Discussing Problems of Cricket and its nations | Lack Of Communication

[qpeedore]

Having more nations in the world cup is definitely a great thing on paper, however ODI cricket is a full day game. It's not 90 to 120 minutes as football is. It's not 4 to 5 hours as T20 is. We don't want the grounds being deemed unfit for play. We don't want the umpires suffering from burnout. You have to consider all these things. Then there is the whole thing of TV and broadcasting rights and all that.

I think it's a great idea to have more teams. Is it a FEASIBLE idea? Maybe not...even something like HawkEye requires multiple cameras to be set up. If a match isn't being broadcasted on TV would they still have the review system with HawkEye in place? Would the ICC and host country pay for this, knowing full well that said match wouldn't even be on TV?

It's tough to really make a call. Hong Kong, Nepal, Holland...these are teams that have shown talent...but we can't take the odd win over other bigger teams as proof. They've lost to bigger teams way more than they've won.

I'm not saying I particularly like the current system. I'm only saying that it might just work. You don't know anything unless you try it. Let the ICC try it. If it fails, it fails. We will protest. If it works, it works. We will still protest. So do as you will.

 

[asprin]

Having more nations in the world cup is definitely a great thing on paper, however ODI cricket is a full day game. It's not 90 to 120 minutes as football is. It's not 4 to 5 hours as T20 is.

Excellent point. Thought I was the only one against the idea of more teams in a World Cup. My views were very similar w.r.t to the time factor. You just cannot have matches going on for 8 hours between two very unbalanced sides.

 

[qpeedore]

I'm not saying that Associate nations shouldn't be given a chance to participate, but that's why there are qualifiers. You don't qualify you don't go in, simple as that. My own West Indies team had to qualify. We weren't just given a spot.

 

[Targaryen]

My straight answer is no.

The top 10 teams wouldn't mind smashing the associates and this would only benefit the stronger teams and not the weak teams. Yes, the associate teams have talent, skill and ability to play in World Cup and when you can see teams like Zimbabwe, West Indies getting beaten badly (not in successive games but at least once in 6 months) it wouldn't be a better option to allow more teams in WorldCups.

Tbh time factor wouldn't make any sense. Not against the associate teams at least. For example: India is batting first against Hong Kong and the conditions are good for batting. Rohit smashes 200 followed by Kohli scoring another century. 3-4 hrs have passed and innings ends with something around 350+. The bowling department tears the opposition batting apart within 1 hr of start of play. So it would be 5 hrs game. Something which shouldn't be an issue considering we get to see 3-4 hrs of T20 cricket and players are used to it.

This would bring down their morale. Rohit, Kohli & bowlers' stats would go up and they would get the points for winning the game - a one sided game. Again, I'm not calling Hong Kong a weak team but it isn't as strong as Australia or England either.

Hope you got my point.

 

[asprin]

I'm not saying that Associate nations shouldn't be given a chance to participate, but that's why there are qualifiers. You don't qualify you don't go in, simple as that. My own West Indies team had to qualify. We weren't just given a spot.

Right. I second that. My views are not be construed as having zero Associates in the tournament - just that it should be limited.

 

[qpeedore]

You're correct but which match would YOU broadcast on TV? India vs Hong Kong or Zimbabwe vs West Indies?

You'd give the TV rights to the India match, even if the Zimbabwe match might just be a heart stopper with 8 runs to win in the final over.

 

[Master Bates]

@qpeedore Holland? In post #16

 

[qpeedore]

The Netherlands.

 

[Morphed]

Excellent point. Thought I was the only one against the idea of more teams in a World Cup. My views were very similar w.r.t to the time factor. You just cannot have matches going on for 8 hours between two very unbalanced sides.

I have a feeling that atleast 3-4 game sin this england wc will be duckworth lewis due to rain

 

[Mijurkat]

Should the number of teams participating in the World Cup be extended?

No.

It is clear that, ICC is looking for quality, not quantity. So, more inclusion of teams will make this huge tournament dull & boaring. I think this decision is appropriate as we would get to see closer matches and less predictability in who will win the World Cup, making it a more exciting tournament. So, whatever happens, it always happens for good.

 

[aditya123]

Excellent point. Thought I was the only one against the idea of more teams in a World Cup. My views were very similar w.r.t to the time factor. You just cannot have matches going on for 8 hours between two very unbalanced sides.

Thats completely from a TV point of view. However, how are you going to convince players in non-test playing nations to take up to the sport when they have no shot at the biggest event in the sport! The reason you have Afghanistan and Ireland where they are right now is because they had a goal at the end of every 4 years to look forward to. What will you tell a guy in Scotland and Netherlands right now? He might be at his prime now but has no shot at a World Cup not because they are not good enough but because the tournament has restricted itself.

Also, to all those saying the tournament will be too long, you can have alternate formats as well. The 2003 WC was one of the most successful ones in my memory and the format was spot on back then. The group stages had sides like Namibia, Kenya, Canada and Netherlands. The sides would carry over points from the league stage to the Super Six and thus the group stages meant a lot and the games against the smaller nations also had meaning. Also, only 3 out of six sides from the group stages would go ahead. Also, my favorite memories from World Cups are mostly those involving smaller nations. I will list a few:
Kenya's wins over WI (1996) and against SL, Zimbabwe in 2003
Ireland's WC wins against Pakistan, England and WI in their 3 world cups
John Davison's stunning 100 which was the fastest WC hundred and his record was then broken by another Associate batsman in K.O'Brien
Afghanistan vs Scotland in the 2015 WC
UAE v Ireland and UAE v Zimbabwe in the 2015 WC

and so many others!

ICC have been shortsighted and have only cared about maximising the games between the test playing sides.

 

[asprin]

However, how are you going to convince players in non-test playing nations to take up to the sport when they have no shot at the biggest event in the sport!

That's what the qualifiers are for, aren't they? If the prospect of playing in a World Cup isn't enough, then I don't know what is.

 

[Master Bates]

I feel that 12 members should be enough. I hope Zimbabwe will soon reach their potential and become the 11 nation. For Ireland, I feel bad for Ed Joyce who got the chance to play only one Test match in his career.

 

[qpeedore]

How many nations play football? How many nations as a percentage of that get into the World Cup?

If Italy can sit and watch because others qualified in front of them, the same can happen with cricket.

 

[ParkedTheBus]

How many nations play football? How many nations as a percentage of that get into the World Cup?

If Italy can sit and watch because others qualified in front of them, the same can happen with cricket.

Not a valid comparison I'm afraid. The game is too long for the average person to care about if his/her team is not playing. No neutral is going to spend 8 hours watching a game unless it involves 2 of the 3 best teams in the world. Eventually, this will lead to them moving away from the game. This applies to both players and fans. You've raised a few very valid points about the feasibility of having more teams but if it's a choice between spending some more money and having more teams, it should always be the latter. You could always take inspiration from how the passion for football has/had increased in a few countries after a WC qualification or a famous upset during the main tournament. As it is, the game is on the verge of losing a few stellar contributors over the past few decades like West Indies and Sri Lanka. A few more missteps and Australia/South Africa/England might follow the same path too.



And if we're discussing hypotheticals on how to make the game more global - The best, and maybe only, way to keep everyone happy and bring more countries into the game (more countries = more popularity = more quality in the longer term) is by prioritizing T20. It's short, fast and engaging enough to keep the fans and amateurs glued. Use that to get countries like USA, Germany, etc in and then watch the game become exponentially better and more popular. The likes of Messi/Ronaldo are popular in almost every country on the planet but you'd be lucky to find someone who knows about cricket beyond the test playing nations and the major associates. If cricket continues on its current path, I doubt anybody outside the subcontinent and a few die-hards from elsewhere will even know about the best cricketer on the planet around 2030.