ICC gets a slap in the face from weaker teams

[Goughy]

Im interested to see if there was a thread or post about the 'poor' tournament fromat before the World Cup started.

Has the format suddenly got bad because of the poor performances of certain teams or are their people out there that deserve kudos for stating this opinion before the WC began?

 

[BoyBrumby]

However well they may have played, India and Pakistan's players remain notably superior and for them to lose required extreme paucity on their part.

Paucity of what? Or did India & Pakistan just not find eleven players to stick out?

 

[LA ICE-E]

really though i didn't see a lot of indian fans anyway at the games compared to the ones england had...so if the icc is slapped in the terms of it money..then it is also applauded for its development program and its build up for minnows up to the tournament

 

[Richard]

Paucity of what? Or did India & Pakistan just not find eleven players to stick out?

Paucity of cricket playing.

 

[Richard]

Im interested to see if there was a thread or post about the 'poor' tournament fromat before the World Cup started.

Has the format suddenly got bad because of the poor performances of certain teams or are their people out there that deserve kudos for stating this opinion before the WC began?

The things which seem at the time like the greatest idea in The World can turn-out pitiful.

 

[marc71178]

Except this hasn't turned out anything but the better sides in the Group stages getting through to the Super 8s - precisely what the Tournament is about.

 

[Richard]

It hasn't turned-out anything yet because the Super Eights have not yet happened.

 

[LA ICE-E]

but the top 8 teams from the group stage did go on to the super 8...if the last two teams from dont do that good...the other two that they replaced wouldn't have made a difference either...

 

[Athlai]

Well after watching India and Pakistan crush their opponents (once), we did see a bit of the fire that could have emerged if they had stayed on.

 

[LA ICE-E]

pakistan didn't crush zim and india crushed bermuda...but then their fire went away again against sri lanka

 

[Athlai]

Well I rate Sri Lanka very highly, I believe they have the most formidable current bowling line up of any team. The likes of which any batting team may crumble against.
Malinga, Murali, Vaas and Maharoof can all be very dangerous.
The kind of players that other teams base their whole attack around, and they have a bunch of them.

Nazir scoring 160 I feel is definitely showing a bit of fire espacially under the circumstances.

 

[LA ICE-E]

ok, certainly they couldn't fire against good team like sri lanka than how would they fire against australia, new zealand, south africa? while bangladesh and ireland do have a chance to make impact against the rest just like india and pakistan would...so not much difference...

 

[Richard]

but the top 8 teams from the group stage did go on to the super 8...if the last two teams from dont do that good...the other two that they replaced wouldn't have made a difference either...

That's nonsense of the highest order. Just because someone played crap in one game doesn't mean a thing as to what they could do in the future had they got the chance.

Would you cancel a tour if a team was rubbish in it's first tour-game because if you can't beat British Universities you haven't a chance against England in a Test? No, of course you wouldn't. The better side remains the better side, regardless of the outcome of one tospy-turvy game.

 

[Poker Boy]

That's nonsense of the highest order. Just because someone played crap in one game doesn't mean a thing as to what they could do in the future had they got the chance.

Would you cancel a tour if a team was rubbish in it's first tour-game because if you can't beat British Universities you haven't a chance against England in a Test? No, of course you wouldn't. The better side remains the better side, regardless of the outcome of one tospy-turvy game.

Actually India and Pakistan played crap in two games (if they had defeated WI and SL they would stil be in) and it is the World CUP not the World League.. if you believe the best team should always win, should we scrap SF and final and just give the Trophy to who tops the Super 8s? (remember Pakistan in '92. They weren't the best team - but they were the best team when it mattered.)

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

That's nonsense of the highest order. Just because someone played crap in one game doesn't mean a thing as to what they could do in the future had they got the chance.

Unless he's in an Ireland XI...

 

[Richard]

Actually India and Pakistan played crap in two games (if they had defeated WI and SL they would stil be in)

But said games were always 50\50 affairs. It was expected that the loser of those 2 games would go through anyway.

and it is the World CUP not the World League.. if you believe the best team should always win, should we scrap SF and final and just give the Trophy to who tops the Super 8s? (remember Pakistan in '92. They weren't the best team - but they were the best team when it mattered.)

TBH I'd not be massively averse to the scrapping of the SF and Final - it'd possibly be more fun to have a double-Super Eight. But anyway... it ain't gonna happen.

 

[LA ICE-E]

get this thing it your head...this insn't a league. this is more like the play offs...and the uncernty of it is the fun part...if anyone watches the nfl the chargers were the best team with the best record in the league games..but in the play offs they went out in their 1st game...it may not be fair but you know the format and so you cant afford to have a bad game...so thats the fun part of it...so for you richard you shouldn't pay attention to the wc but you should pay more attention to the rakings wich is more of the league kind of thing...

 

[Richard]

The rankings are so ludicrously formatted as to be almost worthless. Matthew Engel hit the nail on the head when he said it "was so arcane it went virtually unnoticed".

Finals are an inevitable part of World Cups and probably always will be. But the participation of 8 teams who're not good enough to provide serious competition, even if they do manage a single upset, is not a neccessary part of the finals.