Twenty20 World Qualifiers (13th March - 24th March) Thread

[Duty281]

First topic message reminder :

Essentially, 16 teams are going for two places at this years World Twenty20 Tournament.

Which Nations?

Afghanistan
Bermuda
Canada
Denmark
Hong Kong
Ireland
Italy
Kenya
Namibia
Nepal
Netherlands
Oman
Papua New Guinea (Featuring Geriant Jones!)
Scotland
Uganda
USA

How Does it Work?

The 16 teams are split into two groups of eight and will play seven round-robin group matches in eight days to start off the event. The top three teams in each group will qualify for the knockout phase. The group winners face off against each other in the first qualifying final with the winner going to Sri Lanka and the loser getting a second crack at clinching a berth once the rest of the knockout phase unfolds.

The second and third place teams in each group face the possibility of playing four matches in three days during the knockout phase, meaning they may wind up playing 11 matches over 12 days in 30 degree Celsius conditions during the tournament, in order to claim one of the two available places alongside the ten Full Members at the 2012 ICC World Twenty20.

The team that successfully runs the gauntlet in the UAE will have the privilege of facing off against Australia and the West Indies in Sri Lanka. The runner-up at the qualifier gets to take on India, as well as reigning World Twenty20 champion England.

Useful Links

Complete Fixture List (Cricinfo)
Complete Preview (Cricinfo)
Squad Lists (Cricinfo)
Results Page (Cricinfo)
Points Table (Cricinfo)

[atletico86]

grt bowling by sharif, scotland look like thy have done enuf, after a few dot balls, so scotland wil go thru on net run rate...2 runs off 2balls for a usa win in d match

[Mad for Chelsea]

US win with a touch of controversy at the end there as the batsmen run two, the Scots claim a catch but the umpires rule it's been dropped and that's probably the upset of the tournament so far! Still looks like Scotland have done JUST enough to go through though...

[Mike Selig]

Wow, what an upset that is! Kudos to the USA and quite pleased as the last few days had been a bit of a procession for the favourites. Kenya will be bemoaning the fact the US couldn't score 4 off 3 to knock Scotland out though... Not surprised Italy gave it a good go against Namibia, but it was always a long way away.

Don't understand why Denmark aren't opening with Klokker...

[atletico86]

usa pull off a big shock against scotland winning by 7 wickets on the 2nd last ball...usa were doing their best to mess that up...bizarre end, scotland dropped a catched n usa ran two runs

[atletico86]

scotland go thru by 0.07 on net run rate!! v tight!!

[Duty281]

Look on Cricinfo for fixtures of the knockout stages. I can't work it out so good luck!

[Mike Selig]

Namibia plays Afghanistan, the winner of that goes to the world cup.

Ireland play Canada, and Scotland play Holland. The winners of those matches play each other, and the winner of that match plays the loser of Namibia-Afghanistan. Whoever wins that is also qualified for the world cup, and plays the original winner of Namibia-Afghanistan in a purely accademic final (which will decide which team is drawn into which group at the World Cup).

I think I've got it figured out, it does seem a bit silly, but the ICC have never been known for running smooth, fast tournaments which are easy to comprehend...

[guildfordbat]

Mike - just wondered who you and anyone else out there would nominate as player of the first round.

I can't claim to have followed things very closely but would think Ireland's batman keeper Gary Wilson (as discussed recently with differing views on a Surrey thread) should be in with a shout. As well as being pretty effective, he's been remarkably consistent. Scores of 49, 30*, 19, 26, 30 and 52* plus 5 catches and a couple of stumpings.

[Mike Selig]

Wilson's played well, but Ranking has been the stand-out player for Ireland you feel, his pace and bounce have really been too hot to handle for most of the associates.

Mohammed Shahzab (who played the warm-up against England in Dubai) has done even better than Wilson, with I think 3 half-centuries and a 40odd. Loos Van Der Westhuizen (with apologies to the man for butchering his name) and Shahzab have probably been the stand-out batsmen, whilst Stephen Myburgh has also got 3 fifties (I think on the trott), and Gunasekera of Canada has a couple of big 50s to his credit.

On the bowling front the aforementioned Rankin and Afghanistan's Dawlat Zhadran took 5 wickets against Hong-Kong. Spinners haven't done all that well so far.

[Mike Selig]

If you pushed me I'd say Shahzab just, over Rankin.

[Duty281]

Namibia plays Afghanistan, the winner of that goes to the world cup.

Ireland play Canada, and Scotland play Holland. The winners of those matches play each other, and the winner of that match plays the loser of Namibia-Afghanistan. Whoever wins that is also qualified for the world cup, and plays the original winner of Namibia-Afghanistan in a purely accademic final (which will decide which team is drawn into which group at the World Cup).

I think I've got it figured out, it does seem a bit silly, but the ICC have never been known for running smooth, fast tournaments which are easy to comprehend...

Thank you so much.

[Biltong]

That seems rather unfair that the two top teams have to play off and then the losr has to once again go through a knock out phase to qualify for the world cup.

[guildfordbat]

Mike - thanks for your comments.

I accept I've rather overlooked bowlers and been drawn towards Wilson's performances due to the Surrey connection.

Like you, I was expecting Dockrell to have shone far more.

[Mike Selig]

That seems rather unfair that the two top teams have to play off and then the losr has to once again go through a knock out phase to qualify for the world cup.

I think it's more unfair on the other teams than the top 2. The top 2 essentially get two semi-finals (well, the loser gets a second semi-final anyway) of which they only need to win one to qualify. The 2nd placed sides have to win 3 knock-out games in a row to qualify.

If you ask me to be cynical, I'd say the whole thing is engineered so as to make sure Ireland and Afghanistan (who, apart from Nepal who were never going to qualify anyway, are probably the most commercially viable of the teams present) qualify, so avoiding the situation which has actually turned out with one finishing 1st and the other 2nd of their respective groups, where any sensible knock-out system would see them play each-other before the final, and thus one would be eliminated.

As it is, I predict Afghanistan to beat Namibia. Ireland's real danger match IMO will be the Scotland/Holland "quarter final". If they win that, I expect them to use their big-game experience to beat Namibia and take the 2nd qualifying spot. On the other hand if Namibia spring a surprise against the Afghans...

Part of me would like someone other than Afghanistan and Ireland to qualify, as it would show more strength in depth in the associate game. In fact, this tournament has shown that already, but of course most so-called experts won't have been watching, and if it is Ireland and Afghanistan will no doubt use it to point out how predictable the game is, how far behind the other sides are, is it worth having more associate teams in world cups etc...

[Biltong]

Absolutely correct Mike, I agree with you.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Just like to say how much I am enjoying this thread - really increasing my knowledge of and interest in this area of cricket which I had overlooked previously....

[Biltong]

I think we need to thank Mike for his extensive knowledge of these teams.

I didn't even know Namibia played in our domestic league.

Shows you my lack of knowledge.

[Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler]

That seems rather unfair that the two top teams have to play off and then the losr has to once again go through a knock out phase to qualify for the world cup.

I think it's more unfair on the other teams than the top 2. The top 2 essentially get two semi-finals (well, the loser gets a second semi-final anyway) of which they only need to win one to qualify. The 2nd placed sides have to win 3 knock-out games in a row to qualify.

If you ask me to be cynical, I'd say the whole thing is engineered so as to make sure Ireland and Afghanistan (who, apart from Nepal who were never going to qualify anyway, are probably the most commercially viable of the teams present) qualify, so avoiding the situation which has actually turned out with one finishing 1st and the other 2nd of their respective groups, where any sensible knock-out system would see them play each-other before the final, and thus one would be eliminated.

As it is, I predict Afghanistan to beat Namibia. Ireland's real danger match IMO will be the Scotland/Holland "quarter final". If they win that, I expect them to use their big-game experience to beat Namibia and take the 2nd qualifying spot. On the other hand if Namibia spring a surprise against the Afghans...

Part of me would like someone other than Afghanistan and Ireland to qualify, as it would show more strength in depth in the associate game. In fact, this tournament has shown that already, but of course most so-called experts won't have been watching, and if it is Ireland and Afghanistan will no doubt use it to point out how predictable the game is, how far behind the other sides are, is it worth having more associate teams in world cups etc...

Well its not so much a case of engineering it so that the most commercialy viable ones go through, more the best teams. Scotland are pretty marketable too, but simply not good enough.
Im not sure its such a bad thing that its very hard for anyone but the best teams to qualify ( ie they wont go out to one freak result, and this is a format with a fair lottery component). It may seem a little pointless, but no less fair than a straight league system.
If teams go out its because they have lost games.

[Mike Selig]

That seems rather unfair that the two top teams have to play off and then the losr has to once again go through a knock out phase to qualify for the world cup.

I think it's more unfair on the other teams than the top 2. The top 2 essentially get two semi-finals (well, the loser gets a second semi-final anyway) of which they only need to win one to qualify. The 2nd placed sides have to win 3 knock-out games in a row to qualify.

If you ask me to be cynical, I'd say the whole thing is engineered so as to make sure Ireland and Afghanistan (who, apart from Nepal who were never going to qualify anyway, are probably the most commercially viable of the teams present) qualify, so avoiding the situation which has actually turned out with one finishing 1st and the other 2nd of their respective groups, where any sensible knock-out system would see them play each-other before the final, and thus one would be eliminated.

As it is, I predict Afghanistan to beat Namibia. Ireland's real danger match IMO will be the Scotland/Holland "quarter final". If they win that, I expect them to use their big-game experience to beat Namibia and take the 2nd qualifying spot. On the other hand if Namibia spring a surprise against the Afghans...

Part of me would like someone other than Afghanistan and Ireland to qualify, as it would show more strength in depth in the associate game. In fact, this tournament has shown that already, but of course most so-called experts won't have been watching, and if it is Ireland and Afghanistan will no doubt use it to point out how predictable the game is, how far behind the other sides are, is it worth having more associate teams in world cups etc...

Well its not so much a case of engineering it so that the most commercialy viable ones go through, more the best teams. Scotland are pretty marketable too, but simply not good enough.
Im not sure its such a bad thing that its very hard for anyone but the best teams to qualify ( ie they wont go out to one freak result, and this is a format with a fair lottery component). It may seem a little pointless, but no less fair than a straight league system.
If teams go out its because they have lost games.

Scotland aren't nearly as profitable as Ireland would be, far less following around the world in cricket at least.

There are a couple of aspects to this:

Certainly the other end of the stick is that it is probably best for associate cricket if the best teams do qualify as they are the ones most likely to give a good impression of themselves at the actual tournament. On the other hand the romantic in me would quite like to see some new faces.

The other thing is that cricket is one of the only sports I can think of which tries quite so hard to rule out shock results. Take the previous world cup, it is well known that the reason we had to go through this endless series of matches was to ensure India (and England) made the knock-out rounds. In most other sports that I know of, freak results are accepted. Certainly there wasn't such a huge outcry when Wales were knocked out by Fiji in rugby, or England lost to Croatia at football.

There remains a nagging feeling in my mind that cricket is not run so as to ensure the best fair competition possible. And I must say, the romantic in me really doesn't like it.

[Mike Selig]

Thanks for the comments Biltong and Corporal, although much credit must also go to Duty (who, after all, started the thread), Atletico and MfC for their inputs.

[Shelsey93]

Ireland and Afghanistan are definitely the most marketable teams for the sponsors and broadcasters - Ireland matches can be sold on the prospect of an upset (given the history of such results) and as the leading Associate whether that be true or not, whilst Afghanistan is a stunning story and has a big following.

Scotland, Netherlands and Namibia may be decent teams but the matches are less viable than Ireland as it is harder to believe that an upset could take place than with Ireland.

Scotland in particular have been woeful at major tournaments.

[atletico86]

I have to echo mike's and Shelsey's comments...the reasoning for the format is not to simply ensure the best team qualifies but rather the most profitable teams. While i agree it is best to ensure the best teams enter the world ICC events, it shud not be done solely for financial gain, which is the ICC's main criteria these days. We hav seen this in the drastic changes in world cup formats over the yrs and the plethora of meaningless ODIs.

Other than afghanistan ireland are the most profitable associate at the moment as thy are the supposed no1 & have preformed well at recent ICC events. Thus general cricket fans will be alot more familiar with the irish players than any other associate. I think the way the ICC have switched the irish match to the stadium where the games are being broadcast further illustrates the ICC's thrist for financial gain.

Im delighted the games are being broadcast on the net & on setanta here in ireland, but i hope thy include commentators from the countries invloved. I am sick of listening to commentators who know nothing about assoc cricket apart frm 1 or 2 games thy watched during past world cups, or the sheet of paper put in front of em jus b4 the game. It is why the inclusion of Kyle McCallan on sky's panel durin the last world cup was such a breath of fresh air.

I think Afghan shud beat nambia...both team's batting lineups are strong but afghans have better bowlers & shud have the edge.

Holland shud beat scotland especially if scotland's young paceman Safyann Sharif is missing thur injury. holland have a v strong batting lineup with myburgh, cooper, kervezee, Swart & Barressi. I think the dutch have a real strong chance of qualifying.

Ireland shud have enuf for canada...Canada are in a transitional phase n have been blooding many youngsters recently. Altho players like hirat patel, jimmy hansra n nitesh kumar r v promising i stil think thy need a few more yrs.

If ireland beat canada im v nervous bout their next matches as i think we cud lose.. Our top order aint fireing n it wil catch up soon.

Players of the tourney so far: Myburgh, Shahzhad, rankin, van schoor, van der westhuiszen

Performance: Definetly Denmark's Aftab Ahmed's 6for against PNG...not often u see that in a 20/20 game

[atletico86]

Also Guilfordbat:
Altho he is not tearing up the tournament, Dockrell has been doing quite well, takin 9wickets at a low avg n has an economy of 5.9. He is a steady economical bowler who ties batsmen dwn rather than a huge wicket taker who produces unplayable diliveries

[Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler]

Can you explain to me how its set up to be teh most profitable team that gets through and not the best?

Surely if it were a straight knock out that would increase the chance of a freak result and not the best team getting through?

Were the seedings done on profitability and not ability?

Was there bonus points for TV audience attracted?

Or is it just inevitable coincidence that the best two teams are also the most marketable?


I agree its set up to ensure the chances of a shock progression are low, but that helps the team with the best consistency of playing ability, not the one with the biggest TV audience.
I do share Mikes concern that the whole thing feels a bit flat if its pretty inevitable who will qualify, but thats a differnet issue to one of money vs ability.

[Mike Selig]

Or is it just inevitable coincidence that the best two teams are also the most marketable?

Not necessarily. The USA have received enormous backing from the ICC because of their marketability; Afghanistan were being pused forward long before anyone knew they were any good.

I agree its set up to ensure the chances of a shock progression are low, but that helps the team with the best consistency of playing ability, not the one with the biggest TV audience.

Yes and no. The format is also very demanding (far more games in far less time than at the actual world cup I believe) so it also helps those teams who have the time and ressources to prepare fully. That is, the "more professional" sides.

Anyway, as I say, I'm not sure I agree with the ICC's vision that shock results are to be eradicated as much as possible. Sport should accept that surprises do happen.

[Mike Selig]

Im delighted the games are being broadcast on the net & on setanta here in ireland, but i hope thy include commentators from the countries invloved. I am sick of listening to commentators who know nothing about assoc cricket apart frm 1 or 2 games thy watched during past world cups, or the sheet of paper put in front of em jus b4 the game. It is why the inclusion of Kyle McCallan on sky's panel durin the last world cup was such a breath of fresh air.

It is a bit annoying but I think we have to be realistic. It is upto us guys who do know the associate game to redress the situation as we can. I've sent a few messages to the commentary team, posted on Facebook etc.

Personally I am just pleased I can watch the games for now. Expert commentary will be a battle we'll have to try and win somewhere along the line, but not sure it's just yet.

I think Afghan shud beat nambia...both team's batting lineups are strong but afghans have better bowlers & shud have the edge.

Holland shud beat scotland especially if scotland's young paceman Safyann Sharif is missing thur injury. holland have a v strong batting lineup with myburgh, cooper, kervezee, Swart & Barressi. I think the dutch have a real strong chance of qualifying.

Ireland shud have enuf for canada...Canada are in a transitional phase n have been blooding many youngsters recently. Altho players like hirat patel, jimmy hansra n nitesh kumar r v promising i stil think thy need a few more yrs.

If ireland beat canada im v nervous bout their next matches as i think we cud lose.. Our top order aint fireing n it wil catch up soon.

Players of the tourney so far: Myburgh, Shahzhad, rankin, van schoor, van der westhuiszen

Performance: Definetly Denmark's Aftab Ahmed's 6for against PNG...not often u see that in a 20/20 game

I agree 100%. I think whoever wins of Holland-Ireland (assuming Holland beat Scotland and Ireland Canada) will qualify ahead of Namibia. Maybe.

[guildfordbat]

Also Guilfordbat:
Altho he is not tearing up the tournament, Dockrell has been doing quite well, takin 9wickets at a low avg n has an economy of 5.9. He is a steady economical bowler who ties batsmen dwn rather than a huge wicket taker who produces unplayable diliveries

Atletico - that's fair comment.

In my view, Dockrell's greatest strength as a bowler is his cricket brain. I thought he would prove a lot too canny for the batsmen of the other Associate nations. As you say, he's still done quite well - I probably expected too much and/or underestimated the opposition.

As other have commented, this is a highly informative and entertaining thread. Many thanks to you and all.

[atletico86]

well brkin news frm an irish point of view is that tim murtagh has been called up as emergency cover for Alex cusack. Apparently he has flown over to dubai, and cusack wil have a scan on his problem tomo mornin b4 the canada game.

I think thy wouldnt have had murtagh fly over if they thought cusack wud be fit. Murtagh wil bolster the bowling resources n hopefully he is picked frm an irish point of view.
One question for followers of county cricket...can murtagh bat at all? i see he averages 20 in county cricket but i dont no much bout him.

[Mike Selig]

One question for followers of county cricket...can murtagh bat at all? i see he averages 20 in county cricket but i dont no much bout him.

Hard-hitting left-hander who favours backing away and slashing through/over the off-side. Similar to Trent Johnston in ability, although less hard-hitting.

[guildfordbat]

Slightly tricky to judge Murtagh as a batsman.

More from CC viewing and perspective, I would say that he would be viewed as a very good number nine. However, if he went in at eight, I would expect the opposition captain to be rubbing his hands in the belief that his bowlers were into the tail.

All in all, Murtagh's experienced and level headed. He will never be a star with the willow but shouldn't do anything daft.

[atletico86]

ok thanks guildford/mike so he wud prob come in at 8/9 for us then....
if cusack cant make it, ireland will miss niall o'brien even more. If tim plays we wil gain anoth quality bowler n wud have the best attck of those teams left but wil look thin on the batting side.

Although the other thing is i cud see 'big phil' not picking him as he is quite stubborn n loyal to members of his squad.

Gettin nervous bout tomo morning now!!

[Duty281]

So we're left with the following:

Afghanistan V Namibia = Winner qualifies, Loser gets one more shot

Ireland v Canada
Scotland v Netherlands

Winner of above 2 games plays each other

Winner of that plays loser of Afghan/Namibia = winner qualifies

Prediction

Afghanistan beat Namibia and qualify.

Ireland beat Canada
Netherlands beat Scotland

Ireland beat Netherlands

Ireland beat Namibia and qualify.

[Biltong]

Imagine the ICC worldcup worked that way.

It would be called an absolute farce.

[JDizzle]

To be fair, that system is similar to how the Super League play offs work in Rugby League. You could say that it it "fixed" so that the more commercial and bigger sides get a better chance to qualify, but it also benefits Namibia in that they get two chances to qualify as there reward for topping the group.

[Mike Selig]

Imagine the ICC worldcup worked that way.

It would be called an absolute farce.

I hope this was at least somewhat tongue in cheek? Because I can remember at least 2 world cups where we seem to have gone through 16 different rounds to decide who gets the honour of losing to Australia in the final...

[atletico86]

ireland hammered canada,didnt think it would be that easy for them

scotland holland game stil in the balance altho, dutch are favourites after cooper's 3 sixes...scots need his wicket

[Biltong]

Imagine the ICC worldcup worked that way.

It would be called an absolute farce.

I hope this was at least somewhat tongue in cheek? Because I can remember at least 2 world cups where we seem to have gone through 16 different rounds to decide who gets the honour of losing to Australia in the final...

no mike, not really.

The way i see it, if the ICC in any tournament want to put two pools together, then it should result in the top teams getting benefit from being consistently the best.

So either have a semi final for the two top teams of each pool, where A1 plays B2 and B1 plays A2, then it works out like any other competition should.

But by having the top two teams play each other, and then have the loser having to qualify by playing another knock out round whereby effectively one bad game can cuase them to fall out.

If for example, Ireland, Scotland or Holland, now get through to play NamibiaAfghanistan and they win, they get the opportunity to go ahead and Namibia/Afghanistan goes out.

So Afghanistan or namibia are not rewarded for topping their group.

It brings an element of luck into the equation where a team that finished third in their pool and most likely have lost 3 matches during that time, can qualify for the championship ahead of a top placed team who has not lost a match in the pool rounds, by virtue of a bit of luck.

Why have pool rounds then at all?

[Mike Selig]

But biltong most sensible tournaments start their knock-outs as quarter-finals so upsets can and do happen. Take the last rugby union world cup, France lost 2 matches in their pool, then knocked-out England who had up until then won all their games.

The reason I don't like this system is the teams topping each group have 2 bites of the cherry. That's not knock-out sport for me. Knock-out sport is winner takes all.

I repeat my suspicion that the reason we didn't have semi-finals as normal is to prevent Ireland playing Afghanistan in a straight knock-out, with one of the teams not making the final. As would have happened given Afghanistan topped their group, and Ireland finished 2nd.

[Mike Selig]

Ireland have absolutely wallopped Canada today. Dockrell produced a top spell which I think we're all pleased with.

Holland have gotten past Scotland thanks to a quite brilliant knock from Tom Cooper (who has played for Australia A it has to be said). The Scots should really have scored at least 10 more runs after a good start, they'll be rueing that.

So we do have Holland-Ireland as a "quarter-final": could be an absolute cracker this one, the dutch probably have a very slight edge in the batting (particularly with Ireland missing O'Brien, Cusack and Mooney, they are now really down to 5 batsmen in Porterfield, Stirling, Joyce, Wilson and O'Brien - of course White can play a bit but not sure T20 is his format; the dutch on the other hand have Myburgh, Swart, Kervezee, Cooper, Barresi all scoring runs and Bukhari, Borren to smack it around if necessary). But the Irish to have the better bowling.

Surprised and disappointed Denmark and Uganda lost today, less surprised by Denmark who if truth be told have had a poor tournament (Klokker made 40odd and has been consistent, but the other guys haven't played around him as they could have). Uganda are really better than Hong-Kong, lack of fitness there? They don't play that much cricket...

[Biltong]

But biltong most sensible tournaments start their knock-outs as quarter-finals so upsets can and do happen. Take the last rugby union world cup, France lost 2 matches in their pool, then knocked-out England who had up until then won all their games.

The reason I don't like this system is the teams topping each group have 2 bites of the cherry. That's not knock-out sport for me. Knock-out sport is winner takes all.

I repeat my suspicion that the reason we didn't have semi-finals as normal is to prevent Ireland playing Afghanistan in a straight knock-out, with one of the teams not making the final. As would have happened given Afghanistan topped their group, and Ireland finished 2nd.

I agree with you and disagree with you but for the same reasons as you. does that statmeent make any sense?

France still ended 2nd in their group, so by virtue of that they qualified yes.

And about the two bites at the cherry, that was what I was trying to get at, albeit in a very confusing and long winded way.

[atletico86]

well after a good start for nambia wid d ball, thy r failing spectacularly with the bat...rather surprising as it has been by far their stronger suite thruout the tournament. With 4 wickets down i dont see them coming bak.

Also imagine wot a wicketkeeper-batsmen Shahzad wud be if he hit the gym!!!

[atletico86]

big game tomo between ireland n holland. Altho Ireland have won the majority of games btwn the two over recent yrs, I think the dutch wil end the irish dream tomo. I just have a feeling but I hope im wrong as im an irish fan.

The dutch have added to their squad with Myburgh, Swart n van der Gugten since their last encounter wid ireland (altho Tendo aint here), while ireland have lost niall o'brien, mooney n cusack for various reasons since that match. Furthermore the dutch are comin off their best-ever CB40 campaign. Thus i think the odds are in holland's favour.

Like mike said the dutch have a stronger batting lineup as outside ireland's top5 they look v thin. Andy White (wil be at no7) has done v well in the Intercontinetal cup but has never produced in T20, while Andy Poynter (wil be at No6) did not enjoy the best of times wid Ireland A last summer n has never taken his oppurtunities with the full side.

The irish have the better bowling attack, especially if Tiim Murtagh is picked, altho this is unlikely as Big Phil 9times out of 10 stays loyal to the permanent members of his squad. However thy wil have to truly fire if ireland are to win.

Lastly if anyone wants to watch quality death bowling, watch the highlights frm afghanistan's match against nambia. Afghanistan truly dserve their place in Sri Lanka

[atletico86]

dutch 114/7...ball doesnt look like its comin on to the bat so i wudnt say the chase is a foregone conclusion

[Mike Selig]

Well Ireland have made a good start, the dutch need to bring on their slower bowlers sharpish...

Kervezee did well, but Barresi? 6 off 16 balls? What happened there? If he'd scored 26 off 16 this would have been quite a different game...

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Ireland win at a canter...

[atletico86]

pretty easy in the end, was disappointed wid d dutch. The big Irish players are starting to fire; stirling, boydo, johnston n KOB...think we missed a trick not picking murtagh, hopefully he wil get a chance against nambia. Dont understand why he isnt picked ahead of sorensen, but 'big phil' is v loyal to members of the squad.

Big game against nambia tomo, who wil be the fresher of the two teams after resting today

[Biltong]

So effectively Namibia beat Ireland, but now have to beat them again to get to the ICC champions hip tournament.

a lot of sense that makes.

[Mad for Chelsea]

yeah well no one ever accused the ICC of being sensible biltong

excellent win for Ireland, but as Mike points out, Barresi's innings for Holland was particularly poor. He came in with a decent platform at 72/3 when his team really needed acceleration. In those circumstances, 6 off 16 balls is a very poor effort, and left his side well short in the end.

In the other games, Uganda seem to be slipping backwards after a good showing in the group stages. Suggests these guys just aren't used to playing this much cricket at this sort of intensity (there were signs already in the latter group stage matches that their standards in the field - previously very high - had started to slip).

Kenya were comfortable winners against Italy in the other game.

[liverbnz]

So effectively Namibia beat Ireland, but now have to beat them again to get to the ICC champions hip tournament.

a lot of sense that makes.

Wouldn't this happen quite often in any tournament in any sport where there are group stages and then a round robin?

[Biltong]

Not supposed to mate.

If you have two pools and a semi final and final, they could meet in the final again.

If you have four pools and a team you beat would end up on the opposite side of the draw you could meat them in a final.

so in a tournamnet where only one team will progress yes, but when two teams progress it won't make a difference if you lost in the final.

[Sponsored content]