Cricket match prediction discussions

[Haunebu]

It must be made compulsory that every country must have players of native origin.

You do realise that their citizens could be people from other countries too, don't you? Think!

This is a ridiculous suggestion. Nepal doesn't want to import players, because then the Nepal national team will become India or Pakistan B team. National teams are there for a reason. National teams showcase the talent and diversity that is available in a country.

Wrong. Firstly, Nepal was just an example. Secondly, there is absolutely nothing wrong with recruiting people from various countries as long as they are citizens of the country in question. Panesar? Ali?

[1715209457]

1715209457

[1715209457]

1715209457

[1715209457]

1715209457

[1715209457]

1715209457

[1715209457]

1715209457

[Sithara007]

Wrong. Firstly, Nepal was just an example. Secondly, there is absolutely nothing wrong with recruiting people from various countries as long as they are citizens of the country in question. Panesar? Ali?

What about recruiting random people who are not the citizens? That is the point here. The Oman and UAE national teams doesn't have a single citizen representing them. Most of their players have been to these countries on 6-month visa and they can go back to South Asia anytime. I have never seen any fans cheering for either Oman or the UAE in ICC tournaments, because the players themselves don't care. The expats in UAE always support their own countries (India, Pakistan.etc) and I have never seen them cheering for these teams. And the Arabs don't care, because they are not interested in cricket.

[JSRAW]

This is a ridiculous suggestion. Nepal doesn't want to import players, because then the Nepal national team will become India or Pakistan B team. National teams are there for a reason. National teams showcase the talent and diversity that is available in a country.

Wrong. Firstly, Nepal was just an example. Secondly, there is absolutely nothing wrong with recruiting people from various countries as long as they are citizens of the country in question. Panesar? Ali?

Panesar and Ali are not good examples IMO as they both were born in England.

It's completely fine if someone or in that scenario associate nations are providing them citizenship etc but that's not the case for most of the teams in the middle east.

[BobK71]

I don’t agree at all because suppose India has a lot of players who are not very good by the standards of Indian cricket. And Nepal wants to form a cricket team and play in the World Cup. Nothing serious but Nepal just wants to try things out.

Every country has some players who aren't really good Cricketers(Not just India), but Indian cricketers are usually far better than cricketers from several countries primarily due to their intense passion and competitiveness.

Also, if Nepal wants to recruit foreign players to build their team, that's an excellent move since they could actually compete with other teams.

Nepal has just got acquainted with cricket shortly. But they will do comparatively better than other. If we look at the Afghanistan team, they have made a place in the world of cricket in a very short of time. Their players are now always playing cricket in different franchises. Where many reputed players do not get the chance. So I believe that if Nepal tries to give the importance then they will have a good position.

[Sithara007]

Panesar and Ali are not good examples IMO as they both were born in England.

It's completely fine if someone or in that scenario associate nations are providing them citizenship etc but that's not the case for most of the teams in the middle east.

Exactly. And it is not just the GCC teams such as Oman and Qatar. Most of the teams in the Europe also don't have any citizens representing them. I am OK with Panesar and Ali. They are British citizens, and more importantly, they were born there. Even in case of Eoin Morgan, he received British citizenship before he shifted his loyalty from Ireland to England. My problem is not with naturalized citizens representing various teams. My issue is only when a "national" team comprises 0 citizens from that nation.

[Juggy777]

I don’t agree at all because suppose India has a lot of players who are not very good by the standards of Indian cricket. And Nepal wants to form a cricket team and play in the World Cup. Nothing serious but Nepal just wants to try things out.

Every country has some players who aren't really good Cricketers(Not just India), but Indian cricketers are usually far better than cricketers from several countries primarily due to their intense passion and competitiveness.

Also, if Nepal wants to recruit foreign players to build their team, that's an excellent move since they could actually compete with other teams.

Nepal has just got acquainted with cricket shortly. But they will do comparatively better than other. If we look at the Afghanistan team, they have made a place in the world of cricket in a very short of time. Their players are now always playing cricket in different franchises. Where many reputed players do not get the chance. So I believe that if Nepal tries to give the importance then they will have a good position.

I don’t think that any major Indian player will chose Nepal over India, and the player’s that’ll chose to play for them, won’t be of the highest quality hence they’ll not really benefit if they actually tried it. However what they could do is outsource coaching to ex Indian player’s as they could train Nepal player’s, and further help them find talented player’s who’re born there.

[laurenB7742]

Panesar and Ali are not good examples IMO as they both were born in England.

It's completely fine if someone or in that scenario associate nations are providing them citizenship etc but that's not the case for most of the teams in the middle east.

Exactly. And it is not just the GCC teams such as Oman and Qatar. Most of the teams in the Europe also don't have any citizens representing them. I am OK with Panesar and Ali. They are British citizens, and more importantly, they were born there. Even in case of Eoin Morgan, he received British citizenship before he shifted his loyalty from Ireland to England. My problem is not with naturalized citizens representing various teams. My issue is only when a "national" team comprises 0 citizens from that nation.

I want to see local players on every national team. It will be better if there are no players from other countries representing a national team. But they can have some foreign players if it is absolutely necessary.

But it is a problem if there are more local players on the national team and the whole national team is made up of foreign players. I have no problem if a player is given the citizenship to play cricket in the national team. You cannot just make a team out of foreign players and call it your national team . And in this case, Nepal was just a made up example. People did not understand that and took it seriously.

[Tony116]

I don’t agree at all because suppose India has a lot of players who are not very good by the standards of Indian cricket. And Nepal wants to form a cricket team and play in the World Cup. Nothing serious but Nepal just wants to try things out.

Every country has some players who aren't really good Cricketers(Not just India), but Indian cricketers are usually far better than cricketers from several countries primarily due to their intense passion and competitiveness.
Also, if Nepal wants to recruit foreign players to build their team, that's an excellent move since they could actually compete with other teams.

Nepal has just got acquainted with cricket shortly. But they will do comparatively better than other. If we look at the Afghanistan team, they have made a place in the world of cricket in a very short of time. Their players are now always playing cricket in different franchises. Where many reputed players do not get the chance. So I believe that if Nepal tries to give the importance then they will have a good position.

I don’t think that any major Indian player will chose Nepal over India, and the player’s that’ll chose to play for them, won’t be of the highest quality hence they’ll not really benefit if they actually tried it. However what they could do is outsource coaching to ex Indian player’s as they could train Nepal player’s, and further help them find talented player’s who’re born there.

We are not talking about any major players here. We are talking about the players who generally don’t get any chance to play in the Indian national team and they are good to some extent and that’s why they get the chance of flying far from the teams which are not very good.

And why are we still talking about Nepal? It was just used as an example and any similarity of it with the real world is absolutely coincidental.

[Sithara007]

We are not talking about any major players here. We are talking about the players who generally don’t get any chance to play in the Indian national team and they are good to some extent and that’s why they get the chance of flying far from the teams which are not very good.

And why are we still talking about Nepal? It was just used as an example and any similarity of it with the real world is absolutely coincidental.

If someone can't get a chance to represent India or Pakistan, then it means that they don't have the necessary quality to take part in top quality cricket. Such players won't do any good even if they move to other teams. They will only steal the chances of hardworking native players. In case of the GCC nations, it is understandable. Without the foreign players, they won't be having a playing XI. But that is not the case with teams such as Kenya and Nepal, because the latter group do have a lot of natives playing cricket.

[Haunebu]

What about recruiting random people who are not the citizens? That is the point here.

I was only referring to people from different countries who were citizens of the country for which they wished to play for. On the other hand, foreigners could also be included in the minority while the majority should comprise of their citizens.

Panesar and Ali are not good examples IMO as they both were born in England.

This is exactly my point. They should be included in the squad as long as they are citizens basically.

If someone can't get a chance to represent India or Pakistan, then it means that they don't have the necessary quality to take part in top quality cricket. Such players won't do any good even if they move to other teams.

Have to disagree here. There are so many quality Indian and Pakistani players who never get a chance to play in the national squad primarily because of corruption etc.

[Tony116]

We are not talking about any major players here. We are talking about the players who generally don’t get any chance to play in the Indian national team and they are good to some extent and that’s why they get the chance of flying far from the teams which are not very good.

And why are we still talking about Nepal? It was just used as an example and any similarity of it with the real world is absolutely coincidental.

If someone can't get a chance to represent India or Pakistan, then it means that they don't have the necessary quality to take part in top quality cricket. Such players won't do any good even if they move to other teams. They will only steal the chances of hardworking native players. In case of the GCC nations, it is understandable. Without the foreign players, they won't be having a playing XI. But that is not the case with teams such as Kenya and Nepal, because the latter group do have a lot of natives playing cricket.

The problem is if a player is not good enough by the standards of India he can still be good enough by the standards of other countries where the standard is actually very low compared to India.

so it is very possible for those players to play for those countries. Nepal and Kenya have a lot of native players. But if teams like England and  UAE can play a lot of foreign players, why are they not going to be able to do that? But that does not mean I support doing that. I am just saying the rules should be equal for everyone.

[Sithara007]

The problem is if a player is not good enough by the standards of India he can still be good enough by the standards of other countries where the standard is actually very low compared to India.

so it is very possible for those players to play for those countries. Nepal and Kenya have a lot of native players. But if teams like England and  UAE can play a lot of foreign players, why are they not going to be able to do that? But that does not mean I support doing that. I am just saying the rules should be equal for everyone.

I don't think that England has ever included anyone without a British passport to their squad. The case of UAE is different, but their experiment is not very successful. They may win against weaker teams such as Nepal and Papua New Guinea, but teams such as Oman and UAE can't compete against the stronger associate nations like Scotland and Namibia. Only those players who are sure that they don't have any chance at all to represent India/Pakistan will make the move to GCC nations. And with these low quality players, the teams that hire them won't be very successful at international level. 

[Tony116]

The problem is if a player is not good enough by the standards of India he can still be good enough by the standards of other countries where the standard is actually very low compared to India.
so it is very possible for those players to play for those countries. Nepal and Kenya have a lot of native players. But if teams like England and  UAE can play a lot of foreign players, why are they not going to be able to do that? But that does not mean I support doing that. I am just saying the rules should be equal for everyone.

I don't think that England has ever included anyone without a British passport to their squad. The case of UAE is different, but their experiment is not very successful. They may win against weaker teams such as Nepal and Papua New Guinea, but teams such as Oman and UAE can't compete against the stronger associate nations like Scotland and Namibia. Only those players who are sure that they don't have any chance at all to represent India/Pakistan will make the move to GCC nations. And with these low quality players, the teams that hire them won't be very successful at international level. 

England does not have anyone without a passport or citizenship, at least that’s what I know. If all the countries just follow that, it is going to be good and I don’t think people are going to have any problem with it. But that’s not what they are doing. They are basically just getting random people from another country to play in the national team.

And I also agree that this has not been very successful for UAE. But they are obviously winning against the weaker opponents. Those opponents generally have on local players in the team. So, those teams are hurting in the long run.

[Sithara007]

~~~
And I also agree that this has not been very successful for UAE. But they are obviously winning against the weaker opponents. Those opponents generally have on local players in the team. So, those teams are hurting in the long run.

Well.. that is very obvious. UAE is mostly comprised of Indian and Pakistani players who can't even qualify for the domestic teams. How can you expect these players to defeat the regular teams of India or Pakistan, when they play against each other? But these players may be having a lot of experience, and that comes handy against inexperienced teams such as Kenya and Nepal. It is a lose-lose situation. ICC will end up giving more funds to low-quality teams, which will never improve their quality in the future.

[BobK71]

~~~
And I also agree that this has not been very successful for UAE. But they are obviously winning against the weaker opponents. Those opponents generally have on local players in the team. So, those teams are hurting in the long run.

Well.. that is very obvious. UAE is mostly comprised of Indian and Pakistani players who can't even qualify for the domestic teams. How can you expect these players to defeat the regular teams of India or Pakistan, when they play against each other? But these players may be having a lot of experience, and that comes handy against inexperienced teams such as Kenya and Nepal. It is a lose-lose situation. ICC will end up giving more funds to low-quality teams, which will never improve their quality in the future.

It is true that UAE basically led by Indian and Pakistani players but they could not do well according to the expectation. Maybe it will take longer time. Afghanistan is ahead in this regard. I think they are now qualified enough to play with the big countries. After all, i think there is no any comparison between Indian and Pakistani players in the cricket world. They are exceptional.

[jostorres]

UAE is mostly comprised of Indian and Pakistani players who can't even qualify for the domestic teams. How can you expect these players to defeat the regular teams of India or Pakistan, when they play against each other? But these players may be having a lot of experience, and that comes handy against inexperienced teams such as Kenya and Nepal. It is a lose-lose situation. ICC will end up giving more funds to low-quality teams, which will never improve their quality in the future.

We already discussed this many times and after this all I am feeling it's not going to happen through ICC because if they want to do this then surely they prepare for Olympics which is not happening as it's not in favor of their few big countries just because of this now this topic is useless and have nothing more to talk.

With this rule is currently having very beneficial for mostly Indian and Pakistani community and if they end this biggest loser will be guys from this region which is also having some bad for them even Kenya, Nepal and few other countries with native players are suffering, but it's not having any trouble for ICC, so they will be going ahead with this all for some more time.

[Sithara007]

jostorres mentioned about the Olympics, so I thought that I could speak on a related topic. Women's cricket is included for this year's Commonwealth Games. The Games will start by the end of this month, and a total of 8 countries will be taking part. The only surprise is that West Indies can't participate, since they are a group of independent countries. Barbados will be representing the WICB. None of the associate nations are taking part and surprisingly this time India has also sent a squad. Among the tier-1 test nations, only Bangladesh is missing.

[YinShuiSiYuan]

jostorres mentioned about the Olympics, so I thought that I could speak on a related topic. Women's cricket is included for this year's Commonwealth Games. The Games will start by the end of this month, and a total of 8 countries will be taking part. The only surprise is that West Indies can't participate, since they are a group of independent countries. Barbados will be representing the WICB. None of the associate nations are taking part and surprisingly this time India has also sent a squad. Among the tier-1 test nations, only Bangladesh is missing.

Australia, Newzealand, England, India, Barbados ( west indies), Srilanka, Pakistan and South Africa will take part in women's cricket event of commonwealth games that are starting from 27 July 2022. Last time these teams meet in women worldcup and Australia won the worldcup without losing a single match.

[Tony116]

~~~
And I also agree that this has not been very successful for UAE. But they are obviously winning against the weaker opponents. Those opponents generally have on local players in the team. So, those teams are hurting in the long run.

~
ICC will end up giving more funds to low-quality teams, which will never improve their quality in the future.

I think giving fun to the local quality team is obviously going to have some effect on that team trying to get better. But that will happen if they actually try to find genuine talent and not depend on players from another country who are not isn’t a citizen to do the work. I suggest that weaker teams should not be so fond of ease and they should try to find talent in the country and do some talent hunt instead of just bringing players from another region or another country to do that playing for them. That is actually going to improve the quality of cricket in those countries.

[Sithara007]

Australia, Newzealand, England, India, Barbados ( west indies), Srilanka, Pakistan and South Africa will take part in women's cricket event of commonwealth games that are starting from 27 July 2022. Last time these teams meet in women worldcup and Australia won the worldcup without losing a single match.

Last time we had cricket in commonwealth games was in 1998. Back then, there were a total of 16 participants, including India and two from the WICB (Barbados, and Antigua and Barbuda). Associate nations such as Kenya, Scotland and Ireland also participated. Back then, South Africa won the gold, by defeating Australia in the final match (New Zealand won the bronze medal). This time under pressure from the ICC, they cancelled the men's event and scheduled a 8-team women's event. It makes no sense to have a tournament with just 8 teams.