'poor cousin' sub-division and the teams in it will not improve as fast as they could. What if Australia in the mid 80s were relegated and could only play minnows for a few years? The ACB would have gone broke. Was it better for the Aussies to get flogged by the West Indies and harden up or go out and thrash Sri Lanka a few times and cover up the cracks instead.

If England were relegated to a second tier in the one-dayers do we think the England Cricket Board would agree to missing out on the financial gains from playing the likes of Australia and South Africa? No chance .... Ditto any other cricket board especially on the sub-continent.

I didn't say wit was exactly apartheid, just that there are comparisons. From what I can gather, it's more of a payback he is making.

Besides, they should be punished for reducing the state of Cricket there to laughing stock, instead of the developing, promising nation they were in the late 90s.