What is the point of the Champions Trophy? - Page 4

zaremba · 25-08-2008, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

It was held in 96, then 99

I hadn't realised this. '99 was in England which confuses matters, but there were definitely only 7 years between the 2 world cups in 95/96 and 02/03. How come we missed a year?

morgieb · 25-08-2008, 04:49 PM

I don't know, just ANOTHER one-day junket. It's dire that this often **** tournament is the 2nd best specialist one-day tour.

James90 · 25-08-2008, 11:48 PM

Quote:

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.

Awaota.

Unneccesary installation into an already packed international schedule. Would possibly change my mind if it came to Australia though. When was the last time we had a proper international tournament? 1992 World Cup? Haven't even had an U19s tournament ffs.

Richard · 26-08-2008, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

It was held in 96, then 99

Quote:

Originally Posted by zaremba

I hadn't realised this. '99 was in England which confuses matters, but there were definitely only 7 years between the 2 world cups in 95/96 and 02/03. How come we missed a year?

Yeah, I didn't spot that either actually. If you go purely on a yearly thing it should be, obviously, '87, '91, '95, '99, '03. So the 2002/03 Cup should have been in 2003/04.

I guess there's times when it has to be fiddled around a bit.

GIMH · 26-08-2008, 12:47 PM

I might be imagining things, but...

In 2005 I had some Uni resits and was in my local library studying for them. I got a bit bored though, and it was the day before the commencement of the 5th Ashes Test, so took a bit of a break, reading the cricket pages of the papers and then looking through the cricket books (I had cricket fever, get it every time I'm REALLY looking forwards to a match). I am sure in one of them it said that the 99 WC was a new plan to hold it every three years but that it was quickly abandoned.

Yeah, I wrote all that to say one line

Richard · 26-08-2008, 12:54 PM

Rings a bell actually, but as I say - it never actually happened. It should be every 2 years, not every 3. Odd numbers just confuse matters.

bryce · 26-08-2008, 07:14 PM

What is the point in having a belli button

zaremba · 28-08-2008, 04:50 AM

It's not only the PCA chairman who shares my view: Mike Atherton wrote this today in the Times:

"No tears need be shed for the ICC Champions Trophy, a misnomer of a tournament conceived out of pure greed. Like most things with a solely monetary value, it is a worthless affair."

Richard · 28-08-2008, 05:01 AM

As I've said so many times already - it is truly odd that these comments are made about the Champions Trophy before they're made about Twenty20 internationals and bilateral ODI series.

GIMH · 28-08-2008, 05:22 AM

I can see why you'd say that about bilateral ODI series, but not T20s as many Cricket fans and former pros are now fans of the format and as such it makes sense to have an international tournament, whereas the argument against the CT is that there is already a much better & more important ODI tournament.

WRT bilateral ODI series, the reason they don't come in for such stick is:

a - they serve their purpose in team building etc
b - it is like people don't really target international friendlies in football, even if they think they are a waste of time. They would be highly critical though, if a second global tournament was brought in that was a bit shorter and with less teams than the WC. For many, the ODI series are like the international friendlies I guess. Not me, they are way more important than Tests, who cares that England lost the Tests to SA we are well on our way to an ODI series victory

Richard · 28-08-2008, 05:34 AM

I do indeed think bilateral-series ODIs are kinda like international friendlies - not all do by any stretch - and as such they are indeed important as without them you wouldn't have World Cups or Champions Trophies. But there is an excess of them - it is this excess that should be done away with before the Champions Trophy. No-one is suggesting for a second that bilateral series be removed completely.

As far as Twenty20 internationals are concerned - however important some people may consider them, they pale in comparison to the IPL and the Champions Trophy is potentially a much more important thing than any Twenty20 game to the game of cricket.

GIMH · 28-08-2008, 06:31 AM

That's your opinion, though. For me the T20 WC is much more important than the IPL, as I care how England do, couldn't give a **** about Rajastan (sp?) Royals or whoever. It is domestic cricket with a few more overseas players than normal and as such I really don't think you will ever get your wish of it removing the need for T20 internationals.

Richard · 28-08-2008, 09:03 AM

The IPL is a higher standard of Twenty20 (refuse to use the term "standard of cricket") than a Twenty20 international will ever be though. We wait to see whether this nullifies the need for Twenty20 internationals as I hope it might. I always said it was unneccessary anyway - most Twenty20 fans are happy to see a county play the thing, so we really don't need international teams to do so.

Jamee999 · 28-08-2008, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bryce

What is the point in having a belli button

It's where the umbilical cord connects to the baby, isn't it?

GIMH · 28-08-2008, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

The IPL is a higher standard of Twenty20 (refuse to use the term "standard of cricket") than a Twenty20 international will ever be though. We wait to see whether this nullifies the need for Twenty20 internationals as I hope it might. I always said it was unneccessary anyway - most Twenty20 fans are happy to see a county play the thing, so we really don't need international teams to do so.

What makes you say its a higher standard? Wouldn't really agree on that

WRT to T20 fans - I'm not sure if that's still the case. It was originally but I think in any sport where it's possible there will always be a desire for an international game.

25-08-2008, 04:49 PM	#47 (permalink)
morgieb Cricketer Of The Year Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Paradise City Posts: 8,946	I don't know, just ANOTHER one-day junket. It's dire that this often ** tournament is the 2nd best specialist one-day tour. __________________ 4-0** RIP Craig Walsh (Craig) 1985-2012 Proudly supporting the #2 cricketer of all time.

26-08-2008, 12:47 PM	#50 (permalink)
GIMH Eternal Optimist Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Shake my tree where's the apple for me? Posts: 43,656	I might be imagining things, but... In 2005 I had some Uni resits and was in my local library studying for them. I got a bit bored though, and it was the day before the commencement of the 5th Ashes Test, so took a bit of a break, reading the cricket pages of the papers and then looking through the cricket books (I had cricket fever, get it every time I'm REALLY looking forwards to a match). I am sure in one of them it said that the 99 WC was a new plan to hold it every three years but that it was quickly abandoned. Yeah, I wrote all that to say one line __________________ Watch out, for as soon as it pleases them they’ll send you out to protect their gold in wars whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until they can with a flick of the finger tear a million of you to pieces RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.

26-08-2008, 07:14 PM	#52 (permalink)
bryce International Regular Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Hamilton,NZ Posts: 3,370	What is the point in having a belli button __________________ ODI XI to match the best 1.Ryder 2.McCullum+ 3.Guptill 4.Taylor 5.Broom 6.Oram 7.Elliott 8.Vettori* 9.Mills 10.Southee 11.Bond ringaz_ride@hotmail.com To answer your question, yes Thanks? METEORIC RISE ?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Who will win the Champions' Trophy?	GIMH	ICC Champions Trophy 2006	96	05-11-2006 09:44 AM
ICC Champions Trophy Champions-> WEST INDIES	biased indian	ICC Champions Trophy 2004	1	25-09-2004 12:00 PM

26-08-2008, 12:54 PM	#51 (permalink)
Richard Cricket Web Staff Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: 2005 Posts: 80,407	Rings a bell actually, but as I say - it never actually happened. It should be every 2 years, not every 3. Odd numbers just confuse matters.

28-08-2008, 04:50 AM	#53 (permalink)
zaremba Cricketer Of The Year Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: chez les Ashes Posts: 8,730	It's not only the PCA chairman who shares my view: Mike Atherton wrote this today in the Times: "No tears need be shed for the ICC Champions Trophy, a misnomer of a tournament conceived out of pure greed. Like most things with a solely monetary value, it is a worthless affair."

28-08-2008, 05:01 AM	#54 (permalink)
Richard Cricket Web Staff Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: 2005 Posts: 80,407	As I've said so many times already - it is truly odd that these comments are made about the Champions Trophy before they're made about Twenty20 internationals and bilateral ODI series.

28-08-2008, 05:22 AM	#55 (permalink)
GIMH Eternal Optimist Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Shake my tree where's the apple for me? Posts: 43,656	I can see why you'd say that about bilateral ODI series, but not T20s as many Cricket fans and former pros are now fans of the format and as such it makes sense to have an international tournament, whereas the argument against the CT is that there is already a much better & more important ODI tournament. WRT bilateral ODI series, the reason they don't come in for such stick is: a - they serve their purpose in team building etc b - it is like people don't really target international friendlies in football, even if they think they are a waste of time. They would be highly critical though, if a second global tournament was brought in that was a bit shorter and with less teams than the WC. For many, the ODI series are like the international friendlies I guess. Not me, they are way more important than Tests, who cares that England lost the Tests to SA we are well on our way to an ODI series victory

28-08-2008, 05:34 AM	#56 (permalink)
Richard Cricket Web Staff Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: 2005 Posts: 80,407	I do indeed think bilateral-series ODIs are kinda like international friendlies - not all do by any stretch - and as such they are indeed important as without them you wouldn't have World Cups or Champions Trophies. But there is an excess of them - it is this excess that should be done away with before the Champions Trophy. No-one is suggesting for a second that bilateral series be removed completely. As far as Twenty20 internationals are concerned - however important some people may consider them, they pale in comparison to the IPL and the Champions Trophy is potentially a much more important thing than any Twenty20 game to the game of cricket.

28-08-2008, 06:31 AM	#57 (permalink)
GIMH Eternal Optimist Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Shake my tree where's the apple for me? Posts: 43,656	That's your opinion, though. For me the T20 WC is much more important than the IPL, as I care how England do, couldn't give a **** about Rajastan (sp?) Royals or whoever. It is domestic cricket with a few more overseas players than normal and as such I really don't think you will ever get your wish of it removing the need for T20 internationals.

28-08-2008, 09:03 AM	#58 (permalink)
Richard Cricket Web Staff Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: 2005 Posts: 80,407	The IPL is a higher standard of Twenty20 (refuse to use the term "standard of cricket") than a Twenty20 international will ever be though. We wait to see whether this nullifies the need for Twenty20 internationals as I hope it might. I always said it was unneccessary anyway - most Twenty20 fans are happy to see a county play the thing, so we really don't need international teams to do so.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)