Quarterfinals to return in 2011 ICC World Cup

[four_or_six]

One thing I do think should be done with the 'minnow' teams is hold the qualification tournament directly before the WC.

You could have the top eight teams (I would include Bangladesh and Zim in that) in a qualification tournament in the country in question and the top four of those play in the WC. Then the teams that do qualify are on a roll and adjusted to conditions, I think that would help the quality of their cricket. You would also avoid a situation where, for example, Canada qualifies in 2009 and by 2011 Afghanistan are clearly the better team.

 

[GIMH]

Should make it like footy, everyone except the hosts have to qualify. That way, associates get more exposure to top sides, and we get a few meaningful ODIs here and there.

Would never happen but

 

[Uppercut]

Should make it like footy, everyone except the hosts have to qualify. That way, associates get more exposure to top sides, and we get a few meaningful ODIs here and there.

Would never happen but

Indeed. I can't see why sides should qualify for every major tournament automatically on the grounds that they were one day considered good enough to play tests. If they're good enough, they'll qualify pretty comfortably anyway. It'll result in a few more ODIs that actually mean something anyway.

 

[Chemosit]

We already have a tournament like that. It's called the Champions Trophy.

The minnow-bashing is ridiculous. I had a short rant about it just a few days ago:



No one was complaining about Ireland and the Netherlands playing in 2003, because teams could count on beating us every time back then, and the tournament would progress to the next stage without any surprises. Suddenly, we're not pushovers anymore. We won't compete on a regular basis, but we've improved significantly so that teams can't count on beating us anymore.

The reaction of fans to this clear improvement in Associate-level cricket is to... kick us out of the tournament?

Bull****.

Well said.

 

[Richard]

Bah Humbug to all the minnow bashers. you have had your boring comp without them in the champions trophy.

It's only boring to fans of teams which are not ODI-standard. If you're a fan of one of the ODI-standard sides, you infinitely prefer a tournament which does not feature any substandard teams. The overwhelming majority of cricket fans indeed do support one of the top seven (at the current time) sides.

This is a World Cup FFS.

Yes, so it's even more important to have the best cricket rather than have heaps of rubbish games that have no interest to anyone except people who enjoy a massacre.

 

[Richard]

Should make it like footy, everyone except the hosts have to qualify. That way, associates get more exposure to top sides, and we get a few meaningful ODIs here and there.

Would never happen but

Wouldn't mind it TBF. I said something similar a good while back - basically I'd use the format of the previous World Cup, with the preliminary group stages being the qualifiers then the actual tournament starting with the Super Eight.

Maybe have each side playing each other twice in said preliminary stage to guard against one upset putting a ODI-standard side out.

 

[Johnners]

Certainly think Uppercut has a decent point as well. Nations like Ireland/Netherlands and even Bangladesh/Zimbabwe aren't going to develop if we isolate them the moment the become more than just mere pushovers. That being said, I'm not convinced this is the right format for the cup either, would much rather see ALL teams having to qualify, meaning we see a lot more meaningful matches for all the teams, especially the developing ones.

 

[NUFAN]

I don't see the point of making all teams qualify because seriously which of the countries that automatically qualified wouldn't have made the top 14 teams??

I really don't find it boring watching the associate nations at all, they are less predictable and if someone produces a big innings or a great spell I will enjoy it as much or even more then I would when a player from a higher ranked country does the same feat.

Also just because two of the bigger nations are playing, doesn't make it an automatic closer match. And if the match between the associate and big gun aren't close, who really cares? You won't remember it fondly, just like in the FIFA World Cup, you don't (usually) remember the group match between Ecuador vs Costa Rica. (3-0 to Ecuador thanks wiki).
BTW when a country reaches the

 

[Furball]

Wouldn't mind it TBF. I said something similar a good while back - basically I'd use the format of the previous World Cup, with the preliminary group stages being the qualifiers then the actual tournament starting with the Super Eight.

Maybe have each side playing each other twice in said preliminary stage to guard against one upset putting a ODI-standard side out.

Wtf would be the point of that?

No offence to Uppercut, but if you're not good enough to beat Ireland in a one off game, you don't deserve to be in the Super Eights.

 

[Hurricane]

My random comments:

1) I am not happy with the structure of the tournament would prefer a super eight or super six. Quarterfinals means no second chances. We wait 4 years for this and then it can be over so quickly for your team seems lame.

2) Personally I find the minnow games stressful unless your team plays high calibre cricket they are going to lose.

3) I played cricket in a Minnow country Canada while I lived there. We knew one of the representatives for Canada and he played some games for my club. And although we watched one of the games - grass roots cricket players weren't that pumped for the world cup. Or at least my club team wasn't - we knew we were going to lose and took greater interest in the matches with the top teams in them. When NZ made the 1982 world cup of soccer it was exciting for some reason and it did wonders for the game of soccer in this country. I am not sure of the reason why minnows at the soccer world cup seems to work well but isn't so successful at the cricket world cup. Maybe because soccer has less luck associated with it so less upsets.

4) Can they combine some of the minnow teams together to make them stronger. Have an America team with the US and Canada combined. West Indies is a group of countries - don't see why some of the other countries can't band together. Same goes for the rugby world cup the US and Canada should combine into one team.

 

[Uppercut]

Wtf would be the point of that?

No offence to Uppercut, but if you're not good enough to beat Ireland in a one off game, you don't deserve to be in the Super Eights.

None taken. I don't think anyone would disagree with that- no one's saying Pakistan deserved to be in the Super Eights when they lost to us, they're just saying the tournament would have been better if they had been.

Something I, needless to say, don't agree with, but I can see their point. It's just the touted "solutions" (kicking minnow teams out of the whole tournament/reducing their numbers) that are unadulterated bull****.

 

[Richard]

Wtf would be the point of that?

No offence to Uppercut, but if you're not good enough to beat Ireland in a one off game, you don't deserve to be in the Super Eights.

If you have everyone having to qualify you remove the "well the smaller sides weren't given a fair chance" excuse. You also make teams have to genuinely earn, rather than potentially fluke, their place in the significant stage (ie the Super Eights).

 

[Richard]

I don't see the point of making all teams qualify because seriously which of the countries that automatically qualified wouldn't have made the top 14 teams??

Because that way you have the up-to-standard vs substandard games that some for some reason seem to want, without diluting the actual World Cup itself.

 

[wpdavid]

It's just the touted "solutions" (kicking minnow teams out of the whole tournament/reducing their numbers) that are unadulterated bull****.

Nicely argued mate

Any reasons in particular why reducing the number of minnows is unadulterated bull****?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Should make it like footy, everyone except the hosts have to qualify. That way, associates get more exposure to top sides, and we get a few meaningful ODIs here and there.

Would never happen but

Would be farcical tho. England would slaughter (say) Denmark or Italy and NZ would destroy PNG or Fiji. They used to make some of the foundation nations qualify for the union WC, but after we put on over one hundred versus the game but limited Dutch (and didn't push in the scrum for fear of injuring one of the smaller and amateur oppo) this was abandoned. Serves no purpose.

No, I'm happy for the test nations to qualify directly but also think, for it to truly be a "world" cup, non test nations must have a chance of making it all the way, however unlikely that may be.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah I guess so, I was more thinking of just having qualifying limited to the top 16 I guess.

 

[silentstriker]

So when can we get rid of this tournament? Teams like Ireland might compete better in T20 anyway, and maybe they can have an Ireland XI in one of the T20 leagues (maybe even the Champions League).

 

[Richard]

So when can we get rid of this tournament?

The World Cup? No time in the immediate future, that's for sure, and is also about all that can be said for sure.

 

[Richard]

Threads merged.

Good idea.

 

[silentstriker]

Yea, you might be right. I hope that by the time 2016 comes around, ODIs will be a completely insignificant part of the calendar and interest will fizzle to nothing.

Not going to happen before then though. We'll see.