Tri-Nations Tournaments

[andruid]

Whatever happened to the good old days when 3 and some times four cricket teams used to come together to play in one ODI tournament and we'd see different teams taking on each other on a regular basis and then have a nice little final at the end.

A few years back Bangladesh, Kenya and Zimbabwe had a regular tri-series going, there was the tri-nation series in Sharjah which 3 random top teams would meet and the VB (its name has changed know) in December/January that Australia regularly hosts. but other thn the VB series all he rest seem to have died.

C'mon these would obviously be more interesting than watching the same two sets of XI going at it 7 times in a row.

 

[bond21]

basically we're 10 steps ahead of the world

 

[andruid]

basically we're 10 steps ahead of the world

Umm....sure that's very nice to know and we are very happy for you


Back to topic with a number of players and officials complaining that the playing schedules for International cricketers esp ODIs probably out of the fatigue of seeing the same old same old players playing the same old same old opposition over and over again and the teams lower down the ODI championships together with the top Associated nations complaining about the difficulty of getting decent opposition perhaps the emphasis should be less 7 match ODIs, which to be honest aren't that much more beneficial to the players or the coaching staff, and more triangular and quadrangular series with more teams involved which would give coaches far better feedback on player's strength and weaknesses against more varied opposition and match as well as provide more variety for the armchair fans than a bilateral 7 match series for the same number of matches.

It would also help redress the balance of certain teams playing endless amounts of cricket hence burning out their best players while others have potential stars who never really really reach the peak of their abilities due to lack of exposure from their home nations inability to find games.

 

[slugger]

this will prob became reality agian but in the 20/20 format.

 

[Richard]

Always way, way, way preferred the three-way tournaments to bilateral series. Now it seems we're back where we started - only one per year, in Australia.

We tried it over here after participation in a successful event in South Africa in 1999\2000 (why SA abandoned it I'll never know). Sadly, none of the 5 were events of any magnitude:

2003 and 2005 were fated from the start, involving substandard sides as the third team, and though Zimbabwe beat England in 2003 and Bangladesh Australia in 2005, the rest of the games were horrible mismatches.

2004 was woefully disrupted by the weather.

2000, 2001 and 2002 were all, despite involving 3 ODI-class teams each time, failures because West Indies, England and Sri Lanka respectively were mostly simply awful. It wasn't as though there was never a chance for any of said teams to win a game, because there was on all 3 occasions.

Sadly, the format was abandoned after these. There was another factor: attendances at the non-England games which did not involve sides from the subcontinent (ie, in 2000, 2003 and 2004) were abysmally attended.

Had it been tried in 2006, of course, we'd probably have had a repeat of 2001; had it been tried last year, though, we might just have had a basement-battle thriller on our hands. It's a shame it never got that far.

And why there have been so few of the tournaments in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka of late is beyond me. All three countries have staged tournaments in the past, and though they have not been problem-free, there's been more than enough interesting cricket to suffice.

Really, I couldn't care less who wins a bilateral series, all that matters is preparing for the World Cup. In a three-way tournament with a final, though, there's that bit more incentive.

 

[Flem274*]

I was quite a fan of the tri series between Australia, NZ and South Africa in 2001. That was a damn good series.

 

[Chemosit]

I have always preferred the tri series format.
with long bi-lateral series, i generally try to get into them, but by game 3 or 4 have lost interest. Tri series as mentioned above have that little bit extra to them.

Would love to see Kenya-Zimbabwe-Bangladesh come back onto the calendar!

 

[NZTailender]

I was quite a fan of the tri series between Australia, NZ and South Africa in 2001. That was a damn good series.

Apart from the finals, it was the best tri-series I've ever seen.

 

[cricman]

Bangladesh-Pakistan-India have a Tri Series planned for Dhaka in April

 

[Dick Rockett]

Personally I'm glad to see the back of them. There were far too many meaningless "tournaments" for soulless corporate "titles" that no-one would ever remember. Seriously, who cares about winning the AssCo Cup or whatever? The WSC in Australia is the original and greatest IMO, and is the only one that is needed.

On the flipside, if there were to be an annual tournaments for something meaningful - for example a four way competition between the Asian nations - I could totally see the point of that.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, liked the Asia Cup myself.

Do you genuinely prefer a bilateral series then 16toS?

 

[Perm]

Personally I'm glad to see the back of them. There were far too many meaningless "tournaments" for soulless corporate "titles" that no-one would ever remember. Seriously, who cares about winning the AssCo Cup or whatever? The WSC in Australia is the original and greatest IMO, and is the only one that is needed.

On the flipside, if there were to be an annual tournaments for something meaningful - for example a four way competition between the Asian nations - I could totally see the point of that.

The man speaks sense.

 

[ttm]

A meaningless tournament is still far more interesting than a meaningless 2 team series IMO.

All that crap people put at the bottom of posts is annoying and pointless. Is there a way to remove it?

 

[Dick Rockett]

Do you genuinely prefer a bilateral series then 16toS?

Yep.

 

[laksh_01]

Nice thread Bro, Even I have the same feeling all these head 2 head has to be scraped & every odi tournament should have minimum of 3 teams giving oppertunities for more teams & Minnows... I feel A tri series between B.Desh V Zim V Kenya should be very very intresting....

 

[Dick Rockett]

A meaningless tournament is still far more interesting than a meaningless 2 team series IMO.

I find that point of view hard to fathom tbh. By your reasoning, every test series is meaningless.

A bilateral series at least pretends to be nothing more than it is. Most tri-series pretend to be about some mythical "prize", when what they are really for is fattening the wallets of various corporations and more often than not, the BCCI.

 

[ttm]

Steady on there mate. We are only talking about one day cricket here.

 

[Dick Rockett]

So what? Why should a bilateral series in one form of the game be meaningless but not in another?

 

[ttm]

because there is no such thing as meaningless test series IMO.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Hmm, based on what you've said so far the distinction between the two is arbitrary.