i would say rugby wc format is better and that is what cricket should follow
Not really. The USSR excelled at sports where performance could be enhanced by systematic doping.
And there is no systematic doping in soccer?
doesn't take into account Australia being dominant in world cups in cricket. no team in football has a similar dominance, best is Brazil who also have 5 wins but across a lot more tournaments. there are more teams likely to win the world cup in football too
It was all about Olympic medals in sports where average competitors can compete above their level.
Not really, they always did OK, only failed to qualify for two SWCs, and came third in 1966, also did decently in the Euro Champs, and won it once.
Yeah but u would expect more from the country with that size and sporting history
they've been hampered by internal politics. Streltsov was one of the most talented players in their history and barely played for them because he was arrested on dubious charges and jailed for years by their govt for instance
The USSR actually won quite a few medals (including golds) in Olympic football/soccer.
A tournament can have same winner multiple times and still be competitive. For eg. WC 87,99,03 and 15 were highly entertaining even though Aus won all of them .
Not true of any other sport of course....
Men's Olympic footy is not meaningful in any sense
According to Wiki the USSR also cheated by playing pros when only amateurs were supposed to be allowed to play.
fixed
