Most Boring World Cup Ever?

[Richard]

Looks like that clean-slate concept might have slipped past you, too...

As I've said rather a few times already - there's a limit to what you want to give a chance to compete to. Me, I'm fine with that limit being the top 8 sides. There's no all-powerful aura that says it should be 16, 14, 12, or whatever.

Just because Ireland played better than Pakistan on that occasion does not, to me, change the fact that they shouldn't have been there. I made such a decision beforehand, and am not open to the use of hindsight in assessing such a thing.

If you want a World Cup which gives maximum opportunity to underdogs to outperform stronger sides, I suggest you invite 200 or so of the nations capable of putting-out cricket teams - 16 is patently far too few, and doesn't offer anywhere near enough chance of those precious upsets that do such wonders for the viewer.

 

[Swervy]

Looks like that clean-slate concept might have slipped past you, too...

As I've said rather a few times already - there's a limit to what you want to give a chance to compete to. Me, I'm fine with that limit being the top 8 sides. There's no all-powerful aura that says it should be 16, 14, 12, or whatever.

Just because Ireland played better than Pakistan on that occasion does not, to me, change the fact that they shouldn't have been there. I made such a decision beforehand, and am not open to the use of hindsight in assessing such a thing.

If you want a World Cup which gives maximum opportunity to underdogs to outperform stronger sides, I suggest you invite 200 or so of the nations capable of putting-out cricket teams - 16 is patently far too few, and doesn't offer anywhere near enough chance of those precious upsets that do such wonders for the viewer.

The Clean Slate doesnt stop me from disagreeing with you

Well, I guess I am perfectly fine with there being 16 teams... I like the way these 'minnows' have something to aim for ie a place in the World Cup. It might not mean that much to you, but I love the attitude of the minnow teams, they a by and large playing the game for the love of the game, and I think there is a place for that in ODI cricket. (but not in tests!!!).

I think everyone who follows/loves the game wants to see the game spread, and by having these minnow teams in the World Cup it no doubt widens the games appeal, even if it just means that some people in Ireland or Holland talked about the game, or if some kids decided to give the game a bash. As far as i am concerned that is brilliant, and there is no doubt that is what happens.

And so if the price we have to pay is one of the major teams getting their arses kicked occassionally, then fine. Its a major part of what sport is all about. It inspires, and that is pretty much all anyone can want out of a sport

 

[steds]

Pick the Pakistani fan...

Richard imo.

 

[Richard]

The Clean Slate doesnt stop me from disagreeing with you

No, of course not - nothing will do that - but you seemed a bit more like being back to the old ways in that previous post. Better again here, though.

Well, I guess I am perfectly fine with there being 16 teams... I like the way these 'minnows' have something to aim for ie a place in the World Cup. It might not mean that much to you, but I love the attitude of the minnow teams, they a by and large playing the game for the love of the game, and I think there is a place for that in ODI cricket. (but not in tests!!!).

I think so in Twenty20, myself - I'm happy with that being treated with relative disdain. Unlike some, though, I care about the integrity of ODI-cricket every bit as much as Test.

I think everyone who follows/loves the game wants to see the game spread, and by having these minnow teams in the World Cup it no doubt widens the games appeal, even if it just means that some people in Ireland or Holland talked about the game, or if some kids decided to give the game a bash. As far as i am concerned that is brilliant, and there is no doubt that is what happens.

The game's not being spread to Ireland, it's already been there for about 200 years! And where we're talking about the game being really spread (ie Holland and Canada - you're expecting too much if you ever want Bermuda as an international-class side IMO) - sure, we'd all love it, but equally we'd do well not to simply assume such a thing can happen. You can't simply build a cricket culture just because those who play it elsewhere want it to grow on said place. The fact of the matter is that there are many, many countries who will almost certainly never play cricket extensively.

 

[Richard]

Richard imo.

Nah, I'm a South Africa fan.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I made such a decision beforehand, and am not open to the use of hindsight in assessing such a thing.

The definition of stubborn.

 

[silentstriker]

Looks like that clean-slate concept might have slipped past you, too...

As I've said rather a few times already - there's a limit to what you want to give a chance to compete to. Me, I'm fine with that limit being the top 8 sides. There's no all-powerful aura that says it should be 16, 14, 12, or whatever.

So basically, you want the ICC Champions Trophy.

Just because Ireland played better than Pakistan on that occasion does not, to me, change the fact that they shouldn't have been there. I made such a decision beforehand, and am not open to the use of hindsight in assessing such a thing.

The better team advances to the next round. That's the definition of fair. Thats why people even WATCH sports, if the team with the better talent always won, there would be zero viewership. The fact that whoever plays better ON THAT DAY wins the match, is the reason people watch sports. The fact that Ireland were able to play better on that day, meant they deserve go ahead, simple as. The fact that they COULD play better than Pakistan meant they deserved to BE there.

If you want a World Cup which gives maximum opportunity to underdogs to outperform stronger sides, I suggest you invite 200 or so of the nations capable of putting-out cricket teams - 16 is patently far too few, and doesn't offer anywhere near enough chance of those precious upsets that do such wonders for the viewer.

Not really because after a certain point, upsets become virtually impossible. If I take my backyard cricket team and I open the bowling against Ponting, my chances of winning are zero. Not approximately zero, but zero. It's about as sure as you can get. The fact that there is an upset at virtually every single world cup, and sometimes (like this one) there are multiple upsets, means that the teams that are picked are not horrible and are generally good enough to deliver an upset or two.

 

[Richard]

So basically, you want the ICC Champions Trophy.

Not neccessarily, because that was a similar format that happened to work as it was designed.

The better team advances to the next round. That's the definition of fair. Thats why people even WATCH sports, if the team with the better talent always won, there would be zero viewership.

That's certainly not true. Witness plenty of people going to the ground and tuning-in on TV for Australia vs Zimbabwe in 2003.

The fact that whoever plays better ON THAT DAY wins the match, is the reason people watch sports. The fact that Ireland were able to play better on that day, meant they deserve go ahead, simple as. The fact that they COULD play better than Pakistan meant they deserved to BE there.

Not neccessarily, as I say. It was not remotely difficult to play better than Pakistan on that day - a few really good club sides could have done it.

Not really because after a certain point, upsets become virtually impossible. If I take my backyard cricket team and I open the bowling against Ponting, my chances of winning are zero. Not approximately zero, but zero. It's about as sure as you can get. The fact that there is an upset at virtually every single world cup, and sometimes (like this one) there are multiple upsets, means that the teams that are picked are not horrible and are generally good enough to deliver an upset or two.

There have been very, very few genuine "upsets" (ie a substandard side beating an up-to-standard one) in LIVE matches. The only occasions before March 17th 2007 were Kenya and West Indies in WC96 and Kenya and Sri Lanka (with half the side suffering from food-poisoning I might add) in WC2003. You could add Kenya and Zimbabwe in 2003 but I think the incident with 2 Zimbabwe batsmen running for the same end said it all about the "team" in that game. There was also Zimbabwe and Australia in 1983, Bangladesh and Canada in 2003 and Pakistan and Bangladesh in 1999, but as I say - hardly relevant.

 

[Richard]

The definition of stubborn.

Possibly, but it could also be seen as "consistent".

 

[Dick Rockett]

Possibly, but it could also be seen as "consistent".

You should work in marketing or PR