What is the point of the Champions Trophy?

[Bees]

Originally Posted by Richard

Although being knocked-out of the World Cup in 1999 was indeed every bit as disappointing as any Test series loss I've experienced.

Tell me about it.




I'll be excited about this competition if it reaches free-to-air!

[stumpski]

Personally I wish it wasn't played every two years, and in October. I would stage it every four years, so as to avoid World Cup years. The last one was played about six months before the World Cup which seemed quite ludicrous to me. And October should be England's rest period between the home season and the first of the winter tours. Although I recognise that staging it in March, say, would be equally unattractive to southern hemisphere teams. So no easy solution there. As for prestige, how many can name all the winners, in order? Most of us could do that for the World Cups.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by stumpski

Personally I wish it wasn't played every two years, and in October. I would stage it every four years, so as to avoid World Cup years. The last one was played about six months before the World Cup which seemed quite ludicrous to me. And October should be England's rest period between the home season and the first of the winter tours. Although I recognise that staging it in March, say, would be equally unattractive to southern hemisphere teams. So no easy solution there. As for prestige, how many can name all the winners, in order? Most of us could do that for the World Cups.

Quite. The idea that the organisers consider it appropriate to schedule it months before a World Cup demonstrates how piffling it is.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by stumpski

Personally I wish it wasn't played every two years, and in October. I would stage it every four years, so as to avoid World Cup years. The last one was played about six months before the World Cup which seemed quite ludicrous to me. And October should be England's rest period between the home season and the first of the winter tours. Although I recognise that staging it in March, say, would be equally unattractive to southern hemisphere teams. So no easy solution there. As for prestige, how many can name all the winners, in order? Most of us could do that for the World Cups.

SA, NZ, SL&Ind, WI, Aus. Easy as.

I quite agree BTW that every 4 years would be much the best solution - having it so close to the World Cup inevitably takes the gloss off not one but both events. The simple truth is, though, that there's no ideal time. September\October has usually been the favoured slot, because there's not often much if any international cricket on then. There's a good reason for that too - it's not suitable, either for weather or distraction (or both) purposes.

[Prince EWS]

This purpose of this tournament has always baffled me. What's the point in having it when we already have a World Cup? It's essentially just a World Cup which everyone dismisses - utterly pointless event.

That doesn't mean it's not interesting, of course, or that the players don't treat it seriously and prepare for it completely. Merely that its place in a packed international schedule is highly questionable. The last Champions Trophy for example was a much more enjoyable competition than the last World Cup for mine and showcased some much better cricket overall - but the stigma attached to it was almost non-existent.

If the ICC wants a global tournament every two years then it should make the World Cup a biannual event. People will say this would take away some of the rarity involved with winning it, I know, but personally I think the positives of doing this outweigh the negatives. For one, this whole "building for the World Cup" process every team seems to want to go through now wouldn't be so pointless immediately after each Cup.

[pasag]

What is the point of Prince EWS?

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

This purpose of this tournament has always baffled me. What's the point in having it when we already have a World Cup? It's essentially just a World Cup which everyone dismisses - utterly pointless event.

That doesn't mean it's not interesting, of course, or that the players don't treat it seriously and prepare for it completely. Merely that its place in a packed international schedule is highly questionable. The last Champions Trophy for example was a much more enjoyable competition than the last World Cup for mine and showcased some much better cricket overall - but the stigma attached to it was almost non-existent.

If the ICC wants a global tournament every two years then it should make the World Cup a biannual event. People will say this would take away some of the rarity involved with winning it, I know, but personally I think the positives of doing this outweigh the negatives. For one, this whole "building for the World Cup" process every team seems to want to go through now wouldn't be so pointless immediately after each Cup.

Well they quickly disbanded the WC every three years idea after 99

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by pasag

What is the point of Prince EWS?

To save The 4400.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

If the ICC wants a global tournament every two years then it should make the World Cup a biannual event. People will say this would take away some of the rarity involved with winning it, I know, but personally I think the positives of doing this outweigh the negatives.

I've thought this for a long time - since about 1999 in fact, when I first read someone suggesting it. Sure, it'd make it less rare, but it damn well wouldn't make it so common as to be unimportant. 4 years is rare; 2 years is pretty rare too.

For one, this whole "building for the World Cup" process every team seems to want to go through now wouldn't be so pointless immediately after each Cup.

Well, not every team - and it's certainly not pointless at all, but some people don't agree - understandably - that it's the best way to treat ODIs. It'd mean less change had to be undertaken in order to do it. Had the World Cup been just around the corner as of this post, Paul Nixon might well have been able to stay in England's ODI side as some who don't think World Cup preparation immediately after the event thought he should have.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

Well they quickly disbanded the WC every three years idea after 99

Huh? When was that idea even mooted?

The World Cup has always been every 4 years - 1975, 1979, 1983, 1987/88, 1991/92, 1995/96, 1999, 2002/03, 2006/07. AFAIK n0-0ne has ever suggested it be moved to 3 - though 2 has been suggested by at least 1 person.

[GIMH]

It was held in 96, then 99

[howardj]

If people want to question the point of the CT, you could say what is the point of any tournament outside of the World Cup. The fact is people want to see cricket, and cricketers by and large want to play cricket. Therefore, you'll always need to have tournaments outside of the World Cup. I'd argue that the CT is far more meaningful than the Tri-Series that used to be served up in Australia year after year or a multitude of other series played around the place.

[pup11]

Originally Posted by howardj

If people want to question the point of the CT, you could say what is the point of any tournament outside of the World Cup. The fact is people want to see cricket, and cricketers by and large want to play cricket. Therefore, you'll always need to have tournaments outside of the World Cup. I'd argue that the CT is far more meaningful than the Tri-Series that used to be served up in Australia year after year or a multitude of other series played around the place.

AWTA.

[zaremba]

Dougie Brown was just on the radio saying that the CT is the competition which the players least like in the cricketing calendar, that they'd rather have a rest from cricket, that the event lacks credibility and that now it has been postponed it won't be missed.

Brown was speaking in his role as head of the Professional Cricketers' Association.

This gives you a fairly good idea of what the players, at least in this country, think about this tournament.

The only people that I feel sorry for are the Pakistan fans who probably don't get enough good cricket to watch.

[andruid]

Originally Posted by Richard

To play a multi-nation tournament over a short period of time.

The original idea was to raise funds for cricket's developing nations (hence the first official I$C$C-organised version was held in Bangladesh and Kenya) but that's now changed.

.

Even that was not a particularly sincere reason given that Kenya's cricket administration actually lost money staging the tourney in 2000


Now we are facing the likly hood of two tourneys in two years.What a joke