UPDATE AT END OF POST…. (Sunday @9:10pm)
A third piece up today. I thought it an interesting thing though.
David Hopps wrote this article on Cricinfo. Please click on the link.
England could have used the international against Hong Kong in Abu Dhabi as a celebration of the full ODI status Hong Kong received for a four-year period from 2014, a chance to show a vague commitment to the global expansion that many cricket followed hanker after. Many would have seen it as posturing, but even posturing can bring benefits.
I’ve kept the article in full by way of record in case it is altered in the light of the following Twitter exchange…
This has amused me on several levels.
First of all, the leaping to the defence of England’s cricket hierarchy by John is touching. While Hopps’s piece may not be true, and that the Hong Kong ODI team, throwing their weight around, forced England into a 13-a-side game we never really wanted, and we accommodated them (despite the rumours that we weren’t playing Hong Kong in a full ODI because we didn’t want / couldn’t afford (ho ho) our players), it’s not as if we go out of our way to give the Associates with ODI status on our doorstep much of a look-in. Ireland are an attractive side to watch, famously beat us in Bangalore, and yet we try to cram them in at the fag end of the season. It’s not as if our ICC representative is out there fighting their corner, stitching up the Big Three agreement, rubber-stamping the ten team format for the next World Cup.
Andrew Nixon, a firm proponent of Associate cricket pointed this out…
We spent a lot of last year going on about some of the press doing the ECB’s bidding. There still remains a good deal of suspicion around that area. Tim Wigmore alluded to it in a piece he wrote on Olympics and cricket. The ECB are capable of looking after themselves and defending their record. Except, of course, they are not as they showed last year.
If England would have wanted this to be a full ODI, ground status or not, they could have. Hong Kong dictating terms to England seems rather fanciful to me. But I’m not there, so I have to accept what I’m being told. It just seems a little strange.
This will be an interesting next few hours.
Some more tweets:
“Don’t see any reason to doubt them?” Blimey. I don’t have to look hard to find one.
Hopps is not backing down:
Andrew Nixon is not convinced:
The match will have been good experience for Hong Kong, but the lack of ODI status for this fixture between two sides with ODI status leaves something of a sour taste in the mouth. Reports are that Hong Kong said in the post match press conference that they requested the game not be an ODI. Given what I’d heard from within Hong Kong cricket ahead of the game, that is almost certainly a line written for them by the ECB in order to save face.
Andrew’s not going to give this one up without a fight! Please click on the link.
Tim Wigmore – who wrote a book on the Associates with Peter Miller – has come to the party.
A Nepal cricket writer Tweets:
UPDATE II – John Etheridge has commented. See link.