New Feature : A plea for a better World Cup

[gvenkat]

I have been of the firm opinion that people who run ICC do not watch the game. I could go one step further and claim that they don't know much about cricket or rather don't care about the game or its fans. For a long time they have remained a spineless organization, whether making serious cricketing decisions or imperative administrative decisions. Any experiment that the ICC started in recent times, both cricket and logistical, has either been done away or was lacking common sense. The abandoned super-sub rule in the ODIs, the referral system, the sham that was the 2007 World Cup Final; these are all glaring examples.

http://www.cricketweb.net/blog/features/174.php

Can some one make this thread sticky? Thanks

 

[gvenkat]

Bump.

 

[gvenkat]

Bump

 

[Sir Alex]

Kenya defeating West Indies in the 1996 world cup and Ireland defeating Pakistan in the 2007 competition. We all know what state Kenyan cricket is in today. Ireland is no better either and they are talking about applying for a full member status.

I think it is harsh on Bangaldesh to exclude their victory over Pakistan in the 99 World Cup.
Also Canada beat Bangaldesh in the 2003 WC
Kenya beat Sri Lanka in the 2003 WC
Kenya beat Bangaldesh in the 2003 WC
Kenya beat Zimbabwe in 2003 WC
Ireland beat Bangladesh in 2007 WC

So I think there has been quite some number of games where Associate Nations stole a march over Test nations.

 

[gvenkat]

Kenya defeating West Indies in the 1996 world cup and Ireland defeating Pakistan in the 2007 competition. We all know what state Kenyan cricket is in today. Ireland is no better either and they are talking about applying for a full member status.

I think it is harsh on Bangaldesh to exclude their victory over Pakistan in the 99 World Cup.
Also Canada beat Bangaldesh in the 2003 WC
Kenya beat Sri Lanka in the 2003 WC
Kenya beat Bangaldesh in the 2003 WC
Kenya beat Zimbabwe in 2003 WC
Ireland beat Bangladesh in 2007 WC

So I think there has been quite some number of games where Associate Nations stole a march over Test nations.

Bangladesh beating Pakistan was at best dodgy. Ok let's give them credit. Canada and Bangladesh were both incompetent in 2003. Bangladesh should never have been given Test status in 1999. I would not count the victories over Bangladesh and Zimbabwe in 2003 as upsets both were equally bad and infact Kenya was the better team. It was my oversight that overlooked the Kenya-SL result.

I took in to account only the top eight Test teams when calculating upsets.

 

[Sir Alex]

Bangladesh beating Pakistan was at best dodgy. Ok let's give them credit. Canada and Bangladesh were both incompetent in 2003. Bangladesh should never have been given Test status in 1999. I would not count the victories over Bangladesh and Zimbabwe in 2003 as upsets both were equally bad and infact Kenya was the better team. It was my oversight that overlooked the Kenya-SL result.

I took in to account only the top eight Test teams when calculating upsets.

I think in that case you should also look at Bangladesh beating India in 2007 World Cup as well.

 

[gvenkat]

I think in that case you should also look at Bangladesh beating India in 2007 World Cup as well.

Agree from the context of an upset among Test nations. However I will make it clear that my article was based on associates upsetting top 8 Test nations. .

 

[Sir Alex]

Agree from the context of an upset among Test nations. However I will make it clear that my article was based on associates upsetting top 8 Test nations. .

 

[gvenkat]

As i said it was an opinionated piece about the excessive number of associates we can agree to disagree and leave it at that. :-)

 

[Sir Alex]

As i said it was an opinionated piece about the excessive number of associates we can agree to disagree and leave it at that. :-)

Ok mate, it was a good read regardless.

 

[gvenkat]

Ok mate, it was a good read regardless.

Thanks.

 

[turnstyle]

People who argue in favor of an excessive number to be included must have selective amnesia or are living in denial

I'm not sure which one i'd prefer to be called

For me, the first round of the cricket, rugby union and football world cups are by far the greatest things about these events. I treat them as appetisers. The first week or so, the average non sports fan needs to get into the spirit of it and realise how special this event is. If the tournament is over and done with within 2 weeks, most people probably wouldn't have even realised it was on. It's also fun to be at the pub watching teams you usually wouldn't see play and trying to back an upset. It does get boring watching the same 8/10 teams over and over.

Then 10 or so days later when everyone's totally engrossed by what's happening on the field, the serious part starts. This is where the 2007 world cup went horribly wrong. Whether super 6 or straight into quarter finals is the answer, i'm not sure, but the super 8 stage was a disaster. This would still be the case had Pakistan and India made it through.

I can see where this 2011 world cup is going to fall over. 18 days of preliminary matches seems way too much. 12 was perfect. Maybe have more games on each day? I'm not sure, but kicking out the associates isn't the answer. In fact, it'd just turn it into the Champions Trophy mk2.

In all honestly, I got bored half way through your article when it developed into more of a biased rant rather than stating a well balanced informed opinion. So, yeah... don't really agree with you sorry.

 

[gvenkat]

I'm not sure which one i'd prefer to be called

For me, the first round of the cricket, rugby union and football world cups are by far the greatest things about these events. I treat them as appetisers. The first week or so, the average non sports fan needs to get into the spirit of it and realise how special this event is. If the tournament is over and done with within 2 weeks, most people probably wouldn't have even realised it was on. It's also fun to be at the pub watching teams you usually wouldn't see play and trying to back an upset. It does get boring watching the same 8/10 teams over and over.

Then 10 or so days later when everyone's totally engrossed by what's happening on the field, the serious part starts. This is where the 2007 world cup went horribly wrong. Whether super 6 or straight into quarter finals is the answer, i'm not sure, but the super 8 stage was a disaster. This would still be the case had Pakistan and India made it through.

I can see where this 2011 world cup is going to fall over. 18 days of preliminary matches seems way too much. 12 was perfect. Maybe have more games on each day? I'm not sure, but kicking out the associates isn't the answer. In fact, it'd just turn it into the Champions Trophy mk2.

In all honestly, I got bored half way through your article when it developed into more of a biased rant rather than stating a well balanced informed opinion. So, yeah... don't really agree with you sorry.

Anyway as i said we can agree to disagree.

 

[turnstyle]

Anyway as i said we can agree to disagree.

You bumped the thread twice which lead me to believe you wanted some feedback.

With no real response to any points raised in anyones arguments for the inclusion of associates kinda backs my theory that it was all just a personal rant which i believe is poor and has no place.

I really don't understand why this issue still seems to be such a sore point with Pakistani and Indian cricket fans - it was almost 3 years ago! Let's just deal with some facts..

Yes, on paper both teams are far superior than their 'club cricket' minnow counterparts. But on the day(s), they had something that the bigger teams lacked. Hunger and team spirit. Maybe this is brought on because these lesser nation only get to shine on the world stage once every 4 years. A stage you're proposing to be taken away.

I'll admit, i wear my Irish colours on my sleeve, and by the last games of the super 8s where they were bundled out for less than 100 against Sri Lanka and Australia, even i felt sorry for the boys. Their fighting spirit they showed earlier on was zapped. This was just an example of where the super long super 8 stage was flawed. If it was only 3 or 4 matches, maybe they could have made it through to a semi final.

There have been many other models thrown up for future world cups (some even include 20 teams!) I can't see there being any harm in any of this as long as the first round doesn't drag on any longer than 10-12 days. As i said, most Joe Bloggs wouldn't have even realised there was a world cup on by that stage and the lesser nations will have at least had a chance to show their potential.

 

[gvenkat]

I'll admit, i wear my Irish colours on my sleeve

So you are supporting the Irish cause. So be it. My point was not totally against the associates. But the higher number of them two should suffice.

most Joe Bloggs wouldn't have even realised there was a world cup on by that stage and the lesser nations will have at least had a chance to show their potential.

Who gives a flying f******* about those guys? what matters is the people who really love the game. Not some guys who come to the pub to see a game... as i said again it is an opinionated rant and yes i'm against 4 associates in a WC.

I'll admit, i wear my Irish colours on my sleeve, and by the last games of the super 8s where they were bundled out for less than 100 against Sri Lanka and Australia, even i felt sorry for the boys. Their fighting spirit they showed earlier on was zapped. This was just an example of where the super long super 8 stage was flawed. If it was only 3 or 4 matches, maybe they could have made it through to a semi final.

And that is where i have a problem. The WC should be awarded to a team that is consistent, not some one off performance.

You bumped the thread twice which lead me to believe you wanted some feedback.

I was testing the comments.. Anyway thanks for reading it.

 

[turnstyle]

So you are supporting the Irish cause. So be it. My point was not totally against the associates. But the higher number of them two should suffice.

This issue really depends on what model world cup is put forward tbf. Four groups of 4 worked fine. Two groups of 6 doesn't.

Who gives a flying f******* about those guys? what matters is the people who really love the game. Not some guys who come to the pub to see a game... as i said again it is an opinionated rant and yes i'm against 4 associates in a WC.

And it's this kind of narrow mindedness that i hate and will hurt cricket rather than benefit it. I understand it was supposed to be an opinionated piece, but i'm sick to death of knockers of associate cricket without offering up any sort of compromising solution. Take your glass ceiling elsewhere

And that is where i have a problem. The WC should be awarded to a team that is consistent, not some one off performance.

Unless we were watching two totally different world cups, I do believe Australia didn't lose a game, and ultimately, won the trophy. Deserved winners don't you agree?

I was testing the comments.. Anyway thanks for reading it.

No problems!

 

[gvenkat]

And it's this kind of narrow mindedness that i hate and will hurt cricket rather than benefit it. I understand it was supposed to be an opinionated piece, but i'm sick to death of knockers of associate cricket without offering up any sort of compromising solution. Take your glass ceiling elsewhere

Sorry!! But you have missed the point of the post. My take was give the associates a chance but don't throw them to the wolves. I have already offered up a solution let's get two associates to play in the WC or alternately let them all play qualifiers like they do in the football WC.

Unless we were watching two totally different world cups, I do believe Australia didn't lose a game, and ultimately, won the trophy. Deserved winners don't you agree?

Yes. But 2011 we could have a team that performed badly in the group stages take out one of the consistent teams and go on to win the WC. Although i don't have a problem with that. The format is forced upon us due to the excessive number of associates.

Do you recall what Bermuda, Canada did in the last WC?
Do you recall what Namibia, Canada did in 2003 WC?
Do you recall the 1996 WC?

These are some points to ponder. Again I'm not against the associates it's just the way they are handled is not right for me.

 

[turnstyle]

Sorry!! But you have missed the point of the post. My take was give the associates a chance but don't throw them to the wolves. I have already offered up a solution let's get two associates to play in the WC or alternately let them all play like qualifiers like they do in the football WC.

Four groups of 4 worked fine. Two groups of 6 doesn't.

12 = two groups of 6 = a lot of dead rubbers towards the end, which i gathered was the preamble to your rant. Name how many dead rubbers were in the four groups of 4. Hell, i'm all for four groups of 5 if you want. Maybe then the ICC will see the USA and China at a World Cup

 

[gvenkat]

12 = two groups of 6 = a lot of dead rubbers towards the end, which i gathered was the preamble to your rant. Name how many dead rubbers were in the four groups of 4. Hell, i'm all for four groups of 5 if you want. Maybe then the ICC will see the USA and China at a World Cup

Nope if you have 2 groups of 6 each and super 8's all games will be exciting.. . Maybe a couple of dead rubbers but.. since 4 teams qualify.. there wont be many dead rubbers.

we dont want USA and China helping cricket..

 

[turnstyle]

Yes. But 2011 we could have a team that performed badly in the group stages take out one of the consistent teams and go on to win the WC. Although i don't have a problem with that. The format is forced upon us due to the excessive number of associates.

Do you recall what Bermuda, Canada did in the last WC?
Do you recall what Namibia, Canada did in 2003 WC?
Do you recall the 1996 WC?

These are some points to ponder. Again I'm not against the associates it's just the way they are handled is not right for me.

Uhh, two groups of 7 = 6 games each, right? If you can't win enough to get into the top four of your group, you don't belong there.

Bermuda is a separate case altogether. While their squad had some minor potential, they were showered with money and multi-million dollar grants by their government, which put them on a pedestal they weren't really deserved of. They basically acted like their Caribbean neighbours but with 0.03% of the talent.

Canada has a massive problem with not being able to produce locally born players, which is why 'Joe Bloggs' from downtown Vancouver needs to at least have access to the game, rather than hiding it from the rest of the non cricketing world.

Whilst Namibia didn't do anything of note in the 2003 World Cup (ok, except being bundled over for 45 and letting a hack like Craig Wishart score 170 odd) they're now playing in the South African domestic league, and finished runners up in the Intercontinental Cup. They're a competitive force now.

The 1996 world cup brought us stars like Thomas Odoyo, Steve Tikolo, Bas Zuiderent and a completely imported U.A.E team