It went on slightly longer than normal but the cricket world cup has always been a fairly lengthy tournament (well, from the 1990s onwards it certainly has, dunno about before that).
In the 1992 World Cup 9 teams played 8 games each- that's more like a season than a tournament. But everyone loved that.
Well, choosing between ODI tourneys....
But in seriousness, if we had more pitches with low scores like some of these games, ODIs might actually hold a passable interest for me. Really happy with the low scoring games so far. I haven't been following the tourney, but I do pop into the cricinfo commentary time to time, and when the teams are chasing a small contest, I tend to stick around for a while.
Last edited by silentstriker; 30-09-2009 at 09:31 PM.
I think the Champions Trophy has unveiled the very nature of ODI's. The nature of ODIs as i understood is of a mixture of Tests and T20s. Sometimes you have to play ODI's like T20s and sometimes like Tests......this forces the teams to make profound strategies then just bang bang or tuk tuk.....I don't think the importance of ODIs was this clear ever before......for all those who think ODIs are done or they should be modified are out of their mind....ODIs are a perfect balance and must stay the way they are.....perhaps the only modification could be the Referral system.
You don't want each and every game to be a nail biter either like T20's because then its hard to see the reward of a good innings or a good bowling spell. For example, in the T20 there have been many occasions where there has been a phenomenal innings played or a great bowling spell bowled. I.e SA VS Pak in semis and Kallis's innings.....yet SA lost. And in the final......Razzaq's three quick wickets yet the game got too close and the impact of Razzaq's spell seemed very low or perhaps less significant then what it may have in an ODI......in order for these types of exceptional performances to be rewarded properly in games, i personally think ODIs are the best platform.....
Last edited by Faisal1985; 01-10-2009 at 10:27 AM.
Be VERY AFRIDI!!
Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!
The first 2020WC was pretty good iirc.
And yes, of course all of the ICC comps have been better than the recent WC's for all the reasons previously stated.
I think most people know that I hate limited overs format. I hate it with a passion. However, they are certainly the financial backbone of world cricket, and we have to live with such formats, I would be content with competitions such as these. Short, no meaningless games, good contest between bat and ball, and the best teams in the world playing almost every day. T20 has many of these things (especially the short part, which is #1 in my admittedly biased opinion), but if ODIs were simply short fast exciting tournaments once in a while, instead of seven game abominations, I would not mind as much. I still wouldn't like it, or particularly watch many of them, but it would be understandable.
Considering how much flak the ICC get, I think it's high time to praise them for hitting on pretty much the perfect formula and execution of an ODI format. Good for them, hopefully this becomes the standard from now on. WC may need to have more teams, but I hope they can keep a format that's similar.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)