Best WC in a long time?

[slugger]

I thought it was a good wc... any wc where no teams forfiet thier games is good this occured in 96 and 03 due to current world events.

I htought the lenght was alittle over the top.

regarding 2015 I understand that that the lower ranked odi teams along with the top ranked associates play a qualifing round so if it was done today it might involve west indies down zimbabwe and bangladesh vs ireland holland canada (afghanstan) .. thats what i herd. its somewhere on cricinfo.

[Redbacks]

2003 was pretty awesome, the canceled games were dissapointing and rain cost the WI making the next round, but there was a good mix of great bowling performances and batting knocks.

Lara's ton.
Fleming's epic v RSA.
Kenya doing well.
Ganguly's runs, but also that yorker he copped from Bond.
Bond's 6fer v Australia, then Lee's 5fer
Pak v India (Tendulkar with the best 99 of all time).
Davidson going bonkers for Canada.
Symonds ton against Pak, his 75* in the semi on a slow track.
The Ponting hundred in the final .
Nehra v England.
Bichel with 7fer against England + runs.
Sarwan's epic against Sri Lanka after being hurt.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by turnstyle

Dear BCCI

Now that you won, can we come back for 2015?

Regards,

the other 96 countries.

Are the BCCI the one leading the charge to reducing the WC teams for 2015? Just thought it was an ICC thing.

I may be wrong though so please do correct me if that is the case.

[turnstyle]

Originally Posted by Jono

Are the BCCI the one leading the charge to reducing the WC teams for 2015? Just thought it was an ICC thing.

I may be wrong though so please do correct me if that is the case.

Not 100% sure either, but it was more the point that if the BCCI wants a 12/14 team W.C, they'll get it.

[Borges]

Originally Posted by Jono

Are the BCCI the one leading the charge to reducing the WC teams for 2015? Just thought it was an ICC thing.

The ICC constitution is such that it can do absolutely nothing on its own; even the ICC President can'I lift his little finger without the sanction of the general body. What this means is that the mercenary cartel consisting of the boards of the richer nations (BCCI, CA, ECB and CSA) make such decisions, bully the smaller test nations into towing the line, and Lorgat is the ceremonial dummy who announces it to the world.

I would suspect that CA initiated the idea (2015), ECB seconded it (2019) and BCCI gave enthusiastic support, wondering why they hadn't thought of this on their own before the 2011 WC . Who cares about the global growth of cricket as a sport? As long as the package becomes more attractive to the broadcasters and would result in even more money flowing in.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Teja.

Not one 300+ score in the 7 KO games. So much for the expected SC batting-only games.

Because India failed to win either group game they played on roads.

[Evermind]

Originally Posted by Borges

The ICC constitution is such that it can do absolutely nothing on its own; even the ICC President can'I lift his little finger without the sanction of the general body. What this means is that the mercenary cartel consisting of the boards of the richer nations (BCCI, CA, ECB and CSA) make such decisions, bully the smaller test nations into towing the line, and Lorgat is the ceremonial dummy who announces it to the world.

I would suspect that CA initiated the idea (2015), ECB seconded it (2019) and BCCI gave enthusiastic support, wondering why they hadn't thought of this on their own before the 2011 WC . Who cares about the global growth of cricket as a sport? As long as the package becomes more attractive to the broadcasters and would result in even more money flowing in.

I don't understand - so you want even more minnows playing in the world cup? The global growth of cricket shouldn't be achieved by diluting the cricketing level. I don't really want to see Netherlands (or whichever other minnow) playing England, India, SA and WI ad nauseam, when Australia didn't get to play 3 our of those 4 teams. Make it like football - have a pre-qualifying round or something. Awful minnow vs minnow or test team vs minnow games for an entire month isn't a "world cup".

[keeper]

I think it has been a very good game, falling short only in the shortage of authentically classic matches in the knock-out stage.

I'm surprised they don't wait to see how one tournament goes before deciding how to do the next one.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Evermind

I don't understand - so you want even more minnows playing in the world cup? The global growth of cricket shouldn't be achieved by diluting the cricketing level. I don't really want to see Netherlands (or whichever other minnow) playing England, India, SA and WI ad nauseam, when Australia didn't get to play 3 our of those 4 teams. Make it like football - have a pre-qualifying round or something. Awful minnow vs minnow or test team vs minnow games for an entire month isn't a "world cup".

A "world cup" has to contain more than just the top sides.

No-one complains that the football version contains about 24 sides who have absolutely no hope of winning.

The current format worked because it gave the associates plenty of time in the spotlight.

[Daemon]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

A "world cup" has to contain more than just the top sides.

No-one complains that the football version contains about 24 sides who have absolutely no hope of winning.

The current format worked because it gave the associates plenty of time in the spotlight.

But soccer doesn't last for an entire day with lots of one sided action. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for minnows in the WC, but we do need to have some sort of a limit. This WC - 2 minnow teams is perfect imo. Also, Afghanistan needs to play :P

[Howe_zat]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

A "world cup" has to contain more than just the top sides.

No-one complains that the football version contains about 24 sides who have absolutely no hope of winning.

The current format worked because it gave the associates plenty of time in the spotlight.

Agreed. There's no point to calling it a World Cup if we don't see players, teams and cricketing stories that we don't get to see the rest of the time when we just play the top sides.

Incidentally, Evermind, I don't see how you decided the World Cricket League and the World Cup Qualifier tournaments don't count as "a pre-qualifying round or something".

The only issue I had with the current format was that there were far too many matches were the result almost didn't matter, because the group stage had so many matches. To me, there should be a maximum of four teams to a group.

[_Ed_]

Originally Posted by Howe_zat

To me, there should be a maximum of four teams to a group.

Yeah, I agree with that. If that leads to an associate surprisingly getting through, good on them.

[Howe_zat]

Originally Posted by Daemon

But soccer doesn't last for an entire day with lots of one sided action. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for minnows in the WC, but we do need to have some sort of a limit. This WC - 2 minnow teams is perfect imo. Also, Afghanistan needs to play :P

It's easy to say in hindsight that Canda and Kenya shouldn't have come but Ireland and Afghanistan should. Remember that, flawed as it may be, the associates qualified with over two years still to go. Since then, Afghanistan have gone from strength to strength and Kenya have fallen away badly. If we had a qualifying tournament earlier in the WC year, we'd be more likely to have the more competitive teams.

[Howe_zat]

Originally Posted by _Ed_

Yeah, I agree with that. If that leads to an associate surprisingly getting through, good on them.

Exactly. I have heard people say things like the seven-team group "rewards consitency" - well, who cares about consistency? That's not the point of a tournament. You may as well not bother and hand the trophy to the no.1 ranked team - they've been the consistent side in ODI cricket.

If I had my way, I'd have all knockouts from beginning to end. Of course, this isn't feasible - it'd be over too quickly and you can't make half the teams prepare for a world cup and fly out there just for one match. Four teams to a group ensures everyone gets a few games and there's plenty of matches to sell tickets to. But they all still mean something.

[Daemon]

Originally Posted by Howe_zat

It's easy to say in hindsight that Canda and Kenya shouldn't have come but Ireland and Afghanistan should. Remember that, flawed as it may be, the associates qualified with over two years still to go. Since then, Afghanistan have gone from strength to strength and Kenya have fallen away badly. If we had a qualifying tournament earlier in the WC year, we'd be more likely to have the more competitive teams.

Agreed.