Best ODI tourney since '03 WC?

[wpdavid]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

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.

The WC's not hard to sort out - 12 teams instead of 16, 3 groups of 4, top 2 go through to Super 6, then semis and final. Way less meaningless games whilst still exposing the better associate sides. And yes I know Ireland wouldn't have qualified for the last WC under that system, but so what.

[Uppercut]

It would grate me that we'd have to compete against (essentially) every non-test playing nation in the world for two places while Zimbabwe and Bangladesh (who we tied with/beat in the last WC anyway) get there automatically.

[wpdavid]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

It would grate me that we'd have to compete against (essentially) every non-test playing nation in the world for two places while Zimbabwe and Bangladesh (who we tied with/beat in the last WC anyway) get there automatically.

I can understand that. And clearly the Zim situation in particular is a complete nonsense. I suppose for me the loss of loads of hopelessly onesided affairs massively outweighs the degree of unfairness in terms of who actually qualifies. I'd probably feel differently in your shoes.

[Uppercut]

The irony is that an extra "hopelessly one-sided affair" (against Pakistan in the group stages) would have made the whole tournament much better in your eyes. On one hand you say that Associate nations should be cut down because their games with test-playing nations aren't competitive enough, but on the other hand, if they weren't capable of competing, they'd be knocked out in the first round and there wouldn't be a problem.

Ireland's awkward position in relation to the test sides is what brings about the issue. We're no longer bad enough that test nations can count on beating us every time we play them, but we're not yet good enough to compete on a regular basis. Would cutting down the available spots for Associates at the World Cup really be an appropriate response to their ongoing improvement?

[wpdavid]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

The irony is that an extra "hopelessly one-sided affair" (against Pakistan in the group stages) would have made the whole tournament much better in your eyes.

You sure I said that? I know others have commented on how Ireland reaching the 2nd stage helped ruin the WC, but that wasn't my point at all. Unless I've missed your point completely, in which case you'd better spell it out for me please.

Originally Posted by Uppercut

On one hand you say that Associate nations should be cut down because their games with test-playing nations aren't competitive enough, but on the other hand, if they weren't capable of competing, they'd be knocked out in the first round and there wouldn't be a problem.

Ah yes, you must be talking about the weaker sides making it to the 2nd stage. As I said, that wasn't may point at all. As I thought I said at the time, the problem is that most of the associates' games in the 2007 WC were a complete waste of everyone's time. Obviously Ireland vs Pak was an exception, but were there any others? imo, and it in only my opinion, not enough to prevent the competition being devalued by far too many hopelessly lopsided games.

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Ireland's awkward position in relation to the test sides is what brings about the issue. We're no longer bad enough that test nations can count on beating us every time we play them, but we're not yet good enough to compete on a regular basis. Would cutting down the available spots for Associates at the World Cup really be an appropriate response to their ongoing improvement?

Well it would be if they were regularly beating the other associates to ensure that they gained one of the small number of places available to them. As you said earlier, it would also help if they were playing on a level playing field with bang & Zim.