Has the 'world cup' too many teams?

[Truekiwijoker]

You need some minnows in there to make it interesting....e.g. like all the F.A. Cup upsets....

enough of the comparisons with soccer already!


They're completely different sports f'r cring out loud!

cricket has like the lowest no. of teams for a WC amongst all sports, I reckon.

True, but that doesn't mean anything. There is no sport in the world like Cricket. The formats of the 'world championship' of any other sport is irrelevent.

 

[Truekiwijoker]

It doesnt matter how many teams the WC has. Experience shows that even the best format (the '92 one) had the drawback of, well, seeing a team that was supposed to be knocked out, actually winning it.

While I agree about the best format, I wouldn't have thought Pakistan were supposed to be knocked out, with players like Javed Miandad, Imran khan and the up-and comers Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Inzamaam, Aqib Javed and Mushtaq Ahmed. They looked pretty good to me.

 

[Top_Cat]

It's well-known that the victory over Pakistan was thrown (whether the ever-increasingly dubious ICC wants to admit it) and I feel that thier promotion to test status was for the dubious reasons of quick money and to further entrench the corruption within the ICC with more subcontinent votes.

You're walking a VERY thin line if you're actually claiming that the introduction of more sub-continental votes has 'further entrenched corruption in the ICC'. Not to mention, your broad generalisations are without basis in fact. You have no idea whether you're right or not and it's not as if Pakistan haven't had some pretty dramatic collapses in their history. There's a reason why in the early 90's, despite what appeared to be a squad positively dripping with talent, they were nicknamed 'Panicstan'. And the only reason it's apparently 'well known' that the match was thrown is because a few players have said they thought it was publically, just from watching the match, without intimate knowledge of whether it actually occurred. Unsubstantiated rumours at best.

While I agree about the best format, I wouldn't have thought Pakistan were supposed to be knocked out, with players like Javed Miandad, Imran khan and the up-and comers Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Inzamaam, Aqib Javed and Mushtaq Ahmed. They looked pretty good to me.

Had they lost in Adelaide against England instead of the match being washed out and the two teams sharing the points, they most certainly would have been all but knocked out. England were certain to win that game having bowled Pakistan out for 74.

 

[marc71178]

They improved? in what game? I suggest you actually watch some footage of Bangladesh before you make such claims, because they've looked pretty awful to me.

Just over a simple 2 match series in England they showed a heck of an improvement.

 

[Deja moo]

While I agree about the best format, I wouldn't have thought Pakistan were supposed to be knocked out, with players like Javed Miandad, Imran khan and the up-and comers Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Inzamaam, Aqib Javed and Mushtaq Ahmed. They looked pretty good to me.

They would have been knocked out if it hadnt rained after England had them at 74 all out in their last (?) league match. They barely scraped through.

 

[Top_Cat]

They would have been knocked out if it hadnt rained after England had them at 74 all out in their last (?) league match. They barely scraped through.

Geez, Johnny Come Lately..........

Still, kudos to both of us for remembering the 74 Pakistan scored. People would say that we have no life for remembering that but back in 1992, I was 12, I did have a life and it was CRICKET!

 

[Neil Pickup]

I remember that, I was six. I didn't think it was fair.

 

[luckyeddie]

I remember that, I was six. I didn't think it was fair.

It was marginally more fair than South Africa being set 19 runs off 1 ball.

 

[Deja moo]

Geez, Johnny Come Lately..........

Still, kudos to both of us for remembering the 74 Pakistan scored. People would say that we have no life for remembering that but back in 1992, I was 12, I did have a life and it was CRICKET!

 

[Top_Cat]

It was marginally more fair than South Africa being set 19 runs off 1 ball.

Man, that was one weird situation. From what I remember, SA needed about 22 off 21. Then someone ran out and started speaking to the umpires. This discussion took a while and then the bloke ran off the field. Suddenly, SA needed 22 off 7. Then the bloke runs out again, has a long discussion with the umpires, runs off. Next thing, 22 off ONE ball flashes on the screen. THEN, the bowler was allowed to bowl the ball.

I've never understood why they didn't just let the bowler bowl right from the start without all of the long conversations.

 

[marc71178]

It was marginally more fair than South Africa being set 19 runs off 1 ball.

Had SA not been so dodgy in their tactics in the field they'd have been set a far larger target anyway, so what goes around comes around for me.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

cricket has like the lowest no. of teams for a WC amongst all sports, I reckon.

Nope. Curling has 10, bandy 6 (including three minnows!), floorball 10.

(yes, among any sports with a serious size you might have a point, but you did say ALL... )

 

[Magrat Garlick]

To the point at hand: You'll never generate interest to a sport in a country unless the country's team occasionally meets the best in the world - even though it gets mauled. If all the international exposure to cricket a team gets are a couple of ODIs in Pakistan or Australia, the country's media will never pick it up, as there are probably more successful sports to be reported on (the exception here may be countries like Nepal, which has cricket-mad neighbours). Thus, nobody knows what the game is like, nobody starts playing, the talent pool is small, and the game does not develop.

World Cup appearances don't help much, admittedly (witness rugby), but they are a part of promoting a sport in a particular country. And as Neil and several others have mentioned: getting rid of them after two maulings is better than getting rid of them after four.

 

[Steulen]

Bandy...