Should Super 8 be divided into two groups?

[LA ICE-E]

looking at the ? about it, it came to mind that the recent champions trophy with two groups of 4 was pretty good. super 8 round every team plays 6 games which is 3 more than super 6. thats alot of games. so should it be divided into two groups?(again it would be the same thing like the champions trophy but thats why champions trohpy should be cancelled)

[tooextracool]

its a world cup for christs sake. The top 8 teams should be playing each other otherwise it doesnt really give a fair idea about how good a side is against everyone else.

[marc71178]

Actually, since you're worried about there being too many games - why not change the Super 8 games to Twenty20 matches?

[Richard]

I'm guessing you're too young to remember the 1992 World Cup?

If so - the format used then is widely recognised as the best yet devised - and this is virtually precisely the same, the only difference is that one of the fixtures will be played as part of a preliminary group-stage which also involves the thrashing of a substandard side.

Which is neccessary, according to I$C$C, because 8 teams at a World Cup doesn't sound global enough. There have to be 16. Even though 2 of them are, in cricketing terms, nothing more than parts of an already-cricket-playing country (ie Ireland and Scotland are part of the team known as "England" but reprisenting in reality "The British Isles").

[tooextracool]

honestly i dont see anything wrong with having 16 teams as long as the format is like the way it is this time. The only way you are going to encourage countries to take up cricket is by allowing them to play in big tournaments like a world cup, even if they only play a very small number of games.

[Neil Pickup]

I said this three years ago and I still feel exactly the same.

[Richard]

What on Earth are Scotland and Ireland, for example, going to benefit from by playing against top-8 teams when they've been weaker than the weakest First-Class county for 100 years and more?

As I've said - Scotland and Ireland are for-all-intents-and-purposes simply part of the cricket-playing country mistakenly named "England".

As for the others - how many people really believe that in 50 years' time Bermuda and Canada are going to be Full Member countries giving the current top-8 (maybe top-10 if Zim have recovered by then and Ban have finally become good enough) a good game?

'Cos the evidence that globalisation of cricket can happen again is not overwhelming. None of the most recent additions have been gains of territory, aside from the thoroughly dubious case of Kenya.

I'm all for expansion where it's do-able, but living in cloud-cuckoo-land is no good thing. The one thing which will kill cricket is apathy at no-contests. The World Cup should be cricket's glittering showpiece, not a minnow-bashing parade. OK, this one (unlike the last) does have the opportunity to be both, but would the former only not be preferable?

I'm also not against the odd substandard side playing the bigger ones every now and then, I just don't think such games should be classed ODIs.

[LA ICE-E]

uh yeah i know about the '92 world cup but thing is this world cups longer than any other world cup, plus(thinking positively, so all the negative thinkers go way) what happens when more teams are ready to play in the world cup? should 16 be the limit like 32 is for soccer? i think so...but any ways irealand represents both northern irealand and irealand so it should have its own team because its also a different country. scotland on the other hand i dont know why its not just called UK, are they like different sovern state or something i have no clue about it someone let me know...

[Richard]

Just because ROI is a seperate country to The UK doesn't mean it's any separate in cricketing terms. Every Irishman who has ever got good at cricket has always played for England.

There's no reason at all to suspect that Ireland will ever become a genuine separate force, and to suggest they can right now is absurd.

There is no reason to presume that more teams will ever be strong enough to compete in the World Cup, whether you think positively or whatever. If that happens, you address it then and there, and don't worry about messing-up formats 20 years prior.

[albo97056]

Originally Posted by Richard

Just because ROI is a seperate country to The UK doesn't mean it's any separate in cricketing terms. Every Irishman who has ever got good at cricket has always played for England.

There's no reason at all to suspect that Ireland will ever become a genuine separate force, and to suggest they can right now is absurd.

There is no reason to presume that more teams will ever be strong enough to compete in the World Cup, whether you think positively or whatever. If that happens, you address it then and there, and don't worry about messing-up formats 20 years prior.

I think if you were an irishman you might feel differently. You as an englishman have the opportunity to play for your country, what if the roles were reversed? What if the only way of playing internation cricket was for you to play for ireland? (because england didnt have a team). Im sure youd be screaming out for an english side in those circumstances. Theres nothing like playing for your country and just because you can play for yours doesnt mean you should deprive another of playing for theirs.
Imagine ireland playing as part of england in football?
I dont see how this has anything to do with standard of play here. So dont throw that back in my face... Im not talking about giving ireland test status... not even odi... im talking about giving them an opportunity to represent their country, rather than going abroad and playing for someone else.

[Richard]

Tell me one thing...

Why has every single Irishman who has ever got really good at cricket played in the "English" County Championship (and sometimes for "England")? Does that not suggest that they're happy enough playing for this team, however poorly named it is?

The point is this: Ireland already have their own team. It's just mistakenly called "England". In reality, this team reprisents "The British Isles" and always has done. Yes, Ireland play matches (as do Yorkshire and Sussex) against various sides.

But to have them in a World Cup is ludicrous, given that they are actually nought but a subdivision of a team already in there.

[LA ICE-E]

ah no there not; they play in english county. ok big deal, alot of players from over seas plays in the english county why dont they just play for england? no ones talking about domestice cricket and where a country plays in it because ireland plays county cricket in england to get better not that they want to be part of england. two its tottaly reasonable that more teams will be storng enough because uh kenya might get test status and etc etc etc when there's like 16 test teams but then like the last six in the odi ranking should compete in the qualifier too then but your right its about 20 years from now.

[albo97056]

Originally Posted by Richard

Tell me one thing...

Why has every single Irishman who has ever got really good at cricket played in the "English" County Championship (and sometimes for "England")? Does that not suggest that they're happy enough playing for this team, however poorly named it is?

The point is this: Ireland already have their own team. It's just mistakenly called "England". In reality, this team reprisents "The British Isles" and always has done. Yes, Ireland play matches (as do Yorkshire and Sussex) against various sides.

But to have them in a World Cup is ludicrous, given that they are actually nought but a subdivision of a team already in there.

It just means they have no choice, if they want to play professionally you have to play for england. I guarantee you if the opportunity for ed joyce and those who came before came along for them to play test cricket for ireland they would jump at it. Its not like the irish have a fondness for us is it?
Having said that i dont beleive they should be playing test cricket now... but i do think that they should be working towards it in the future. They need to be a seperate nation in cricket terms. The taking of their best players for the english game is just one of convienience for them, it should stop at some point and working towards an independant irish team is the way forward. In scotlands case i can understand the reluctance. There is certainly a case for calling the england team "great britain", but for ireland - a completely different self governing country to be playing under england is ludicrous. Just because USA havent made the world cup doesnt mean they should play under canada does it?
It is ludicrous for the team to be a subdivision of england, but my solution would be to prevent that subdivision and create two completely seperate teams, rather than to embrace it and create an "isles" team.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by LA ICE-E

ah no there not; they play in english county. ok big deal, alot of players from over seas plays in the english county why dont they just play for england? no ones talking about domestice cricket and where a country plays in it because ireland plays county cricket in england to get better not that they want to be part of england.

Err, they're players specifically qualified to another cricket-playing country. They play as overseas-players, at the same time as playing domestic cricket in their own country.

That's completely different to Irish players playing Championship cricket - they do it because they do want to play for the team called "England".

No-one's saying the Ireland team are part of England - but they play in the competition which is domestic to the cricket-team known as "England".

Those, too, are totally different things.

two its tottaly reasonable that more teams will be storng enough because uh kenya might get test status and etc etc etc when there's like 16 test teams but then like the last six in the odi ranking should compete in the qualifier too then but your right its about 20 years from now.

It may be, or it may be not at all. The evidence that globalisation of cricket can happen again as it did in the 1920s and 1930s is not overwhelming.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by albo97056

It just means they have no choice, if they want to play professionally you have to play for england. I guarantee you if the opportunity for ed joyce and those who came before came along for them to play test cricket for ireland they would jump at it. Its not like the irish have a fondness for us is it?

Err, isn't it? You've never met a friendly Irishman? Isn't that rather a bigoted comment?

If Joyce et al could play for Ireland in international cricket I'm sure they would - but they can't and they never have been able to. The exact same thing would apply to Yorkshire - if most Yorkshiremen could play Tests for Yorkshire rather than England, they too would. Same applies to the vast majority of counties. It's just none have ever been good enough, so they don't. Same is true of Ireland. Just drawing the line at a nation is silly.

Having said that i dont beleive they should be playing test cricket now... but i do think that they should be working towards it in the future. They need to be a seperate nation in cricket terms. The taking of their best players for the english game is just one of convienience for them, it should stop at some point and working towards an independant irish team is the way forward. In scotlands case i can understand the reluctance. There is certainly a case for calling the england team "great britain", but for ireland - a completely different self governing country to be playing under england is ludicrous. Just because USA havent made the world cup doesnt mean they should play under canada does it?

If they wanted to play as "North America" there's no reason they shouldn't. Are USA and Canada any more separate than Jamaica and Barbados?

No.

Whoever wants to play together as a cricketing nation can, there's no nationalistic lines drawn in I$C$C's constitutions and nor should there be. It just so happens that USA and Canada currently don't.

It is ludicrous for the team to be a subdivision of england, but my solution would be to prevent that subdivision and create two completely seperate teams, rather than to embrace it and create an "isles" team.

Why change something that has been the case for a century and more? Everyone is perfectly happy with Ireland being a part of the British Isles cricket team, even if that team is known as "England".