India/Pakistan views on changing the World Cup

[Highlander999]

Reading the sports section this morning, I read something which made me very annoyed. Appaerntly the Scottish Cricketing Board are worried because India and Pakistan are pushing for the number of countries in the World Cup to go from 16 to 14. They think that there are too many associate countries.

Now as the World Cup is being held in Pakistan/India this could create quite a few problems as we all know the sway these countries have with International Cricket is vast. Now I really wonder why these two don't want the smaller countries in the World Cup. Who knocked Pakistan out last time? Oh yeah. Ireland. If you want the best teams in it, you might as well just scrap the World Cup and just have one final between Australia and Sri Lanka/SA as they will be the one's in the final.

The more countries in the World Cup the better I feel as with cricket being a minority sport in so many countries it can only help improve Cricket in being improved. Maybe if it is such an issue for these big guns that they are scared of Ireland, Scotland etc perhaps an extra stage can be created like in the Football World Cup for these associates to qualify through to get rid of the rubbish countries like Bermuda who aren't up to the standard and need a few more years to improve.

 

[Dare]

i think its fine as it is, its always great when a smaller nation beats one of the favs in the tournamnet.

 

[smssia0112]

How will associates grow if they have no opportunities to play against decent sides? Keep the World Cup as it is please.

 

[harishankar]

I think only the Test playing nations should participate in the World Cup, making it smaller, more focussed and better for the audience and avoid dead matches (yes, in spite of occasional upsets, you get a lot of dead matches in long-drawn out Cups).

Use the ICC Champions Trophy to give the Associates exposure at the top level. Also have more tours with ICC Associate nations and "A" teams from the Test nations. That should be the way to build cricket. Not a once-in-four-year event where the Associate nation just plays a couple of games of ODI cricket.

 

[SciD]

Tom it was under Jagmohan Dalmiya reign that ICC adopted the approach to expand cricket to non cricket playing nations. To think that India will be opposing any expansion of cricket I think you are wrong there.

As fas as world cup goes. The more the teams the more the world cup will end up like West Indies 2007. I rest my case.

 

[smssia0112]

Tom it was under Jagmohan Dalmiya reign that ICC adopted the approach to expand cricket to non cricket playing nations. To think that India will be opposing any expansion of cricket I think you are wrong there.

As fas as world cup goes. The more the teams the more the world cup will end up like West Indies 2007. I rest my case.

That's not true. The format could easily be changed to shorten it, we could turn it into two larger groups followed by knockout stages. The soccer world cup has twice as many teams but no one complains that it's too long.

I think only the Test playing nations should participate in the World Cup, making it smaller, more focussed and better for the audience and avoid dead matches (yes, in spite of occasional upsets, you get a lot of dead matches in long-drawn out Cups).

Use the ICC Champions Trophy to give the Associates exposure at the top level. Also have more tours with ICC Associate nations and "A" teams from the Test nations. That should be the way to build cricket. Not a once-in-four-year event where the Associate nation just plays a couple of games of ODI cricket.

I'm sorry but I find that extremely hypocritical considering the fact that India only played a few games in the World Cup.

Look at how much Ireland's win did for their cricket, suddenly people sat up and took notice of it, suddenly the team were the pride of a nation.

The same thing happened with Australia in the 2006 FIFA World Cup. Soccer was a minor sport back then, but when Australia qualified and won through to the knockout stages, nearly forcing Italy into extra time, the nation took an interest.

Are you saying that it's bad to stop things like that happening with Ireland?

 

[harishankar]

That's not true. The format could easily be changed to shorten it, we could turn it into two larger groups followed by knockout stages. The soccer world cup has twice as many teams but no one complains that it's too long.

The World Cup is already diluted by too many teams. I would rather watch the main Test nations playing a game against each other without groups like in the 1992 World Cup. Restricting it to 8 or 9 teams is the best way forward.

In a big group format, the problem is many of the top nations don't face each other early on. This reduces interest in the group stages.

That's not true. The format could easily be changed to shorten it, we could turn it into two larger groups followed by knockout stages. The soccer world cup has twice as many teams but no one complains that it's too long.


I'm sorry but I find that extremely hypocritical considering the fact that India only played a few games in the World Cup.

Look at how much Ireland's win did for their cricket, suddenly people sat up and took notice of it, suddenly the team were the pride of a nation.

The same thing happened with Australia in the 2006 FIFA World Cup. Soccer was a minor sport back then, but when Australia qualified and won through to the knockout stages, nearly forcing Italy into extra time, the nation took an interest.

Are you saying that it's bad to stop things like that happening with Ireland?

You don't have to be sorry, and it's not hypocritical. Ireland just got a few weeks' exposure. With a regular tour format and a schedule of playing "A" sides at home and away, they would improve much quicker and come closer to becoming a Test nation...

What's the big deal with ICC nations playing once in 4 years at the top level? Has Kenya really become a great cricket power after all these years of playing just the world cup at the top level?

Why don't they focus on developing them on a regular basis rather than just using the World Cup as a prop for the ICC Associates?

 

[SciD]

The soccer world cup has twice as many teams but no one complains that it's too long.

The same thing happened with Australia in the 2006 FIFA World Cup. Soccer was a minor sport back then, but when Australia qualified and won through to the knockout stages, nearly forcing Italy into extra time, the nation took an interest.

What is the fascination with soccer here. Soccer games last 140 minutes max and one ODI takes 500 minutes.

Anyways no issues with length of world cup. Its quality that matters. Yeah Ireland dumped Pakistan and Bangladesh dumped India but what did they do after that?

Kenya went on to semi finals of 2003 world cup. What has happened to there cricket. Infact before Bangladesh they deserved to have Test status.

P.S. I would love all planet involved in Cricket. The game will definately change once the Americans get into it.

 

[Cricketdude]

Its funny 2 teams who got knocked out by minnows(well bangladesh pretty much) are complaining. :laugh

 

[smssia0112]

What is the fascination with soccer here. Soccer games last 140 minutes max and one ODI takes 500 minutes.

Anyways no issues with length of world cup. Its quality that matters. Yeah Ireland dumped Pakistan and Bangladesh dumped India but what did they do after that?

Kenya went on to semi finals of 2003 world cup. What has happened to there cricket. Infact before Bangladesh they deserved to have Test status.

P.S. I would love all planet involved in Cricket. The game will definately change once the Americans get into it.

Bangladesh beat South Africa and Ireland beat a test nation in Bangladesh.

You don't have to be sorry, and it's not hypocritical. Ireland just got a few weeks' exposure. With a regular tour format and a schedule of playing "A" sides at home and away, they would improve much quicker and come closer to becoming a Test nation...

So did Australia, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be more play against the top nations, but a World Cup should give all cricketing nations a chance to qualify. It's a 'World Cup' not a Test Nation Playoff.

 

[SciD]

That's not true.

Read this if you have doubts about my Dalmiya claims

http://rediff.co.in/sports/1998/sep/24b.htm

Bangladesh beat South Africa and Ireland beat a test nation in Bangladesh.

Yeah and got thumped in other games.

My point is if you spending lot of money to buy tickets do you want to watch Bangladesh and Ireland? If yes then i will say you are a one rich man.

 

[smssia0112]

I want cricket to grow worldwide. For the record, if the World Cup was in Australia, I would be happy to see any teams play at the MCG, regardless of whether it was Australia v England or Zimbabwe v Ireland.

As for your Dalmiya claims, that's not what I was questioning.

 

[Hooper]

India and Pakistan are spiteful because of what happened to them at the last WC

***Cough cough Ireland/Bangas Cough cough***

 

[SciD]

India and Pakistan are spiteful because of what happened to them at the last WC

***Cough cough Ireland/Bangas Cough cough***

I would rather wait for source before coughing.

 

[Hooper]

What?

Im talking about last years WC.