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.
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.
Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourthcricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006
(Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
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.
What is the point of Prince EWS?
Rest In Peace Craigos
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.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.
It was held in 96, then 99
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)