The Worst Ever World Cup....

[LA ICE-E]

i don`t said that last time its right.

i wasn't talking about you but some morons did...but still there's no valid point that makes appropriate even to suggest its the worst wc on the cricket...

 

[BigCrickNan]

i just said that if india and pakistan are in super 8 that all matches is very crucials

Not really, because Pakistan can't beat Ireland, or any other of the big 8 IMO.

 

[LA ICE-E]

i just said that if india and pakistan are in super 8 that all matches is very crucials

just for the fact...all the games are still crucial!

 

[shery_rsa]

i don`t say that they beat but some hope to make this worldcup great.

just for the fact...all the games are still crucial!

but only five teams looking to qualify not 8.

 

[LA ICE-E]

i don`t say that they beat but some hope to make this worldcup great.


but not 8.

What are you saying then?

What do you mean not 8? If say ireland wins the game against SA than SA would be in deep trouble for having a chance for the semis...so it makes it even more crucial....and when you are in a league format like this or super 6, all the matches are not going to be crucial...and it isn't in anything...the only way you can make every game crucial is to have straight out knock outs but then you would complain than that didn't give your team enough chance...etc etc etc

 

[shery_rsa]

can u think its possible after beating pakistan they are not playing well.

 

[LA ICE-E]

yeah its possible...but that's not the case though...also can it be possible that right after the world cup...the winner of the wc isn't playing well? yes...but that's why there's the rankings...

 

[shery_rsa]

i m happy if they make this match great.

 

[LA ICE-E]

huh?

 

[sohum]

I don't agree that ticket sales are low because India and Pakistan are out either, ticket sales weren't great for the group stages where of course Pakistan and India were playing.

I'm sure the tour operators disagree with you, though. The day after India crashed out, many reported that a major chunk of their reservations were canceled. Many Indian and Pakistani fans are based in the US and this would be the best opportunity for these fans to experience a live World Cup. The average income of a US citizen is probably significantly higher than the average income of a local Caribbean citizen, so the ICC would definitely be losing out revenue from these fans not coming, as well as the local economy would not be getting the boost it expected from the rise of tourism.

For one, cricket doesn't make money off of tickets...they make it about of tv coverage. I don't think you could cancel your ticket for stupid reasons...you might not go to the games but the organizers still already got your money. Attendance as a whole is lower than expected doesn't matter if india or pakistan is out...it looks the the irish had more fans than india, why? because of the visa problem nothing to do with who got out.

Cricket doesn't make money off tickets, and the ICC haven't done much to change that either. Besides, not everyone would have bought their tickets already. They may have "reserved" tickets through tour operators who had specific agreements with the ICC. These reservations would then be canceled.

As for television coverage, this could also see future problems for the ICC. With most of the sponsors being Indian brands (or entities based in India) they may feel skeptical about pumping in more money into the game.

This is a good format. You will have the best 8 teams from the group stage in the next round and then you'll have the best 4 four teams in the semis and so on.

Actually, I disagree. If we had one group of 16 teams, then the teams who placed in the first 8 would more accurately be the "best 8 teams". I'm not saying that the format should be changed or is bad or is unfair, but you cannot discern the best teams in the competition on a basis of 3 games per team, where a team plays a select group of teams.

However, I do think this tournament is good in selecting the most consistent team as the winner. Unfortunately, that means Australia is probably going to take the cake.

England got knocked out of the 2003 World Cup in the first round, i'm pretty sure people didn't go round knocking the tournament back then.

That's because England weren't in the top 3 out of 7 teams in their group.

cricket doesn't depend on india...

Unfortunately, financially it does quite a bit.

 

[charith]

Actually, I disagree. If we had one group of 16 teams, then the teams who placed in the first 8 would more accurately be the "best 8 teams". I'm not saying that the format should be changed or is bad or is unfair, but you cannot discern the best teams in the competition on a basis of 3 games per team, where a team plays a select group of teams.

I dont think theirs netng wrong with the format. The fixtures were released more than a year ago and teams have 4 years to prepare. Ummm y cnt they win 2 games out of 3 especially if their a leading cricketing nation? I mean thats riddiculus.

 

[BigCrickNan]

That's because England weren't in the top 3 out of 7 teams in their group.

And a lot of this moaning is because Pakistan and India weren't in the top 2 of a group out of 4

 

[Sagacious]

From Ireland v South Africa Preview

With most of the Super Eights clashes arousing about as much anticipation as an invitation to watch cows cud, it is what preview days at this World Cup have been increasingly reduced to, cute symmetries and connections, such as, for example, how the teams for Tuesday's encounter both have South African coaches and, what's more, the two have been friends.

lol

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wc2007/content/current/story/288572.html

 

[Leicester Fox]

Any chance of finding out who that was written by?

Rahul Bhattacharya is contributing editor of Cricinfo Magazine and author of Pundits from Pakistan: On Tour with India, 2003-04

shocking isn't it.

 

[AndyRAC]

I'm sure the tour operators disagree with you, though. The day after India crashed out, many reported that a major chunk of their reservations were canceled. Many Indian and Pakistani fans are based in the US and this would be the best opportunity for these fans to experience a live World Cup. The average income of a US citizen is probably significantly higher than the average income of a local Caribbean citizen, so the ICC would definitely be losing out revenue from these fans not coming, as well as the local economy would not be getting the boost it expected from the rise of tourism.


Cricket doesn't make money off tickets, and the ICC haven't done much to change that either. Besides, not everyone would have bought their tickets already. They may have "reserved" tickets through tour operators who had specific agreements with the ICC. These reservations would then be canceled.

As for television coverage, this could also see future problems for the ICC. With most of the sponsors being Indian brands (or entities based in India) they may feel skeptical about pumping in more money into the game.


Actually, I disagree. If we had one group of 16 teams, then the teams who placed in the first 8 would more accurately be the "best 8 teams". I'm not saying that the format should be changed or is bad or is unfair, but you cannot discern the best teams in the competition on a basis of 3 games per team, where a team plays a select group of teams.

However, I do think this tournament is good in selecting the most consistent team as the winner. Unfortunately, that means Australia is probably going to take the cake.


That's because England weren't in the top 3 out of 7 teams in their group.


Unfortunately, financially it does quite a bit.

The problems with cricket, ICC and World Cup is what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket. By concentrating all the income from one market, Asia (particularly India) they have found themselves 'stumped' as India went out of the tournament. The vast majority of the sponsors were either Indian or companies who do well in India. The Football and Rugby World Cups get sponsors from Worldwide, the ICC should do this. Remember 1999 WCup in England, the ECB couldn't get 8 'Big' sponsors if I remember, and had to settle for 4. Why does cricket struggle for these sponsors when Rugby Union seems to do well?