Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Given it's proximity to India. I Wonder if cricket has always been a major sport in Nepal?
Or if it's a more recent interest, that's grown significantly?
I hiked to Everest Base Camp in 2014. Little kids playing cricket in all the villages then. Felt like had a good following there from that little exposure I had. Just speculating but maybe standard of living generally there has meant it’s more accessible now, or perhaps development has improved
 
Big win for Kenya
There's question marks over whether these matches are going to retain T20I status.

No one seems to actually know and it does matter especially for Namibia and Zimbabwe as qualification for the 2026 T20 World Cup is going to be based (in-part) off the rankings where Namibia and Zimbabwe are fighting it out with Scotland, Netherlands and Ireland to be an automatic qualifier.

Namibia sent an A team and got beaten by 38th ranked Nigeria. That will put a significant dent in their rankings points. If they'd sent their main team they could have got a big rankings boost by beating South Africa as for the purpose of the rankings points it's considered to be beating a full strength South Africa despite the fact most of the team sent by South Africa to this tournament are semi-professional cricketers.

However if they're not official T20Is none of the above matters. The ICC website says they're T20Is but it's been wrong a hell of a lot. Cricket Archive just removed their T20I status from it's database so who knows?
 
Last edited:
There's question marks over whether these matches are going to retain T20I status.

No one seems to actually know and it does matter especially for Namibia and Zimbabwe as qualification for the 2026 T20 World Cup is going to be based (in-part) off the rankings where Namibia and Zimbabwe are fighting it out with Scotland, Netherlands and Ireland to be an automatic qualifier.

Namibia sent an A team and got beaten by 38th ranked Nigeria. That will put a significant dent in their rankings points. If they'd sent their main team they could have got a big rankings boost by beating South Africa as for the purpose of the rankings points it's considered to be beating a full strength South Africa despite the fact most of the team sent by South Africa to this tournament are semi-professional cricketers.

However if they're not official T20Is none of the above matters. The ICC website says they're T20Is but it's been wrong a hell of a lot. Cricket Archive just removed their T20I status from it's database so who knows?
Cricket South Africa refer to it as a South Africa Universities team.

 
SA may just not have the depth. India, Pakistan Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh all sent A teams to the Asian Games and it didn’t have much of a difference
It's not an A team.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

In the Asian Games, they were still known as India not India A. I’m referring to the quality of the team
So am I. The South Africa team at the African Games is not an A team. It's like a combined Universities team as big_e stated.
 
Big win for Kenya
Cricinfo have renamed this to be Kenya v Uni Sport SA.

 
It does raise an interesting question, though. This is part of the African Games, and this is the side representing South Africa. If they win the tournament, the gold medal goes to South Africa. Just because it's an understrength side, does that mean it's no longer representing them? There's plenty of examples in cricket history of below strength teams featuring in full internationals.
 
It does raise an interesting question, though. This is part of the African Games, and this is the side representing South Africa. If they win the tournament, the gold medal goes to South Africa. Just because it's an understrength side, does that mean it's no longer representing them? There's plenty of examples in cricket history of below strength teams featuring in full internationals.
I think in terms of the event itself, they still represent South Africa.

Not such a big win for Kenya in the end.
 
It does raise an interesting question, though. This is part of the African Games, and this is the side representing South Africa. If they win the tournament, the gold medal goes to South Africa. Just because it's an understrength side, does that mean it's no longer representing them? There's plenty of examples in cricket history of below strength teams featuring in full internationals.
Different sport, and has selection limitations, but Olympic football is not regarded as internationals by FIFA. (At least mens, not sure about womens as the women don't have the "under23 plus a few open agers" rule at the Olympics.)

If the Games rules impose any restriction beyond ICC player eligibility rules, those matches shouldn't be internationals. Any others, even if the selected side is far weaker than possible, probably should. That might leave a few people with T20I records they maybe didn't deserve but T20I is open slather for stats anyway.
 
If the Games rules impose any restriction beyond ICC player eligibility rules, those matches shouldn't be internationals. Any others, even if the selected side is far weaker than possible, probably should. That might leave a few people with T20I records they maybe didn't deserve but T20I is open slather for stats anyway.
Looks like the games played by USSA are not marked with the T20I#xxxx on cricinfo. And all USSA games are marked as OTHERT20, and not T20; meaning games are not officially sanctioned by the ICC.
All other games in the competition are labelled T20I#xxxx
 
434076770_1467607323851373_835095948850207442_n.jpg

former Kiwi international Corey Anderson plays for USA now.
 

Dipendra Singh Airee hits six sixes in Nepal’s final over v Qatar
Ended up being the difference in the end with the margin being 32 runs. I'm not sure how many of those players are first choice XI for Nepal but that's a decent effort by Qatar. They've made some serious inroads in cricket in recent years.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top