So the tournament's too long, eh???

[pasag]

Firstly, it's not the same playing field anymore. Every sport in the world did try to spread itself for hundreds of years and so to say if you just seat there and let other sports spread while cricket does nothing won't really help it survive. The world cup is still about the best, it's about the best 16 which 81 other teams tried to play in. It doesn't devalues the tournament a bit, what devalues the tournament is all the so called best teams not even giving Australia a run for its money let alone win a game against them. So what are you going to do exclude everyone but Australia and have games between Australian teams? Why shouldn't they be there? They were given a target and a qualification process and they made it through and that a lone gives the credit for them to be there and over that the "minnows" did way better this cup than the previous ones. So who cares if they are ametures or not. They're are ameture players in the Olympics. That doesn't matter. You know what's a disgrace? Professional teams who get paid and gets to train for years losing to the ametures who "shouldn't be there" that's a disgrace. Not ametures being there. It doesn't matter if they are ametures or not. They don't devalue the tournament a bit.

Saying things like that is like saying Australia and the other minnows etc devalues the fifa world cup. It doesn't.

Lol, listen I respect your devotion to 'minnow' causes, but I can't agree with anything you've said there. Cricket won't die if it doesn't expand, you keep on saying it will, but it won't. The expanding is never, ever going to be successful and is just leaking money. That in itself could have serious consequences for cricket. And what does the fact that they were the best minnows in the world have to do with anything, they're leagues apart from the proper sides and it showed bar one or two games. And the same thing happened last tournament and the tournament before. They kill the World Cup, they extend the tournament making everyone bored as hell and they devalue it. There's no two ways about it. The World Cup should be the best against the best and having minnows in there kills it. It might not be popular to say it, but they're woeful, they get smashed and it's embarrassing. They don't even play in proper tournaments against the big teams through the years and now all of a sudden they're playing us on the world stage? Wtf is that? It makes no sense and it's a blight on the game.

Hey, I follow and plan to follow the minnow sides just as much as anyone here throughout the years. One of my favourite players represents a minnow country. But they shouldn't be playing in the World Cup and the ICC shouldn't be pissing money into the wind to try and hopelessly build them up, something that wont ever happen. And if cricket ever becomes big in America (which it wont), that's when I give up the sport for good.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Lol, listen I respect your devotion to 'minnow' causes, but I can't agree with anything you've said there. Cricket won't die if it doesn't expand, you keep on saying it will, but it won't. The expanding is never, ever going to be successful and is just leaking money. That in itself could have serious consequences for cricket. And what does the fact that they were the best minnows in the world have to do with anything, they're leagues apart from the proper sides and it showed bar one or two games. And the same thing happened last tournament and the tournament before. They kill the World Cup, they extend the tournament making everyone bored as hell and they devalue it. There's no two ways about it. The World Cup should be the best against the best and having minnows in there kills it. It might not be popular to say it, but they're woeful, they get smashed and it's embarrassing. They don't even play in proper tournaments against the big teams through the years and now all of a sudden they're playing us on the world stage? Wtf is that? It makes no sense and it's a blight on the game.

Hey, I follow and plan to follow the minnow sides just as much as anyone here throughout the years. One of my favourite players represents a minnow country. But they shouldn't be playing in the World Cup and the ICC shouldn't be pissing money into the wind to try and hopelessly build them up, something that wont ever happen. And if cricket ever becomes big in America (which it wont), that's when I give up the sport for good.

I'll bet you if they put good money of Afghanistan countries like that expansions will happen very soon and successfully too. So who cares if they are leagues apart from the proper side, you still get upsets from the so called minnows like every tournament. And it shows bar 2 games? they only played about 2 games against the "proper sides" and only bermuda showed they are out of depth. I'm not going to cound netherland and scotland there because every teams out of depth against australia. they don't extend the world cup, what kind of bull **** is that? if you want a quick world cup then just simply switch to quarterfinals, has nothing to do with the minnows and everyone was bored because the so called "proper teams" didn't show up bar australia and may be sri lanka, not because of the minnows, the minnows were the interesting part of the tournament. How said the world cup should be best against bests? there's no such concept about it. It's about the best teams from around the world playing in a tournament, not just the elite. Really so it's only the minnows that get smashed? and it's only them who are woeful? then why the hell did pakistan lose to ireland, why did england thrash canada, kenya etc. the only minnows that got bashed was bermuda, again im not counting scotland or netherlands otherwise go count the woeful new zealanders who supposedly is a proper team but still lost by 200+ runs against the aussies. Yes it does make sense because the other tournaments aren't the world cup, this is so you include everyone in it. I don't think australia ever played brazil in soccer ever before WTF all of a sudden they are playing in the world cup? Having minnows doesn't devalues the tournament or you wouldn't have 32 teams in the fifa world cup and you wouldn't have 20 teams in the rugby world cup. I'll say only one team didn't look like they deserved to be there but the rest did, unlike some of the teams in the rugby world cup. But if you want to play with the best of the bests, then play between Australian sides because no other team comes close.

 

[pasag]

I'll bet you if they put good money of Afghanistan countries like that expansions will happen very soon and successfully too. So who cares if they are leagues apart from the proper side, you still get upsets from the so called minnows like every tournament. And it shows bar 2 games? they only played about 2 games against the "proper sides" and only bermuda showed they are out of depth. I'm not going to cound netherland and scotland there because every teams out of depth against australia. they don't extend the world cup, what kind of bull **** is that? if you want a quick world cup then just simply switch to quarterfinals, has nothing to do with the minnows and everyone was bored because the so called "proper teams" didn't show up bar australia and may be sri lanka, not because of the minnows, the minnows were the interesting part of the tournament. How said the world cup should be best against bests? there's no such concept about it. It's about the best teams from around the world playing in a tournament, not just the elite. Really so it's only the minnows that get smashed? and it's only them who are woeful? then why the hell did pakistan lose to ireland, why did england thrash canada, kenya etc. the only minnows that got bashed was bermuda, again im not counting scotland or netherlands otherwise go count the woeful new zealanders who supposedly is a proper team but still lost by 200+ runs against the aussies. Yes it does make sense because the other tournaments aren't the world cup, this is so you include everyone in it. I don't think australia ever played brazil in soccer ever before WTF all of a sudden they are playing in the world cup? Having minnows doesn't devalues the tournament or you wouldn't have 32 teams in the fifa world cup and you wouldn't have 20 teams in the rugby world cup. I'll say only one team didn't look like they deserved to be there but the rest did, unlike some of the teams in the rugby world cup. But if you want to play with the best of the bests, then play between Australian sides because no other team comes close.

Lots of points to address here, but this is going around in circles and your steadfast and sometimes irrational support or minnows and globalising the game isn't helping. One I don't care what the Rugby WC or Soccer WC does. I don't care in the slightest and their no proof either way to me. Second, and most importantly your whole argument well, Australia are better than the rest by a fair margin, so the fact that the minnows are much worse than the other 8 sides so it shouldn't make difference is so flawed I can't begin to discredit it. The gap in class, and you can point to Pakistan or whatever but ti doesn't change the facts that are as clear as the light of day is huge. Australia are currently the best in the World, by the next World Cup another side may be and the dynamics of the top 8 or 9 sides may change alot. But the minnows will always be minnows, they'll still be crap, they'll still be rubbish and they'll still be devaluing the World Cup by their mere presence. Just because Australia are better than everyone doesn't give you the right to start introducing poor sides into the comp. And as I've said before and I'll say again although it's getting annoying repeating myself to you over and over, the minnows in the WC, together with the concept of globalising the game is totally farcical and idiotic.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Lots of points to address here, but this is going around in circles and your steadfast and sometimes irrational support or minnows and globalising the game isn't helping. One I don't care what the Rugby WC or Soccer WC does. I don't care in the slightest and their no proof either way to me. Second, and most importantly your whole argument well, Australia are better than the rest by a fair margin, so the fact that the minnows are much worse than the other 8 sides so it shouldn't make difference is so flawed I can't begin to discredit it. The gap in class, and you can point to Pakistan or whatever but ti doesn't change the facts that are as clear as the light of day is huge. Australia are currently the best in the World, by the next World Cup another side may be and the dynamics of the top 8 or 9 sides may change alot. But the minnows will always be minnows, they'll still be crap, they'll still be rubbish and they'll still be devaluing the World Cup by their mere presence. Just because Australia are better than everyone doesn't give you the right to start introducing poor sides into the comp. And as I've said before and I'll say again although it's getting annoying repeating myself to you over and over, the minnows in the WC, together with the concept of globalising the game is totally farcical and idiotic.

Ok so you can say that Australia might not be the best side come the next 4 years and things might change a lot but you don't see the same thing can happen with the minnows too? Look at sri lanka in their beginnings! Are they still crap? are they still devaluing the wolrd cup with their mere presence? NO! And just to get it straight, the minnows doesn't devalue the tournament by their presence or anything else for that matter. And just because the top 8 elites are better doesn't give you the right to decline other teams in the world cup which you don't even let any countries from the world take part in it other than the elites, what kind of **** is that. No what would be idiotic is having the same tournament every year with a different name- Champions trophy and World cup. And calling it the world cup while you let the select few play. There's nothing wrong with the concept of globalizing a game, it just takes time. What devalues it is Australia kind of, so are you going to exclude them because they dominate so much? No, and again the minnows doesn't devalue the cup and as you said we are just going in an cycle because you're ignoring the facts that it's not a select few tournament, it's the world cup and there's no such thing that says it has to be the best against the best which would be australia against australia.

 

[pasag]

Right, total circles here. You haven't really brought up any new points besides the CT one, which imo should be scrapped and is abit of a joke in itself.

 

[Fiery]

Come back C_C and KaZaHoLiC....all is forgiven!

 

[pasag]

Come back C_C and KaZaHoLiC....all is forgiven!

?

 

[LA ICE-E]

Right, total circles here. You haven't really brought up any new points besides the CT one, which imo should be scrapped and is abit of a joke in itself.

exactly, and you want the world cup to turn into joke like that too?

 

[pasag]

exactly, and you want the world cup to turn into joke like that too?

What? The CT should be scrapped because there is no point to it and is just a revenue raiser for the ICC or whoever. Just because the CT doesn't have minnows, doesn't make it a joke. It's a joke all on its own for a distinct set of reasons. If the T20 WC didn't have minnows it would still be a joke as well.

 

[LA ICE-E]

What? The CT should be scrapped because there is no point to it and is just a revenue raiser for the ICC or whoever. Just because the CT doesn't have minnows, doesn't make it a joke. It's a joke all on its own for a distinct set of reasons. If the T20 WC didn't have minnows it would still be a joke as well.

yeah kind of because it people would be like whats the "world" part for. just call it the 20/20 championship. but yeah i agree i dont like the ct either but i'll never ever agree with you that a world cup shouldn't have minnows.

 

[pasag]

yeah kind of because it people would be like whats the "world" part for. just call it the 20/20 championship. but yeah i agree i dont like the ct either but i'll never ever agree with you that a world cup shouldn't have minnows.

Fair enough, as I said I do respect your support for them and passion on the issue.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Yeah, "expansion" as a mechanism for the survival of the game is really just smoke and mirrors. The game was probably at it's strongest ever in the 1980s, when there were only eight test nations. Why? Because the cricket was good. The countries were all more or less even, there was a ton of quality players and the game was a great spectacle. Having eight, or sixteen, or a hundred countries at the game's top table is never going to keep the game alive unless they "mach shau".

 

[LA ICE-E]

not all of the eight countries we that strong then either such as sri lanka which was kind of part of expansion as it would be with canada if they get going.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Apples and oranges. Canada (and indeed, all the other minnows) is not comparable as no-one has heard of, let alone cares about, cricket in the home country. Sri Lanka were obvious candidates for test status due to the existing infrastructure and enthusiasm for the game. The same applies to Bangladesh now, but none of the others.

 

[Prince EWS]

Apples and oranges. Canada (and indeed, all the other minnows) is not comparable as no-one has heard of, let alone cares about, cricket in the home country. Sri Lanka were obvious candidates for test status due to the existing infrastructure and enthusiasm for the game. The same applies to Bangladesh now, but none of the others.

Exactly. Expansion to Bangladesh and indeed Sri Lanka was based on a large interest in cricket already existing within the country and needing to be nurtured. Expansion to Canada for example is a completely different situation, because we are doing it backwards in effect - giving them international exposure and hoping that brings public attention to the game. It may work in the long run, it may not - but we're compromising the game in the meantime while other countries play against a bunch of expats and no-hopers that no-one actually follows. I support the development and a country like Bangladesh and hell, even a country like Ireland. But countries like Canada where interest and skill level is low, or countries like Bermuda where the population and infrastructure is just too weak - just really shouldn't be playing at the highest level IMO.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Yeah, "expansion" as a mechanism for the survival of the game is really just smoke and mirrors. The game was probably at it's strongest ever in the 1980s, when there were only eight test nations. Why? Because the cricket was good. The countries were all more or less even, there was a ton of quality players and the game was a great spectacle. Having eight, or sixteen, or a hundred countries at the game's top table is never going to keep the game alive unless they "mach shau".

South Africa didn't play cricket in the 80's

 

[LA ICE-E]

Well bermuda's the only top associate with cricket as the national sport, while from what I read canada interest level is growing now but yeah expansion is happening, like? Afghanstan. And unless the terrorist gets hold of that country again it looks to have a bright future with influences from Pakistan.

 

[pasag]

Well bermuda's the only top associate with cricket as the national sport, while from what I read canada interest level is growing now but yeah expansion is happening, like? Afghanstan. And unless the terrorist gets hold of that country again it looks to have a bright future with influences from Pakistan.

Nah, there still is too little interest in Canada and there is no future with the sport there. The current team is full of expats and once they're gone, with no proper domestic system in place, unless they can find new expats, the game is finished there. Bermuda has a population of 60,000 so even thinking anything will ever come out of there is laughable.

 

[pasag]

Apples and oranges. Canada (and indeed, all the other minnows) is not comparable as no-one has heard of, let alone cares about, cricket in the home country. Sri Lanka were obvious candidates for test status due to the existing infrastructure and enthusiasm for the game. The same applies to Bangladesh now, but none of the others.

Exactly. Expansion to Bangladesh and indeed Sri Lanka was based on a large interest in cricket already existing within the country and needing to be nurtured. Expansion to Canada for example is a completely different situation, because we are doing it backwards in effect - giving them international exposure and hoping that brings public attention to the game. It may work in the long run, it may not - but we're compromising the game in the meantime while other countries play against a bunch of expats and no-hopers that no-one actually follows. I support the development and a country like Bangladesh and hell, even a country like Ireland. But countries like Canada where interest and skill level is low, or countries like Bermuda where the population and infrastructure is just too weak - just really shouldn't be playing at the highest level IMO.

Yeah, good posts.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Nah, there still is too little interest in Canada and there is no future with the sport there. The current team is full of expats and once they're gone, with no proper domestic system in place, unless they can find new expats, the game is finished there. Bermuda has a population of 60,000 so even thinking anything will ever come out of there is laughable.

yeah i know, but people now know more about cricket than they did before is all i'm saying but canada looking isn't looking to have a bright future in cricket right now and that's the case with any team made up mostly of expats.