Sri Lank to host World Twenty20 in 2012 and Bangladesh in 2014

[sohum]

So I was right then. Initially it was known as the ICC Knockout Trophy but the name and format were changed somewhere down the track?

Like I said in Post #13.

But yes, after two knock out world cups its format was changed. It's format has actually changed 3-4 times since the competition changed from a straight-up knockout. They experimented with a round robin + knockout, a round robin + semis, a qualifying round followed by a main round, etc.

Now it seems like it's turned into a mini-world cup for the elite members, which is kind of ridiculous because I'd rather just wait for the World Cup.

 

[Biggy]

btw, this is old news, they announced this way before last T20 WC-WI.

http://www.planetcricket.org/forums...ts/icc-world-t20-bangladesh-2013-a-65977.html :laugh

Well that states that Bangladesh would host it in 2013, not 2014, so this isn't old news.

 

[McLOVIN]

Post #3

This is old news. He just had the wrong info

 

[McLOVIN]

btw why should they even think about reducing teams from T20 WC. That's one place where they should bring in new teams. That's one format where minnows have good chance to win.

So stupid. ICC taking them out from everything. Learn something from FIFA. Do they even feel bad when FIFA loled at ICC saying '12 countries playing in the WC, Ha cricket IS a funny game" during last WC?

 

[sohum]

We don't have to be like FIFA. In fact, we're miles ahead of FIFA when it comes to accountability of the officials. I'm glad that the ICC doesn't live in the dark ages with no technology that would result in fairer contests.

 

[McLOVIN]

I am talking about participant wise. I want cricket to become more worldwide! Why hold it in between the same 10-15 countries.

Tech wise ICC are defo way ahead of FIFA. But it's not like Fifa can't afford it. If they wanted to, they could get even better stuff. There is reason why they don't. They dont want it to become NFL like, where you have to stop the play to check and stuff. They want the game to be running for whole 90+ mins with-out any stops (excluding the half time), they don't want to give any chance for commercial breaks, where in cricket, we stop the play for commercial breaks. :

 

[khalek]

Bangladesh will be good hosts in the WC next year and also 4 years later for the T20 WC because the crowd will be electric and there will be a lot of noise around but the team's performance must improve otherwise teams like Zimbabwe and Ireland might leave them behind and the supporters will keep facing these embarrassments.

I bet even after 4 years we will all be here still criticizing Bangladesh team's awful losses and Ashraful's poor average and shot selection

 

[riz7khan12]

they don't want to give any chance for commercial breaks, where in cricket, we stop the play for commercial breaks.

thats because FIFA can afford not to show commercial brakes, while ICC banks on commercial brakes as a revenue generator. This all comes down to Football being more popular than Cricket. On the same lines ICC can also not afford to accommodate extra teams at the world cup like FIFA does. and the chances of the 2nd division teams winning is almost nil. While in football the 2nd/3rd division teams can still beat or atleast draw with the main teams. {take NZ's campaign in the world cup for example.}

So I guess you cant really compare soccer with cricket, its like comparing apples with oranges as they say.

 

[sohum]

Slightly OT, but I think the "stoppage of play" thing is BS. For example, in the last two examples of this (Lampard's goal and Tevez's goal against Mexico) much time was wasted as the refs tried to figure out what was happening. In fact, the video replays had shown conclusive evidence far before the game on the pitch even got started. That puts to bed the whole "time wasting" factor, at least for goal-scoring decisions.

By the way, I'm writing a 2/3-part article comparing the FIFA and ICC: ICC vs. FIFA, Part 1 | sohummm.com