mohit_dude10
County Cricketer
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.
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.
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.
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.
]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.
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.