World Cup-1992?

[Jungle Jumbo]

1995/96 is 4 years before 1999.

But only if you accept the 'England is 1999, everywhere else is 1998-99' argument largely propagated by Wisden and, helpfully, abolished as of last year. If you play a World Cup in March 1996 and another in June of 1999, the gap is just over three years. Your argument relies on artificial classification, not real time.

 

[Richard]

And likewise, if you play one in October (or whenever it was) 1987, then one in February 1992, the gap is well over 4 years.

Plainly speaking, SH+SC (that's Southern Hemisphere + subcontinent if you really can't work that out) seasons being classified as 1998/99 (or whatever) and UK (I often tend to extend it to West Indies too) seasons as 1999 makes perfect sense. One season straddles calendar-years, the other comes in one as a whole. I don't see how using calendar-years makes more sense; quite the opposite, in fact.

Wisden didn't abolish the definition of seasons BTW - it just changed (in 2004, IIRR, not 2009) its focus from September-to-August to January-to-December. And in cricketing terms, that makes less sense really - a calendar-year has never had any significance as it almost always straddles series'. Sometime in September always has a decent chance of a break in the schedule, even if these days it's a very short one.

Definition of seasons has always been ingrained in cricket, and will likely continue to be accepted for a very long time indeed, maybe as long as cricket exists.

 

[nick-o]

There certainly can. 1995-2003 = 8 years. 8\2=4.

I must say, I totally admire the way your mind works.

You can look at a world cup played between Feb-Mar 1996 and a world cup played between Feb-Mar 2003 and say "There! They're eight years apart!" -- and I really do think you believe it.

 

[Richard]

As I say, it's cricket seasons that count to me, not calendars. You can admire or not admire that if you want, but that's the way it is - I don't need to think or believe it, because that's the way it is.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

And likewise, if you play one in October (or whenever it was) 1987, then one in February 1992, the gap is well over 4 years.

Plainly speaking, SH+SC (that's Southern Hemisphere + subcontinent if you really can't work that out) seasons being classified as 1998/99 (or whatever) and UK (I often tend to extend it to West Indies too) seasons as 1999 makes perfect sense. One season straddles calendar-years, the other comes in one as a whole. I don't see how using calendar-years makes more sense; quite the opposite, in fact.

Wisden didn't abolish the definition of seasons BTW - it just changed (in 2004, IIRR, not 2009) its focus from September-to-August to January-to-December. And in cricketing terms, that makes less sense really - a calendar-year has never had any significance as it almost always straddles series'. Sometime in September always has a decent chance of a break in the schedule, even if these days it's a very short one.

No, you miss my point entirely. The World Cup is supposed to be held every four years, regardless of whether we happen to be at the end of a 1995-6 season or in an English 1999 season.

And Wisden completely rearranged itself last year: Indian Cricket in 2009, First-Class records in 2009. An Anglocentric view of the game is massively outdated, especially given subcontinental cricket is now being played throughout the calendar year. Talk about the 'Indian 2009-10 season' by all means, but don't get drawn into thinking along traditional lines just because it's always been that way, that's just being obstinate.

 

[slugger]

Have said it before but - if something was wrong, I'd not say it.

point proven.

vocation I'm guessing Lawyer, if not one then should really be considered.

 

[nick-o]

As I say, it's cricket seasons that count to me, not calendars. You can admire or not admire that if you want, but that's the way it is - I don't need to think or believe it, because that's the way it is.

Fascinating.

So if it's cricket seasons that count to you, not calendars, you can see that those two world cups are seven seasons apart, not eight.

Whereas your original contention

There certainly can. 1995-2003 = 8 years. 8\2=4.

only makes sense if it is calendars that count to you, not seasons.

 

[Richard]

No, you miss my point entirely. The World Cup is supposed to be held every four years, regardless of whether we happen to be at the end of a 1995-6 season or in an English 1999 season.

It isn't "supposed" to be held every four years at all, four years is just the guideline around which it needs to fit approximately. And it has - as I say, you can look at the gap between every event and 4 years always fits somewhere - 1975, 1979, 1983, 1987/88, 1991/92, 1995/96, 1999, 2002/03, 2007, 2010/11, 2014/15, 2019. It just depends on whether it's held early or late in the SH season as to whether it has a little over or a little under 4 years. Only by holding it in the same country every time can you keep it at near-exact 4-year intervals, and that for obvious reasons is not an option.

And Wisden completely rearranged itself last year: Indian Cricket in 2009, First-Class records in 2009. An Anglocentric view of the game is massively outdated, especially given subcontinental cricket is now being played throughout the calendar year. Talk about the 'Indian 2009-10 season' by all means, but don't get drawn into thinking along traditional lines just because it's always been that way, that's just being obstinate.

It's not Anglocentric to say that the season in England ends in September and that other seasons don't quite start yet. Cricket everywhere is now being played throughout the year, where possible - but even then there are obvious "gap" points and the 31st of December is not and never has been one. That isn't obstinate - September is and remains the one month where it is not suitable to play cricket anywhere where the game is currently popular. Hopefully at some point the schedule will be cut back and we'll have a decent-ish 3-4 week break in September.

 

[Richard]

Fascinating.

So if it's cricket seasons that count to you, not calendars, you can see that those two world cups are seven seasons apart, not eight.

Whereas your original contention only makes sense if it is calendars that count to you, not seasons.

Err, no. Clearly there are ind33d 7 cricket seasons between 1995/96 and 2002/03, and there are 7 calendar-years between February 1996 and February 2003. However, cricket seasons operate within calendar-years. The end of the 2002/03 season is nearly 8 calendar-years after the start of the 1995/96 season.

See?

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

It isn't "supposed" to be held every four years at all, four years is just the guideline around which it needs to fit approximately. And it has - as I say, you can look at the gap between every event and 4 years always fits somewhere - 1975, 1979, 1983, 1987/88, 1991/92, 1995/96, 1999, 2002/03, 2007, 2010/11, 2014/15, 2019. It just depends on whether it's held early or late in the SH season as to whether it has a little over or a little under 4 years. Only by holding it in the same country every time can you keep it at near-exact 4-year intervals, and that for obvious reasons is not an option.

It's not Anglocentric to say that the season in England ends in September and that other seasons don't quite start yet. Cricket everywhere is now being played throughout the year, where possible - but even then there are obvious "gap" points and the 31st of December is not and never has been one. That isn't obstinate - September is and remains the one month where it is not suitable to play cricket anywhere where the game is currently popular. Hopefully at some point the schedule will be cut back and we'll have a decent-ish 3-4 week break in September.

Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Australia have all held Tests in August. So why do we have a 2009 season? Why not just have 2008-09 seasons? Then we can still hold the World Cup every four years.

Getting a bit ridiculous this TBH. Calendar years FTW.

 

[Richard]

The reality of course is that at the present time there is not really any "year", with a start and end - cricket is almost in perpetual motion.

While that continues, there's not a lot of point talking in seasons or calendar-years, but as I say, calendar-years make even less sense than seasons. If you just say everything fits into a September-to-August 2008/09 season, that has something going for it too.

 

[slugger]

you know richard i can see what you are saying, but it seem to me that the cricket officials (ICC) could go by the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principal in terms of world cups and its four year cycle and just use the year its held in. and dis regard the season(s) completely.

I mean look at the problems in this thread you have here trying to prove its correct as it stands, and you do seem to be in the minority.

 

[nick-o]

Err, no. Clearly there are ind33d 7 cricket seasons between 1995/96 and 2002/03, and there are 7 calendar-years between February 1996 and February 2003. However, cricket seasons operate within calendar-years. The end of the 2002/03 season is nearly 8 calendar-years after the start of the 1995/96 season.

See?

Sorry, but what you are contending is that there is a four-year gap between 1995/96 and 1999, and a four-year gap between 1999 and 2002/03, and that four plus four equals seven.

 

[marc71178]

Another fine example here of the problems within CC...

 

[Richard]

Sorry, but what you are contending is that there is a four-year gap between 1995/96 and 1999, and a four-year gap between 1999 and 2002/03, and that four plus four equals seven.

There are 4 years between 1995/96 and 1999, and 4 years between 1999 and 2002/03.

Yes. Not difficult.

 

[Richard]

you know richard i can see what you are saying, but it seem to me that the cricket officials (ICC) could go by the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principal in terms of world cups and its four year cycle and just use the year its held in. and dis regard the season(s) completely.

I repeat - that would not work. Cricket cannot be played at the same time of year in each cricketing country. Although it is indeed possible to play in most places in, say, November (England is the only one it isn't possible) and equally, possible in, say, June (New Zealand and South Africa the only impossibility there), there is no time of year which is cricket-friendly in each country.

Thus, the tournament has to move around.

 

[Hassett]

Stupid thing I had occasionally thought of but never got an answer.

Anyone know why the WC was scheduled for 92 instead of 91. 5 yrs from 87 instead of 4.
I am guessing then to bring it back to schedule 99 was scheduled after 3 years?

We've had the following gaps between the start of each World Cup

1979 = 4 years
1983 = 4 years
1987 = 4 years and 4 months
1992 = 4 years and 4 months
1996 = 4 years
1999 = 3 years and 3 months
2003 = 3 years and 9 months
2007 = 4 years and 1 month
2011 = 3 year and 11 months

The first World Cup played outside of England was played in October/November of 1987 on the sub-continent. This was the logical time to play it.

As someone mentioned earlier, conditions are better in Australia and New Zealand (especially New Zealand) the further you go into the summer. So the authorities decided to play it and the end of the season rather than the start.

This meant the timing of the World Cup had slowly crept up to 8 months later than the original version in England.

After the 1996 World Cup the ICC had two options. Push it out a full 12 months and play it in 2000 or go for a shorter period between tournaments and get England back on its original four-year cycle.

At the time the ICC were strongly considering a change to holding the World Cup every three years. They eventually decided against it, but that mindset meant everyone was happy to have a shorter gap in the lead-up to the 1999 World Cup.

The World Cup in South Africa was always going to be played in February/March. To wait until the 2003/4 season would have resulted in a gap of 4 years and 8 months between World Cups.

As a result it was played at the end of the 2002/3 season and we've kept to that timetable ever since. The problem is that it's now in sync with the Ashes series down under, which could cause problems for scheduling in 2015. The Ashes is set to be moved up a year later this decade to avoid clashes with the World Cup in the future.

 

[GIMH]

Nice first post, welcome aboard

 

[Lostman]

Nice first post, welcome aboard

^^ thank you Hassett

 

[cbuts]

such a stupid argument....

Lets make this really simple.... Cricket is a summer sport - one half of the world is in spring/summer whilst the other half is in autum/winter.

therefore if you have a tournament in the summer in one hemisphere, in 1987, you could not have the tournament in the southern hemisphere exactly 4 years time as it would be winter. Logic would suggest you would wait for the next summer season to come round.