Has the 'world cup' too many teams?

[Kweek]

dont forget Scotland...Im telling you dont forget them.
Ireland totally agreed.
to be fair, Holland isnt looking to good.
and its ***** stupid that the ECB kicked us out of C&G throphy and let Scotland play totesport

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I don't think the minnows really get anything out of being absolutely hammered. It's pretty obvious that the way for them to improve their standard of cricket is to have a decent domestic structure in place, and to play reasonably regularly against domestic teams from other countries. Incremental improvement - not being absolutely gazzumped by Chaminda Vass (as in the last World Cup) taking 9 for 1 (*slightly exaggerated*) against whoever it was

.....I'm pretty sure he hammered Bangladesh, taking a hat-trick off of his first 3 balls.

 

[TIF]

Now what will happen if one of the "minnows" happens to qualify for the super-8s. Bangladesh do have a chance if they can beat one of India or Sri Lanka or have a good run-rate if it comes down to that. A few also have an outside chance.

Now if one of these minnows does get into the super-8s, do you seriously think that they will be in line for 7 more thrashings, considering that they already caused an upset in the 1st round to get there? Will the other 7 big teams look upon this "minnow" in the super-8 as a team over which they can improve their run-rate? Will reaching the super-8s do more harm than good for the "minnow" which finally gets there?

 

[adharcric]

Now what will happen if one of the "minnows" happens to qualify for the super-8s. Bangladesh do have a chance if they can beat one of India or Sri Lanka or have a good run-rate if it comes down to that. A few also have an outside chance.

Now if one of these minnows does get into the super-8s, do you seriously think that they will be in line for 7 more thrashings, considering that they already caused an upset in the 1st round to get there? Will the other 7 big teams look upon this "minnow" in the super-8 as a team over which they can improve their run-rate? Will reaching the super-8s do more harm than good for the "minnow" which finally gets there?

It doesn't really matter how the 7 big teams approach the "minnow". The "minnow" will face a challenge in playing a top side, and the challenge will be even better if the opposition is batting very attackingly. If they want to advance from "minnow" status, they better live up to the challenge.

 

[Matteh]

You need some minnows in there to make it interesting....e.g. like all the F.A. Cup upsets....When Bangladesh beat Australia in that ODI last year it suddenly showed that Bangladesh could perform....
Some cricket against top class opposition can only help them improve their game surely...although i wouldn't advocate regular playing of World Class vs Minnow because that'd be pointless, raise averages to the point of ridicule, destroy confidence etc.

 

[Josh]

No. There are not too many teams.

 

[honestbharani]

cricket has like the lowest no. of teams for a WC amongst all sports, I reckon. So, I am fine with this format. Plus, the new Champions Trophy format rocks as well. If only they can get the scheduling right.

 

[TIF]

Continuation of "What will happen if a minnow qualifies for the super-8?" -

Will they be in line for 7 more thrashings, considering that they already caused an upset in the 1st round to get there?
Will the other 7 big teams look upon this "minnow" in the super-8 as a team over which they can improve their run-rate?
Will reaching the super-8s do more harm than good for the "minnow" which finally gets there?
Will the cricket fans say that this format was not good as a big team lost out on a super-8 berth just because they lost to a "minnow" and had only 1 bad day?
How will the fans of the big team which loses out on the super-8 spot react?

I do hope that 1 minnow qualifies for the super-8s but not at the expense of India so that I can get the answer to all these questions. Last time, in the 2003 World cup, when Kenya qualified for the super-6s despite beating Sri Lanka and Bangladesh and later on qualified for the semi-finals despite beating a full-strength Zimbabwe, still lots of questions were raised about the format. So I have so many questions coming out about "What will happen if a minnow qualifies for the super-8?"

 

[Langeveldt]

why.. because you are not from Scotland?

 

[dro87]

no... More teams should play in the world cup... Getting hammered is the best way of getting better...

 

[Blaze]

16 teams is fine, but there should be a plate competition for the minnows that don't make it to the Super 8's. It would be good to see them compete against teams of similar skill sets.

 

[Truekiwijoker]

Zimbabwe beating England in 1992 definitely helped their cricket (got Test status the next year I believe).

Zimbabwe also beat Australia in 1983, yet the ICC sensibly waited before taking the big plunge with them

Bangladesh beating Pakistan in 1999 helped their cricket.

How exactly did Pakistan throwing that game help Banglabesh, who are still atrocious?

 

[Truekiwijoker]

Also, I think it also gives them something to play for. Can you imagine how much of a thrill it would be for the players in teams like Ireland and Bermuda

I can recall the Netherlands team in 1996 behaving as though they were on holiday.

especially considering Bermuda is close to the WI and probably attain some large local support, to just participate in the World Cup?

I don't mean to be rude, but I strongly reccomend you invest in an Atlas.

Who cares how they play, they know that they might not even compete in the games they play, but they earned their spot there and they deserve to play in my opinion.

My point is that those spots should not exist.

 

[Truekiwijoker]

i think the minnows should play more cricket, and fewer world cup games.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks.

 

[Truekiwijoker]

no... More teams should play in the world cup... Getting hammered is the best way of getting better...

Feel free to elaborate on how getting hammered improves your game.

 

[Truekiwijoker]

I agree with having the teams in groups of four. Basically, the top 8 (you know who they are) SHOULD advance through to the second round,

And I advocate that ONLY these top 8 should be competing. After all, this is the WORLD CUP, not some demonstration tournament. It's to win a world championship in ODI Cricket, it's serious stuff.

If a team has no chance to ultimately win, why include them?

 

[Deja moo]

It doesnt matter how many teams the WC has. Experience shows that even the best format (the '92 one) had the drawback of, well, seeing a team that was supposed to be knocked out, actually winning it.

 

[Top_Cat]

Zimbabwe also beat Australia in 1983, yet the ICC sensibly waited before taking the big plunge with them

Point? They beat Australia in 1983 then beat England in 1992 then got Test status. As you said they sensibly waited until Zimbabwe had the infrastructure needed to hst a FC competition.

How exactly did Pakistan throwing that game help Banglabesh, who are still atrocious?

Bangladesh won the game, beating Pakistan which obviously helped them with their bid for Test status as well as the large grass-roots support for cricket. Whether Pakistan threw the game (was never proven, if I recall correctly, so the ICC couldnt really point to it as an example of match-fixing per se) is tangential to the point; Bangladesh won, Test status chances were improved. Justified or not, the connection seems pretty clear.

As for whether Bangladesh deserve Test status, they did and will improve. Their juniors are already showing signs of promise. They've been a Test side for a few years now and whilst they've been the international whipping boys to this point, I don't think it'll last too much longer.

 

[Top_Cat]

And I advocate that ONLY these top 8 should be competing. After all, this is the WORLD CUP, not some demonstration tournament. It's to win a world championship in ODI Cricket, it's serious stuff.

Oh please; the WC isn't merely a to-win world championship. It's advocacy and a showcase for the game too. Every other sport with a world-cup has teams who won't win it (especially soccer) yet they quite easily accomodate lesser teams. Why should cricket be any different? It would be non-sensical to only include those teams at the top of the tree because otherwise it'll be the same damn teams every time, automatically ensuring very little audience participation from any other countries than those comprising the WI, SA, Aus, Eng, India, Pak, SL and NZ. Cricket has to have longer reach to survive ultimately and how on Earth is that reach supposed to extend without giving lesser teams a go? How are they supposed to get stuff like funding in their own country to improve their situation if the only incentive is to play against other similarly cash-strapped minnows?

 

[Truekiwijoker]

Point? They beat Australia in 1983 then beat England in 1992 then got Test status. As you said they sensibly waited until Zimbabwe had the infrastructure needed to hst a FC competition.

My point is that Zimbabwe were given test status after cricket had already been established in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe for at least 60/70 years. Zimbabwe weren't given test status becausethey trimphed against the eventually finalising English, they already had established infrastructure and heritage. Even then Zimbabwe head too prove it had quality criketers and the prospect of more on the horizon.
The fact Zimbabwe had a victory in the 1992 world cup has NOTHING to do with them getting test status.

Bangladesh won the game, beating Pakistan which obviously helped them with their bid for Test status as well as the large grass-roots support for cricket. Whether Pakistan threw the game (was never proven, if I recall correctly, so the ICC couldnt really point to it as an example of match-fixing per se) is tangential to the point; Bangladesh won, Test status chances were improved. Justified or not, the connection seems pretty clear.

As for whether Bangladesh deserve Test status, they did and will improve. Their juniors are already showing signs of promise. They've been a Test side for a few years now and whilst they've been the international whipping boys to this point, I don't think it'll last too much longer.

They improved? in what game? I suggest you actually watch some footage of Bangladesh before you make such claims, because they've looked pretty awful to me.

Eventually Bangladesh were always to become a test playing Cricket country. It is the national sport there and has a heritage of over 100 years. Although once the poorest country on earth it's immense population and geographical position alone mean that eventually they would establish a quality test cricket team, wth an eventaully improving economy.
But I strongly feel that their appearance on the test stage was premature and not deserved. It's well-known that the victory over Pakistan was thrown (whether the ever-increasingly dubious ICC wants to admit it) and I feel that thier promotion to test status was for the dubious reasons of quick money and to further entrench the corruption within the ICC with more subcontinent votes.
Perhaps Bangladesh could have been making an entry to the world stage in 1010 after some strong build-up in players and performances, but not when they did.

In any case, it hardly furthers the argument as to why there should be more teams in the world cup. None of the 'minnow' teams have anywhere near what either Zimbabwe or Bangladesh had in terms of infrastructure prior to thier gaining of test status.