Cricket Player Manager
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 75

Thread: Cricket World Cup and it's future.

  1. #1
    Cricket Spectator
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Kendal
    Posts
    8

    Cricket World Cup and it's future.

    First post here so apologies if this type of thread has been posted before or I post in the wrong area - just getting to grip with the place.

    The Cricket World Cup is, or at least should be, the biggest prize in cricket. It is the pinnancle of a players career to be in a side that becomes World Champions. However, with last years farce of a tournament in the West Indies and the ever criticised WC format, I think it is time to make strcutural changes to how the tournament is played.

    I understand that following the 2007 CWC the ICC have reduced the number of teams competing in the WC to 14, from the 16 in 2007. One of the criticisms of the 16 team tournament is that there were too many miss matches, with one side dominating a game.

    Also, the WC seemed to last an awful long time which caused people to lose interest in the middle stages of the competition. There were low crowds largely due to ticket prices and regulations concerning safety.

    The Super 8s stage almost seemed unecessary with the top teams playing each other too much, and there was still one sided games involving Ireland and Bangladesh.

    However, surely the 'minnow' nations of international cricket deserve to compete in the competition? How can a World Cup only involve a select few nations? There were shocks in that Ireland beat Pakistan and Bangladesh beat India, so it wasn't all one sided. It also gave many people an insight into cricket in other countries besides the Test playing nations. many people didn't know that Ireland had a decent ODI cricket team before the WC.

    What do you think of the First Round stage - was it successful in what it set out to achieve? Was the Super 8s too long, would a QF stage make for better viewing?

    Maybe even at 14 teams the WC will be too one sided, or maybe it will help the rich defeat the poor by excluding the weaker teams from competing?

    It's difficult and there are pro's and con's for each format, but if you had to produce the next WC in four years time (or whenever you felt it necessary) - who would host it? Who would compete? And why?

  2. #2
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    The upsets in the qualifying round were the main reason for the excess of one-sided games (had Pakistan beaten Ireland and India Bangladesh the Super Eight would've been more competetive at least to an extent); the excess of one-sided games were the reason the thing seemed too long (everyone would've been delighted that it went on and on if the cricket had mostly been thrilling).

    Basically, the ideal World Cup, which would be likely to produce the best cricket, would involve the 8 ODI-standard teams only in this day-and-age, with all playing all. Unfortunately, as we (or rather, I$C$C) need the illusion of expansion, we have to have 8 teams who are blatantly miles below-par, to differing degrees of absurdity, of which in the last Cup 2 of whom were directly adjacent to another team, and historically those three teams (England\Wales, Scotland, and Ireland) have played as one on the relatively rare occasion players from the lesser two countries have emerged.

    If you want to have substandard teams in the Cup, in order to tell yourself cricket has a larger nuclear family than it really does, you might as well go the whole hog as far as I'm concerned. Have a massive qualifying stage a la football World Cup.

    Personally I'd prefer it if we just accepted that at this point in time there are only 8 teams worthy of competing for the title World Champions. If there are more in future, great. But Matthew Engel, as ever, put it well:
    It is time to stop wrecking the game we have in vain pursuit of the one we don't.
    Until we get more good teams, the World Cup would be most enjoyable to those who watch cricket in the 8 places that make-up ODI-class teams if we left it among these countries.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  3. #3
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Blamire View Post
    It's difficult and there are pro's and con's for each format, but if you had to produce the next WC in four years time (or whenever you felt it necessary) - who would host it? Who would compete? And why?
    As regards this - I'd have two choices, both of which I'd be quite happy with. A long, drawn-out qualifying round, which could make sure that the best 8 teams reached the "finals" stage, lasting as long as neccessary and involving as many teams as I$C$C wanted. Or purely and simply say "the only 8 teams worthy of the title World Champions are Australia, England, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka and West Indies. So therefore they will play the World Cup and there will be no preliminary to this".

    Either way, the only way to have the best tournament would be to have these 8 teams alone involved. And no-one else, in the finals stage. All would play all in a Super Eight round-robin, and then we'd have semis and a final.

    Where would it be hosted? The subcontinent, of course. Then Australiasia in 2014/15. Then the UK (and maybe a few games in the rest of Europe) in 2019, as per current schedule.

  4. #4
    Cricket Web Staff Member stumpski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Medway valley
    Posts
    5,822
    I'd go along with most of that, but realistically you can't not have Bangladesh - like it or not, they're a full member of ICC. But apart from that, yes I'd go with the 1992 format - everyone playing everyone else once with the top four playing sem-finals. Can't see it happening of course. It's already been decided that three Associates (not sure if that includes Kenya) will take part. And of course Zimbabawe are the perennial flies in the ointment.


  5. #5
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    44,077
    I said it at the time and I'll say it again here - the length of the World Cup was not the problem. If we had really good cricket played on good pitches with good atmosphere, no-one would have complained about the length at all. The length became a problem because we were all just wanting the tournament to progress.

    The Super Eight stage should really be awesome - packed out stadiums with fast pitches, good cricketers and competitive matches. While Ireland was one great story to come out of the Cup, their presence in the Super Eight stage along with Bangladesh made this stage predictable and seemingly more drawn out that otherwise. I don't really blame the administrators for this at all.. the feedback from the 2003 World Cup mainly consisted of "the minnows play on too long - get them in and get them out" and that's exactly what the scheduling attempting. Unfortunately, Pakistan entered the tournament in shocking form with typical issues surrounding them and they went on to lose to Ireland. Bangladesh pulled of an upset as well in conditions that suited them perfectly. It was just bad luck on this front and I highly doubt it would be a problem in future.

    I do, however, place a lot of blame on the pitches. Don't get me wrong - I'm in favour of pitch variation and enjoy a low-scoring ODI more than the 300+ chases we're seeing these days, but if a pitch is to assist the bowlers it should be in the form of helpful seam or spin conditions; not low and inconsistently paced pitches. These pitches don't really help the bowlers as such, they just hamper the batsmen and make it hard for them to score. By all means produce pitches that assist the bowlers, but not in this fashion as they just make for poor cricket overall.
    ~ Cribbertarian ~

    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09

    Quote Originally Posted by John Singleton
    Recognition of Property Rights in material objects is the recognition of a manís right to exist; his right to pursue his own goals in his own manner at his own discretion with what is rightfully his to command. Just as the Right to Life is the right to the property of oneís own person, so the right to own material products is the right to sustain oneís life and to keep the results of oneís own efforts.


  6. #6
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by stumpski View Post
    I'd go along with most of that, but realistically you can't not have Bangladesh - like it or not, they're a full member of ICC. But apart from that, yes I'd go with the 1992 format - everyone playing everyone else once with the top four playing sem-finals. Can't see it happening of course. It's already been decided that three Associates (not sure if that includes Kenya) will take part. And of course Zimbabawe are the perennial flies in the ointment.
    Aye, I know that - this is ideally speaking.

    If Bangladesh keep Test and ODI status, there obviously needs to be some sort of round to exclude them - ideally before the tournament rather than during it.

  7. #7
    International Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    england
    Posts
    5,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Aye, I know that - this is ideally speaking.

    If Bangladesh keep Test and ODI status, there obviously needs to be some sort of round to exclude them - ideally before the tournament rather than during it.

    The bottom two ODI teams should play off for the right to be included with the other seven, however, who would be eliminated out of Bangladesh and England is open to doubt.

  8. #8
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    England remain one of the few teams yet to lose to Bangladesh and while I'd certainly be far from un-worried at such a prospect, I'd still be far more confident than I normally have been at England prospects going into World Cup games in the last 2 tournaments.

  9. #9
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Remembering The Prince - 63*
    Posts
    49,144
    Yeah, me too, though we would probably win by like half a wicket or something
    Phil Hughes 1988-2014

    RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.

  10. #10
    State Captain LA ICE-E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    1,973
    The problem with the last wc and the current wc format will remain. People will still say too many games with the associates. Well if they kept the 1st format of the last wc and brought in the quarterfinals in for the 2nd round then it would have solved both the problems. Associates who wouldn't cause upsets would be on the out and associateas that did creat some would go on and if they couldn't sustain their winning form would be eliminated so you wouldn't have teams in the finals/semi finals that didn't deserve to be there because they had to be undefeated since the 1st round.

    And all this talks about 8 teams, hello- champions trophy.

  11. #11
    International 12th Man Julian87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ashfield
    Posts
    1,691
    The World Cup is due back in Australia and NZ next time is it not?

  12. #12
    School Boy/Girl Captain
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    120
    i like the idea of drawn out qualifying period. You could stack it so that 12 teams play, such that 11 or so ought to be the best sides....

    Each division would have a qualifying tournament that includes the traditional ODI/ test countries, with minnows playing in an earlier tournament to participate in the qualifying tournament.

    Using Asia as an example: you would have India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh already in the tournament, with 2-4 additional spots available for the minnows. Minnows would play each other in league or tournament format so that the best ones are selected. The qualifying tournament would play out like the Asia Cup.

    The world cup would then consist of:

    2 from Australiasia
    3 from subcontinent
    2 from Africa
    3 from Europe
    2 from the Americas

    The most likely line up would be: Pak, SL, Ind, Aus, NZ, SA, African minnow, Eng, Europe minnow (x2), West Indies, Americas minnow

    Personally, I don't think the presence of minnows should be THAT big of a deal. The problem is minnows not getting regular, competitive matches against quality opponents. If a minnow is able to overcome the odds to advance in the tournament, they should be justly rewarded.

    The problem I see with cricket tournaments is that they only schedule like one match for each day, that's what drags it on. At least 2-3 matches should be occuring at different venues on the same day in the group stage and super 8s. In my opinion, only the knockout phases should have one match a day.

  13. #13
    Cricket Web Staff Member Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    42,095
    Have to say Blamire's was a quality first post. Welcome.
    WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
    "People make me happy.. not places.. people"
    "When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." - Samuel Johnson

    "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn

    #408. Sixty three not out forever.

  14. #14
    International Coach morgieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    63*
    Posts
    11,424
    Quote Originally Posted by unccricket View Post
    i like the idea of drawn out qualifying period. You could stack it so that 12 teams play, such that 11 or so ought to be the best sides....

    Each division would have a qualifying tournament that includes the traditional ODI/ test countries, with minnows playing in an earlier tournament to participate in the qualifying tournament.

    Using Asia as an example: you would have India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh already in the tournament, with 2-4 additional spots available for the minnows. Minnows would play each other in league or tournament format so that the best ones are selected. The qualifying tournament would play out like the Asia Cup.

    The world cup would then consist of:

    2 from Australiasia
    3 from subcontinent
    2 from Africa
    3 from Europe
    2 from the Americas

    The most likely line up would be: Pak, SL, Ind, Aus, NZ, SA, African minnow, Eng, Europe minnow (x2), West Indies, Americas minnow

    Personally, I don't think the presence of minnows should be THAT big of a deal. The problem is minnows not getting regular, competitive matches against quality opponents. If a minnow is able to overcome the odds to advance in the tournament, they should be justly rewarded.

    The problem I see with cricket tournaments is that they only schedule like one match for each day, that's what drags it on. At least 2-3 matches should be occuring at different venues on the same day in the group stage and super 8s. In my opinion, only the knockout phases should have one match a day.
    Mimnows would be Canada, Scotland, Ireland & Kenya/Zimbabwe
    5-0

    RIP Craig Walsh (Craig) 1985-2012
    RIP Hughesy

    Proudly supporting the #2 cricketer of all time.

  15. #15
    Global Moderator Somerset's Avatar
    Money Money Money Champion! Tournaments Won: 7
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    9,863
    As I've said before, I'd have the top eight (or ten if the next best two are competitive enough) teams at the World Cup with everyone playing each other. Every game would have some meaning and be competitive and if teams have to play a maximum of nine games each (seven other teams in the tournament plus a semi and final), its hardly going to extend the tournament any longer than the most recent World Cups. It would therefore be true competitive for the world's greatest team because lets be honest, the rest have zero chance anyway.

    I'd extend the Twenty20 World Cup to 15 teams though. Have three groups of five teams, go to a Super 6, semis and final. Whilst a minnow might get absolutely slaughtered (see Kenya in the T20 World Cup in South Africa), it'd give the lower ranked teams a better opportunity to showcase their skills in an international environment against the bigger nations, with any hidings over within three hours. Its proven to give the lower ranked sides a better chance of causing an upset too, with Zimbabwe and Bangladesh both recording victories over Australia and the West Indies in South Africa last year.
    Last edited by Somerset; 01-07-2008 at 10:55 PM.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Future of US Cricket
    By unccricket in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 13-07-2008, 05:39 PM
  2. At Least the Future is Bright for WI Cricket
    By Goughy in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 20-10-2007, 02:53 PM
  3. Format ideas for future World Cups.
    By slugger in forum World Cup 2007
    Replies: 162
    Last Post: 05-04-2007, 12:39 PM
  4. Replies: 46
    Last Post: 21-03-2007, 05:11 PM
  5. Future of cricket?
    By silentstriker in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 11-07-2006, 06:17 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •