Champions Trophy revamped

[crickmate]

This is silly. Bangladesh even cannot play qualifying round, instead of their recent good form?? And Kenya plays just because they managed to get some ODI vicotries long long time back. Stupid ranking system I would say.

 

[aussie]

I agree with Pratyush somewhat. The champions trophy, by name and definition, has to be played amongst the best teams, while the world cup will have a greater no. of teams playing, as it is "The World Cup". While currently, winning the Champions Trophy could be considered a bigger achievement than winning the world cup (because so many lesser teams are there in the WC), as things go along and as the minnows improve, I think you will see why.

Nah mate winning the CT could never be bigger than winning the WC, its like saying England winning Euro is bigger than them winning the WC.

 

[Craig]

Indeed. It could create the absurd situation of India hosting, but not actually participating in, the Champions Trophy. Wouldn't go down well at all.

And the holders not being in there.

I like the principal of this having more meaningful matches and make those teams have to work to get there and earn their right. I like the idea indeed.

But from what I have been thinking and reading this has nothing but too many flaws.

 

[Pratters]

And the holders not being in there.

I like the principal of this having more meaningful matches and make those teams have to work to get there and earn their right. I like the idea indeed.

But from what I have been thinking and reading this has nothing but too many flaws.

The two flaws are simple to solve. Have a higher ranked team host the Champions Trophy to ensure no scenario of host nation not qualifying; Keep the winner of last champions trophy in. So ithe West Indies doesnt go through a qualification process at all.

Ofcourse its the ICC and the simple things arent done easily by them.

 

[Pratters]

Does that mean the Masters Cup is more prestigious than Wimbledon? Clearly not.

super anology as usual

 

[marc71178]

The two flaws are simple to solve. Have a higher ranked team host the Champions Trophy to ensure no scenario of host nation not qualifying;

How are they going to know where sides will be ranked 2 or 3 years in the future?

 

[Pratters]

How are they going to know where sides will be ranked 2 or 3 years in the future?

I would like to know the exact gap between awarding the champions trophy to a nation, and the rankings being taken before the champions trophy. I couldnt find the same on cricinfo which mentions the Champions Trophy format for the edition in 2006 has been changed but does not mention when the decision of the venue as India for the trophy was taken.

 

[marc71178]

The decision was at least 12 months ago IIRC - they need enough warning to ensure the logistics can be sorted out.

 

[Pratters]

The decision was at least 12 months ago IIRC - they need enough warning to ensure the logistics can be sorted out.

And what ranking period do they take? If the ranking is decided as at 1 year before the event and event decided 2 years before, its only a 1 year gap between awarding of venue and the ranking.

If a top 3 team is awarded the Champions Trophy, the ranking is not likely to change that much in 12 months. But there is ofcourse the possibility.

So its better to go the football way and not have the host and defending champions in the qualification process.

 

[Deja moo]

No the CT wouldn't be more prestigious and important than the WC with this new format. This situation is extremely analgous to the ATP Tennis Masters Cup. This involves only the top ranked tennis players (I believe its top 7 ranked + grand slam winners), whereas the 4 grand slams (Aus Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open) involve all tennis players who are qualified.

Does that mean the Masters Cup is more prestigious than Wimbledon? Clearly not.

I don't follow Tennis, but if what you describe is correct, I have no hesitation in saying that the Masters Cup, while perhaps not more prestigious than Wimbledon, would certainly be a more accurate indicator of the best players worth rather than a tournament where some unknown guy could knock out a seeded player early on, thus making the job easier for other seeded players to progress further.

 

[Deja moo]

Not really.

In the WC the top 8 will all play each other.

yeah, but what I had in mind was the group stage before the Super Eight, where all it takes for one of the better teams to be knocked out is just two bad days. The Football WC has provided numerous examples of how the better nations do not progress to the second round from a similar starting round as has been planned for the next Cricket World Cup.

 

[12th Man]

it's good to have the minnows in the world cup, but not the CHAMPIONS trophy

 

[vic_orthdox]

Why only four sides battling it out for the last few spots? Why not 6 to 8? Doesn't give the real minnows a chance to play at all, especially seeing that there are going to be about 14 countries who are ODI listed in the coming years.

 

[12th Man]

bad luck for teams like england and west indies though.

the deadline is 1st april next year... BEFORE next summer's england one dayers

 

[honestbharani]

I think this will might whip up the Indian side. They have their work cut out now and they know that having to play a qualifying round, after having been the runners up of the last WC, would be very bad to their fans. I hope this spurs them on to doing better than they have done recently.