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?
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?
