ICC World Cup Qualifiers 2018

[Umair7]

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.

I would rather get rid of CT and keep the WC !! I don't know why ICC is continuing CT [Just Get Rid of it already!] CT ONLY means that only the TOP 8 get a chance to play in a BIG ODI Tournament.WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER 8?

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 WC will have 48 teams from 2026 WC instead of 32
UEFA EURO had 24 teams in 2016 [Previously 16]
AFC and AFRICAN CUP OF NATIONS will have 24 teams in 2019 respectively instead of 16 [Last Edition]
COPA AMERICA had 16 teams in 2016 [Previously 12]
CONCACAF Gold Cup will have 16 teams in 2019 [Previously 12]

Unlike THE ICC !! FIFA,UEFA,AFC,CAF,CONMEBOL,CONCACAF are trying to develop Football in smaller countries while ICC is trying very hard to restrict CRICKET to 6-8 Teams!

Unlike THE ICC FIFA have some balls! BIG NATIONS DON'T BULLY THEM EVERYDAY !!
PS:Only the hosts qualifies directly in all of the competitions I have mentioned above!

YOU WANT A COMPETITIVE IRELAND/SCOTLAND ETC GIVE THEM A CHANCE AT THE BIG STAGE !! Also Tell AUS/ENG/PAK/IND/NZ/RSA to play against them atleast once every 2 years

 

[Velocity]

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

What exposure do you get if you play the exact same teams that are nearly the same calibre as yours for years? Zimbabwe has been playing Afghanistan consistently for the last 3-4 years. Now only because it's qualifiers, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference even if you're under a bit of pressure. If lower ranked teams would play against the top teams like Aus/Ind/Pak/SA etc, a team could learn from mistakes and learn the way top teams are playing. By consistently playing the same sides, you aren't getting much exposure at all than if you play big teams in a big event.

 

[Velocity]

YOU WANT A COMPETITIVE IRELAND/SCOTLAND ETC GIVE THEM A CHANCE AT THE BIG STAGE !! Also Tell AUS/ENG/PAK/IND/NZ/RSA to play against them atleast once every 2 years

I really feel for these teams in particular because they have some really talented players, and aren't able to show that off at the big stage. Ireland has some great players, many that play in county and have loads of experience, just like Scotland. Players like Preston Mommsen have clearly lost passion in representing Scotland because they simply haven't been playing many ODI's, which is one factor for a team to improve. Also, that they haven't had the opportunity to play in big events where they can showcase their skills and talent. So many teams have so many talented individuals who aren't able to go play big events and learn, and improve and become better players.

Let's consider one thing:
If you were playing in club cricket, constantly playing teams at only one level/tier, will you improve?
If you played teams a tier one higher, will you improve? The answer is yes, because even if you keep losing, you'll be able to learn from how the opposition plays and be able to improve your game.

Even if India thrash a team like Nepal, the Nepalese will learn a lot by watching how the batsmen play and analyse how the bowlers were able to get them out and steps taken to do that, and compare it with how they did. Viewership wise, this would be boring for Indian fans, but Nepalese fans will surely all come together and cheer their team on, even if they get thrashed.

A World Cup is supposed to be a universal event, not just one with the 8-10 best teams in the world. That's why we have the CT for a reason. We don't need a duplicate of that.

 

[Satan666]

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.

The cricket calendar for top teams like India is already cluttered, it would be impossible to materialize given the congested FTP!

 

[asprin]

Also Tell AUS/ENG/PAK/IND/NZ/RSA to play against them atleast once every 2 year

That's exactly what I said in my previous post too. Glad we are on the same page.

UEFA EURO had 24 teams in 2016 [Previously 16]
AFC and AFRICAN CUP OF NATIONS will have 24 teams in 2019 respectively instead of 16 [Last Edition]
COPA AMERICA had 16 teams in 2016 [Previously 12]
CONCACAF Gold Cup will have 16 teams in 2019 [Previously 12]

Your argument is invalid. We are talking about a WC here. Even if they allow 48 nations in 2026, that's like only 20% of the world teams. Compare that to Cricket, 10 teams in a WC would amount to 60+% (considering 16 countries play cricket)

Unlike THE ICC FIFA have some balls! BIG NATIONS DON'T BULLY THEM EVERYDAY !!

That's not the point of discussion here.

What exposure do you get if you play the exact same teams that are nearly the same calibre as yours for years? Zimbabwe has been playing Afghanistan consistently for the last 3-4 years. Now only because it's qualifiers, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference even if you're under a bit of pressure. If lower ranked teams would play against the top teams like Aus/Ind/Pak/SA etc, a team could learn from mistakes and learn the way top teams are playing. By consistently playing the same sides, you aren't getting much exposure at all than if you play big teams in a big event.

Seriously? If you had cared to read my posts, you would have known that I too have suggested playing the associates against the full members regularly - but just not in a WC.

The cricket calendar for top teams like India is already cluttered, it would be impossible to materialize given the congested FTP!

Then change it and accommodate dates for such tours.

 

[Velocity]

Seriously? If you had cared to read my posts, you would have known that I too have suggested playing the associates against the full members regularly - but just not in a WC.

And how can that be done in such a cramped schedule for teams? It's unlikely that the Associate teams will be accommodated to play against top teams in such a busy itinerary. That would be very difficult to organize. so that really leaves the WC: where all teams can play against each other. The World Cup is always going to be the biggest event in cricket, meaning it has to be bigger than the CT which only has a few teams just like this WC. However, I am a fan the idea of when teams come to countries like India or Australia, they should play Afghanistan in India for maybe two ODI's as match practice or PNG or Hong Kong in Australia. However, if these matches were played in a WC, this would have more meaning to it as there would be added pressures as it a WC, and it would add to viewership as well. It would be great to see Associates to play against full members regularly, but that is almost impossible except when teams tour Ireland for match practice when touring England.

 

[Umair7]

Your argument is invalid. We are talking about a WC here. Even if they allow 48 nations in 2026, that's like only 20% of the world teams. Compare that to Cricket, 10 teams in a WC would amount to 60+% (considering 16 countries play cricket)

Well at least everyone have to play qualifiers unlike in Cricket! 48 is still 1000 time better than 10 (Cricket also have more than 16 teams)[DOUBLEPOST=1520672206][/DOUBLEPOST]

That's not the point of discussion here

No It is perfectly valid!! ICC should tell the big teams that they will decide how many teams will play in the WC and not them (fearsome tweak BIG Boards Meeting!)

 

[CerealKiller]

(considering 16 countries play cricket)

What? More than 100 countries are ICC members

 

[Gopal123]

I like this 10 team WC. All this frenzy about making it a 16 team WC is hilarious. In 2015 when there were one sided games against associate teams there was outrage as well.

It's the pinnacle of limited overs in our sport. Only the best should compete.

This^^^^

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Look at fifa world cup 32 nation playing. almost 50% matches are one sided. So do we care? F*** NO.
If only best will be competing why there are more than 200 nation. By our logic there should be only 20 countries in world.

 

[Satan666]

Then change it and accommodate dates for such tours.

Easier said than done, look at the volume of cricket the Indians have played the last year and the IPL is just around the corner.

Using your idea though the Associates can tour against the ‘A’ teams and county/club sides, should suffice for great exposure?

 

[asprin]

Using your idea though the Associates can tour against the ‘A’ teams and county/club sides, should suffice for great exposure?

It can certainly amount to a good start.

More than 100 countries are ICC members

And how often have you seen them play? Being a member is one thing. Playing regularly is another.

Well at least everyone have to play qualifiers unlike in Cricket

Your post in the current thread is what then? Not qualifiers?

hat would be very difficult to organize. so that really leaves the WC: where all teams can play against each other.

So according to you, playing a minuscule amount of matches in an event that runs once every four years will get them the required exposure?

 

[Yash.]

So according to you, playing a minuscule amount of matches in an event that runs once every four years will get them the required exposure?

Do you know how Rashid Khan burst on to the International scene? He played in the WT20 2016. He was smashed by AB de Villiers for 29 runs in an over. But, in the match against WI, he played an important role.

That WT20 was important in his career. What if it was just 10 teams only? Would we have seen a maestro from Afghanistan? I don't think so.

 

[CerealKiller]

And how often have you seen them play? Being a member is one thing. Playing regularly is another.

We don't see them play because they don't have TV deals

 

[asprin]

Do you know how Rashid Khan burst on to the International scene? He played in the WT20 2016. He was smashed by AB de Villiers for 29 runs in an over. But, in the match against WI, he played an important role.

That WT20 was important in his career. What if it was just 10 teams only? Would we have seen a maestro from Afghanistan? I don't think so.

I stopped reading the moment you said T20. T20 is different ball game together. My discussion revolves around 50-over WC matches where I've time and again said watching one sided games in big events is a waste of time.

 

[CerealKiller]

To qualify for the Super Sixes, Afghanistan need Nepal to beat Hong Kong, and they need a better NRR than both of them. But given their current form, i doubt it'd be easy to finish in the top two in the Super Sixes.