You are kidding yourself if you think Zimbabwe hasn't fallen terribly behind. The fact that Zimbabwe can't qualify for a 20-team tournament despite receiving full membership funding says it all.
I'm the biggest critic there is of our cricket but your logic of 'Oh the USA won a match in a T20, that means Zimbabwe have fallen behind so much!' is rubbish. See my previous posts.
It's T20 and it's 2024. Side ranked 20th can feasibly beat a top 5 side. Welcome to the modern game.
No guarantee someone like Bangladesh or Sri Lanka or West Indies wouldn't have fucked up if they had to go through a cut-throat regional qualifier too. You never know. England have still never beaten another European side in a T20I in their history!
I'm not defending anything about Zimbabwe, I'm just saying it how it is in the global game currently, in T20I.
And yes I agree wholeheartedly it's a disaster that we didn't qualify.
My point is, equally if you did suddenly transplant us into this tournament right now, it's absolutely feasible we could pull off a victory over that shambolic Pakistan side still and probably half the other teams in the tournament on our day.
We have a huge mount of problems, and yes it' embarrassing not to qualify, and yes I have little hope for the future. But there jut isn't a big gap between any of the teams. We aren't a million miles off if we sort out some basic things and get back on the right track.
SA 12-4. Truth is not much in this tournament is an upset anymore. Uganda/PNG getting a full member win would be an upset for sure, but any other results for any other teams all within really reasonable possibility these days.
jesus wept why is the stadium playing music in between EVERY SINGLE BALL when the seamers are bowling. Maddening. I might have to mute my stream. Not sure if watching a cricket match or DJ performance.
One perplexing thing is that Associates have the best chance of success in T20, yet it is Zimbabwe's worst format. We have almost nobody who can take on the bowlers and play aggressively.
Neil Johnson, Alistair Campbell, Murray Goodwin, Andy Flower (w), Grant Flower, Dave Houghton, Guy Whittall, Heath Streak (c), Andy Blignaut, Ray Price, Eddo Brandes
One perplexing thing is that Associates have the best chance of success in T20, yet it is Zimbabwe's worst format. We have almost nobody who can take on the bowlers and play aggressively.
You can't be surprised when players like Gumbie get selected to play t20 cricket. Whilst he is a good batsman he simply isn't suited to that format like many others that get picked. It took them over 12 months to finally give Campbell an opportunity, they are clueless.
Have the Associates really suddenly gotten better? Or is it a combination of really weird wickets leveling the playing field?
One could argue that the better team should dominate regardless of the conditions, and generally I agree with that theory.
They've got a lot better. The actual skills on display by the leading associates most of the time now are very high quality. That didn't often used to be the case.
The leading associates have professionalised a lot. The League 2 thing they have (albeit different format) has helped vastly I think - gives them lots and lots of regular fixtures (as opposed to stop-start, uncertain nature of the old world cricket league divisions of yesteryear) which has allowed them to basically be full-time professional sides. Most of them have fully contracted sides now. 10 years ago most of even the leading associates were part-timers and had other jobs. The Dutch, Nepalese, and most of the Americans and Namibians are full-time now. A lot of these sides have really good coaches now too.
