What's with the format?

[ferg512]

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.

I'm not so sure about that, I agree for just regular series but for a global tournament they would have great crowds. You would get a heck of a lot more tourists in an Australian hosted tournament than you would in Sri Lanka so the non Australia games would be well supported.

 

[spooony]

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.

Go look up the attendance figures between Sri Lanka and India in the Tri series recently concluded.

 

[CG123]

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.

I made a post about this somewhere. I can't find it in the actual Rugby thread, so it must have been somewhere else.

Pretty much '23 will probably go back to Europe, possibly Italy since France held it in '07 and England will be hosting it in '15, and I'm not really sure about the other three British counties hosting it by themselves, since some of them hosted matches in '07 and some of them will be in '15.

It'll be very interest to see what happens in '27 though. You'd think that South Africa will host it again before Australia, so they're a possibility. By then though you'd like to think that the USA/Canada have emerged a bit more, and they might even be a possibility. There's Argentina as well, who will probably host it sometime, I'm not really sure how far down the track that would be though.

Tbh I can't see the Island's ever hosting it. They don't have any professional sports teams atm, and sport is very much amateur there. They have a few stadiums scattered throughout the place, but none of them would be near World Cup standard. We made quite a big loss last year as was expected, so hosting it in the Island's would just not be possible, and probably never will be.

Go look up the attendance figures between Sri Lanka and India in the Tri series recently concluded.

That has no relevance to what the attendance would be during a World Cup though... I assume most of their matches would've been during the week at the lesser venues, and in that situation very few people would want to spend 7 hours watching a pretty meaningless game of ODI cricket.

I (my parents ) paid $190 each for tickets to the England vs Scotland match at Eden Park last year during the World Cup. That stadium was a sellout with the cheapest tickets going for like $100, but the All Blacks vs Ireland Test this year didn't even sellout when the cheapest tickets going for like $50. No one would dream of paying like $50 to watch two random countries, but they did because it was a World Cup.

 

[spooony]

I made a post about this somewhere. I can't find it in the actual Rugby thread, so it must have been somewhere else.

Pretty much '23 will probably go back to Europe, possibly Italy since France held it in '07 and England will be hosting it in '15, and I'm not really sure about the other three British counties hosting it by themselves, since some of them hosted matches in '07 and some of them will be in '15.

It'll be very interest to see what happens in '27 though. You'd think that South Africa will host it again before Australia, so they're a possibility. By then though you'd like to think that the USA/Canada have emerged a bit more, and they might even be a possibility. There's Argentina as well, who will probably host it sometime, I'm not really sure how far down the track that would be though.

Tbh I can't see the Island's ever hosting it. They don't have any professional sports teams atm, and sport is very much amateur there. They have a few stadiums scattered throughout the place, but none of them would be near World Cup standard. We made quite a big loss last year as was expected, so hosting it in the Island's would just not be possible, and probably never will be.



That has no relevance to what the attendance would be during a World Cup though... I assume most of their matches would've been during the week at the lesser venues, and in that situation very few people would want to spend 7 hours watching a pretty meaningless game of ODI cricket.

I (my parents ) paid $190 each for tickets to the England vs Scotland match at Eden Park last year during the World Cup. That stadium was a sellout with the cheapest tickets going for like $100, but the All Blacks vs Ireland Test this year didn't even sellout when the cheapest tickets going for like $50. No one would dream of paying like $50 to watch two random countries, but they did because it was a World Cup.

Scotland vs England will be a sell out as you know people from the UK have a big following at such events and due to the rivalry.

I did not say its because of that or attendances. I did say it is because of money and trying to rake in as much money as possible. So attendances, viewer totals all are factors. Also Australia was suppose to host the 2011 World Cup.

Under cricket's unofficial rotation system, Australia had been expected to host the tournament in six years, having hosted it most recently, with New Zealand, in 1992.

But a push has come from the subcontinent for the 2011 event to be hosted across the region's four cricketing nations India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh because they generate more funds for world cricket than Australia.

Indian threat to Australia's cup bid - Cricket - Sport - theage.com.au

So the "because they generate more funds for world cricket than Australia" argument was the winner in the end of the day and Australia lost that fight. In fact they got only 3 Votes against the 10 of Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. So its not about its your turn anymore its about $$$$$ and nothing else anymore. Which is sad.

But you guys will be hosting the 2015 tournament cause you came second. I would personally have liked a World Cup in Australia earlier as we did so well in our first outing in the last one and the fast and bouncy tracks will be a big help as well. Also 92 World Cup had a lot of new innovations and changes that was brought into the game.
-The players played in colorful clothing instead of the traditional white
-Jonty Rhodes forever the way International teams looked and approached at fielding
-Cricket was forced to look at the rain calculations where the Duckworth Lewis system was later introduced.

 

[Owzat]

Another flaw in the format is after all that effort qualifying Ireland get knocked out after only completing one match. 3 teams groups = pointless.

Actually the organisers achieved their goal, unlike the 2007 World Cup organisers who got stung. They don't really want the minnows there at all, as per the recent hoo haa over a decision to exclude the minnows which got reversed.

While the ICC marginalises the minnows they will remain uncompetitive and the ICC will continue to try and exclude them altogether. Being thumped at a finals tournament is no good, they need a structure where they play each other and the weaker Test nations so in a few years time they have IMPROVED.

A nice man I used to play from time to time at snooker said the only way to improve is to play someone better than you. I disagreed then and still do now, the only way to improve is to play someone around the same standard as you and compete. Not too easy, not too hard. Playing him I learned nothing much other than how to pick colours out of pockets and respot them. All the minnows at cricket learn is how to chase the ball in the field.

In the sub continent you know you are going to fill stadiums.

Puts money before the cricket. England hosted all the cricket World Cups until 1987 which was wrong, but at least English conditions provided good cricket without spin being the over-riding factor.

Cricket already sells its soul, the lack of real moves towards making it truly global is undoubtedly because people believe there is no money in Holland vs UAE type matches. They're right, but that's like suggesting football shouldn't have expanded to include lower leagues below the top flight(s) There's no interest or money to be made in Oxford vs Wycombe, why bother? Why? Because it is FOOTBALL, like Holland vs UAE would be CRICKET.

The Indians and cricket nutty countries already have domestic cricket AND international cricket, but to spread the cricket to other countries and make it interesting, diverse, exciting, GLOBAL, it needs to be shared around. A lot of countries play cricket, but many wouldn't know that and just see it for what it is, an elitist sport. If the ICC opened their eyes and opened up cricket more to countries like USA so they compete internationally in a league structure that offered promotion and PROGRESSION then maybe more yanks would throw in their padding, gloves, bats and sticks and take up cricket instead.

 

[spooony]

Actually the organisers achieved their goal, unlike the 2007 World Cup organisers who got stung. They don't really want the minnows there at all, as per the recent hoo haa over a decision to exclude the minnows which got reversed.

While the ICC marginalises the minnows they will remain uncompetitive and the ICC will continue to try and exclude them altogether. Being thumped at a finals tournament is no good, they need a structure where they play each other and the weaker Test nations so in a few years time they have IMPROVED.

A nice man I used to play from time to time at snooker said the only way to improve is to play someone better than you. I disagreed then and still do now, the only way to improve is to play someone around the same standard as you and compete. Not too easy, not too hard. Playing him I learned nothing much other than how to pick colours out of pockets and respot them. All the minnows at cricket learn is how to chase the ball in the field.



Puts money before the cricket. England hosted all the cricket World Cups until 1987 which was wrong, but at least English conditions provided good cricket without spin being the over-riding factor.

Cricket already sells its soul, the lack of real moves towards making it truly global is undoubtedly because people believe there is no money in Holland vs UAE type matches. They're right, but that's like suggesting football shouldn't have expanded to include lower leagues below the top flight(s) There's no interest or money to be made in Oxford vs Wycombe, why bother? Why? Because it is FOOTBALL, like Holland vs UAE would be CRICKET.

The Indians and cricket nutty countries already have domestic cricket AND international cricket, but to spread the cricket to other countries and make it interesting, diverse, exciting, GLOBAL, it needs to be shared around. A lot of countries play cricket, but many wouldn't know that and just see it for what it is, an elitist sport. If the ICC opened their eyes and opened up cricket more to countries like USA so they compete internationally in a league structure that offered promotion and PROGRESSION then maybe more yanks would throw in their padding, gloves, bats and sticks and take up cricket instead.

Agree with what you said but with the bold part I can tell you a few things the minnows learned.

ZImbabwe beating England in 1992

1996
Kenya beating Windies

Paul Strang of Zimbabwe ending up on 12 Wickets equal to Shane Warne in 3rd place for total wickets
Kumble 15 and Younis 13 was top wicket takers

1999
Zim beat India
Zim beat SA
Bangladesh beat Pakistan
Australia managed to hold them off by only 44 runs

Also in 99 it was the introduction of a new type of cricket ball, the white ?Duke? which were harder and swing significantly more than the previously used redballs

2003
Kenya beat Sri Lanka
Kenya beat Bangladesh

Also Shane Warne failed a drugs test and NZ refusing to play NZ meant Kenya advance to Super 6 and not SA. Had NZ played them and beat them then NZ would have ended with 12 points in Super 6's and SA would have also gone thru.

This was also the "death" of Kenyan and Zim cricket due to off field political reasons which both struggled to recover from losing a huge amount of talented players

2007
Bangladesh beat India
Bangladesh beat SA
Ireland beating Pakistan

2011
Ireland beating England chasing 327 and were 120/5 down at one stage

So political unrest and no real support from ICC caused the downfall of some of the minnows but Ireland emerged and so will others.

 

[Owzat]

Agree with what you said but with the bold part I can tell you a few things the minnows learned.

ZImbabwe beating England in 1992

1996
Kenya beating Windies

Paul Strang of Zimbabwe ending up on 12 Wickets equal to Shane Warne in 3rd place for total wickets
Kumble 15 and Younis 13 was top wicket takers

1999
Zim beat India
Zim beat SA
Bangladesh beat Pakistan
Australia managed to hold them off by only 44 runs

Also in 99 it was the introduction of a new type of cricket ball, the white ?Duke? which were harder and swing significantly more than the previously used redballs

2003
Kenya beat Sri Lanka
Kenya beat Bangladesh

Also Shane Warne failed a drugs test and NZ refusing to play NZ meant Kenya advance to Super 6 and not SA. Had NZ played them and beat them then NZ would have ended with 12 points in Super 6's and SA would have also gone thru.

This was also the "death" of Kenyan and Zim cricket due to off field political reasons which both struggled to recover from losing a huge amount of talented players

2007
Bangladesh beat India
Bangladesh beat SA
Ireland beating Pakistan

2011
Ireland beating England chasing 327 and were 120/5 down at one stage

So political unrest and no real support from ICC caused the downfall of some of the minnows but Ireland emerged and so will others.

One off shocks don't prove anything, in football you will get Sutton Utd's beating Man Utd etc, the fact was in 2011 Ireland got slaughtered in the rest of the games against top sides. Every time they collapsed from five down quickly, except against England.

What have they learned exactly? Tell me, please do. Are Ireland now able to beat top sides regularly? Kenya have regressed. They will continue to struggle with the set up as it is. All you've shown is that sides can cause surprises in the shorter versions of the game, and considering the number of games Ireland, Kenya etc have played in cricket you're demonstrating exceptions not rules.

What have Bangladesh learned by playing Tests against the rest? How to win three times is it now in 80 odd Tests? Massive lesson that.