India/Pakistan views on changing the World Cup

[SciD]

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.

Read here

http://internationalcricket.suite101.com/article.cfm/cricket_world_cup_2011

Its ICC decision to have less teams and shorter world cup.

Anyways you can have it for 10 days or 100 days Australia will still win it.

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

Im sensitive about my country and dont like anyone calling it rubbish. If you like someone calling yours then so be it.

 

[Highlander999]

Read here

http://internationalcricket.suite101.com/article.cfm/cricket_world_cup_2011

Its ICC decision to have less teams and shorter world cup.

Anyways you can have it for 10 days or 100 days Australia will still win it.

Im sensitive about my country and dont like anyone calling it rubbish. If you like someone calling yours then so be it.

Don't be so sensitive (are you 10? I'm not calling your country rubbish, I'm calling the views expressed here rubbish, which they are. Everyone knows the South Asia countires hold a massive amount of sway with the ICC. The ICB/PCB says jump and through the hoop the ICC goes.

If you look at the views of the forum members it seems the majority of people who want the numbers reduced are Indian/Pakistani while the rest don't really mind keeping the same numbers.

 

[sohum]

Don't be so sensitive (are you 10? I'm not calling your country rubbish, I'm calling the views expressed here rubbish, which they are. Everyone knows the South Asia countires hold a massive amount of sway with the ICC. The ICB/PCB says jump and through the hoop the ICC goes.

Why are the views rubbish? Because the best World Cup in the last three years (all of which were won by Australia, so take out the fan bias there) was the 2003 one? The format works. In cricket it has always been that the World Cup isn't just a quickie tournament that is played by the qualifiers. You shouldn't even be comparing it to the football World Cup where every country other than the hosts and the defending champions go through a long system of qualification.

If you look at the views of the forum members it seems the majority of people who want the numbers reduced are Indian/Pakistani while the rest don't really mind keeping the same numbers.

Of course you're going to get this sort of response from a mainly biased and immature audience. Everyone, though, agrees that the last World Cup was a disaster. You may claim that you can just change the fixtures but that leaves two possibilities:

A two-group, 8 teams per group round-robin followed by quarter-finals or a four-group, 4 teams per group round-robin followed by quarter-finals. One is too long and the other is too short. And it's not as if the associates brought anything to the tournament. Ireland were the only one who showed a hint of talent--Bangladesh are a test side and qualify automatically, as they would for the next WC. Scotland, Netherlands and especially Namibia were mauled by almost whoever they played. I don't agree that this sort of exposure really helps them as much as mandatory 'A' team tours to associate countries would.

 

[Highlander999]

Why are the views rubbish? Because the best World Cup in the last three years (all of which were won by Australia, so take out the fan bias there) was the 2003 one? The format works. In cricket it has always been that the World Cup isn't just a quickie tournament that is played by the qualifiers. You shouldn't even be comparing it to the football World Cup where every country other than the hosts and the defending champions go through a long system of qualification.


Of course you're going to get this sort of response from a mainly biased and immature audience. Everyone, though, agrees that the last World Cup was a disaster. You may claim that you can just change the fixtures but that leaves two possibilities:

A two-group, 8 teams per group round-robin followed by quarter-finals or a four-group, 4 teams per group round-robin followed by quarter-finals. One is too long and the other is too short. And it's not as if the associates brought anything to the tournament. Ireland were the only one who showed a hint of talent--Bangladesh are a test side and qualify automatically, as they would for the next WC. Scotland, Netherlands and especially Namibia were mauled by almost whoever they played. I don't agree that this sort of exposure really helps them as much as mandatory 'A' team tours to associate countries would.

Pretty unfair your first staetement. Don't let the minority create a judgement of the majority. Yes the last WC was a disaster, but if they were to implement an early grouping stage to get rid of the sub-par teams like Bermuda that would surely speed the process up, so in the end there would be left a certain number of associates who are of a good enough level to participate. On that point I agree with you, but I don't feel you have the right to call people immature. If I remember the India/Australia incident you didn't exactly handle yourself with great maturity either.

EDIT - I just thought I would add that I'm not having a go at you, as everyone makes immature posts depending on the mood they are in.

 

[SciD]

Don't be so sensitive (are you 10? I'm not calling your country rubbish, I'm calling the views expressed here rubbish, which they are. Everyone knows the South Asia countires hold a massive amount of sway with the ICC. The ICB/PCB says jump and through the hoop the ICC goes.

If you look at the views of the forum members it seems the majority of people who want the numbers reduced are Indian/Pakistani while the rest don't really mind keeping the same numbers.

No member from India or Pakistan had expressed the views untill you started this thread. Admit it or not but the home of cricket nowdays is subcontinent.

There is no charity involved in staging a World Cup. No board would like to suffer losses like WI suffered in 2007. If the tickets had not been sold prior to tournament the attendance would have been half of what actually it was.

 

[sohum]

Pretty unfair your first staetement. Don't let the minority create a judgement of the majority. Yes the last WC was a disaster, but if they were to implement an early grouping stage to get rid of the sub-par teams like Bermuda that would surely speed the process up, so in the end there would be left a certain number of associates who are of a good enough level to participate. On that point I agree with you, but I don't feel you have the right to call people immature. If I remember the India/Australia incident you didn't exactly handle yourself with great maturity either.

EDIT - I just thought I would add that I'm not having a go at you, as everyone makes immature posts depending on the mood they are in.

Fair enough. However, surely you will agree that the very title of this thread may have affected the response in this thread? It doesn't take a genius to realize that there is a split developing in international cricket and it's fans.

 

[Highlander999]

Ok I have changed the title

 

[.::Stevo::.]

There is no charity involved in staging a World Cup. No board would like to suffer losses like WI suffered in 2007. If the tickets had not been sold prior to tournament the attendance would have been half of what actually it was.

Thats because the West Indies couldn't run a lemonade stand even if they tried.
I utterly don't understand why you want to kick the minor countries out. So what if they cause upsets? Thats sport!! Everyone loves upsets! The major country should be good enough to beat the minor country anyway.

Why am i sensing this started because India/Pakistan lost to the minnows?

 

[SciD]

Thats because the West Indies couldn't run a lemonade stand even if they tried.
I utterly don't understand why you want to kick the minor countries out. So what if they cause upsets? Thats sport!! Everyone loves upsets! The major country should be good enough to beat the minor country anyway.

Why am i sensing this started because India/Pakistan lost to the minnows?

No problem with upsets. Its has been beauty of World Cup since 1996 that unexpected teams have done well and caused upsets. But what happened till 2003 did not happened in 2007.

In 1996 Sri Lanka were relatively dark horses and not only caused upsets caused the greatest upset of all by winning WC.

In 1999 Zimbawe made to Super 6 and did so by better sides. They were competitive in all games.

In 2003 Kenya were the surprise package. They not only beat some good teams but also went on to Semi Finals.

But im afraid that ends there. There were upsets in 2007 but the teams did not deserved to be in second round cos they did nothing after that.

I think there should be more emphasis on developing cricket for Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Kenya. But having 16 teams is just too much for WC. Those who compare it to Soccer, even the weak teams have stars playing in league cricket so they have some experience. Cant say that about teams like Bermuda etc.

 

[.::Stevo::.]

No problem with upsets. Its has been beauty of World Cup since 1996 that unexpected teams have done well and caused upsets. But what happened till 2003 did not happened in 2007.

In 1996 Sri Lanka were relatively dark horses and not only caused upsets caused the greatest upset of all by winning WC.

In 1999 Zimbawe made to Super 6 and did so by better sides. They were competitive in all games.

In 2003 Kenya were the surprise package. They not only beat some good teams but also went on to Semi Finals.

But im afraid that ends there. There were upsets in 2007 but the teams did not deserved to be in second round cos they did nothing after that.

I think there should be more emphasis on developing cricket for Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Kenya. But having 16 teams is just too much for WC. Those who compare it to Soccer, even the weak teams have stars playing in league cricket so they have some experience. Cant say that about teams like Bermuda etc.

Well maybe next time India and Pakistan wont perform so poorly and we wont have this problem.

Were Ireland one of the teams to make it through??

World Cup shouldn't be about cricket development. It should simply about every cricketing nation having a crack at the ultimate prize. I agree the amount of countries should be limited, but not yet!

If the event was managed well it'd work.

 

[SciD]

Were Ireland one of the teams to make it through??

Yes.

 

[.::Stevo::.]

Yes.

Well they deserved their spot there. They earned it. I know your not going to like the soccer comparison but try to overlook it. Its like saying to Australia we aren't allowed to compete in the final 16 because we suck at football. Hey, we earnt our spot there.

 

[SciD]

Well they deserved their spot there. They earned it. I know your not going to like the soccer comparison but try to overlook it. Its like saying to Australia we aren't allowed to compete in the final 16 because we suck at football. Hey, we earnt our spot there.

I do not think your soccer team is that bad. If you think so.

 

[.::Stevo::.]

I do not think your soccer team is that bad. If you think so.

Compared to Brazil, Argentina we are. We have the depth of a babys pool. Even our new coach said our league players sucked

 

[usy]

Now this thread is just getting to silly!:laugh

it's because you're red white and blue, Someone tell me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_national_cricket_team

I do not think your soccer team is that bad. If you think so.

hahaha.. good one

Iraq Football team > Aussie Team