ICC World Cup Qualifiers 2018

[asprin]

In 2015 when there were one sided games against associate teams there was outrage as well.

Exactly. We witnessed some one-sided games and suddenly there was talk of the need to avoid such games in a prestigious tournament such as the World Cup. Personally, I have no problems with it being an exclusive tournament. We can certainly do away with games in which one side is heavily expected to come out as winner.

If you want the to give the others an opportunity, make them play in any other tournaments or heck, even create a new one (16-18 teams) every 2 years.

 

[Yash.]

Exactly. We witnessed some one-sided games and suddenly there was talk of the need to avoid such games in a prestigious tournament such as the World Cup. Personally, I have no problems with it being an exclusive tournament. We can certainly do away with games in which one side is heavily expected to come out as winner.

If you want the to give the others an opportunity, make them play in any other tournaments or heck, even create a new one (16-18 teams) every 2 years.

That is why we have the Champions Trophy! A tournament for the best only. Its illogical to have two similar tournaments.

 

[LiveLoveABD]

Exactly. We witnessed some one-sided games and suddenly there was talk of the need to avoid such games in a prestigious tournament such as the World Cup. Personally, I have no problems with it being an exclusive tournament. We can certainly do away with games in which one side is heavily expected to come out as winner.

If you want the to give the others an opportunity, make them play in any other tournaments or heck, even create a new one (16-18 teams) every 2 years.

I personally feel that the WC should be a 20-20 format with all associates and the entire brigade participating. T20I should be scrapped and with all these various leagues going around there's enough T20 to satiate your palette.

ODI cricket should be limited to Champion's trophy with all bilateral series scrapped. Three ODI's a year between each nation, one home, one away and one neutral (comprising of the CT). We don't need a separate WC for 50 over cricket. An annual CT is enough and it will give the CT importance.

A Test Championship as planned by the ICC.

 

[asprin]

That is why we have the Champions Trophy! A tournament for the best only.

So are you saying a World Cup shouldn't be played among the "best" teams while Champions Trophy should? In other words, give the Champions Trophy more importance than a World Cup? Why not reverse it?

I personally feel that the WC should be a 20-20 format with all associates and the entire brigade participating.

I beg to differ. A World Cup should be a World Cup, as in a pinnacle in the sport.

 

[zwarrior]

I agree with Yash.

It's a World Cup, not Champions Cup to play only among the top ranked teams. In Champion's trophy, we have only top ranked teams in competition which is fair as the name suggests. But in world cup, we should have teams from many nations (at the current stage maybe around 14 should be fair) competing even though they may not be strong. WC will give exposure and I bet it is every player's dream to play in the World Cup.

How many people watch WC qualifiers and how many will watch the actual WC ? The lower ranked teams will get exposure and experience by playing against a bigger nation and it will motivate many people to take up cricket as a profession and the game will grow. Right now we have qualifiers and only two teams can participate in WC. Just by restricting the teams to 10, you are practically crushing other lower ranked teams. We are not even giving them a chance for exposure. Right now WI is a sure shot for qualification. If you look at other teams such as Zimbabwe, Ireland, Afghans(unlucky this season), Scotland they are all good teams. But we are giving chance to only one of them. It's not fair.

Teams will improve only if you show a bright future for them. Now we are just saying, 'Boys. We have got only one place for all of you guys. Fight it out and come in. And even if you have improved over past couple of years, I am sorry but only one team can come in'. That's so silly. Look at Afghanistan. They have been outstanding and one bad tournament and they can't even play WC. We all thought Afghans will be a sure shot. Same will be with one of Zimbabwe/Scotland/Ireland. That's so depressing that they will never be able to participate in a bigger tournament. How will cricket grow ?

I feel that the world cup should not be restricted to 10 teams only. It's a very bad move and I will never support it.

 

[Yash.]

So are you saying a World Cup shouldn't be played among the "best" teams while Champions Trophy should? In other words, give the Champions Trophy more importance than a World Cup? Why not reverse it?

A world cup decides who is the best. It is not among the best. It is not a ‘World’ cup, if only 10 teams participate. ‘World Cup’ means maximum countries should participate.

 

[asprin]

But in world cup, we should have teams from many nations (at the current stage maybe around 14 should be fair) competing even though they may not be strong.

I think you're missing a key point here. Cricket is not like Football where a game is decided in 90 minutes. It takes roughly 4 hours for one 50-over innings to complete (4x football match). That's a great amount of time for a single match to come to a conclusion. Thus, it would make sense to have each game as competitive as possible so that we won't have to endure one-sided matches over a period of 6-8 hours. And that IMO is the reason a World Cup should be limited to the best among the lot.

I agree that from a viewership point of view, a WC gets more coverage than other tournaments. But time is also an important factor at play here.

‘World Cup’ means maximum countries should participate.

Given that hardly 18-20 countires out of 220+ play cricket, what's the point of jamming everyone in there? Why do you think FIFA does not allow 100 teams to participate in a WC?

 

[Till Valhalla]

I think you're missing a key point here. Cricket is not like Football where a game is decided in 90 minutes. It takes roughly 4 hours for one 50-over innings to complete (4x football match). That's a great amount of time for a single match to come to a conclusion. Thus, it would make sense to have each game as competitive as possible so that we won't have to endure one-sided matches over a period of 6-8 hours. And that IMO is the reason a World Cup should be limited to the best among the lot.

I agree that from a viewership point of view, a WC gets more coverage than other tournaments. But time is also an important factor at play here.


Given that hardly 18-20 countires out of 220+ play cricket, what's the point of jamming everyone in there? Why do you think FIFA does not allow 100 teams to participate in a WC?

FIFA have regional qualifiers which gives them a lot of team mates.

Nearly 16 team tournament should be there I believe as it will give the exposure to young, less skilled and less funded teams.

 

[zwarrior]

I think you're missing a key point here. Cricket is not like Football where a game is decided in 90 minutes. It takes roughly 4 hours for one 50-over innings to complete (4x football match). That's a great amount of time for a single match to come to a conclusion. Thus, it would make sense to have each game as competitive as possible so that we won't have to endure one-sided matches over a period of 6-8 hours. And that IMO is the reason a World Cup should be limited to the best among the lot.

I agree that from a viewership point of view, a WC gets more coverage than other tournaments. But time is also an important factor at play here.

Why is time an important factor here ?

Just because football gets over in 90 minutes, doesn't mean cricket should do the same. I assume you are telling this because if it takes longer time to complete, other countries will not be interested to watch such a big match ? Then, Surely other countries will not be interested if you restrict the most important tournament of the game to just 10 teams in which top 8 teams are automatically fixed?

Teams are and should be the important factor here. So what if there is going to be one sided match ? It will give exposure to the lower ranked teams. If not for WC, bottom ranked teams will never play against top teams and what will be the motivational factor for them to improve their game ? And I am sure you are aware of many upsets in WC by lower ranked teams. Seeing how the teams are improving, we can expect a lot more nowadays.

 

[asprin]

FIFA have regional qualifiers which gives them a lot of team mates.

My point exactly. You do not induct every playing nation as a WC team. You have qualifiers, you need to reach a level before you can be considered competitive.

Why is time an important factor here ?

Uh, off the top of my mind, because we only have 24 hours per day?

I assume you are telling this because if it takes longer time to complete, other countries will not be interested to watch such a big match ?

Nope, that's not what I intended to convey. It's not countries but the people. People watch a game. Why do you think T20 is gaining popularity and Test cricket is dying. People do not have time.

It will give exposure to the lower ranked teams

Who says you can't get exposure while playing qualifiers? What do you think is happening in the current tournament?

If not for WC, bottom ranked teams will never play against top teams and what will be the motivational factor for them to improve their game

Playing in a WC itself should be their motivating factor. You qualify, you play in WC. Simple as that. I don't see how that's hard to understand.

And I am sure you are aware of many upsets in WC by lower ranked teams.

Sure, once in a blue moon. But what about the other times? What do you think will happen when Australia play PNG? I'm not going to sit and watch that game for 8 hours.

 

[zwarrior]

Uh, off the top of my mind, because we only have 24 hours per day?

And the game will take 8 hrs to complete ? Surely, people won't mind that in WC which happens once in 4 years. If one sided matches should not be played, why are we playing SL so often ? We should even stop playing against WI. (No offense to WI and SL fans.) If we stop playing games because it's gonna be one sided, I am 100% sure Cricket won't grow.

Who says you can't get exposure while playing qualifiers? What do you think is happening in the current tournament?

You can improve only if you play against a substantially better team. I actually meant not only exposure in terms of improving the game, but exposure to the crowds and people all over the world and the recognition you get. Surely, they are not playing in a stadium of full crowd now.

Sure, once in a blue moon. But what about the other times? What do you think will happen when Australia play PNG? I'm not going to sit and watch that game for 8 hours.

When India qualifies for football WC and play against Brazil or Germany, I would sit and watch each minute even if the game was longer than 100 minutes and knowing we will loose horribly. I am sure, there are fans from PNG who will watch the match. And Aussies obviously will watch it as they are gonna be playing in it.

You won't watch it, but I will. Similarly, there will be some neutral fans who will watch it and some who won't watch it.

 

[asprin]

If one sided matches should not be played, why are we playing SL so often ?

Again, I'm not against that in general. What I'm not a fan of is one-sided nature of matches in a WC match. That is neither the place nor the platform. A WC match should be between two competing teams.

 

[CerealKiller]

Again, I'm not against that in general. What I'm not a fan of is one-sided nature of matches in a WC match. That is neither the place nor the platform. A WC match should be between two competing teams.

My point exactly. You do not induct every playing nation as a WC team. You have qualifiers, you need to reach a level before you can be considered competitive.

The difference is, even the world champions (Germany) have to play qualifiers to go into the WC. Of course the most bottom ranked teams have to play more qualifying matches. E.g. Pakistan have to go through two or three play-off rounds before they get to the main qualifiers.
Your point would be valid if all 100+ ICC members had to go through the same process as footballing nations to play a WC. Then i'd be fine with even 10 teams. There should be a fair opportunity for everyone.

 

[Yash.]

The reason why we want to have more teams in the world cup, is because we want the game to diversify.

Let me ask you my friend @asprin , which was the last match in which Oman played, and it was televised? If you are a person living in Oman and want to see the game of cricket, would you go to each and every match? Or would you want to see it on TV? Associate matches are not given coverage at all, while fans are there who want to see them. Take Afghanistan for example. There are thousands of people wanting to see their team battle out for a spot, but the ICC doesn’t care for the game to be televised. You will not spread the game of cricket in countries if you do not show it to people.

Whereas World Cups nowadays are televised completely. I hope you saw the CWC15. Afghans gave Sri Lanka a mighty scare, and they beat Scotland. Ireland almost made it to the QFs, only to miss out by some Net Run Rate. Any Afghani or Irish person seeing his country play like that surely would be attracted to the game of cricket. Therefore, we need to have associates in world cups.

You talk about games being less competitive when full members play against Associates.

Lets take it from a coding point of view. (Cause you are a developer). Let us take a program that you know is currently very difficult for you and you cannot make it easily. Will keeping on making the easy programs each and every time help? Or you would rather try that difficult program in order to increase your skill and become better?

Similarly, if Associates keep on playing in qualifiers against other associates, and do not play against full members. They do not improve. If we want to make the game interesting, we need to give them some platform so that they can improve. Even the former captain of Scotland, Preston Mommsen, said this that They were not getting enough opportunities to play ODIs.[DOUBLEPOST=1520594134][/DOUBLEPOST]You want them to improve their standard and become competitive but expect them to improve by playing against similar skilled opponents?

 

[asprin]

There should be a fair opportunity for everyone.

Similarly, if Associates keep on playing in qualifiers against other associates, and do not play against full members. They do not improve.

Okay, I shouldn't have used the term "qualifiers" because that's not the only way format available. You can have associates tour countries (like how Afghanistan is slated to play in India soon). You play them more often, increase your skill and then qualify for WC. This way, when you play a match against a top team, you will be in a much better shape to handle it.