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

[16 tins of Spam]

Originally Posted by LA ICE-E

South Africa didn't play cricket in the 80's

Oops! You're right, of course. Unfortunately by pointing that out, you've strengthened my "quality over quantity" argument.

[LA ICE-E]

but quality quantity over just quality 'cause we already got quantity but are trying to get quality quantities.

[16 tins of Spam]

It says a lot about your posting style that I can't tell whether that comment was meant to be taken seriously or was a joke.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by 16 tins of Spam

Apples and oranges. Canada (and indeed, all the other minnows) is not comparable as no-one has heard of, let alone cares about, cricket in the home country. Sri Lanka were obvious candidates for test status due to the existing infrastructure and enthusiasm for the game. The same applies to Bangladesh now, but none of the others.

I wouldn't disagree with that, but the game in Sri Lanka didn't develop independently of outside influence, did it? Someone planted the original seed from whence it grew.

In Ireland at least I think the exposure the WC provided will have a positive effect on the game over there I'd imagine. I was actually in Galway when Ireland beat Pakistan & it made the front page of the Irish Daily Mirror! If they'd managed to beat us I reckon Trent Johnstone could've run for president.

I don't for one second think the game will whither & die if it fails to move beyond its heartlands, but I do think it'd be a crying shame if the ICC didn't at least try to spread the gospel. For no other reason than the simple fact that it's a splendid sport that everyone should play. Or watch at least.

[16 tins of Spam]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

I wouldn't disagree with that, but the game in Sri Lanka didn't develop independently of outside influence, did it? Someone planted the original seed from whence it grew.

I have to admit that I don't know how that seed was planted. I figured it had a lot to do with British influence and geographical location (ie. in the subcontinent). But, was it planted deliberately, as a means of expansion?

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by 16 tins of Spam

I have to admit that I don't know how that seed was planted. I figured it had a lot to do with British influence and geographical location (ie. in the subcontinent). But, was it planted deliberately, as a means of expansion?

I dunno either, but we'd be the most likely candidates I suppose, yes. That wasn't my point tho, really. My point is that cricket has spread to other countries & exposure on the world stage must help its development in those countries. Sri Lanka weren't much better than Bangladesh are now when they initially got test status, but exposure to the best teams accelerated their growth. I'm not for one second advocating giving test status to Ireland, but I do think the ICC should encourage cricket's development in that country.

I don't think cricket can really be introduced were there is no interest (or as close to no interest as makes no odds), but in coutries where there is a following it can certainly be nurtured IMHO.

[16 tins of Spam]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

I dunno either, but we'd be the most likely candidates I suppose, yes. That wasn't my point tho, really. My point is that cricket has spread to other countries & exposure on the world stage must help its development in those countries. Sri Lanka weren't much better than Bangladesh are now when they initially got test status, but exposure to the best teams accelerated their growth. I'm not for one second advocating giving test status to Ireland, but I do think the ICC should encourage cricket's development in that country.

I don't think cricket can really be introduced were there is no interest (or as close to no interest as makes no odds), but in coutries where there is a following it can certainly be nurtured IMHO.

I don't actually disagree with you at all. My initial suggestion was that if people wanted a shorter and higher quality WC, then cutting the minnows out would be the most logical way, and I don't believe that most people would shed a tear for them.

I personally don't have a problem with the length, or with them being there. What killed the '07 edition for me was Australia's complete dominance, coupled with the complete lack of caribbean atmosphere, or indeed any actual spectators.

[SJS]

Originally Posted by 16 tins of Spam

I don't actually disagree with you at all. My initial suggestion was that if people wanted a shorter and higher quality WC, then cutting the minnows out would be the most logical way, and I don't believe that most people would shed a tear for them.

I personally don't have a problem with the length, or with them being there. What killed the '07 edition for me was Australia's complete dominance, coupled with the complete lack of caribbean atmosphere, or indeed any actual spectators.

Frankly there ia another way to make the tournament shorter. Play more matches per day in the first round and at least two per day in the super eight (or equivalent),

This should help by increasing the possibility of getting a good-game-a-day.

It may affect the revenues a bit but that has to be accepted. It may also put some problems regarding logistics in some countries. Again not insurmountable.

[Mister Wright]

Originally Posted by SJS

Frankly there ia another way to make the tournament shorter. Play more matches per day in the first round and at least two per day in the super eight (or equivalent),

This should help by increasing the possibility of getting a good-game-a-day.

It may affect the revenues a bit but that has to be accepted. It may also put some problems regarding logistics in some countries. Again not insurmountable.

That would mean that teams would be playing 3 games in 6 days. Not much time for rest.

[16 tins of Spam]

Originally Posted by SJS

It may affect the revenues

Therein lies the problem.

[LA ICE-E]

Originally Posted by 16 tins of Spam

I don't actually disagree with you at all. My initial suggestion was that if people wanted a shorter and higher quality WC, then cutting the minnows out would be the most logical way, and I don't believe that most people would shed a tear for them.

I personally don't have a problem with the length, or with them being there. What killed the '07 edition for me was Australia's complete dominance, coupled with the complete lack of caribbean atmosphere, or indeed any actual spectators.

there's a lot of other ways to make the format shorter than excluding the minnows, NCCA basketball last about a month and it got 64 teams, (all knockout format) but there's other ways around it, if you really really dislike a minnow, than it could be like knockout stage 1st than a group stage than semis and finals but then you'd risk the "big" teams to getting knocked out by the so called "minnows". You can't have everything... but the point is there's other ways around it to just excluding the minnows from the world cup.

[LA ICE-E]

Originally Posted by 16 tins of Spam

Therein lies the problem.

can't blame them, it's not like the icc makes any money of off anything else so why wouldn't they try to maximize their profit, but again can't have everything and being too greedy is just plain stupid.

[16 tins of Spam]

Originally Posted by LA ICE-E

NCCA basketball last about a month and it got 64 teams, (all knockout format) but there's other ways around it, if you really really dislike a minnow

Basketball isn't comparable because it takes 48 minutes to complete a game, vs seven hours for an ODI. Therefore it's possible to have four or five games of tournament basketball per day and not lose any TV revenue. And for about the fourth time, I don't have a problem with the minnows.

Originally Posted by LA ICE-E

can't blame them, it's not like the icc makes any money of off anything else so why wouldn't they try to maximize their profit, but again can't have everything and being too greedy is just plain stupid.

The ICC are supposed to only be concerned with administering the sport. Making a profit should not be an objective for them.

[LA ICE-E]

Originally Posted by 16 tins of Spam

Basketball isn't comparable because it takes 48 minutes to complete a game, vs seven hours for an ODI. Therefore it's possible to have four or five games of tournament basketball per day and not lose any TV revenue. And for about the fourth time, I don't have a problem with the minnows.


The ICC are supposed to only be concerned with administering the sport. Making a profit should not be an objective for them.

Yeah but it's not like cricket's having 64 teams, was more referring that to the fifa wc if they wanted they could even do that. But anyway, they do have games on at the same time but it's shown by region interest on teams to show which game.

Well money is part of administering the sport. Why can't the minnows get better? because they don't have the money. Money talks.

[16 tins of Spam]

Originally Posted by LA ICE-E

Why can't the minnows get better? because they don't have the money. Money talks.

Sorry, but that's bollocks. They don't get better because all the talented sportsmen in those countries end up playing whichever sport is most prevalent in those countries. Throwing money at cricket is never going to be effective if no-one's watching the games on pay TV or at the pub, or if no-one's talking about it at the office water cooler.