General Cricket Discussion

[stefan]

the format of this competition is pathetic. how in the group stage can there be only one game a day and teams going up to a week between games? it's bloody ODI cricket, they don't need that long to recover. the group stage should be much more intensive, and there should be much more cricket on each day - 2 games minimum.

Agreed. Guess the broadcasters want all the big games during weekend/prime time viewing. This is especially ridiculous considering there is 2 host nations.

 

[Skater]

If you notice, there are 2 games a day at weekends and only 1 during the week.

I thought it would be more sensible for Australia to have been in Pool A and New Zealand in Pool B, and for the teams in each pool to be based in one country rather than having to move between the two.

Take England for example. They played their first game in Melbourne, then will have played three games in New Zealand before playing their two in Adelaide and Sydney.

 

[Greninja]

I think Zimbabwe can make it in the tomorrows game

 

[War]

Been awol, but just some general opinion points.

Many have probably said it, but For me going into W-Cup AUS/NZ/SA were equal favourites and it would be a major shock if all 3 are not in semi's. Who is the 4th semi finalist is anyone's guest - but I won't be surprised if its India. Their ODI team isn't that impressive, but they have a knack of doing well in tournaments in recent years.

Despite associates showing some good signs in this cup, people need to be careful about not to get knee jerk in their calls for them to get test status etc. Cricket has a terrible scheduling and vision problem that the so called best minds in the game have been unable to fix since god knows when. Associates need a clear development plan as i always say.

S Africa i suspect missed a trick by not picking a proper all-rounder like McClaren or Weise to bat at # 7, as the surprise India defeat shows one bad day at that short batting could be exposed and it could be the difference between them finally winning a world cup or not.

 

[MattW]

I thought it would be more sensible for Australia to have been in Pool A and New Zealand in Pool B, and for the teams in each pool to be based in one country rather than having to move between the two.

I took this post way too seriously and actually calculated it all, found a website that measures distances between airports and plugged each team's fixtures in:

New Zealand 1990km
Scotland 3352km
South Africa 6400km
England 7604km
Zimbabwe 7768km
Sri Lanka 8478km
India 8830km
Ireland 9912km
Bangladesh 11193km
West Indies 11437km
Pakistan 11717km
UAE 12025km
Australia 13346km
Afghanistan 14809km

Australia certainly don't get a home advantage - India have to play in Perth, but get to play two matches in a row there, so they don't have to immediately fly over to NZ like most of the other teams playing in Perth.

Maps attached.

 

[shravi]

the format of this competition is pathetic. how in the group stage can there be only one game a day and teams going up to a week between games? it's bloody ODI cricket, they don't need that long to recover. the group stage should be much more intensive, and there should be much more cricket on each day - 2 games minimum.

I don't know. everyone's busy during the week, and i prefer having most (not all, since that's not possible) of the smaller teams playing on those days so I can watch all the big games on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. I understand what you're saying, but I (and many others) get to watch more games this way.

 

[SaiSrini]

I have to say the proposal to reduce teams to 10 is just ludicrous. Its the 'World Cup', whats the point if its played in the same format as the CT.

Also I have been very impressed with teams like Ireland, Afghanistan, and even UAE impressed with the bat against Zimbabwe. I, and I am sure many fans around the world, want to see more of them, and for a non test playing nation to leave a mark like that is just great. Gone are the days when non-test nations, just made up the numbers.

Drawing a parallel from Football, any nation apart from Europe and South America, made up just numbers not that long ago, but today there are no easy matches anymore. Just see what Costa Rica did last year. The same is slowly happening in cricket. No side can take a win for granted against the non-test sides. Yet Football has slowly increased the number of participants, while cricket is thinking of reducing the number.

The gap is slowly shrinking, and fr this growth to continue to happen the non-test sides need to play more against the top sides. How does reducing the no. of teams help with that is beyond me.

Somehow I feel having a 10 team World Cup would make it a lot more meaningful. Some people might say that's what the Champions Trophy is for. But the World Cup is the most prized trophy and I am all for further enhancing the competition for winning the World Cup by making them even more prized. I would still have the qualifying rounds where teams compete to qualify for the World Cup. I would have 7 teams automatically qualify (based on the ICC ODI rankings) and then teams 8, 9 and 10 will compete with the associate nations in a qualifying tournament for those last 3 slots.

Also the 2019 WC format is going to be a round robin league where all teams play each other once and then the top 4 teams qualify for the semifinals. Just read this article which talks about it - Lord’s set to stage 2019 World Cup final | England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) - The Official Website of the ECB

Should be interesting.

 

[shravi]

Somehow I feel having a 10 team World Cup would make it a lot more meaningful. Some people might say that's what the Champions Trophy is for. But the World Cup is the most prized trophy and I am all for further enhancing the competition for winning the World Cup by making them even more prized.

ICC CEO David Richardson: "The World Cup itself, the premium event, without exception should be played between teams that are evenly matched and competitive."

Results of matches between Full Members so far:

NZ beat Sri Lanka by 98 runs
Australia beat England by 111 runs
SA beat Zimbabwe by 62 runs
India beat Pakistan by 76 runs
NZ beat England by eight wickets
WI beat Pakistan by 150 runs
India beat SA by 130 runs

 

[PokerAce]

Somehow I feel having a 10 team World Cup would make it a lot more meaningful. Some people might say that's what the Champions Trophy is for. But the World Cup is the most prized trophy and I am all for further enhancing the competition for winning the World Cup by making them even more prized. I would still have the qualifying rounds where teams compete to qualify for the World Cup. I would have 7 teams automatically qualify (based on the ICC ODI rankings) and then teams 8, 9 and 10 will compete with the associate nations in a qualifying tournament for those last 3 slots.

Also the 2019 WC format is going to be a round robin league where all teams play each other once and then the top 4 teams qualify for the semifinals. Just read this article which talks about it - Lord’s set to stage 2019 World Cup final | England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) - The Official Website of the ECB

Should be interesting.

I don't agree, that reducing the number of teams, makes the WC more prestigious. A world cup is about a global competition and beating teams from all over the world. A 10 team event barely qualifies as a global event.

The next logical step would be expand the event to 16 teams, with top two from each group qualifying. If that means that India and Pakistan are too damn inefficient in clearing the group after they lose to a 'minnow', then so be it. Cricket cannot be global if the gap between the haves and have nots is allwoed to remain, and that is what a 10 nation world cup iwll do. All the minnows, the cream of them atleast should be allowed to ahve a go at the global teams, in a format where they can be hurt. ALl said again done, with each side playing 6 games, even if one loses to a minnow they have enough opportunities to overcome that. In a four team group not so much.

Especially with sides like Ireland and Afghanistan now not being seen as walkovers, there was all the more reason for ICC to expand, however sadly in a 10 team event, they will invariably miss out and that will only hurt their chances for development.

Dont know why 'm i n n o w' keeps getting *******ed

 

[IceAgeComing]

because its a bad word that you shouldn't use

 

[Skater]

For ****'s sake, minnow is censored, really? *******.

I think there should be 14 teams in the next World Cup. No one in this tournament has been so poor that they haven't looked like they deserved their place there (cue the England jokes). The top 5 in the ODI rankings should qualify automatically, as well as the hosts, and the remaining places filled with the winners and runners up of a qualifying tournament held a year before. I don't mind having the same format as this year, actually, only there should be more games each day to get the group stages finished earlier.

 

[MUFC1987]

I'd go for 16 teams. 4 groups of 4 teams, top 8 teams seeded. Top two from each group go through to the quarter finals and so on. That's what, 30 odd matches? Not too bad, should get through that relatively quickly, plus we get to see more associates.

It'll never happen though, because the bigger teams would fear being rained out of the first stage.

 

[IanG]

the format of this competition is pathetic. how in the group stage can there be only one game a day and teams going up to a week between games? it's bloody ODI cricket, they don't need that long to recover. the group stage should be much more intensive, and there should be much more cricket on each day - 2 games minimum.

Never liked the quarter finals format. It's virtually a fête comple who makes them and there's no real reward gor finishing top of your group

 

[IceAgeComing]

I'd go for 16 teams. 4 groups of 4 teams, top 8 teams seeded. Top two from each group go through to the quarter finals and so on. That's what, 30 odd matches? Not too bad, should get through that relatively quickly, plus we get to see more associates.

It'll never happen though, because the bigger teams would fear being rained out of the first stage.

this is the only correct format

it'd also make every game matter a little more, especially as we move towards having more competitive associate teams. These teams plus Hong Kong and PNG (third and fourth in the qualifier) would make a very good world cup imo

 

[shravi]

I'd go for 16 teams. 4 groups of 4 teams, top 8 teams seeded. Top two from each group go through to the quarter finals and so on. That's what, 30 odd matches? Not too bad, should get through that relatively quickly, plus we get to see more associates.

It'll never happen though, because the bigger teams would fear being rained out of the first stage.

i don't like that, personally. i'm all for more teams, but i prefer 2 groups of 8, so that the best teams go through. if the associates are good enough, they will make it through to the next round. besides, if they do well in such a hard format, it will become even harder to keep them out.