Champions Trophy revamped

[FaaipDeOiad]

http://content.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/212247.html

I think this is good, for two reasons. Obviously it will differentiate the CT a bit from the World Cup, give more "serious" games and so on, but it also ends the era of all test nations automatically qualifying for everything, with minnows battling it out for a spot. With more teams being added to the ODI rankings at the same time, it makes the rankings actually mean something and means we get another interesting tournament beforehand with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and so on having something significant to play for.

 

[chekmeout]

Damn, is this a dream or are the ICC actually getting better at what they do?

 

[chekmeout]

According to the article, the qualification tourny that the lower ranked teams play.. will they be official ODIs?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

According to the article, the qualification tourny that the lower ranked teams play.. will they be official ODIs?

I'm sure they will be, yes, just not a major trophy at stake.

As things currently stand, Australia, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa and the West Indies would automatically quality for the CT, while England, India, Zimbabwe and Kenya would compete in the qualification tournament.

edit: actually sorry, missed a mid-NWS table update. Currently, it would be Australia, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan and England which would automatically qualify, while India, West Indies, Zimbabwe and Kenya would compete in the qualifying tournament.

 

[marc71178]

So the ICC haven't got it quite right then, seeing as the Champions of the Champions Trophy have to qualify!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

So the ICC haven't got it quite right then, seeing as the Champions of the Champions Trophy have to qualify!

Maybe so, but if they can't maintain a top 6 ranking because they get beaten everywhere else, do they really deserve a spot? What I find interesting is that before the last update, England would have needed to qualify! Shows how much of a step up in performance this NWS has been really.

 

[Craig]

And India!

I bet that wouldn't go down to well.

 

[Adamc]

And India!

I bet that wouldn't go down to well.

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.

 

[Pratters]

A very good move by the ICC indeed. Better than minnows battling it out.

And yes the Champions Trophy winner of the past year has to be there which is a flaw they should have figured out after the Liverpool drama which ensued.

 

[Deja moo]

What good news ? This devalues the World Cup even further !

 

[Pratters]

It doesnt devalue the World Cup.

Far better in my opinion that the meaningless tri nations and minnows versus stronger teams like we had in the previous champions trophy.

We now have a better Champions Trophy tournament. The world cup with 16 teams in gropus of each means far less proportion of minnows versus better teams keeping it a 'world cup' with a larger number of teams taking part.

Confederations Cup will never be as important as the world cup in football and even though its not a perfect example, the cricket world cup remains to have its significance.

The ICC have got it right for once I feel.

 

[Deja moo]

It does devalue the WC. The top 8 teams of the world playing round robin gmes in two groups followed by semis and a final is the exact same format of the first 4 World Cups. In fact, this makes the Champions trophy perhaps a better format than the next World cup.

 

[aussie]

This is good news for many reasons, firstly they will be less games againts the minnows & it will make the competiton more competitive.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

 

[Scaly piscine]

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.

Err no winning the CT is not a bigger achievement than winning the WC. I don't see how there being more minnow teams makes it easier to win something, all the best teams are still there either way. The World Cup is the big trophy, CT is just like a confederations cup or whatever tournament Tim Henman happens to win, with time it might grow to like a Euro 2008.

 

[honestbharani]

Err no winning the CT is not a bigger achievement than winning the WC. I don't see how there being more minnow teams makes it easier to win something, all the best teams are still there either way. The World Cup is the big trophy, CT is just like a confederations cup or whatever tournament Tim Henman happens to win, with time it might grow to like a Euro 2008.

Er, forgot about the super 8 rule. Yeah, I guess winning the WC is still more important, but I think the new format would mean that winning the CT is almost similar to winning the WC, as u still beat a good chunk of the best teams.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Er, forgot about the super 8 rule. Yeah, I guess winning the WC is still more important, but I think the new format would mean that winning the CT is almost similar to winning the WC, as u still beat a good chunk of the best teams.

Difficulty-wise I suppose there isn't much in it, but teams always have an eye on the next World Cup and hope to have their squad ready and at their best for that - so beating Australia in a WC would be tougher than beating them in the CT. Also teams would probably play more warm up games for a WC along with trying that little bit harder.

 

[Jono]

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'm extremely pleased with this new format. Great stuff by the ICC.

 

[marc71178]

It does devalue the WC. The top 8 teams of the world playing round robin gmes in two groups followed by semis and a final is the exact same format of the first 4 World Cups. In fact, this makes the Champions trophy perhaps a better format than the next World cup.

Not really.

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

 

[Jamee999]

What about actually making it live up to it's name, and having all the champions of Triangular Trophies in?

You could make each winner from the last 2 years of the VB and Natwest Series'. The last CT and WC Winners, then the top 2 remaining seeds(or however many are needed)