India/Pakistan views on changing the World Cup

[manee]

'Did you know...'

Rumours say that Sourav Ganguly was dropped from the Indian ODI team to join the Indian team still playing in the 2007 World Cup.

 

[Skater]

'Did you know...'

Rumours say that Sourav Ganguly was dropped from the Indian ODI team to join the Indian team still playing in the 2007 World Cup.

Lol. One of the cricket magazines wrote something about people remembering the year 2007 for the bad World Cup, and then stating that the competition is hotting up as the 7th place play-off approaches!

I am all for the associates playing at the World Cup, its their once chance to play against the Test countries, but I think there needs to be 2 fewer of them to maintain the quality of the tournament overall.

 

[sohum]

I'd prefer the World Cup to be more like the football world cup. I know the amount of teams is nowhere near equivalent to what the football world cup has, but the group stage followed by a straight knockout tournament would be a lot better, and the tournament wouldn't last for about 6 months like it did last time.

There is a major problem in that. Which is that the top teams don't play the other top teams. The Cricket World Cup has always been one where each of the top teams have played each other at least once before qualifying. A knockout format from the second round would eliminate that.

Cutting down to 14 would result in two large groups (like 2003, right?). There was plenty of exciting cricket in 2003. Keeping it at 16 and implementing a knockout from the next round would mean that a team could win the World Cup by winning 6 games, 2 of which could potentially be against much weaker opposition.

 

[evertonfan]

There is a major problem in that. Which is that the top teams don't play the other top teams. The Cricket World Cup has always been one where each of the top teams have played each other at least once before qualifying. A knockout format from the second round would eliminate that.

Ah, but that doesn't really matter to me personally. It's not as if Brazil and Argentina have to always compete against Italy and France every 4 years in the football world cup is it?

 

[sohum]

Ah, but that doesn't really matter to me personally. It's not as if Brazil and Argentina have to always compete against Italy and France every 4 years in the football world cup is it?

Football is not nearly as international as cricket. It's not as if I get excited about a Mumbai-Maharashtra "derby", is it?

 

[Kev]

I dunno do you?

Personally I think the round robin stage is a money making exercise, nothing else. Cut it out, make the World Cup shorter and more exciting.

 

[evertonfan]

Football is not nearly as international as cricket. It's not as if I get excited about a Mumbai-Maharashtra "derby", is it?

I normally agree with everything you say Sohum, but this bit baffles me. There's no game more international than football!

 

[sohum]

I dunno do you?

Personally I think the round robin stage is a money making exercise, nothing else. Cut it out, make the World Cup shorter and more exciting.

So how would it be? Straight up knock-out?

I normally agree with everything you say Sohum, but this bit baffles me. There's no game more international than football!

I mean it is more popular domestically--not country-vs-country. I cannot remember how to refer to that form of game--friendlies?

 

[usy]

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

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

We have a right to, we are former champions, and proud of the fact that we had our golden days when we ruled the game (talking about Pakistan)!

Hol'sheften' (guess what that means)

 

[Hooper]

We have a right to, we are former champions, and proud of the fact that we had our golden days when we ruled the game (talking about Pakistan)!

Hol'sheften' (guess what that means)

Now this thread is just getting to silly!:laugh

 

[SciD]

Well good for you. No one is saying you have to post in here.

I think your posts are rubbish, so there is at least a balance. I'm only joking btw

Well first of where is the source of your claims. Back your words if you can.

 

[smssia0112]

I do not think that it is rubbish to reduce the number of teams by two. In the case of the 2007 World Cup that would be eliminating Netherlands and Bermuda. Bermuda and Netherlands added nothing to the 2007 World Cup and were just lambs to the slaughter. Netherlands may have beaten Scotland, but that is neither here nor there in the case of the whole tournament.

Furthermore, to all those morons saying that India and Pakistan are jealous after losing to Ireland and Bangladesh...Ireland were 13th seed, so they'd have got in under the rules India/Pakistan suggested. Bangladesh are 11th seed, so they'd have got in too.

I agree with reducing the number of teams by two because it helps give the elite associates a chance whilst reducing teams who will not in a hundred years qualify for the Super Eights.

How do you figure that the Netherlands were there for the slaughter? They came 3rd in their pool and beat Scotland! Eliminating them would be ridiculous if they could win one of their 3 matches. That certainly adds something to the World Cup!

I normally agree with everything you say Sohum, but this bit baffles me. There's no game more international than football!

I agree with him, Association Football is only popular internationally in tournaments. Domestic is more popular in major footballing nations. The only major tournaments are really world and continental cups. The rest is all domestic cups, leagues and intercontinental champions leagues.

In cricket, domestic popularity is non-existent in comparison with international. The game is all about the highest honour, and international cricket is played in tours, rather than exhibition matches. That is the part that I love the most about it, that players (with the exception of a few - looks at Stuart Law accusingly) care about their countries more than their clubs.

Personally I find it disgusting when a player gives up his country to play for his club in any club. It's one thing if you're retiring because of age and want to see out the season, but how can their be any greater stage than playing for your country?

 

[Highlander999]

Well first of where is the source of your claims. Back your words if you can.

Read the white text mate. Just fooling around with you

 

[icyman]

The 2011 Format as agreed upon by the Asian Bloc.
This came in the Times fo India a few days ago,forgot to post it then.

Stage I
Two groups of 7 teams each.They play a round robin and the Top 4 go forth.

Stage II
Quarter-Finlas like they had in 1996.

Stage III
Semi-finals and Finals.

So,the World Cup will be a straight out knock-out competition.

 

[harishankar]

But Bangla are a Test playing nation. We're opposed to countries like Bermuda, Holland and Canada playing the world cup, not Bangladesh :o

My point is that occasionally the associate nations may upset the test playing teams, but that doesn't mean they will make for a good world cup overall.