Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

bhaveshgor wrote:Lol if u think zim, Ireland, Scotland and afg are better than ban another prove that associate get so much overrated hype, why hatred for ban, if they were associate and Ireland were full members people would say Ireland should be dropped, pathetic and ban should be promoted

In these conditions, they are.

Didn't Zimbabwe win a Test against a full strength Pak a year and a half ago? When have Bangladesh ever come close to that?

I might be wrong but didn't ban qualify for the 2nd stage of that World Cup and Ireland, zim, scot and afg lost in the first stage.
Fact is ban get so much hate even though they got a better record than all the associates just because their full members.

bhaveshgor wrote:I might be wrong but didn't ban qualify for the 2nd stage of that World Cup and Ireland, zim, scot and afg lost in the first stage.
Fact is ban get so much hate even though they got a better record than all the associates just because their full members.

Nobody hates Bangladesh. It's just that there were a lot of questions raised as to the way their full membership was rushed through at the time. It seemed to come on the back of a World Cup victory against Pakistan which itself raised a few eyebrows..

Also since their admission to full membership they have not pushed on as a competitive nation. They pick up the odd victory here and there but their progress has been slight if any. Sri Lanka have shown that it is possible to go from minor to major and win trophies.

I'd love to see Bangladesh become a decent force but It's just not happening.

Aidan11 wrote:

bhaveshgor wrote:I might be wrong but didn't ban qualify for the 2nd stage of that World Cup and Ireland, zim, scot and afg lost in the first stage.
Fact is ban get so much hate even though they got a better record than all the associates just because their full members.

Nobody hates Bangladesh. It's just that there were a lot of questions raised as to the way their full membership was rushed through at the time. It seemed to come on the back of a World Cup victory against Pakistan which itself raised a few eyebrows..

Also since their admission to full membership they have not pushed on as a competitive nation. They pick up the odd victory here and there but their progress has been slight if any. Sri Lanka have shown that it is possible to go from minor to major and win trophies.

I'd love to see Bangladesh become a decent force but It's just not happening.

Agree but my point was on the people saying they should be relegated and Ireland promoted when the same people would say ban should be promoted when they destroy associates and beat full members in world cups or in odi.

I agree that ban should play more games against associates and would love to see 2 division of test but not ban getting relegated and replace by Ireland/afg when in reality they would do the same as ban would.

Netherlands beat England and gave SA and NZ a run for their money in the last year's World T20. Bangladesh, playing AT HOME, were hammered in all their matches. Heck, they lost to Nepal and lost all the matches in the Asia Cup AT HOME, including to Afghanistan. They were humiliated in each and every match by a very ordinary Caribbean side last year. They only redeemed themselves against Zimbabwe at home recently. But in these conditions, I'd fancy the Zimbos anyday particularly with Whatmore in charge.

By the way, I don't think anyone has said that Bangladesh should be relegated AND the Associates be promoted. I think the problem is inconsistency. Why can't Associates have FM status when Bangladesh do? Or why do Bangladesh have FM status when the Associates don't? There is nothing to suggest that they are any more deserving than the Associates.

shankycricket wrote:By the way, I don't think anyone has said that Bangladesh should be relegated AND the Associates be promoted. I think the problem is inconsistency. Why can't Associates have FM status when Bangladesh do? Or why do Bangladesh have FM status when the Associates don't? There is nothing to suggest that they are any more deserving than the Associates.

With the consortium of Australia, England and India now running the game, I can see the day when Test cricket is only played between those three sides and a Rest of the World Team, with everybody else playing in a league structure, with promotion and relegation between divisions of 8 teams. Under this structure, New Zealand would join the Australian domestic structure, as Tasmania did, in order for their players to aspire to play top flight cricket for Australia.

bhaveshgor wrote:Lol if u think zim, Ireland, Scotland and afg are better than ban another prove that associate get so much overrated hype, why hatred for ban, if they were associate and Ireland were full members people would say Ireland should be dropped, pathetic and ban should be promoted

3 full member scalps for Ireland in 3 World Cups. They have chased down 300 in a canter against a side who bowled out your beloved Bangladeshis for 70 a few months ago. Clearly, the Associates are not a patch on the mighty Toygers .....

I don't even like Bangladesh.
But even Bangladesh beat South Africa in the 2007 World cup and England in the 2011 world cup.
So is not exactly like Bangladesh don't beat big nations in the World cup.

Bangladesh pick up the occasional win here and there but on the whole they lose far more than they win.

bhaveshgor wrote:I don't even like Bangladesh.
But even Bangladesh beat South Africa in the 2007 World cup and England in the 2011 world cup.
So is not exactly like Bangladesh don't beat big nations in the World cup.

And what have they done in recent times?

Besides giving us roads and running water?

sanitation

cheap shirts.

Lots of em.

Ever adapting the cockney accent.