Jonty Lathwal
U19 Debutant
I suppose u were suffering from diarrhoea during the IPL.............
-
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.
Cricket World Cup and it's future.
- Thread starter Blamire
- Start date
Julian87
State Captain
No. I thought it went for too long. Also thought there was very little passion involved.
Jonty Lathwal
U19 Debutant
Well,,,,There were bussinesmen,,,Bollywood stars and of course gr8 cricketers....
I don't see any space for "NO PASSION"........
pasag
RTDAS
I thought it was really good. I'm not a Twenty20 fan by any stretch of the imagination, but the players looked passionate and like they cared, a lot of the games were exciting and went down to the wire and the huge crowds added a lot. But yeah, it was way too long, I think most if not all would agree with you there.
The 2007 WC was by far the worst I've seen, stale atmosphere and one sided matches that went on forever really contributed to that as opposed to the Twenty20 world championship which was short and had an electric atmosphere all the way through and plenty of even and close matches.
Jonty Lathwal
U19 Debutant
I agreeeeeeeeee......
LA ICE-E
State Captain
the best way of dong that would have been having a 1st round format like the 2007 world cup, 3 games and if they don't perform they are out.
the atmostphere was stale because the home countries didn't have the capacity of hosting it plus the tickets cost too much for their economy, and far to strict rules for the fans. One sided games were in the world 20/20 too. And you know that complain by the Indians and Pakistanis that the 2007 format wasn't fare and bull**** like that? the 20/20 format was even less fair but no one complains because big money made it through. Selfish son of bitches. Even if they had the super 8 format like the 20/20 one for the next wc, it wouldn't be such a bad format. 4 groups then, 2 groups (super 8) semi's and then final would be nice too. 4 groups then knockout is best format for a short tournament.
pasag
RTDAS
Well they had the capacity, but yeah, prices and rules were the main problems.
I couldn't be bothered looking it up, but even if there were one sided games in the Twenty20 championships, because of the reduced length in the tournament it didn't become an issue. That's not to say the World Cup couldn't have been an amazing tournament despite the obvious home running flaws. It was unlucky in that it just didn't really have any standout games and when you have such a long tournament it really doesn't help, neither does Ireland and Bangladesh making the Super 8s, from an entertainment perspective. That's not to say, Ireland or Bangladesh didn't deserved to be in the Super 8s and India and Pakistan did, but it really hurt that stage from an entertainment persective, for most fans (aside from your supporters of those sides and ardent minnow supporters).
LA ICE-E
State Captain
Ok there's a problem with the entertainment factor though. See if we want entertainment then knockouts, lose and you may go home provides the best possible entertaining situations but then you get the whiners who will cry when their teams get knock out. So if we had the same thing happen as in 2007 but with a qurterfinals then the entertainment facttor would still be there. Bangladesh and Ireland made it through deservingly ok. So if they don't deserve to move on more, they would have went home with no more of (this kind of) mismatches.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Err - there are two substandard teams involved in six tournaments there (Bangladesh in one, UAE in the other). Both times they made almost instantaneous exits.
This is completely irrelevant to the point that these tournaments were basically predecessors to the Champions Trophy, and were very important to keeping ODIs viable due to the absurd notion of playing World Cups only every 4 years.
Baseball is completely and 100% irrelevant to cricket.
Such as?
If 8 teams are involved I can think of nothing better than all-plays-all.
andruid
Cricketer Of The Year
Given that there is little substansive difference in a country gaining ODI status (permanently or otherwise) the way Test stsus brings in bucket loads of extra revenue, automatic qualification to most of the ICC's big money tournanments and and even a special chair all to the nation in quetion on the ICC board and so forth one wonders wy you make such a big deal of trying to have Bangladesh and co/s matches stripped of their ODI status.
Granted if ODI status really meant anything in terms of revenue, influence or even attractiveness in landinbg high profile money spinnign opponents then Banladesh would probably not have been as poor as they were when thgey got Test status.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
The reason I want games (involving all substandard sides) stripped of ODI status is because I don't see the point in the status existing at all unless you actually enforce it in the best way you can.
There's only 8 teams good enough to be playing the top level of one-day cricket as far as I'm concerned, and I don't see the point in the "ODI" existing at all if you're going to give it to teams beyond those that deserve it.
There's only 8 teams good enough to be playing the top level of one-day cricket as far as I'm concerned, and I don't see the point in the "ODI" existing at all if you're going to give it to teams beyond those that deserve it.
LA ICE-E
State Captain
yeah and in a similar 1st round from the 2007 format would do the same for the wc but it's the 2nd round that needed the fixing.
Again the more things happen the less its value.
Baseball isn't irrelevant to cricket at all...hell any game isn't irrelevant to cricket because most sports business can to done similarly and sports learn how to operate from each other. Over that baseball and cricket has the basic concept in common.
from an entertainment prospective a quarterfinals is a best way to ensure every game is meaningful but then again you're going to cry that it's not fair and one team could have 1 bad game and bla bla bla so 2 groups of 4 does it too.
LA ICE-E
State Captain
they deserve it because it earned it. Just think of ODI for the top 16 teams and the lowest standard that of the 16th's is the requirement. ODI standard doesn't have to be what you think it is. May be your standard is just too high. You can make the standard based on other teams because hell in tests no one is close to Australia's standard so should we make a new thing clalled the super test status with only Australia in it? 'cause clearly no one can regularly hang with them.(now they are coming back to the pack but im using it at its highest point)
andruid
Cricketer Of The Year
I agree with you up to that point. In its current form ODI status represents nothing more that a cosmetic adjustment to the way thecricket match in quetion will go down in history and as such does not benefit anyone. they could even go and strip the World Cup of its ODIO status and just declare it an International List-A tournament and we would lose nothing.
On that point I have to disagree with you. Firstly because like with players Test class has to be on a level seperate from ODI class and I beleive that all teams that regularly qualify for the 50 over World Cup are ODI class teams. Secondly the purpose of Test Class or ODI class or any other means of classification of International teams Not to make thses formats of the game exclusive group of cricket nations but to set a standard against which all cricket international irrespective of tradition or influence on the ICC should aspire to. ODI status should be about pro-actively encouraging cricketing nations to uphold certain standards not disqualifying outsiders from a'big boys' club.
Arjun
Cricketer Of The Year
Let's just see how it's gone over the years. When it was started initially, the fans were not sure how it would turn out, but couldn't have been too bad.
The 1979 event had one major casualty- Australia was affected by the Packer series, and were knocked out early. It was an important tournament for Sri Lanka, who defeated the Indians when they didn't have Test status. Garner's 5/38 was a highlight. I haven't seen much of these matches, so I can't comment.
Then came the one in 1983, remembered fondly by Indians, for they won the World Cup in that year. A few great matches were missed because of the BBC strike, and the tournament was full of interesting results.
Likewise the 1987 World Cup in India, where a lot was expected out of India and Pakistan. But both teams faltered at the semis, and we found an Ashes battle at Kolkata, then the cricketing capital of the country. We remember the reverse sweep of Gatting that cost England the series.
A fan favourite would be the 1992 World Cup in Australia, where matches were played once only, and the South Africans stormed into the cricket scene after a long time. They, however, had a nasty surprise in a semi-final, forced to score 22 off a delivery. Pakistan's comeback was remarkable.
Another one we loved was the 1996 World Cup. More upsets, some tightly contested games and a final we all loved. Yes, there were some who remember the dreadful opening ceremony and bad crowd behaviour in Kolkata, which is unfortunate, because the same city that hosted the match issued a public apology, which was lauded by the Lankans themselves. Highly dramatic one.
The last good World Cup was in 1999, but washouts due to rain and the absence of lights at grounds was a factor. Somehow, this didn't really take off much, and there were more than a few one-sided encounters. Once the World Cup went to South Africa, the decline began. Warped upsets brought about some dreadfully one-sided matches in the forthcoming stages, and the final was one of the worst to have happened. As for the last one, less said the better. Minnows and minnow upsets messed it up a little, as also a very formal atmosphere when there should have been a lot of fun, and of course, the final bloopers.
2011- What next?
The 1979 event had one major casualty- Australia was affected by the Packer series, and were knocked out early. It was an important tournament for Sri Lanka, who defeated the Indians when they didn't have Test status. Garner's 5/38 was a highlight. I haven't seen much of these matches, so I can't comment.
Then came the one in 1983, remembered fondly by Indians, for they won the World Cup in that year. A few great matches were missed because of the BBC strike, and the tournament was full of interesting results.
Likewise the 1987 World Cup in India, where a lot was expected out of India and Pakistan. But both teams faltered at the semis, and we found an Ashes battle at Kolkata, then the cricketing capital of the country. We remember the reverse sweep of Gatting that cost England the series.
A fan favourite would be the 1992 World Cup in Australia, where matches were played once only, and the South Africans stormed into the cricket scene after a long time. They, however, had a nasty surprise in a semi-final, forced to score 22 off a delivery. Pakistan's comeback was remarkable.
Another one we loved was the 1996 World Cup. More upsets, some tightly contested games and a final we all loved. Yes, there were some who remember the dreadful opening ceremony and bad crowd behaviour in Kolkata, which is unfortunate, because the same city that hosted the match issued a public apology, which was lauded by the Lankans themselves. Highly dramatic one.
The last good World Cup was in 1999, but washouts due to rain and the absence of lights at grounds was a factor. Somehow, this didn't really take off much, and there were more than a few one-sided encounters. Once the World Cup went to South Africa, the decline began. Warped upsets brought about some dreadfully one-sided matches in the forthcoming stages, and the final was one of the worst to have happened. As for the last one, less said the better. Minnows and minnow upsets messed it up a little, as also a very formal atmosphere when there should have been a lot of fun, and of course, the final bloopers.
2011- What next?