spooony
Club Captain
^Its money. Cricket have a better market in India than NZ and Australia. They do not complain because they do the same thing in Rugby.
What's with the format?
- Thread starter Owzat
- Start date
We know that, but the thing is that there's been 17 major ICC events since the 1992 World Cup, and neither Aus and/or NZ has hosted a single one. Yes it's all about money, because Aus and NZ both have a cricketing history and they both have a history of hosting very successful major events.
ferg512
International Coach
Thats what I just can't get my head around. I can understand them not giving us a tournament but there is no logical explanation for not having Australia host one recently. Even though their team isn't as good as what it was, cricket has got to be a lot more popular there than it is in South Africa or the West Indies and they have held multiple ICC tournaments recently. I mean what a joke that the next 2 tournaments are also in the sub-continent. There is simply no way Bangladesh should be hosting the world T20 before Australia.
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
I guess to some degree, those countries are far more in need of the revenue and tourism boosts, whilst Australia get the Ashes every 2 years to cash in on.
Does seem silly though... although people do need to realise that the Sub-continent isn't just one country and that different nations are getting it each time.
Does seem silly though... although people do need to realise that the Sub-continent isn't just one country and that different nations are getting it each time.
ferg512
International Coach
I understand that its just 2012, 2014, and 2016 T20 tournaments are all in the sub-continent and they have just had the 2011 WC as well.
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
I don't follow Rugby that much. But are you saying that in the rugby world, aus/nz have hosted more world cups/world tournaments in that sport, than any other rugby nation in in the last 20 years?
Sedition
Panel of Selectors
Not the case at all in rugby, so I dunno how we do the same thing as the SC in cricket.
'87 - Australia and New Zealand
'91 - England, Britain, Ireland, France
'95 - South Africa
'99 - Wales, Britain, Ireland and France
'03 - Australia
'07 - France, Britain and Ireland
'11 - New Zealand
'15 - England etc.
'19 - Japan
'87 - Australia and New Zealand
'91 - England, Britain, Ireland, France
'95 - South Africa
'99 - Wales, Britain, Ireland and France
'03 - Australia
'07 - France, Britain and Ireland
'11 - New Zealand
'15 - England etc.
'19 - Japan
Sedition
Panel of Selectors
Yet another genius move in the scheduling - South Africa vs. Pakistan kicks off at 20:00 in Australia, or roughly 12:00 Friday afternoon in Saf. Meanwhile Australia vs. India isn't until midnight. Couldn't have reversed them perhaps? No, that would actually make sense.
ferg512
International Coach
Skater
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2004
- Profile Flag
- England
I'm fairly sure that means your second game will start at a reasonable time for you. Here (England) the matches have started at either 11am or 3pm. Yesterday's West Indies game started at 3pm, so the people coming home from work could just about catch the end. Tomorrow against New Zealand it starts at 11am but it doesn't matter to much since it is a Saturday.
The early games start at 10pm here, with the late games starting at 2pm. All of our five pool/super eight matches are the earlier ones, so it could be a lot worse for us.
Daylight saving actually starts tonight, so our last super eight match against the WI is going to be starting an hour later at 11pm on Monday, and the semis and the final are going to be starting at 2.30am NZT.
Daylight saving actually starts tonight, so our last super eight match against the WI is going to be starting an hour later at 11pm on Monday, and the semis and the final are going to be starting at 2.30am NZT.
Prithvi
10 years at Planetcricket
These super eight games are never rescheduled, but the semi finals are done, only in case if two teams in a tournament have home games (what happened with 2011 World Cup and CLT20). If at all they wanted a reschedule, they should do that for all games, although I agree with your point that Saffers get a afternoon match and Aussies get a late night match to watch.
spooony
Club Captain
No not at all. That would not happen because the Northern Hemisphere out power the Southern Hemisphere in terms of votes.
What I meant by that is they are trying to maximize profits. 2008, 2009 and 2010 there was one extra Bledisloe Cup test per year added to the schedule in an attempt of making more money. The three added tests were played in neutral locations - Hong Kong and Tokyo and saw the profits shared by the ARU and the NZRU. When Argentina and Australia played for the first time in 9 years against each other two weeks ago the match was scheduled at a small venue. Reason for that was Argentina is not considered marketable by the ARU, an administration run by a professional regime which has looked to capitalize on opportunities rather than make long term investments.
Australia used the same concept in WC 2003 where the minnows played like 4 days before the Tier 1 nations giving them like 4 days to prepare for a match compared to the big guns having a week. NZ did the same thing in the last world cup. Its to maximize profits.
In the sub continent you know you are going to fill stadiums. Look at the game between Pakistan and South Africa. In the crowd there were Indian supporters waving South African flags. Also cricket is one of their favorite sports along with volleyball I think someone can just help me with that if that is correct but compared to NZ where rugby is a religion and Australia Aussie Rules and League is king where the Australian organizers have to do and schedule matches in certain ways to catch the publics interest. If two countries play that are not the home nations Australians would not probably give a crap about them. Also Australia have the World Series every year where a triangular tournament or at times a four nation tournament is held. 8000 People rocked up to see India demolish Sri Lanka if I could remember. WC 92 most of the matches had attendances of 5000 people. Not big numbers when you fit in 100 000 people into a stadium for a boxing day test match. So the Aussie people can be very picky with who they want to go and watch. Normally if its not Australia playing they do not give a damn. You will also not whenever SA is playing there they will make sure they use Perth a lot because it has almost more South Africans living there than Australians.
Someone said the sub continent need the money? You guys sure because Sri Lanka are in much more debt due to the T20 world cup than anything else as they were required to build more stadiums and such.
You see IRB have given teams like Samoa, Tonga, Fiji 1 combined vote and made sure Argentina has stayed Tier 2 so that they have 1 vote only. Which meant that the Northern Hemisphere have the voting power to hold every 2nd World Cup in the UK and France.
Last edited:
Even though the North has more voting power than the South, the point is that they still only host every second World Cup, which is what you'd expect because over half of the decent countries are from Europe.
It's completely different in cricket, where the 2011 WC was held in the SC, and the next three T20 WCs are all being held there. In Rugby even though the North has more power and more money than the South, they're not looking to hold every WC like the SC is in cricket.
Another way to put it is that the IRB is well ahead of the ICC in terms of globalising the game of rugby, and well ahead in terms of how well they are at governing their sport.
However like you say it is a bit strange that Scotland has two votes while Argentina still only has one. Re the Islands, it's not surprising that they still only have one combined vote, because even though it is their most popular sport it lacks structure and hence revenue there.
Re the first part of your post that I haven't quoted, cricket is the national summer sport in both Australia and New Zealand. I'm not really sure where cricket ranks in Australia, but at a guess I'd say that a lot of that stuff you're saying is crap about how they don't turn up to sport. To compare the 92 WC to the crowds that turn up today doesn't make much sense, because even the 87 Rugby WC had small crowds, while in 2011 they reached their target of an 80ish% attendance. In the random matches in the 2011 cricket WC, no one turned up to watch them. For like Canada against Kenya or something, there were 10 men and their dog watching it. That happens in every country, and to say that it doesn't happen in the SC is stupid. Did you see that massive crowd that turned up to watch NZ v Bangladesh last week, no, because no one turned up, some of the crowds have been terrible in SL.
Sedition
Panel of Selectors
The indian market always comes first
Yeah, seems that the priority was just to give India the later game. At least it was a Friday night here, so staying up past midnight wasn't too bad. The Saffers have more of a right to be annoyed since by the time school/work finished, their game was over.
Just checked the fixtures and yep, both of our next games will be earlier starts here thankfully. Hopefully we can top the pool so we'll get the Friday night semi rather than Thursday.
Always helps put things into perspective when I think of you guys being 2 hours ahead of us. Any tournament outside of Aus or NZ pretty much leaves you up the creek when wanting to catch the games live.
I thought you were saying that Aus and NZ do the same thing in rugby and that's why we don't complain about the cricket (which we do
). I see your point about making it near impossible for the lower tier teams to secure hosting rights though. I don't really have a problem with Europe hosting every second cup considering their history and five teams all in close proximity.Japan certainly has the market and facilities to make it viable though, the islanders on the other hand I'm not so sure about. I'm sure they hosted a 7's tournament, so I could be wrong. Would be good to see them get an opportunity in '23 or '27, but yeah will have to rely on Europe or Aus/NZ/Saf giving up their perceived right to host it again.
