Oh man, Owzat, looks like someone got their panties in a twist because they can't understand a joke.
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??!?
Who are you to decide who is a "right fan" or a "wrong fan". Last I checked you didn't own the right to who is allowed to enjoy cricket. People come and have a sook about "expanding the game" and then pretend that everyone in the world will be interested in a game that is mainly followed by nations where it was a grassroots sport.
Cricket is not boring over seven hours/five days unless it is a runfest or one-sided. The same is true of other formats.
How old are you? Do you have a job? Do you realize how difficult it is to follow a 7-hour game if you actually have a real life that you have to keep up with? There is a reason that sports such as soccer, basketball, hockey, American football, etc. are so popular. It's because you don't have to spend half your day watching it. It doesn't matter if its boring or interesting--it's still 7 hours.
The obvious mix-up you're having is that you're not able to differentiate between an existing market and an expansion market. An expansion market, where there is no grassroots cricket following, is not going to get hooked on a 7-hour game. Or Test cricket. They're going to become interested in a sport that they can digest in small chunks, like the other sports they are watching.
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
I was not aware of the everyone-plays-everyone format. I was under the assumption that the format used would split the teams into two groups, which is what I believe the format should be.
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.
In other news, grass is green and it is boring to watch paint dry.
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.
The ICC cup was a fairly durable process in determining who should qualify to the world cup--this was evidenced by the fact that it was typically the same teams that kept coming back (Netherlands, Scotland, Ireland, Kenya before they had ODI status, etc.). I believe back in the day there was a round-robin stage followed by a knockout stage. I wouldn't mind if the tournament was stretched out over the year leading up to the WC to make sure it accounted for injuries.
Your predisposition that West Indies and Zim would qualify is just a hunch based on averages. In reality, looking at the associates in this WC, it is possible that they would be able to challenge some of the Test nations consistently. At the very least, they'd gain experience of playing against teams on the next level.
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)
It's funny how you choose to use results from 4 years ago instead of 4 weeks ago. The Irish only really got blown out in their game against the Saffers. They may not have been in a winning position in every game, but they performed a lot better than associates performed 8-12 years ago--which shows that they are showing consistent, iterative improvement.
--
I guarantee that 100% of this post is correct.
----------
The problem with spreading cricket via T20 is that you're gonna get a bunch of T20 specialists springing up in non-test nations. And what's the ultimate goal here? What are we trying to achieve? Are we going to just leave the associate nations as T20 specialists and limit their role in International cricket to just that, or are we trying to spread the game and get a larger fanbase to form, so that the nation will eventually become competitive in the proper formats (ODIs and FC).
The primary goal of Twenty20, for me, is to spread knowledge about the game. It is hard to envision becoming an ODI or FC cricketer straight off the bat (pun unintended) if you've never been exposed to the game. ODI/Test cricket has a reputation of being a "posh sport" where players take breaks for "tea" and "crumpets". That is obviously not the reality, but you're not going to break the stereotype by shoving 5-day cricket down the throats of non-grassroots followers.
It really comes down to this for me. If a country cannot generate enough interest to become semi-competitive at Twenty20 cricket, what hope do they have of prospering in 50-over or Test cricket? If the country cannot show that they are willing to get into a game that fits their timespans, then I don't think it's worth the investment to look for bigger things in there.
When they're successful in T20s? Success in T20s relies on players good at T20 and such players are not guaranteed to do well in ODIs and FC games, and as such, promoting them to a higher level will not guarantee that they'll perform better than they already do. If anything, they'll perform worse, and you have the whole cycle repeating itself with people arguing that they aren't competitive and should be kicked out.
I think the Bangladesh and Kenya experiments in Test/ODI respectively have shown that it is cricketing infrastructure that is at the root. If you don't have a proper infrastructure in place, you really have no hope of becoming a Test nation in the future. I advocate that the infrastructure is laid with Twenty20.
And to be fair, the logic that cricket will gain popularity by letting the nation play in T20 tournaments only is flawed in itself - popularity in T20 Cricket will grow, and no necessarily Cricket as a whole. And limiting a team to competing in just one format and just one Global tournament every 2 years (4 years?) isn't going to be enough to capture the imagination of casual fans.
I argue that a 7-hour/5-day game isn't going to capture the imagination of casual fans.
The fact is that simply by letting more associates into the World T20 does NOT show you are intent on spreading the game. If you were truly intent on spreading Cricket in the world, we'd give Associates MORE games in ALL formats.
I disagree. This is the kind of strategy that I would describe as banging one's head against the wall until one of them breaks. History has shown us that it is nigh impossible to create a strong Test team without grassroots. History has shown us that teams can be competitive in ODIs for short periods (without grassroots) but the lack of a proper infrastructure prevents them from being consistently competitive and taking the next step into Test cricket. What do you have to show for your theory that teams WILL improve and become solid Test nations? Nothing.
I'm perfectly happy being elitist with regards to Test cricket. It is a game that a very small percentage of the world will be excited about if they didn't grow up around it.
Twenty20 is an area that I think the future globalization of the game should be headed since it is easier to become competitive at that form of the game. Going in this direction leads us one thing to be wary about--Test nations losing interesting in Test cricket.
--
With regards to the "cricket is dying" comments, you will notice that I did not prefix "cricket" with any specific form of the game. I think ODIs are dying and in fact I think in a few years ODIs won't really exist any more. Am I overly concerned about this? Not really. ODIs were a form of the game that were invented to regenerate interest in cricket when Test cricket was becoming too boring. Shortening from 30 hours of cricket to 7 was a massive improvement (not to mention that you could take just 1 day off work).
I think ODIs were very relevant in the previous generation where countries were still developing. Our global economy is in a very different stage now--where efficiency is at the core. Sports are obviously going to fall to the wayside unless they reinvent themselves to be applicable to the reality of the situation. ODIs succeeded at what their goal was--keeping the interest in cricket intact. That is now a responsibility of Twenty20 cricket, imo.
--
In summary, my arguments are:
1. Keep Test cricket elitist since there is no historical evidence that a team can become competitive from scratch.
2. Use Twenty20 cricket as the vehicle to look at the game for the rest of the world.
3. Keep the ODI format around for a few more years until it dies a natural death. But don't siphon off the associates. If they show real improvement that I possibly thought was impossible (signs exist with pretty much just the Irish) then there may be an argument to keep ODI cricket around for longer.
