LONDON - Whatever way you look at it, the three sides representing the associate members of the International Cricket Council at this year's World Cup have been able thumb their respective noses at the Test nations without bothering too much to put a brave face on their efforts.

Well, Scotland are a little miffed with themselves over how they failed to make the impression they wanted and not beating Bangladesh, yet even their argument of seeking limited-overs international status should be looked at with some seriousness.

And the support each side received in England in World Cup '99 has provided the staid English county grounds with the sort of colourful display which no one can quibble about - well, perhaps the mad after-match charge which are not allowed in most countries, have marred much of the of the uninhibited yet enjoyable exuberance from the Asian followers.

At some places the near bedlam has resulted in a few abrasions and minor injuries and players having their gear nicked: Andy Flintoff his bat, Saqlain Mushtaq a jersey and Steve Tikolo a cap, has been part of the exercise.

Yet an examination of Bangladesh, Kenya and Scotland's record in the first round is as dignified and more competent than those of Holland and the United Arab Emirates in 1996 when the tournament was played the Asian sub-continent. Kenya were able to celebrate a victory over a West Indies side which later went on to beat South Africa in the quarter-finals. Which proves how the shorter game can upset the predictions of the sides who have an impressive, professional playing structure.

As has been shown this year Zimbabwe have come through at the expense of England: not so much that their system is better, or that they have better players, but because of the luck of the draw and a coach who has a belief which has put the side firmly in the minds of the people where the game is played.

Anywhere, of course but Zimbabwe where the media all but ignored the wins over India and South Africa. Then, what else can you expect from a place such as Zimbabwe? There was strong evidence of black support for South Africa's neighbours New Writtle Road ground in Cheltenham, and it was not from some British-born West Indian group out to show the flag for their black brethren.

They were students studying in London and went to cheer the with the whites their side as much as did the coloured support for South Africa who in Afrikaans pondered as they arrived at the station, whether there would be any changes in ``our team''.

For those in South Africa who knock the transformation programme, there is a significant message seeing a large, cheerful Afrikaans-speaking woman with the multi-coloured flag of her country draped around her ample shoulders. Just as significant has been the efforts of Bangladesh, Kenya and Scotland to prove themselves as teams of the ICC's global future. There are already signs of how Kenya and Bangladesh have come through since being granted limited-overs international status. Kenya may not have won a match this time but their presence was always noted: Steve Tikolo and the consistent opener Ravindu Shah were among the top 20 batsmen and Martin Suji's bowling was steady and far from ordinary.

Kenya were also fourth among the teams who scored heavily in the last 10 overs of a match with 5.78, just behind South Africa (5.94) and ahead of New Zealand and Australia tied in fifth place (5.52).

Bangladesh may not have produced too many memorable moments but their bowling was more economical than Australia over the final 10 overs, and Kenya and Scotland as well. No one can argue either with the inclusion of their top player, Minhazul Abdien, in the side of teams who made some impact in the first round, along with Scotland's Gavin Hamilton.

``We need more exposure at this level if we are to progress,'' agreed the Scottish coach, Jim Love, who felt the techniques of most batsmen had been exposed, most that is except Hamilton, who is more technically correct that most England players.

Scotland are likely to seek a form of LOI status from the ICC later this month, and hopefully they will be granted this request.

As for Bangladesh, the win over Pakistan has off-loaded riches on the players and a half-day of national celebration for the nation. Which is fair enough, despite the way the result was contrived. After watching the video replays of the highlights (about three times at the last count) there is a suggestion of some Pakistan collusion at Northampton. The sight of the heavyweight Inzamam-ul-Haq almost sitting on his bat declining to run and watching Saeed Anwar 'sacrificed for the cause of Asian brotherhood,' as well as Ijaz Ahmed walking down the pitch and chopping an inside edge into his stumps, was a little too obvious.

Okay, no one can quibble over the two lbw decisions, not even Inzamam is that clumsy, but questions can be asked about the hara-kiri run outs of Azhar and Saqlain.

So, why does it not come as a major surprise that Bangladesh won? That is the point: there are many who are pleased they did.

Sadly they have parted ways with their West Indian coach Gordon Greenidge for a frank and honest answer to the question whether he thought the country was ready for Test status.

``Not for some time. They need to get a three-day first-class structure before they can think about such an application,'' was his answer. He was fired for his honesty, which says much for a governing body, which as with Sri Lanka, is at serious odds with itself.

Yet the value of the three countries is such they cannot be ignored as has Zimbabwe by the bigger nations. Their victories in the last four World Cups can be counted on the fingers of a batting glove.