-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
What is the point of the Champions Trophy?
- Thread starter zaremba
- Start date
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
To play a multi-nation tournament over a short period of time.
The original idea was to raise funds for cricket's developing nations (hence the first official I$C$C-organised version was held in Bangladesh and Kenya) but that's now changed.
Trouble is, the thing veers between being the 2nd-most-important tournament in cricket and pointless waste of time. The 2002 and 2004 events were shockingly poorly organised. The 2006 one was better and so, by happy coincidence, was the cricket.
Too many countries seem to treat it as worth staging but not worth staging properly. It should, as Matthew Engel said in 2003, be either worth staging properly or not worth it at all.
pasag
RTDAS
Australia really showed that with their attitude last time around didn't they. It's an important one day tournament second only to the WC and means more than virtually any other limited overs competition as the best play the best and the standing order in world cricket is sorted out properly. The last one meant a lot to the players and it meant a lot to the fans - the two entities that only really matter in the sport so I fail to see how it's pointless besides another routine round of ODI bashing.
nightprowler10
Global Moderator
To have England play in yet another tournament they'll never win.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I just wish the ODI-bashers would make it obvious it's ODIs rather than this ODI tournament and that ODI series that they dislike.
chaminda_00
Hall of Fame Member
The reason why the last tournment meant something, was due to fact Australia treated it like a major lead up tournment to the World Cup. It also was one of the last tournment/series that they hadn't won during the dominate years. It was a bit of last frontier on the ODI front. Tournaments like this tend to mean more to players and fans when you win them.
I seriously doubt they will take it as serious or place as much importance on it this time around. It was the varying factors that made the tournament important, not the tournament itself.
pasag
RTDAS
The mere fact that it was treated as a final frontier showed it's importance to them. They could have gone, like the sentiments of the thread starter 'Nah, it means nothing who cares?' but they didn't and took it very seriously and the joy after they had won shows this. I doubt that would change much this year either, if they play, they still want to prove their dominance and show the world that they're still the number one side - and that's the beauty of having a tournament where all the top sides compete, it allows you to do that, even if it's not the most prestigious event on the circuit.
chaminda_00
Hall of Fame Member
Maybe, but as a whole do you think that sides will really take the tournament that serious. Most sides just see it as just another tournament, regardless of how much you want to dress it up.
pasag
RTDAS
Yes, I do. If they didn't care about it, I wouldn't either. It's the same with any ODI, Twenty20 or even Tests series. I started enjoying Twenty20s more when it stopped becoming a circus for the players and even though it's my least preferred format of the game, since it meant something to them it made it watchable. The IPL as well. I believe the CT is the same 100% and why wouldn't it be. It's a chance for teams to prove themselves on the (cricket) world stage.
chaminda_00
Hall of Fame Member
I'm sure teams care about it, but they don't really see it yet as the 2nd biggest tournament. There are some sides for example that would take a 5 match series against Australia more serious then this. If it was as important as it could be, then Sri Lanka for example would have rushed back Malinga.
If a team wins it doesn't mean that much. As all it shows is that they were the best side for that period. Was there a significant change in view of the quality of West Indies side after making the final?
I do think it has the potential to be a massive tournament. But right now it is basically just another One Day tournament.
pasag
RTDAS
I think most sides and fans would rather win the CT then beat Australia in a 5 match ODI series, especially if winning the CT includes beating Australia along the way. You say 'If a team wins it doesn't mean that much' well to who? You maybe, but it means a lot to the players and to many of the fans and as I said, they're all that matters really.
chaminda_00
Hall of Fame Member
From a players POV i'm sure it means a lot due the format. Even when it was just knockout, it meant a lot to them. I remember Carins mentioning it was one the highlights of his career winning the tournament back in day.
But from a fans and seemingly selectors POV I still think it is 50/50 with regard to its importance. 2006 showed it had the potential to mean a lot. But it is not there yet and it is long way off being really a major tournament. The fact that a thread like this is up and some people agree with it, says something. I know personally it would be awsome for Sri Lanka to win. But if they don't or even get knocked in the group stages, it not that big of a deal.
I know in Hockey, where the format came from. It took about a decade before it became the 3rd biggest tournament after the World Championships and Olympics. Intially it did seem a bit pointless due to the fact they occured so often and no true major honour.
pasag
RTDAS
As I said, if the players care I care and so do many others. I think the fact a thread like this is up says more about people's dislike for ODIs more than anything. I know you, Goughy etc aren't big fans of the format so you guys are naturally going to look at its' secondary tournament with some disdain.
I know it's not the biggest tournament, I know it's not as prestigious as winning a WC, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a place. It does, to the players and to many of the fans. And that in itself answers the question - What is the point of the champions trophy?. It's not the greatest thing since sliced bread, I don't think anyone will try and sell you that bridge, but as long as the players take it seriously and enough fans enjoy it, it has a point and a place.
I know it's not the biggest tournament, I know it's not as prestigious as winning a WC, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a place. It does, to the players and to many of the fans. And that in itself answers the question - What is the point of the champions trophy?. It's not the greatest thing since sliced bread, I don't think anyone will try and sell you that bridge, but as long as the players take it seriously and enough fans enjoy it, it has a point and a place.
Last edited:
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
If Watto dominates again, I'm in love.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
TBH if in the autumn of 06 you'd have given me the choice between winning the CT & the CB series, I reckon I would have chosen the CB, easy to say now but winning away in Australia should in theory have been a big deal so close to the WC (it wasn't, of course).
That being said, I agree with a lot of what you are saying. CT is not the best honour going, but a trophy is a trophy and once my team is playing in it I want them to win, more than I do most ODI series, where it's nice to win but losing doesn't get me down like a Test loss. In the CT the feeling when we go out in the group stage will be similar to when we lose a Test series.
Fusion
Global Moderator
My sentiments exactly on the subject.
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
What a very strange thing to say.
Anyhow if you're suspicious that people aren't up-front enough, then I'm happy to set out my views.
As for ODIs I will happily watch them - and indeed pay good money to go and watch them - and I will occasionally see some excellent cricket. By and large, however, they don't begin to compare with Test cricket and they pale into insignificance beside it.
As for this particular competition, I've never understood the point of it. It's an unnecessary bolt-on to the already-overfull international cricketing calendar, and now with the advent of 20:20 (whatever your thoughts of that particular format) there is still less room, and even less need, for this competition.
In 2004 England, as hosts, played Australia (in the semi?) and the ground was half-empty. Enough said.
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
Agree with this - I always want England to win whenever they play (I'm not one for hoping my team gets thrashed "to teach the selectors a lesson") but wouldn't go any further than that.