Quick question

[Perm]

In response to a discussion in another thread and a suggestion by andyc I decided to open this thread and poll, just to see what people on CW think.

Oh, and due to the seriousness of the question there is no irrelevant 3rd option.

 

[duffer]

Yes, because it took some attention off our capitulation against Bangladesh.

 

[Craig]

My response

 

[nightprowler10]

Obviously not...

 

[pup11]

The win was great for Irish cricket and the Irish people, but in the larger context, Pakistan and India' early exit from the world cup took the gloss off the tournament, which was obviously not cool.

 

[99*]

Yes, why should I feel otherwise. Ireland played better at the time and deserved the win.

 

[Manee]

I'm sure if anyone votes no, and does not support Pakistan, of course, they'll admit to not be able to supress irrational thought.

 

[PhoenixFire]

The win was great for Irish cricket and the Irish people, but in the larger context, Pakistan and India' early exit from the world cup took the gloss off the tournament, which was obviously not cool.

Pretty much agreed.

 

[Perm]

I'm sure if anyone votes no, they'll admit to not be able to express rational thought.

Such as yourself?

 

[Richard]

Yes, why should I feel otherwise. Ireland played better at the time and deserved the win.

You could (not neccessarily should) feel otherwise because it'd have been better for the tournament if Pakistan had been better on the day and deserved to win.

 

[Manee]

Such as yourself?

Indeed. I'd like to change 'express rational thought' to 'supress irrational thought', though.

 

[99*]

You could (not neccessarily should) feel otherwise because it'd have been better for the tournament if Pakistan had been better on the day and deserved to win.

Defeats the purpose of having teams like Ireland in the tournament then. If we only want the 'best' tournament then it should only have the Big-8 and not bother with teams like Ireland, Canada etc etc.

 

[The Baconator]

I think I see Richard's point, in that it made there be a lot less competitive games in the Super 8, which was really boring. If it wasn't for that, I don't think anyone could have an issue at all.

But it was too damn special to vote anything other than Yes.

 

[Richard]

Defeats the purpose of having teams like Ireland in the tournament then. If we only want the 'best' tournament then it should only have the Big-8 and not bother with teams like Ireland, Canada etc etc.

Yep, that's a very fair point, and one I'd subscribe to entirely. I don't think the World Cup is the place for such teams. I think I$C$C is trying to achieve the creation of the illusion of expansion by having them involved. I see no benefit to anyone by such teams being involved (and normally being thrashed out of sight).

What I'd much prefer is some sort of qualifying round comprising of the preliminary group-stage from the previous Cup, though in a more foolproof manner. Then the Super Eight being the start of the tournament. That'd also achieve the cut-down in time that so many people are apparently so keen on.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, don't mind that idea at all. Make everyone qualify except hosts and holders, leaving six places to play for. That would give the associates game time against the big sides. Could result in the same outcome though, as there is nothing to say Ireland wouldn't beat Pakistan in a qualifying game.

edit actually it's slightly problematic as there is only generally the West Indies who host the WC alone (we tend to give games to Scotland, Holland IIRC). Then again I guess you just crop down the number of qualifying places available when Asia host it

 

[Richard]

Yeah, don't mind that idea at all. Make everyone qualify except hosts and holders, leaving six places to play for. That would give the associates game time against the big sides. Could result in the same outcome though, as there is nothing to say Ireland wouldn't beat Pakistan in a qualifying game.

That's why I said make a more foolproof system - maybe have two games between each team, leaving more opportunity for anomalaic results to be ironed-out.

Having multiple hosts would make that even easier.

 

[GIMH]

Two games each team would be fine, as it would actually make the one-day games played more meaningful, and would give the minnows more exposure to top cricket.

It will never happen, but it's a good plan

 

[Richard]

Don't despair - every now and then even I$C$C put a good idea in place.

 

[Uppercut]

Yep, that's a very fair point, and one I'd subscribe to entirely. I don't think the World Cup is the place for such teams. I think I$C$C is trying to achieve the creation of the illusion of expansion by having them involved. I see no benefit to anyone by such teams being involved (and normally being thrashed out of sight).

What I'd much prefer is some sort of qualifying round comprising of the preliminary group-stage from the previous Cup, though in a more foolproof manner. Then the Super Eight being the start of the tournament. That'd also achieve the cut-down in time that so many people are apparently so keen on.

It'd take some nerve to keep calling it the World Cup with a system like that. It's once every four years and the sub-standard sides don't play test sides much in between. If not for the world cup, noone will ever know how close or how far assosciate nations are from the top level. And seriously, one tiny chance of the slightest bit of glory every four years. You have to give us something.

 

[andruid]

Had this random idea whilst blogging some time ago. If all the 10 test teams commited to just two ODIs per annum against whichever World Cup going Associates were around in the 4 years cycle leading up to each World Cup it would collextivelly give these 4 or 6 associates 80 ODIs worth of preperation in tems of exposure to the big guns before the main eventr. Just a thought.