T20 World Cup more exciting than 2007 World Cup in carribean?

[sohum]

It's interesting the way people talk.

The result records of the three grounds in this tournament (setting vs chasing)
Wanderers: 5-0-4
Kingsmead: 5-1-2
Newlands: 2-0-7

Yup, absolutely dead even. It seems most of the negative comments towards the tournament come from prejudices that can be derived either from a poor performance from the supporter's national team or a continued wish to avoid change.

I will admit that in the past I was unsure about this format on an international scale, but I think that, at least for now, it produces far more exciting games. Every game I watched went down to the wire.

 

[manee]

I am quite a fan of havinng one pre or post series twenty20 as well as the World Twenty20 and no more. This way we get to see new talent (or not in Australia's case) and the winner cannot be predicted from previous results.

66 needed of 6 overs would be insermountable in 50 over cricket but it became 6 needed off 4 due to the quick scoring nature of twenty20 and the final was a nail biter. That is what the crowds want.

 

[harishankar]

The final clinched it for me. Regardless of the result, it has been an excellent, outstanding, intense competition that has not outlived its "sell-by" date. Maybe in the future the 50-over world cups should be limited to 8-10 teams max and then instead of having a super 6s round, go straight to the semi final after every team plays every other team.

No groups system would make the 50 over world cup more exciting. This T20 format seems better suited to groups system with more teams participating.

 

[angryangy]

It's main advantage is definitely the lack of responsibility.

Test series and tours are heavily planned and the end result is often more a battle between one team and the weather than two even opponents. It takes weeks to decide the winner of a Test series and there are only ever two participants. A great series can be an epic to rival the classics and even a good or surprising series can capture the imagination but when it doesn't come off, it feels like a lot of wasted time.

ODIs walk a similar line. The World Cup takes months to play. Under the current format, seeded teams are punished severely for early mistakes and then the cricket public are subjected to the weak teams that were allowed through. Even if that team pulls off an upset, it's one day in a month of mediocrity.

For this tournament, it's done in two weeks. Teams tussle above and below their weight, but if an upset occurs, there's not so long to wait until the finals. Attach a T20 to an existing tour and it takes virtually no time away from the main events. Rain seldom wipes out a T20 fixture because the amount of dry time required is so short (probably an underrated reason as to the popularity in England).

Fans and curious onlookers alike can opt for T20 at short notice. They don't have to take a day off work, or worse, a holiday. Indeed, where a longer match is difficult to follow into the night, a T20 game is often easier to watch in entirety for viewers around the globe.

 

[harishankar]

As I suggested, the World Cup format for the ODI game needs a severe shake-up.

The 1992 World Cup with 8 teams was probably the best format at that time. Having groups makes the tournament too fragment as a lot of teams don't get to play a lot of other teams.

 

[smssia0112]

The ODI World Cup was poorly run and organized, but the words exciting and overshadowed do not agree with me.

As I said before, I have barely followed the T20 WC, I knew little about it before and still don't know much about it.

And excitement is up to the individual. Personally I do not find Twenty20 to be interesting or exciting at all.

 

[harishankar]

The ODI World Cup was poorly run and organized, but the words exciting and overshadowed do not agree with me.

As I said before, I have barely followed the T20 WC, I knew little about it before and still don't know much about it.

And excitement is up to the individual. Personally I do not find Twenty20 to be interesting or exciting at all.

Maybe the television timings in Australia has something to do with it? I too didn't feel like sitting up late night to watches the WC matches in the carribean.

 

[icyman]

Definately yes,and I have mentioend this somewhere on the forum earlier too.
My 'yes' is for a whole host of reasons:

1.Good TV commentary and graphics.
2.Suitable timings
3.Quick matches which change within a period of one over
4.Great organisation

Comparing this with the ICC WC 07 in the West Indies.
Well for one,it was a shoddy show.It was too long.
Especially the Final match being overshadowed by rain generated the most disappointment among fans.
The Windies also had dull pitches.Now in SA,we had diffferent pitches everywhere with a bouncy track at Durban,to a slow at Cape Town to an excellent belter at the Wanderers.

I must also add that South Africa is a beautiful country for hosting events.They proved it in 2003[when ppl were against them] and now again in 2007.

 

[Sureshot]

As much as anything the organisation has improved so much that you can't compare them too much. Having a WC in the carribean would've been so much better had we been allowed a carribean atmosphere, rather than a quiet, expensive affair.

 

[SaiSrini]

According to me, this World Cup was one of the most entertaining ones that I have watched anytime. I enjoyed it so much, not because India won the tournament, but the entertainment was amazing. I loved the sixes, fours, wickets, etc. It was all in fast forward mode and I enjoy such fast entertainment.

More of these World Cups, and I will start avoiding the 50 over ones altogether. MY OPINION!

 

[sohum]

The ODI World Cup was poorly run and organized, but the words exciting and overshadowed do not agree with me.

As I said before, I have barely followed the T20 WC, I knew little about it before and still don't know much about it.

And excitement is up to the individual. Personally I do not find Twenty20 to be interesting or exciting at all.

I still fail to see how you can be reasonably justified in your opinion of Twenty20 when you barely followed the T20 WC, which shows that many of your beliefs about the game are wrong. That's like me saying, "The Ashes suck" after having watched one of the test matches that Australia destroyed England in the last decade. But really, it's up to you I guess. Your own opinion and all that.

 

[usy]

Loosing to India in Final is better then loosing to Ireland in Group stages, but both are worst .. lol 20/20 was better series. ICC Cricket World Cup 2007 sucked for all of us except Aussies and Lankans ofcorse, but it' wasn’t fun at all. I hope next world cup is a kick ass, I mean they made such a bad pitch for Pakistan and that was the only green pitch in the whole tournament. Ireland I mean who are they??

 

[sohum]

Loosing to India in Final is better then loosing to Ireland in Group stages, but both are worst .. lol 20/20 was better series. ICC Cricket World Cup 2007 sucked for all of us except Aussies and Lankans ofcorse, but it' wasn?t fun at all. I hope next world cup is a kick ass, I mean they made such a bad pitch for Pakistan and that was the only green pitch in the whole tournament. Ireland I mean who are they??

Well it was against Ireland so obviously the pitch was green.

 

[Master Khan]

And ICC Cricket World Cup 2007 was boring because Austraila won all the matchs soo easily Lets hope in the next world cup we got some great matchs

 

[icyman]

Well,they played well.
They deserved that.

Another thing I'd rather Australia won it than Sri Lanka.


Consider this T20,had Pak won the final they would have remained unbeaten also[do not consider the tie against India as a loss]