Well it's going to be hard enough for the top sides to roll sides out cheaply so you wouldn't like the chances of the minnows. Only Zimbabwe and Bangladesh have the spinners that could keep it tight, the others are on a hiding to nothing.
The Dead-Rubber WC?
- Thread starter Papa_Smurf
- Start date
Left_Hander
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Online Cricket Games Owned
I don't know if this is the right place to post this but I figured that it is related to scheduling.
Is there only one match per day during the week? If so, that is ridiculous! No wonder this tournament is going for so long. There should be AT LEAST two matches per day. What if one is a blowout? Like Sri Lanka vs Canada or England vs Netherlands. Neither match really grabs the attention of the tournament, so have two and give the viewers a bit more choice.
Is there only one match per day during the week? If so, that is ridiculous! No wonder this tournament is going for so long. There should be AT LEAST two matches per day. What if one is a blowout? Like Sri Lanka vs Canada or England vs Netherlands. Neither match really grabs the attention of the tournament, so have two and give the viewers a bit more choice.
King Cricket
International Coach
Shouldn't the ousting of minnows from the next edition of the World Cup be a detriment to the globalization of cricket? WC is the only platform where the lesser known teams get to face the Test nations, and throwing them out will kill whatever vestige of interest their people have in cricket. A better solution is to organize a ODI series between a minnow and a stronger nation at least twice a year, alongside assisting them in popularizing cricket within their borders and building cricketing infrastructure, as the Canadian coach was saying. Expedient decisions may not always be the most prudent.
About the format of the World Cup, we can have 12 teams divided in four pools with the topper of each pool going straight to the semi-finals. A bit like the format of the 2004 Champions Trophy. It greatly slashes the length of the tournament and ensures that every game is profusely important. Minnow nations, whose victory pivots on luck, get an advantage, but we have to prepare a level playing field for them if we want cricket to flourish.
About the format of the World Cup, we can have 12 teams divided in four pools with the topper of each pool going straight to the semi-finals. A bit like the format of the 2004 Champions Trophy. It greatly slashes the length of the tournament and ensures that every game is profusely important. Minnow nations, whose victory pivots on luck, get an advantage, but we have to prepare a level playing field for them if we want cricket to flourish.
Last edited:
P
pcfan123
Guest
nah, World Twenty20 is the best exposure for the minnows since they actually have a chance of pulling off an upset. Over 100 overs the gap in skill level is too easily exposed.
Well, in places like the sub continent it's more often than not a battle of the potentials than a land of scope for the upsets. Expecting those is a good thing but in India, set aside Sri lanka, It's genuine. Get plans, shots, balls (i do mean both) right and you see yourself in a safe land.
Unfortunately the so called minnows haven't had much luck as of yet, but they started off well barring kenya's batting. Canada pulled off some dust over sri lanka but credit to Mahela for taking it way though. Bangladesh are a little above the minnow line but still not a pressure handling squad.
Zimbabwe surprised me, they actually have a good depth in their squad only if they use it to maximum. They kept Australia down quite nicely until the 45th over. They started their batting good as well. I just hope they will pull off some wins in the upcoming days, they certainly can do better fixing their middle order debacle.
About the relegation, ICC have a lot more to offer. The teams are not to blame. The associates have nothing but 1/3rd of the facilities the test nations have. It's not that ICC can't do without, but they're not doing enough for those uprising nations because there's no point in making them play the same level teams over and again. There's tremendous home grown potential in their squads already.
I like the current group system but the knock outs stages should've 2 legs. Hard to determine. The best team could fall off short in the QFs, but hey, they say the day belongs to the best team. It can make the WC more longer but if 49 matches are acceptable, a couple of those only in the QFs would of add some spice.
Unfortunately the so called minnows haven't had much luck as of yet, but they started off well barring kenya's batting. Canada pulled off some dust over sri lanka but credit to Mahela for taking it way though. Bangladesh are a little above the minnow line but still not a pressure handling squad.
Zimbabwe surprised me, they actually have a good depth in their squad only if they use it to maximum. They kept Australia down quite nicely until the 45th over. They started their batting good as well. I just hope they will pull off some wins in the upcoming days, they certainly can do better fixing their middle order debacle.
About the relegation, ICC have a lot more to offer. The teams are not to blame. The associates have nothing but 1/3rd of the facilities the test nations have. It's not that ICC can't do without, but they're not doing enough for those uprising nations because there's no point in making them play the same level teams over and again. There's tremendous home grown potential in their squads already.
I like the current group system but the knock outs stages should've 2 legs. Hard to determine. The best team could fall off short in the QFs, but hey, they say the day belongs to the best team. It can make the WC more longer but if 49 matches are acceptable, a couple of those only in the QFs would of add some spice.
Last edited:
TV no doubt has some agreement to say they want to sell their package so someone could watch say 40 World Cup matches. They do the same with football, even with three World Cup matches a day they spread them out over the day except you can't do that with a match that lasts 100 overs.
On the one hand the minnows don't pose too much of a serious threat, the odd Ireland and Kenya upset aside. On the other hand they have a right to be at the WORLD CUP and so for me the only question is of getting the number of games right. The organisers/TV got stung last time out because Ireland and Bangladesh knocked 'big guns' out. Fact is the 'big guns' shouldn't have got knocked out, I guess the organisers want to make sure they protect the 'big guns' and getting rid of minnows secures that.
Am I right in thinking, pretty sure I am, that the only other time there were just Test nations was 1992? (albeit Zimbabwe were only given Test status or played their first Test that year) I think they'll have no qualms whatsoever about getting rid of the minnows, ECB did it to the minor counties and I think that was a wrong decision too. The problem with the World Cup format is TV wants as many games as possible without having whippings, something they have walked straight into with England vs Holland likely to be the FIFTH in a row. If they hadn't over-cooked the last tournament with TWENTY-FOUR matches in the 'super 8' stage then the last competition would have been a lot better.
I'm sure they'll flit between inviting the minnows and not inviting the minnows, the real shame is they don't see how it is a goal for the players in the minnows simply to get there and represent their country at the highest level. Oh no, a few mismatches might upset the competition organisers and TV. It does no harm, what would happen if organisers of the football World Cup decided they didn't want New Zealand, Japan, Slovakia, the African teams and all the other teams that have little or no hope of making the QFs or SFs? It's never been an issue before, when they last went without minnows in 1992 they reversed that and we've had minnows in 1996, 1999, 2003, 2007 AND 2011. In fact some of the best matches have involved minnows upsetting the 'big guns'.
To quote Corporal Jones - "they don't like it up 'em"
Most of the members seem to be drawing comparisons with the FIFA style of functioning. Do remember that the game out there is different, the skill sets required are different. In FIFA, barring the host nation,all the others have to undergo a rigorous qualifying schedule. The countires don't play each other that often and that explains the need for 32 teams in the World Cup.
In cricket, traditionally we look at minnows as the whipping boys of world cricket. The ICC is desperately trying to avoid the mistakes it made with the minnows a few years ago-for.e.g the Test status to Bangla. After Kenya's performance in 2003, one would argue that they ought to have got Test status,so was the case with Ireland.
10 team World Cup will ensure quality cricket,good matches with every match being a must watch, unlike the current format.
There seems to be some ambiguity as to how these teams will be chosen. I say pick the low rung teams and make them play a Qualifying round with the Div 1 ICC Qualifiers .The finalists go into the WC.
Other than that, then ICC can and must offer more to the Associates. Maybe invite them over to another country for a bilateral or tri-series, to bolster their confidence. That way, they can improve. Or a rule that each Test naton must at least play an Associate 3 times in a year.
In cricket, traditionally we look at minnows as the whipping boys of world cricket. The ICC is desperately trying to avoid the mistakes it made with the minnows a few years ago-for.e.g the Test status to Bangla. After Kenya's performance in 2003, one would argue that they ought to have got Test status,so was the case with Ireland.
10 team World Cup will ensure quality cricket,good matches with every match being a must watch, unlike the current format.
There seems to be some ambiguity as to how these teams will be chosen. I say pick the low rung teams and make them play a Qualifying round with the Div 1 ICC Qualifiers .The finalists go into the WC.
Other than that, then ICC can and must offer more to the Associates. Maybe invite them over to another country for a bilateral or tri-series, to bolster their confidence. That way, they can improve. Or a rule that each Test naton must at least play an Associate 3 times in a year.
Varun
ICC Board Member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2009
- Location
- Delhi, India
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
This format combined with the schedule is pissing me off. We are going to have, like one match per day for the whole next month (till 20th March), and most of them are minnow encounters.
This may be to ensure that TV channels earn substantial amount of TRPs, but it is contradictory instead. I don't think many people would be interested in watching a England vs Netherlands match (except England and Netherlands fans, obviously). This is indeed detrimental to the TRPs.
If we had two matches a day, we could actually switch over to the other match if the first one got bland or something. I cbf watching a single England vs Holland or Pakistan vs Kenya match a day, and the same schedule going on for a month.
And why have they stacked up all the crucial group stage matches at the end? Why not distribute them over the fixtures?
----------
This. And then we can decide who qualifies to the world cup according to their respective performances in these matches.
For the associates left, ICC could organise an Associate World Cup sort of something (if there isn't any currently).
This may be to ensure that TV channels earn substantial amount of TRPs, but it is contradictory instead. I don't think many people would be interested in watching a England vs Netherlands match (except England and Netherlands fans, obviously). This is indeed detrimental to the TRPs.
If we had two matches a day, we could actually switch over to the other match if the first one got bland or something. I cbf watching a single England vs Holland or Pakistan vs Kenya match a day, and the same schedule going on for a month.
And why have they stacked up all the crucial group stage matches at the end? Why not distribute them over the fixtures?
----------
This. And then we can decide who qualifies to the world cup according to their respective performances in these matches.
For the associates left, ICC could organise an Associate World Cup sort of something (if there isn't any currently).
Last edited:
aditya123
National Board President
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2003
- Location
- Mumbai
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Xbox 360
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Xbox One
The TRPs can go for a toss! All I care about is that the World Cup provides us some brilliant fairytale stories and a chance for smaller sides to make a name. Look at what it means to Ryan Ten Doescathe now! These guys only get to play the big boys and get a share of limelight once every four years. If you take that away, that would leave these guys nothing to aspire! Don`t tell me that they would dream of playing some T20 tournament once every 4 years!
12 teams could be a possibility. Plus, we still have 4 more years to go and the likes of RTD playing in the IPL may bring about a re-think at the ICC.
After going through this post, I have to say that both sides have some substance and this argument won't be decided that soon.
After going through this post, I have to say that both sides have some substance and this argument won't be decided that soon.
aditya123
National Board President
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2003
- Location
- Mumbai
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Xbox 360
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Xbox One
This format combined with the schedule is pissing me off. We are going to have, like one match per day for the whole next month (till 20th March), and most of them are minnow encounters.
This may be to ensure that TV channels earn substantial amount of TRPs, but it is contradictory instead. I don't think many people would be interested in watching a England vs Netherlands match (except England and Netherlands fans, obviously). This is indeed detrimental to the TRPs.
If we had two matches a day, we could actually switch over to the other match if the first one got bland or something. I cbf watching a single England vs Holland or Pakistan vs Kenya match a day, and the same schedule going on for a month.
And why have they stacked up all the crucial group stage matches at the end? Why not distribute them over the fixtures?
----------
This. And then we can decide who qualifies to the world cup according to their respective performances in these matches.
For the associates left, ICC could organise an Associate World Cup sort of something (if there isn't any currently).
Think of this from an Associate cricketer viewpoint. You have been playing the Associate teams all your life and the one opportunity you have to face the big boys in a global tournament gets taken away. What motivation do you have left to play the sport? Also keep in mind that these guys do not earn a lot from this sport eaither. If we take away the Associates from the World Cup, the fairytale stories would`nt be there and I think we`ll kill any chances of growth of cricket in these countries. It may not make for good TV viewing all the time but heck, its not about the money and TRPs always.
----------
I`ll stick me neck out here and say that we will see an upset in this tournament at some stage. Just wait and watch.
mohit_dude10
County Cricketer
Well tbh if they need experience why not arrange series for them with big teams once in a while rather than just playing once in 4 years and getting a thrashing.
An upset or 2 is bound to happen but then rest games will be boring as hell. And they can be part of World T20 Competition where they have real chance not only to win but go further.
----------
Well to make game popular in associate countries they have to do well, just playing them wont make a difference. It happened for India in 1983 and SL in 1996. And what positives can kenya and canada take from the thrashing they got, I'm sure it wouldn't make the game more popular there.
An upset or 2 is bound to happen but then rest games will be boring as hell. And they can be part of World T20 Competition where they have real chance not only to win but go further.
----------
Well to make game popular in associate countries they have to do well, just playing them wont make a difference. It happened for India in 1983 and SL in 1996. And what positives can kenya and canada take from the thrashing they got, I'm sure it wouldn't make the game more popular there.
offdriven4
Club Cricketer
surely four groups of four,then a knockout stage would be better (like the football wc) thus giving EVERY team a fair chance of progressing,instead of weighting the tournament in favour of the "bigboys"
I agree. Upsets and victories for minnows are more likely in T20 and its better if they play there regularly, and then come the hard way and qualify for ODI World cups.
Similar threads
