Here is my opinion (and keep in mind that my opinion is usually correct):
1. Twenty20 is the best way to expand cricket. You're not going to build a massive fan following in this day and age for a game that lasts 7 hours. It's just not going to happen. You can't go to a bar and watch a 7 hour game. You can't leave work early and watch a 7-hour game. You can't watch 7 hours of a game you don't understand fully.
T20 will get the wrong kind of fan, fad fans. If they're not interested in cricket for the bowling, batting, deliveries, strokes, tactics etc then they're not really interested at all. To watch cricket and be a fan you need to have a love for all aspects of the game, not just watch it because it is over quickly. T20 and ODIs may be relatively fast, but to a non enthusiast it is still quite a slow game, much derided by the small minded I may add, yet we're expecting to appeal to the small minded??!?
In any form of cricket the important factor is the
contest, the problem is the ICC focus is on $$ and runs, the latter fuelling the former because they want Tests to last five days for the $$. Cricket is not boring over seven hours/five days unless it is a runfest or one-sided. The same is true of other formats.
2. I'm neutral about reducing the 50-over WC to 10 teams. I think it will make the tournament shorter and make each game more meaningful. It will also reduce the number of blowouts, theoretically.
Big fail on the "my opinion is usually correct", because the tournament won't be (significantly) shorter. Each team plays the other = 45 games + 3 knockout games = 48 games in total compared to 2011's 49 games
There is still quite a gap between between levels within the Test nations at ODIs, unless the format is the risky 2007 format then you will still end up with the top teams in the top positions in the table - so effectively it
should reflect the rankings.
3. I do not agree that the Test teams should qualify automatically to the WC. Maybe the top 4 or top 6 or top 8, but I don't think every team deserves to be in the mix. Draw a line about a year out from the WC and then have an official qualification tournament. Bring back the ICC Cup. Even if we have the top 8 qualify, make Bangladesh, Ireland, Zimbabwe, Kenya and the other associate nations duke it out in a tournament to figure out who gets those last couple of spots. Make those last 2/x spots teams that will actually compete when they get to the competition.
The problem with the notion of qualifying is you may end up with a weaker side than Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and even West Indies 'fluking' their way through to the World Cup. If it is done as a durable qualifying process then I expect you'd end up with them anyway.
I think the whole "qualifying" bandwagon that is gathering momentum is short-sighted. Sure Ireland are capable of causing an upset, but look what happened in 2007 when they got past Pakistan - the only other Test team they beat was Bangladesh. Point being they may be a lot of people's idea of "the team that deserves Test status" or "10th best team in the world", but they are some way off being any or much better than Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, it's just some people want them to do well (more than existing Test nations)
Say Ireland replaced Zimbabwe, what would or could they achieve by that ONE action? Maybe beat 1-2 Test nations, 50-50 on beating Bangladesh and maybe catch West Indies on a bad day. How would that be improving the competition??!!? It wouldn't, it would just mean team "go Ireland!" would be happy.
In summary, I'm in favor of reducing the number of teams as long as the associate nations have a fair chance of qualifying. For other development and a true "World Cup", Twenty20 is the way to go because it is short, exciting, easy to understand (comparatively) and won't constantly be made fun of by sports enthusiasts in other countries.
I think the problem is TV and $$$. They want a TV show that will keep the audience glued to maximise $$$$ and they can't think of a way of integrating the minnows who have basically been left out in the cold way too long so they've left them out altogether. Tiers should have come in yonks ago, this whole process of giving Test status selectively is outdated and cr ap. Just imagine if football turned round and said "the lower leagues are no good, we're cutting them out of the league structure" meaning sides can't get promoted into the upper echelons.
How many years did it take county cricket to come up with two tiers? They are a bit 'elitist' in their own right with the minor counties cut adrift, as happened specifically with the domestic cup knockout competition. Had tiers come in even 20 years ago in Tests and ODIs you could well see Ireland above England in the pecking order, I think Bangladesh would be a better side for it and Kenya wouldn't have fallen away so badly as they have in recent years.
I think it is a global affliction on sport, that the sport is dictated (to) by TV. Tiers would get around that, who says s*y has to show every match and that every match therefore has to be approved by them!?!?!?!? Cricket can be played without 20 cameras at the ground or 20,000 sell out crowds.
So to sum those last three paragraphs up, the short term fix is for people to stamp their feet and demand Ireland be included, or qualifiers for the World Cup, but the LONG TERM PROBLEM is what really needs addressing or it won't matter who are the 2-3 weakest sides in the World Cup, they'll still be streets behind being (truly) COMPETITIVE
I won't state if that is opinion or that my opinion is "usually correct"
![lol :lol :lol](/forums/styles/planetcricket/xenforo/smilies/laughing.gif)
![Rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes](/forums/styles/planetcricket/xenforo/smilies/rolleyes.png)
![Grin :D :D](/forums/styles/planetcricket/xenforo/smilies/biggrin.png)
![Stick out tongue :p :p](/forums/styles/planetcricket/xenforo/smilies/tongue.png)
![Wink ;) ;)](/forums/styles/planetcricket/xenforo/smilies/wink.gif)