Not sure I agree with that.. I was happy for Ireland that they managed to pull off the upset but at the same time, I was not happy that a strong team like Pakistan were kicked out of the WC so early.. Don't think my feelings would have been any diff. had it been any other team which got knocked out by Ireland.. I voted NO because as happy as I was for Ireland, I felt very bad about Pakistan not being in the tournament too....
There's economic reasons why that isn't likely. Don't forget, a lot of assosciate cricket is non-professional. The only time enough interest is generated to make it feasible to undertake a long, distant tour is- of course- the world cup.
Dicko's set things up so Associates can't win either way in the bit you quoted. If one wins a game against their supposed betters it ruins the tournament; if they're thrashed out of sight it's proof they didn't deserve to be there in the first place.
Why? Cricket's World is, whether anyone likes it or not, comprised of 8 teams of note. You're not going to expand the game by pretending it's bigger than it is. The World Cup was conducted with 9 teams in 1992 and no-one complained; the network of serious teams has gotten smaller, not larger, since that time. Only difference is the smaller teams get much more exposure now. But none have reached ODI-standard, and Zimbabwe (due to the political situation of their country) has declined massively.
That's not strictly true - but yes, of course there comes a time when games between associates and full members need to be conducted to test the waters. I've no objection to such things (don't like them being classed as ODIs but to stage the odd one now and then is absolutely fine) provided they're not overdone as if so it just provides copious amounts of cricket no-one wants to watch. And I certainly don't think the World Cup should be a place for so much as one single game that is of little or no interest.
TBH, cricket is and works best for those in the elite (which is the vast, vast majority) as an elitist sport. The best way for my money is for lesser teams to work their way up and if and when they're ready they get regular competition; until such a time, no nothing, apart from the mentioned-above trial games.
They pretty much do this already. Its called the champions trophy as is about as much fun as sticking your head in a bucket of prawns that have been in the sun for a week. FFS why not just get a computer to generate all the results based on current rankings and remove any semblance of competition and the 'wrong' team winning.
Why favour the elite majority? The elite majority have no wish to be favoured, indeed, with regards to this discussion, you're very much in the minority. This isn't, as you stated above, "cricket that noone wants to watch", the reaction on this forum alone suggests that what you really mean is "cricket that i don't want to watch". As for the world cup not being the place, i completely disagree. The world cup is cricket's showpiece, it's what the outside world has an interest in. But it isn't sacrosanct. The fanatical cricket-watching minority, to which we both belong, all know that test matches and series are where it's at. I don't care if a lot of minnows undermine the quality of the world cup, it's when they want a look into the Ashes that i'll object. It's a rare opportunity for assosciate nations to make an impact on the world stage, while keeping the cricket that really matters top-quality.
Simply not true. On the one occasion when the Champions Trophy worked like that (ie, India 2006/07) it produced a tournament everyone praised greatly.
Because then you don't watch it happen. Cricket is about more than just the result anyway - it's about style and panache.
Yet whether we like it or not the sport will not survive without the $ and anyone trying to take the $s out of things would be doing the game a disservice.
I don't think so, as I say above. Many World Cups have been excellent events without such things happening - as was the Champions Trophy in 2006/07. Obviously, though, if you support a smaller team then a major upset would be the biggest thing you'd have to enjoy in a tournament.
Nah. Look at almost any ODI-standard-side-vs-substandard side game. TV audience will be minimal; the ground will almost certainly be mostly empty. Many noted writers, besides myself, have noted that apathy caused by mismatches is one of the biggest dangers to cricket at the current time.
If ODIs are treated with disdain, that's what people will start to give them. ODIs need sacrosanction, same way Tests need it, because the format is not strong where it once was. There have long been those who've held disdain for it since pre-Twenty20 who are now clamouring for it to be lanced completely in favour of Twenty20.
I'm perfectly happy to treat ODIs with disdain. I've asked many before: have you ever met anyone who passionately loves LO cricket? I'm yet to find anyone. Maybe there's a few in India. Generally those who find the long form boring think ODIs are "less boring than the tests" or "alright". Is there anyone who would miss it much if it was gone?
It wouldn't have made it any better. Pakistan would have been destroyed by everyone even moreso than Ireland because Ireland are better at cricket than Pakistan. They proved it on March 17th.
i didn't see that one coming.. ya whatever you say.. i mean there is no point of discussing this cuz you totally got my post the wrong way.
You know i was just having a laugh.