-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Best ODI tournament ever
- Thread starter FRAZ
- Start date
In my humble and honest opinion
The ingredients of a good tournament
1. How it is unique ?
2. how much is the prize money ? (Motivates the players lol )
3. How many teams in it ?
4. What type of a format it has ? (I guess the format of 1992 world cup was the best one and the most simple one)
5. Where it is being played ?
6. How much drama involved in it ?
7. How were the performances of the Batsmen and the BOWLERS ?
8. was the amount of average runs scored in the tournament were of a medium level ?(Because I hate the ODIS where flat track bullies just murder even the best bowlers in the world )
9. What were the milestones or the important things to remember? As respectable Sanz pointed out Javed's six .
And I guess Name is not of a significant importance except we call it World cup.
The ingredients of a good tournament
1. How it is unique ?
2. how much is the prize money ? (Motivates the players lol )
3. How many teams in it ?
4. What type of a format it has ? (I guess the format of 1992 world cup was the best one and the most simple one)
5. Where it is being played ?
6. How much drama involved in it ?
7. How were the performances of the Batsmen and the BOWLERS ?
8. was the amount of average runs scored in the tournament were of a medium level ?(Because I hate the ODIS where flat track bullies just murder even the best bowlers in the world )
9. What were the milestones or the important things to remember? As respectable Sanz pointed out Javed's six .
And I guess Name is not of a significant importance except we call it World cup.
Last edited:
BoyBrumby
Englishman
That's why the '96 format was weak, IMHO. With 8 strong cricketing nations it practically meant a bye for them to the quarters. We got there by beating the cricketing superpowers of Holland & The UAE. The last time we've got out of the groups stages, incidentally...FRAZ said:
IIRC Australia chose to forefit their games due to take place in Sri Lanka due to some Tamil Tiger activity or other & still qualified comfortably.
It concerns me a bit the the porposed "Super 8" format for next year's tournament might mean the same thing happens unless, say, Bangladseh can spring a shock.
age_master
Hall of Fame Member
96 and 99 WC's were both great
Xuhaib
International Coach
Nehru Cup was great because
1.It had all test playing nations minus NZL, a thing which is very rare now so this makes it unique.
2.It was single league basis and vey competitive you can judge it by the league table below.
MRF Series Nehru Cup - Points Table
P W L RR pts
India 5 3 2 4.631 6
England 5 3 2 4.518 6
Pakistan 5 3 2 4.296 6
West Indies 5 3 2 4.127 6
Australia 5 2 3 4.364 4
Sri Lanka 5 1 4 4.050 2
The first 4 teams qualify for the semi finals
3. It had a gripping final decided in the last over between the two best ODI teams at that
time.
So Sanz how can you say it was not a good tournament.
1.It had all test playing nations minus NZL, a thing which is very rare now so this makes it unique.
2.It was single league basis and vey competitive you can judge it by the league table below.
MRF Series Nehru Cup - Points Table
P W L RR pts
India 5 3 2 4.631 6
England 5 3 2 4.518 6
Pakistan 5 3 2 4.296 6
West Indies 5 3 2 4.127 6
Australia 5 2 3 4.364 4
Sri Lanka 5 1 4 4.050 2
The first 4 teams qualify for the semi finals
3. It had a gripping final decided in the last over between the two best ODI teams at that
time.
So Sanz how can you say it was not a good tournament.
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
The group stages are nothing more than game time for the minnows and glorified warmups, to be honest. The best thing about the new format will be that the top 8 nations will be playing everyone, not just having one KO game like in 96.BoyBrumby said:That's why the '96 format was weak, IMHO. With 8 strong cricketing nations it practically meant a bye for them to the quarters. We got there by beating the cricketing superpowers of Holland & The UAE. The last time we've got out of the groups stages, incidentally...
IIRC Australia chose to forefit their games due to take place in Sri Lanka due to some Tamil Tiger activity or other & still qualified comfortably.
It concerns me a bit the the porposed "Super 8" format for next year's tournament might mean the same thing happens unless, say, Bangladseh can spring a shock.
Jungle Jumbo
International Vice-Captain
The Super Eight is still messed up though. Confusing.Neil Pickup said:
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
How? Everyone plays everyone (except the team they already played) - it worked great in 92.Jungle Jumbo said:
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
First of all WI was not really the best or even second best team in 1989. Pakistan sure was a great team and the undisputed best team of late 80s and early-mid 90s, India-australia-England at the 2nd level, WI and NZL 3rd level followed by the strong minnow SL.Xuhaib said:
I watched the tournament, it had an unofficial inaugral D/N match between India/Pak in the Asiad Stadium (once again named after Nehru), which was won by Pak.It was a good/decent tournament but to say that it is in top 3 is just ridiculous, I watched the series and there are many series that are better than this.
Jungle Jumbo
International Vice-Captain
But IIRC everyone played everyone in 1992 - was clear and simple and went some way to make the 92 World Cup so great. The Super Eight unsettles the balance of the tournament.Neil Pickup said:
Bit off topic, but I would prefer four groups of four (24 matches), with the first two teams in each group progressing to the second group stage, made up of two groups of four (24+12=36). Semis and final give 39 matches.
Xuhaib
International Coach
WI were easily equal to Pak at that time, I think a year before there was a BnH series in Aus and Pak literally got thrashed by Windies who ended up winning it.Sanz said:
I think the problem with ODI's is that since they are too many it means you only remember the WC or tournaments which your team won. The good thing about Nehru cup was it was extreamly unpredictable for e.g Windies loosing to Lanka (who were minnows at that time) and then beating India in the next match, before the start of the last round all 6 teams were in a position to reach the semis which shows its high competitivness. The only good thing it lacked was a truly memorable ODI match though I seriously believe the final would make the list of 25 best Odi's of all time.
Doesn't logicaly concern with the 96 WC (may be),but one strong reason that I hate the WC 96 is a semi final b/w Windies and Aussies . That was the point in the history from where Windies graph just fell down completely (Although they were going down already) .But that was a great minus and I guess Richie still had atleast 3 years left in him . He was a great captain but he just could not pull that semi off . You never know if Windies were going to win the world cup or not if they were going to reach the final . But my heart says that "semi final b/w Aus and WI was a match which really messed up the WI future graph" .BoyBrumby said:
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
Must have been. I never saw the game, but the scorecard asks some questions about Fleming's captaincy like why on earth did Bond not get to bowl his full 10 overs in the circumstances? Or Nash come to that. Anyway, ancient history now._Ed_ said:Just when I'd almost forgotten it.
Great innings though.