General Cricket Discussion

[War]

Tendulkar calls for 25-team World Cup | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

Fully Endorse this. While 25 teams maynot be possible, 24 more like would present a good format, however fully endorse the view that the WC needs to look at having more teams, not less.

Tendulkar has said that having lesser teams is a backward step and I have to agree again.

Not even 24, more like the 16 used in the T20 world cup.

Was never a fan of the split innings format since AUS tried it in domestic cricket a few seasons ago. The problem with ODIs was the dumb ICC tried to get too cute when they implemented powerplays and all that mess and started shortening boundaries due to sponsors request.

Just go back to the first 15 overs situation, prepare better pitches for even bat vs ball contest, push back boundaries, let quicks be able to bowl 3 bouncers per rule, cut out the free-hit via the front foot no-ball, allow teams best bowlers to be able to bowl 12 overs

I'm also a fan of the substitute rule being tried again. I know most cricket fans didn't like the super-sub rule, but i actually thought it was one of the better new ODI inventions that ICC had created, which inadvertently helped the bowling side.

Teams who had the "5th bowler" problem like India for eg at times had the ability, when bowling second for eg to bring in a extra bowler for a batsman.

What messed up the rule was the ICC telling teams they had to name the sub before the toss which simply favoured the side batting first. Really teams should have been able to do what the S Africa tried in their domestic OD tournament a few years ago - South Africa news: Significant changes to MTN40 tournament | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

"Unlike the last time substitutes were used, the starting eleven does not have to be named before the toss. Only the squad of 13 has to be named, allowing certain players to play specialist roles."

 

[IceAgeComing]

Why is everyone talking about something else that isn't Scotland's very good batting against Bangladesh.

 

[MattW]

What messed up the rule was the ICC telling teams they had to name the sub before the toss which simply favoured the side batting first.

Yeah, that rule about naming the team always made it totally useless. I'd be in favour of it returning - even if they just outright named a bowling XI and a batting XI.

I'll give a more dramatic suggestion for T20 - allow free interchange between 12 players. They already have the Aussie Rules style of having the batting line up waiting on the bench to bat - why not expand that to let a captain drag off a slow starting batsman, or put a bowler on and then take them off so they don't need to field. It's not like the format has integrity to protect.

Why is everyone talking about something else that isn't Scotland's very good batting against Bangladesh.

Because they are inevitably going to let it slip.

 

[IceAgeComing]

They did a bit: but 318 is still a defendable total if we bowl well.

 

[grkrama]

Certainly worth adding a sign, if at all it would be noticed but from sachin's article cricinfo seems to be monitoring it
Pétition · INTERNATIONAL CRICKET COUNCIL: Reverse the decision to reduce the 2019 World Cup to ten teams. · Change.org

 

[grkrama]

just skimming thru quite a few comments from nepal

 

[AliB]

What a match

 

[War]

Aakash Chopra: Why a ten-team World Cup is right | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

Ha first Tendulkar call for 25 team cup, Crowe for 3 month cup now this. As Ian Chappell rightfully recently said they got a serious a proper ICC meeting involving the best minds in the game to figure out the real best option here. I worry given the ICCs track record they could very well make an awful choice here.

 

[ParkedTheBus]

Just my two cents: Why not a 12 team World Cup with the top 8 teams + 4 teams from a qualification tournament of sorts between Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and the top 5 associates in a league format? The 12 teams can then be divided into 3 groups of 4 or 2 groups of 6 with 6 teams progressing to the super 6s stage from where: (a) the top two teams qualify for finals or (b) the top four qualify for semis? True, it might be a tad longer than usual, but in the present format all a team needs is three lucky days to win the cup after progressing from the group stages.

 

[deepuparayil]

Currently a bilateral series consist of a test series followed by 3 or 5 ODI's and 1 or 2 t20 matches. Instead of 5 ODI's between the two teams, add one or two associate team into the mix and make it a tournament like the good old Sharja cup, Singer cup etc. This way associates can gain some experience against the top teams without much change to the current setup.

 

[IceAgeComing]

Just my two cents: Why not a 12 team World Cup with the top 8 teams + 4 teams from a qualification tournament of sorts between Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and the top 5 associates in a league format? The 12 teams can then be divided into 3 groups of 4 or 2 groups of 6 with 6 teams progressing to the super 6s stage from where: (a) the top two teams qualify for finals or (b) the top four qualify for semis? True, it might be a tad longer than usual, but in the present format all a team needs is three lucky days to win the cup after progressing from the group stages.

why reduce the size of the world cup at all? The two teams that you have missed out in that would have been the UAE and Scotland, neither of which have embarrassed themselves and the latter just scored 320 against Bangladesh and could have won that game.

Also don't use rankings to set who needs or doesn't need to qualify: they aren't exactly fair at the moment considering Ireland, Scotland and Afghanistan play around a tenth of the ODIs of Bangladesh and if qualifying for the World Cup was a thing you wouldn't see that change a great deal. Make everyone bar the hosts qualify; that's the only fair way.

 

[Satan666]

Currently a bilateral series consist of a test series followed by 3 or 5 ODI's and 1 or 2 t20 matches. Instead of 5 ODI's between the two teams, add one or two associate team into the mix and make it a tournament like the good old Sharja cup, Singer cup etc. This way associates can gain some experience against the top teams without much change to the current setup.

I like this idea. Can prove a financial sucess also like a tri series in Abu Dabi.

 

[SaiSrini]

Martin Crowe says that reducing the overs to 40 will bring down the targets to 250-275'ish. Well that's because the overs are reduced and not really due to the run rates reducing. I think the issue is more from the scoring rate perspective.

I liked Sachin's idea which he floated quite sometime back where he proposed a split innings arrangement in ODI's of 25 overs x4 innings. Basically its a mini test match in a day but each team only has 10 wickets available. It brings the following massive advantages:

1. Greatly reduce the unfair advantage that the toss brings in
2. Helps on days when weather will have a say on the result - If the rain is expected later in the day, we can easily have a 25 overs game which should be enough to decide a result

deepu's 12 team WC where 4 teams qualify through a qualification process would be good. I feel that making the WC more competitive and reducing the no of mismatches should be the goal. All these Associate teams need to play a lot more if we want them to play in the WC and make it a competitive WC in the league stage.

 

[grkrama]

im all for more associate teams more the better onyl thing being they should be given more matches in the period between WC's atleast against A sides of test teams, also even if 25 teams are there like SRT has asked if its scheduled and grouped properly mismatches can be reduced and make it a duel among associate nations and feel more like a Worldcup

 

[Satan666]

The issue with a 4 inns in an ODI can be an indication of the scrapping of tests.