speed hits back at critics...

[LA ICE-E]

He's got some valid points when comparing the tri-series in australia which took 32 days involving just 3 teams and 10 games in all for the finalists which is just one more than the world cup.
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wc20...ry/291845.html

[howardj]

Good on him for pointing those things out. I'm so tired of people just bashing the ICC and sheeting home the blame to it, for absolutely everything that is wrong with cricket.

[pup11]

Now this thing has been said time and again that had India and Pakistan qualified for the Super 8's then this WC would have been a lot more exciting, agreed Bangers and the Irish stepped up a level or two of their game but it was never enough to make the Super 8 stage a closely contested affair.



As for the tri-series in Australia already people have started to say that the series's format has got outdated and its future is in doubt.

[Jono]

Far out he's ugly.

Remember SL pointing out how devilish he looked.

[Richard]

Good on him for pointing those things out. I'm so tired of people just bashing the ICC and sheeting home the blame to it, for absolutely everything that is wrong with cricket.

I know what you mean and I thought a similar thing when I read Tim de Lisle's Notes By The Editor in 2003, but equally there's simply no disputing that I$C$C is for the most part a laughing-stock.

[16 tins of Spam]

He's more or less failed to properly address almost all of the criticism in those comments. I don't recall anyone complaining about logistical shortcomings

[Natman20]

The cup has taken the appropriate time to finish IMO and I think what the ICC have done this year is good apart from stupid things such as banning instruments and things like that.

[howardj]

He's more or less failed to properly address almost all of the criticism in those comments. I don't recall anyone complaining about logistical shortcomings

What people have complained about are:

The lack of competitive matches: The people responsible for this are the weak-at-heart teams like England, Pakistan, India and the West Indies - not the ICC.

The lack of spectators: The prices for tickets (which has been the main reason put forward by critics for lack of spectators) were set by the local authorities, who are meant to know their economy best - not the ICC.

The length of the tournament: Clearly, if you want minnows, reserve days, travel days, training days and rest days, and the television companies (who pump enormous revenue into the game) want the matches on separate days, it's hard for things not to become protracted. And is this tournament any more protracted than say the CB Series in Australia (which has 3 teams, but lasts for 32 days? By contrast, this tournament has 16 teams but lasts for 43 days).

Granted, the ICC are hardly perfect, but it's just so easy, convenient and misguided to lay all of the blame for everything bad in cricket, at their feet.

[LA ICE-E]

Now this thing has been said time and again that had India and Pakistan qualified for the Super 8's then this WC would have been a lot more exciting, agreed Bangers and the Irish stepped up a level or two of their game but it was never enough to make the Super 8 stage a closely contested affair.



As for the tri-series in Australia already people have started to say that the series's format has got outdated and its future is in doubt.

Had india and pakistan qualified i don't think there'd be a lot of this criticism. And it's the respective teams fault that they didn't qualify. And guess what though, it wasn't just bangladesh and ireland that weren't putting up closely contested affairs. He games involving big names aus vs nz was like one of the biggest one side games in this cup...

well they are having the tri series again this season, so i don't think it's future is in any doubt.

[LA ICE-E]

What people have complained about are:

The lack of competitive matches: The people responsible for this are the weak-at-heart teams like England, Pakistan, India and the West Indies - not the ICC.

The lack of spectators: The prices for tickets (which has been the main reason put forward by critics for lack of spectators) were set by the local authorities, who are meant to know their economy best - not the ICC.

The length of the tournament: Clearly, if you want minnows, reserve days, travel days, training days and rest days, and the television companies (who pump enormous revenue into the game) want the matches on separate days, it's hard for things not to become protracted. And is this tournament any more protracted than say the CB Series in Australia (which has 3 teams, but lasts for 32 days? By contrast, this tournament has 16 teams but lasts for 43 days).

Granted, the ICC are hardly perfect, but it's just so easy, convenient and misguided to lay all of the blame for everything bad in cricket, at their feet.

totally agree.

[16 tins of Spam]

What people have complained about are:

The lack of competitive matches: The people responsible for this are the weak-at-heart teams like England, Pakistan, India and the West Indies - not the ICC.

The lack of spectators: The prices for tickets (which has been the main reason put forward by critics for lack of spectators) were set by the local authorities, who are meant to know their economy best - not the ICC.

The length of the tournament: Clearly, if you want minnows, reserve days, travel days, training days and rest days, and the television companies (who pump enormous revenue into the game) want the matches on separate days, it's hard for things not to become protracted. And is this tournament any more protracted than say the CB Series in Australia (which has 3 teams, but lasts for 32 days? By contrast, this tournament has 16 teams but lasts for 43 days).

Granted, the ICC are hardly perfect, but it's just so easy, convenient and misguided to lay all of the blame for everything bad in cricket, at their feet.

IMO the most pertinent complaints have been the ones that pretty much everyone has been saying, namely the ticket prices leading to poor crowds and the way OTT policing of the crowds that have shown up. The format and the length of the tournament is something that seems to me to have divided opinion. Personally, I have no problem at all with the length (so what?), the minnows (they're interesting), or the blowouts (they happen at every cup).

As for blaming the ICC for everything, that's fair. They are ultimately responsible for the welfare of the game, so when the signature event goes pear shaped in an orgy of corporate backslapping, overzealous fun-policing, and overpaid, arrogant players getting themselves knocked out of the tournament before the second round, it's the governing body's money-above-all-else tunnel vision that is at fault. They have wielded the big stick on so many occasions in the past when it's suited them, so for them to wash their hands of all the World Cup's failings by pointing the finger at the organising committee is spineless and abject, IMO.

[howardj]

As for blaming the ICC for everything, that's fair. They are ultimately responsible for the welfare of the game, so when the signature event goes pear shaped in an orgy of corporate backslapping, overzealous fun-policing, and overpaid, arrogant players getting themselves knocked out of the tournament before the second round, it's the governing body's money-above-all-else tunnel vision that is at fault. They have wielded the big stick on so many occasions in the past when it's suited them, so for them to wash their hands of all the World Cup's failings by pointing the finger at the organising committee is spineless and abject, IMO.

No it's not fair. You can't seriously blame the ICC for the fact that half of the teams from the 'major' nations are spineless, and some of the others pretty ordinary. How are Pakistan's, India's, England's, West Indies' meak efforts the fault of the ICC? The players in those sides simply lacked heart.

Furthermore, do you even know who comprises the ICC? It's not, as most journalists and punters seem to think, some unelected group of ICC faceless nobodies who are unconnected to the respective countries who play cricket. Rather, it comprises the Presidents and Chairmen of the ICC's 10 Full Member countries, plus three representatives from Associate Member countries.

So, the countries themselves are the decision makers, it's not some independent, self-appointed separate body of bureaucrats.

[Jono]

Love to see anyone defend the ICC in general after the shambles that became of the WC final. The conclusion was laughable, and I was actually glad I was awake to see it, because reading about it just doesn't do it justice.

The ICC are a joke Howard. You can't blame them for the crapness of various teams during the tourny, but when you compare the governing bodies of other sports compared to cricket, its ridiculous how bad the ICC are. On top of that, the fact that cricket is one of the main sports trying to globalise itself (and the nature of the game (slow, long, lots of rules) already makes that difficult), the way the ICC has promoted cricket to its audiences is a joke.

The ICC officials being booed after the final sums it up really. Sonn presenting the winning trophy instead of Sobers or Weekes is also quite symbolic. Its all about the powers that be, not the players and legends who make the game what it is.

[Langeveldt]

Love to see anyone defend the ICC in general after the shambles that became of the WC final. The conclusion was laughable, and I was actually glad I was awake to see it, because reading about it just doesn't do it justice.

The ICC are a joke Howard. You can't blame them for the crapness of various teams during the tourny, but when you compare the governing bodies of other sports compared to cricket, its ridiculous how bad the ICC are. On top of that, the fact that cricket is one of the main sports trying to globalise itself (and the nature of the game (slow, long, lots of rules) already makes that difficult), the way the ICC has promoted cricket to its audiences is a joke.

The ICC officials being booed after the final sums it up really. Sonn presenting the winning trophy instead of Sobers or Weekes is also quite symbolic. Its all about the powers that be, not the players and legends who make the game what it is.

Spot on

And (apart from the Woolmer tragedy which wasn't their fault), they have managed to turn potentially the best celebration of cricket that has ever been staged into undoubtedly the worst event in the history of the game, well since Bodyline at least..

[LA ICE-E]

Love to see anyone defend the ICC in general after the shambles that became of the WC final. The conclusion was laughable, and I was actually glad I was awake to see it, because reading about it just doesn't do it justice.

The ICC are a joke Howard. You can't blame them for the crapness of various teams during the tourny, but when you compare the governing bodies of other sports compared to cricket, its ridiculous how bad the ICC are. On top of that, the fact that cricket is one of the main sports trying to globalise itself (and the nature of the game (slow, long, lots of rules) already makes that difficult), the way the ICC has promoted cricket to its audiences is a joke.

The ICC officials being booed after the final sums it up really. Sonn presenting the winning trophy instead of Sobers or Weekes is also quite symbolic. Its all about the powers that be, not the players and legends who make the game what it is.

yeah true for the most part but last nights thing was the umpires fault wasn't it? but organizing wise, yeah it wasn't the best world cups.