India/Pakistan views on changing the World Cup

[icyman]

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

There's a big debate out there as to whether or not Bangla should be playing Test cricket.

 

[harishankar]

That's a separate debate regarding Bangladesh's status.

 

[Highlander999]

But the point is your changing it to suit you guys. And it is only the two teams that lost to associates (or not very good team e.g. Banga) which are complaining. I don't see Aus or Eng or SA complaining.

Just becasue Canada or Holland might not be quite as good as Ireland doesn't mean they cannot cause an upset.

 

[.::Stevo::.]

Associates have to go through the qualification even now.
Secondly,you talk of having more countries-lets have 24 then.
It will not work in cricket.Let the Associates play in other tournaments,why the World Cup ?



The format of 2007 was flawed.

I believe that the World Cup should be played between the 9 Test playing nations only.

Because its the WORLD cup

I think the title of thread is utter rubbish.

Why? It is their views, you aren't THAT sensitive about your country are you?

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

lolz, burn

 

[Sman-21]

the more teams the better.
Just need to get the format correct.
my favourite games up until the finals started were the games where a big team was playing the small teams.
If it wasnt for them it wasnt even worth watching until the finals came round.

If the smaller associate teams have no competions they can take part in why even bother trying to get started in the first place.

U wanna grow the game u need to give them tournaments they want to try an be invovled in.
Sure there will be lopsided games every now an again but its worth it to expand the game.

I do agree more A teams should be touring teams like holland,canada etc each year.
Instead of stuff like Pak A vs Aus A
Things like Aus a vs holland will be a great help for developing nations.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

I think there are too many. Might be an upste or two, but it would be better if they just played in tours, and if the World Cup was kept to 14 teams.
The T20 WC on the other hand...I'd like to see 20 teams if not more in that.

 

[icyman]

Because its the WORLD cup

Lets have 24 teams each playing a knock out game,shall we ?

 

[manee]

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!

An associate upset adds little in my opinion. I think that only teams who can concievably get past the first round should be included. Therefore 14 teams is a good amount.

Just becasue Canada or Holland might not be quite as good as Ireland doesn't mean they cannot cause an upset.

I think it totally does. Ireland were not babies winning a coin toss, they were a good team who outplayed the opposition. The 15th and 16th seed wouldn't do that.

 

[Animator!]

The problem with the last World CUp wasnt that is had too many teams, it's just that it was horribly mismanaged.

 

[manee]

Interesting note:

9 teams in the 1992 World Cup
12 teams in the 1996 World Cup
12 teams in the 1999 World Cup
14 teams in the 2003 World Cup
16 teams in the 2007 World Cup

 

[sohum]

But the point is your changing it to suit you guys. And it is only the two teams that lost to associates (or not very good team e.g. Banga) which are complaining. I don't see Aus or Eng or SA complaining.

Just becasue Canada or Holland might not be quite as good as Ireland doesn't mean they cannot cause an upset.

Please. It's not as if India and Pakistan always get knocked out by the weaker nations. And the whole point of making two groups instead of 4 is to lessen the impact of an upset.

 

[Highlander999]

Please. It's not as if India and Pakistan always get knocked out by the weaker nations. And the whole point of making two groups instead of 4 is to lessen the impact of an upset.

I'm not saying they always do. But as the last WC proved there is always a chance. Next time Scotland might knock out England.

Anyway we like upsets.

 

[sohum]

I'm not saying they always do. But as the last WC proved there is always a chance. Next time Scotland might knock out England.

Anyway we like upsets.

Upsets are good. But you don't want to tarnish the quality of the tournament based on one or two upsets. Bangladesh upset South Africa in the Super8 stage but it didn't result in the tournament following it's natural course.

Take also the fact that playing in a two-group 14-team format means the 3 associate countries will get exposed to at least 4 test-playing nations, each. That's much more guaranteed exposure than hoping they get lucky in the first round.

 

[Sureshot]

Lets have 24 teams each playing a knock out game,shall we ?

But why should only the test teams play in an ODI tournament?

 

[Leicester Fox]

What we don't need is 2 group stages, thats a waste of time, 4 groups, 8 teams go through to quarter finals, knock out games are much more exciting because a side could scrape through their group and put a run together and make it to the final. If you went into quarters that would leave you 3 games away from the final which would be really exciting.