ICC confirms 10 teams for next two World Cups

[mohit_dude10]

I think its a good decision to cut down on teams, which will increase quality of games in World cup. But i think they should've kept qualifiers for last 2 spots.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

Good decision.

People need to remember cricket unlike other sports is unique in the sense that it has 3 formats. Thus can be flexible.

Every world-cup an upset happens, but associates aren't exactly breaking & threatening the top 10 nations as is the case in the football world-cup. Id say by having the associates in the T20 world-cup makes them more competitive & dangerous - while the 50 over world-cup will be for the main teams.

ranking wise, ireland have broken the top 10.

ICC rankings - ICC Test and ODI rankings | ESPN Cricinfo

----------

That doesn't mean anything. WIndies had alot of players injured. Making the quarters with so much players injured was a far as most expected of them from the start.

er, they beat bangladesh, that is their only victory of note.

ireland beat 1 test nation. west indies beat 1 test nation. and tbh it's always the same with the windies. they haven't beaten one of the top 8 in over a year. that means everything. even ireland and bangladesh have managed that. no more excuses for windies cricket, they were hammered like an associate by pakistan and south africa.

 

[angryangy]

Most of the Windies' apparent backups were decent performers. Injury doesn't explain away their performance any more than Luke Wright can hide behind "travel weariness".

Therein is the ultimate quagmire of the World Cup. In any given year, there aren't 8 contenders. Someone is always going to stroll through to the quarterfinals or Super 8s by way of default. And that's not helped any if for instance you say you're going to have 10 teams, but are open to excluding the 10th best side.

This isn't about performance or improvement or the quality of the World Cup. It's purely about power.

 

[Owzat]

It is amusing to see that though 14 nation WC was a huge success yet ICC slashed it to a 10 team event.

I thought it was boring and largely predictable, might be because my team went out at the QFs but then I think I'm slightly if not massively more objective than someone who supports the winners or finalists.

Apart from Bangladesh and Ireland beating England, and a couple of close games involving England, was it exciting? The semis were not that close, the final wasn't bad but could have been better.

Whether the event was a "huge success" or not, the presence of the minnows wasn't really with one upset and the only other wins by minnows by virtue of playing each other.

I'm sure there must be a workable format, even a preliminary group say between the top two non-Test teams via their qualifying set up in a mini group with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe with the top two going into the "1st round proper". That short 'impact' group might be exciting as there wouldn't be enough games for it to be boring, it wouldn't likely be predictable and you'd at least give teams a chance.

Or maybe two groups of three with Zimbabwe in one group and Bangladesh in the other, play each other twice with one team from each group making up the 10.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

Owzat, I would agree, but my point would be that the line you can start drawing minnow performances doesn't start at 10 in reality. Although the ICC is trying to tell us it does because that's how many full members they have.

there are 7 competitive teams in cricket. to automatically award the remaining 3 spots to the windies, zimbabwe and bangladesh seems completely unfair as there is nothing in any of those teams results that put them way in front of ireland. as angy says, it's about power. Those are the 10 teams that have most influence and financially, the big teams are only interested in playing teams that draw revenue and those 3 weaker teams are quite happy to support a system that favours them exclusively over their closest rivals. it would be incredibly cynical but it's possible even england support keeping ireland down in order to plunder what is looking like an increasingly rich talent base for them.

they trumpet the need for development and simultaneously have made cricket a closed shop.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Keep the world in the World Cup Petition

 

[harishankar]

I think we need variety as much as quality in the World Cup.

Just seeing the same top teams compete can get boring and predictable at times. Also you cannot have tense and tight games all the time even with the stronger nations. Unearthing unexpected and refreshing talents in the weaker associate nations is part of the charm of the World Cup event as are the occasional upsets. Taking it away would be ridiculous in my view.

I think we can do with a slightly boring initial tournament so long as the final rounds are exciting enough. Not every match is going to be exciting in any tournament and not every match is going to matter in the final result.

We might as well play just the last ball of the Finals for every World Cup instead of the whole tournament in that case.

In any tournament there are bound to be a few boring games and results that don't matter. World Cup is as much about promoting and showcasing talent from emerging cricket nations and thus boost their interest in the game as much as the battle for the Cup among the top Test nations.

 

[Params7]

I think the reason ICC is giving permanent spots to Zimbies is because of their history in cricket. While Irish are just an up and comer, even though higher ranked, don't deserve a WC spot in ICC's eyes.

This shows ICC's ass backwards logic. They should learn a few stuff from the governers of Champions League T20. NSW couldn't qualify even though they WON the previous CL Obviously that should not happen in World Cups, but I still don't see a good argument being made against Irish in the World Cup when they are RANK 10 > Zimbabwe. How is this GROWING cricket in Ireland?

 

[Atharv]

I thought it was boring and largely predictable, might be because my team went out at the QFs but then I think I'm slightly if not massively more objective than someone who supports the winners or finalists.

Apart from Bangladesh and Ireland beating England, and a couple of close games involving England, was it exciting? The semis were not that close, the final wasn't bad but could have been better.

Whether the event was a "huge success" or not, the presence of the minnows wasn't really with one upset and the only other wins by minnows by virtue of playing each other.

I'm sure there must be a workable format, even a preliminary group say between the top two non-Test teams via their qualifying set up in a mini group with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe with the top two going into the "1st round proper". That short 'impact' group might be exciting as there wouldn't be enough games for it to be boring, it wouldn't likely be predictable and you'd at least give teams a chance.

Or maybe two groups of three with Zimbabwe in one group and Bangladesh in the other, play each other twice with one team from each group making up the 10.

It was a huge Television success . Only the matches involoving smaller teams got a lower TRP(Television Rating Point) . Atleast that is what I read this morning. the highest TRP was somewhere around 15 or 16 and that is massive. This might have played a role in ICC slashing the number of teams to 10 .
As I said there must be qualifiers on a home and away basis, leading to the world cup and the top 12 teams should be selected . This will alo give non-test playing nations a chance to play against test playing nations.

 

[Params7]

So except petitions (which the ICC will trash to the recycle bin after it gets mailed to them when it gets 100,000 signs or so), what is being done? ICC are going to get away with kicking Irish cricket in the nuts.


Again, I agree with the 10 team decision. Skill gap in cricket is wide unlike in football like War mentioned so there can be a lot of 1 sided games so 10 teams is fine. But the selection of those 10 teams is what's NOT fine. Nobody here can justify this and this question is not being asked from ICC and the backing boards.

 

[SaiSrini]

Good on reducing the teams, but Ireland after having two good World Cups (though they didnt get past the group stage this time) is pathetic! World Cup should be about the best teams fighting it out. The logic of keeping the 'world' in the world cup is nonsense. If thats the case, then how can this be called World Cup till now if countries like USA, Germany, Russia, Italy, etc are not playing cricket? Teams should fight to get into the World Cup, and the quality and the reputation of the trophy should go up. But Ireland should be there as they have proved that they deserve to be there

 

[Dragon Fire]

Owzat, I would agree, but my point would be that the line you can start drawing minnow performances doesn't start at 10 in reality. Although the ICC is trying to tell us it does because that's how many full members they have.

there are 7 competitive teams in cricket. to automatically award the remaining 3 spots to the windies, zimbabwe and bangladesh seems completely unfair as there is nothing in any of those teams results that put them way in front of ireland. as angy says, it's about power. Those are the 10 teams that have most influence and financially, the big teams are only interested in playing teams that draw revenue and those 3 weaker teams are quite happy to support a system that favours them exclusively over their closest rivals. it would be incredibly cynical but it's possible even england support keeping ireland down in order to plunder what is looking like an increasingly rich talent base for them.

they trumpet the need for development and simultaneously have made cricket a closed shop.

]

The more cynically you look at t, the more sense it makes, unfortunately.

 

[The Rock]

Ireland and Netherlands?

 

[STLIndian]

That's f*cked up logic. This is the World Cup FFS. Not the Handful Of Nations Actually Good at Cricket Cup. Do you think every team at the FIFA tournaments have a chance at winning the WC? No. Does every nation in the Olympics stand a chance at winning medals? No. Does that mean we exclude them? Ofcourse not.

How on Earth are you going to spread Cricket around this world if you aren't going let the World take part?

By this logic you may as well dump WI, BD, Zim and New Zealand since they're not winning the WC anytime soon. Lets just leave it between India, Sri Lank, Pakistan, Australia, England and South Africa why don't we?

FFS this is a horrible, horrible decision. No way on Earth to justify it apart from greed and idiocity.

First of all, I agreed that if Ireland weren't even given a chance to qualify, then yes, this is a stupid decision (and it looks like that'll be the case).

If they were given a chance to qualify, however, through some sort of tournament where the winner or top 2 gets in the WC, it would have been an OK decision.

 

[Params7]

NeoGAF - View Single Post - ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 |OT|

So here's another point, the South Asian bloc doesn't like Ireland.