Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 78

Thread: So the tournament's too long, eh???

  1. #16
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Mister Wright's Avatar
    Burger Time Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    24,348
    What I really liked about WC 2007 is the format. The Group stages meant something. Even when teams were playing minnows they had to play their best side, because if they lost, they had to win the other two. It also made the game between the 'competitive' nations all that much more import, because it gave you an incentive to win the game and have some extra points in the super stage.

    .
    Cricketweb Colts Captain



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    Hayden > Lehmann
    I'm a member of Club Kerry

    I'm Green

    The color of immortality, nature and envy - you are truly a unique person. While clearly the color of nature, you also symbolize rebirth, fertility and hope in the world. On the other side of the spectrum, a natural aptitude to money with green coming to signify money and possibly even *********!

  2. #17
    International Regular 16 tins of Spam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Your mom's house
    Posts
    3,557
    10 teams, each plays the other once in a round-robin format. Top four into the semi's, and so on. That's 48 games. I personally have nothing against the minnows, but to be honest if the tournament left them out, would anyone complain?
    Member of the Newtown Cricket Club since January '06 - "Per commissum ad taberna"
    Honorary Vice-President of the "Twenty20 Is Boring Society"

  3. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Whangaparaoa, Auckland
    Posts
    10,872
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    Theoretically, a country that has as limited a talent pool as NZ, who also happens to open the bowling with James Franklin and play Craig McMillan should not make the semi finals.
    A bit harsh imo. Both those guys ended up with reasonably good stats for the tournament:
    McMillan Ave 32.57 S/R 87.35 (and he smashed the Aussies with a 67 ball ton in the Chappell Hadlee and fully deserved his place in the WC squad). Franklin took 11 wickets and averaged 95 with the bat and was one of the only guys who actually played alright in the semi.
    Last edited by Fiery; 30-04-2007 at 09:24 PM.

  4. #19
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The great state of New South Wales
    Posts
    43,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Fiery View Post
    A bit harsh imo. Both those uys ended up with reasonably good stats for the tournament:
    McMillan Ave 32.57 S/R 87.35 (not to mention that fact he killed the Aussies in the Chappell Hadlee and fully deserved his place in the WC squad). Franklin took 11 wickets and averaged 95 with the bat and was one of the only guys who actually played alright in the semi.
    Which highlights my point really. The standard of cricket on display was so poor that even McMillan and Franklin managed to do well.
    ~ Cribbage


  5. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Whangaparaoa, Auckland
    Posts
    10,872
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    Which highlights my point really. The standard of cricket on display was so poor that even McMillan and Franklin managed to do well.
    mmm condescending. There were far worse players (in all teams) on display than those two. (Haddin and Johnson for example )

  6. #21
    International Captain
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,171
    Well honestly speaking , from a marketing point of view it was necessary to develop the format in such a way .There is just a simple reason behind it and i.e. Pakistani and Indian teams . Had they reached the super 8's then the viewership and interest and bla bla would have been better . Longer versions of the tournaments are made to prolong the chances of having the money maker teams for a longer period of time . I think that any sane marketing oriented person over here will definately agree with me . But anyways !!!
    Proud member of Twenty20-Is-Boring Society.
    T2IBS Media relations officer
    T2IBS official face
    R.I..P ........ Fardin Qayuumi
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Good luck at the hospital.
    Quote Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero View Post
    Fraz is always the best option IMO
    frazbest@hotmail.com

  7. #22
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The great state of New South Wales
    Posts
    43,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Fiery View Post
    mmm condescending. There were far worse players (in all teams) on display than those two. (Haddin and Johnson for example )
    That's precisely my point, again. The standard of cricket was poor. Comparatively speaking, McMillan and Franklin were good. That says it all.

    I'm not taking anything away from NZ (well, perhaps I am, a bit) - they did as well as their small player pool allowed them to do really. If India, Pakistan and England were as organised, focused as professional as NZ, the standard of world cricket would be much, much better (but unfortunately for you, NZ would drop to about 6th on the world rankings.) I like NZ because they basically operate at maximum capacity all the time - an admirable trait that other nations could learn from.

  8. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Whangaparaoa, Auckland
    Posts
    10,872
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    That's precisely my point, again. The standard of cricket was poor. Comparatively speaking, McMillan and Franklin were good. That says it all.

    I'm not taking anything away from NZ (well, perhaps I am, a bit) - they did as well as their small player pool allowed them to do really. If India, Pakistan and England were as organised, focused as professional as NZ, the standard of world cricket would be much, much better (but unfortunately for you, NZ would drop to about 6th on the world rankings.) I like NZ because they basically operate at maximum capacity all the time - an admirable trait that other nations could learn from.
    Again...patronising viewpoint. If we operated at maximum capacity there would be a parade down Queen St about now

  9. #24
    International Regular 16 tins of Spam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Your mom's house
    Posts
    3,557
    Give it up.

  10. #25
    International Captain thierry henry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    5,297
    I agree with you EWS, but I think you'd laugh if you saw the way NZers respond to our cricket team.....our public and media generally regard the Black Caps as a bunch of underperforming wussies who should do better. The World Cup performance has been widely panned as an unmitigated disaster. I'm serious.

  11. #26
    International Regular 16 tins of Spam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Your mom's house
    Posts
    3,557
    Quote Originally Posted by thierry henry View Post
    our public and media generally regard the Black Caps as a bunch of underperforming wussies who should do better.
    Unless they start winning, in which case said media and public act like they've never said a harsh word against the BCs ever.

  12. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Whangaparaoa, Auckland
    Posts
    10,872
    Quote Originally Posted by thierry henry View Post
    I agree with you EWS, but I think you'd laugh if you saw the way NZers respond to our cricket team.....our public and media generally regard the Black Caps as a bunch of underperforming wussies who should do better. The World Cup performance has been widely panned as an unmitigated disaster. I'm serious.
    Quote Originally Posted by 16 tins of Spam View Post
    Unless they start winning, in which case said media and public act like they've never said a harsh word against the BCs ever.
    I prefer to be like that than to settle for mediocrity tbh

  13. #28
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,569
    Quote Originally Posted by 16 tins of Spam View Post
    10 teams, each plays the other once in a round-robin format. Top four into the semi's, and so on. That's 48 games. I personally have nothing against the minnows, but to be honest if the tournament left them out, would anyone complain?
    Yes, I would, and I'd also question how you ever expect the game to grow if you exclude them.
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  14. #29
    State Captain LA ICE-E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    1,973
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    IIRC the 1996 WC was criticised for basically giving a bye to the quarter finals for the big 8, thus rendering the group matches largely irrelevant. We (England) qualified by beating the might of the Netherlands (no offence meant) & the UAE. It was because of this that the "Super" stage was introduced in subsequent tournaments to give the group stage more meaning.

    In my mind there's no doubt that the Super 8 was too long & I personally have never liked the idea of carrying results from earlier rounds forward. I'd just propose two groups of 4 teams in the second round instead with the top two teams progressing to the semis.
    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel_Vimes View Post
    But the Champions Trophy already patented that format.

    (the easy solution: Get rid of the Champions Trophy and replace it with a Twenty20 WC. Everybody wins. Except those who like the middle overs, poor sods.)
    you read my mind! but then you know there's the people who wants a tournament for the elite teams alone and then those would try to make the wc a elite team tournament. right now when they complain we can simply say go watch the CT for that but still i'm not a fan of the CT.

  15. #30
    State Captain LA ICE-E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    1,973
    Quote Originally Posted by 16 tins of Spam View Post
    10 teams, each plays the other once in a round-robin format. Top four into the semi's, and so on. That's 48 games. I personally have nothing against the minnows, but to be honest if the tournament left them out, would anyone complain?
    yeah i would! go watch the CT for your elite teams tournament

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. How long can Australia last?
    By MrPerko in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 230
    Last Post: 08-06-2008, 04:56 PM
  2. Golf - importance of tournaments, tours
    By Pratters in forum General Sports Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 29-01-2005, 12:50 PM
  3. Long awaited Indian Squad for the WC
    By V Reddy in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 29-12-2002, 08:56 AM
  4. Long time no see
    By Cybersmurf in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-04-2002, 11:10 AM
  5. How long will it take
    By Cybersmurf in forum Site Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 26-11-2001, 11:54 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •