• 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.

2015 World Cup: 10 teams and no associates

Furball

Evil Scotsman
That's all you got? So a team that is 4th in the associates who can't beat the 1st of the associates is expected to beat the likes of SA, Ind and SL.. Superb logic mate..
It's not about the associates beating the full member nations, it's about giving then the chance to take part and fgiving them a share of the cricketing limelight.

It's ridiculous to expect any African nation to win a World Cup but FIFA still give them the opportunity to qualify and take part.
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
Is it about time I posted this again?

Before the world cup I talked about how much I like that this is still cricket’s ultimate tournament, and I love that at the end of this we’ll know who is the best ODI team in world cricket. Probably.

The other thing I love is the minnows. And because of typical ICC stupidity, they’ll be going soon.

In 07 Van Bunge and Ireland were the stories. In the 03 t my favourite memories are from John Davison’s batting, Kenya’s form and Aasif Karim’s bowling. In 99 I loved Neil Johnson. And anyone who has seen The Chuck Fleet-Smith’s will know how much I love Sultan Zarawani from 96.

In this tournament we’ve had minnow highlights coming thick and fast.

Collins Obuya’s 98* was heartbreaking. What a story though, the man who was one to watch in 03 with his leggies, gets the yips with his leggies and re-brands himself as a dogged barely functioning batsmen who somehow finds 98 runs against Australia before running out of time for making a hundred. Here is a man who has done whatever he came to perform for his country in this world cup.

Peter Borren is the most violent looking cricketer I’ve ever seen. If Crank 4 needs a Dutch Kiwi Villain I could see him in a knife fight with Jason Statham. Borren is the sort of barely functioning all rounder that minnows rely on. His medium pace makes you want to face it, and when he bats he seems to try and cut every ball. Throw in his captaincy, scary eyes and forehead, and you have a nugget of minnow gold that his team would be scared to miss field in front of.

Ryan Ten Doeschate smashed England around so bad that people thought he’d scared them straight. The South African Essex man with the nickname about his **** has smashed a few balls before this world cup, and he even had a cameo in Stuart Broad’s comedy romp in the World T20, but to see him fully take down England for a few hours was as good a structured innings I’ve seen by a minnow batsmen since Neil Johnson’s hundred against Australia. Plus it’s fun to call him Ryan Ten Inches.

Rizwan Cheema has barely scored this world cup, and yet, he’s built up a cult following by batting like an arsonist. Before this world cup the only taste of The Cheema (as he should be called) was on youtube. Now I’ve seen him open the batting, slog in the middle order, bowl his crafty rubbish medium pace and try and hit kiwi batsmen with beamers. He’s like every club cricket slogger you’ve ever seen, but he does it once or twice to international bowlers before getting bowled with his eyes shut.

Nehemiah Odhiambo has taken five wickets in the world cup, and his econmy rate is far from Ray Pricean. What he does have is a smile. When he beats a batsman, he smiles so much that no matter how much Shane Warne or Mitchell Johnson whiten their teeth, they’ll never smile like he does. He is impossible not to like, if he cheated on you with your girlfriend, you’d want to beat him up, but his smile and infectious attitude would make you take him out for a beer and ask him about his bowling action.

Then there is Kevin O’Brien. I was under the opinion that O’Brien was a cult figure before this world cup. He’s a chubby slogger with ginger hair, surely there is already an Indie band called the K’OB experience after a few of his hits in the 09 World T20. Apparently not, and most people only seemed to notice this beast when he beat England on his own. It was one of the best world cup innings in the entire history of the tournament, and it was done by a guy who was hyperventilating after 30 balls from a country that’s only been in a few tournaments.

Now, while I suspect I’m in the minority, even those who think that minnows are a waste of time would find it hard to argue that these guys have added to the tournament.

If the tournament is too long, shorten it, play two games a day during the early part of the tournament, don’t allow minnows to play from Friday to Sunday and it’s all good.

With 10 teams, we’re giving ourselves less chance for stories like Aasif Karim, Kevin O’Brien and Collins Obuya to come through. I can’t see how that will improve the cricket world in any way, or make the world cup a more interesting tournament. I’ve seen New Zealand play Pakistan a lot, I don’t see much Netherlands Vs West Indies.

And perhaps the most important thing to remember is that Sri Lanka went from minnows to winners in 13 years.

The cricket world needs a touch of minnow, and if looking at Balaji Rao’s bulge doesn’t convince you of that, nothing will.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Don't the associate teams play 50 over games among themselves? If so there is their opportunity to play the WC. Be among the top associates and play the qualifiers.
Yeah the thing is though (and I realise this is a minority view) I don't see why anyone other than hosts and holders should qualify automatically.

If you reduced the WC to ten and made everyone qualify, the associates get games against big sides without it resulting in whinges about it ruining the tournament.

The chance of any major side not qualifying would be low and, to flip gvenkat's earlier point, if you can't qualify ahead of associates then you don't deserve to be in the WC.
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
Hmm. Disagree with the top sides having to qualify. The most important thing about the WC is that it's an event. That'd be rather diluted by everyone flying off to Namibia or some such for a qualifying tourney with all the same teams a few months before.

FIFA World Cup qualifying works because it's organised by region with small groups, thus giving each stage of the process its own flavour. Cricket doesn't have that luxury.

FA Cup qualifying I would say is a better example to follow.
 
Last edited:

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Hmm. Disagree with the top sides having to qualify. The most important thing about the WC is that it's an event. That'd be rather diluted by everyone flying off to Namibia or some such for a qualifying tourney with all the same teams a few months before.

FIFA World Cup qualifying works because it's organised by region with small groups, thus giving each stage of the process its own flavour. Cricket doesn't have that luxury.

FA Cup qualifying I would say is a better example to follow.
Get what you're saying, but there's absolutely no sporting reason why England are entitled to automatic qualification whereas Ireland are forced to qualify.
 
Last edited:

Howe_zat

Audio File
Given that we want to award these things on merit, there sort of is. How about saying quarter-finalists from the last tournament get automatic qualification, as done in rugby union?

Provides a nice carrot for the associates once they get to the World Cup too.

Edit - actually, in rugby they changed it to top three in each WC group, so 12 automatic qualifications. Obviously we can't have that many in cricket, so 8 would make sense.
 
Last edited:

IrishOpener

U19 Debutant
Hmm 4/11 isn't that great IMO. Still, it's better than Canada and not significantly worse than Ireland or Scotland.
Well if you look at Irelands preferred starting 11,

Porterfield (Irish)
Stirling (Irish)
Joyce (Irish)
Niall O'B (Irish)
Cusack (NZ) Marshall (NZ)
Wilson (Irish)
Kevin O'B (Irish)
Mooney (Irish)
Johnston (Aus)
Dockrell (Irish)
Rankin (Irish),

that isn't a bad team from Irish born players, 9/11...
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Well if you look at Irelands preferred starting 11,

Porterfield (Irish)
Stirling (Irish)
Joyce (Irish)
Niall O'B (Irish)
Cusack (NZ) Marshall (NZ)
Wilson (Irish)
Kevin O'B (Irish)
Mooney (Irish)
Johnston (Aus)
Dockrell (Irish)
Rankin (Irish),

that isn't a bad team from Irish born players, 9/11...
And it'd be ten if Ireland were a Test-playing nation as Morgan would be there.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
Number of countries that play the FIFA World Cup Finals: 32
Number of countries that have made it to the FIFA World Cup Final since '74: 7

Number of countries that play the ICC World Cup: 14
Number of countries that have made it to the ICC World Cup Final since '75: 6

Seems to me that the FIFA World Cup carries a lot more dud teams than the CWC.
 

gvenkat

State Captain
Number of countries that play the FIFA World Cup Finals: 32
Number of countries that have made it to the FIFA World Cup Final since '74: 7

Number of countries that play the ICC World Cup: 14
Number of countries that have made it to the ICC World Cup Final since '75: 6

Seems to me that the FIFA World Cup carries a lot more dud teams than the CWC.
Apples and Oranges. Stop Comparing FIFA to ICC. One sided football games get over in an hour and half. Cricket matches goes on for a day..
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
Apples and Oranges. Stop Comparing FIFA to ICC. One sided football games get over in an hour and half. Cricket matches goes on for a day..
You know it actually needs to be an Apples and Oranges situation for you to use that term? You don't get to throw it around when it isn't so. If you have a problem with the duration of the game, its obvious your beef is with the sport itself, not the format.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Apples and Oranges. Stop Comparing FIFA to ICC. One sided football games get over in an hour and half. Cricket matches goes on for a day..
It's not apples and oranges at all.

1 side from North America (USA in 1930) and 1 side from Asia (South Korea in 2002) have ever made it to a World Cup semi final, no African side has ever made it beyond the quarter finals.

By your logic, FIFA should only invite sides from South America and Europe to play in the World Cup as they're the only sides that can realistically win. FIFA wouldn't be able to do that and still credibly claim it as a World Cup.

The cricket World Cup loses all credibility if you make it a closed shop for 10 nations.
 

gvenkat

State Captain
Number of countries that play the FIFA World Cup Finals: 32
Number of countries that have made it to the FIFA World Cup Final since '74: 7

Number of countries that play the ICC World Cup: 14
Number of countries that have made it to the ICC World Cup Final since '75: 6

Seems to me that the FIFA World Cup carries a lot more dud teams than the CWC.
How do you justify more games like The ones between Canada vs SL, Canada vs Aus, NZL vs Kenya etc.. All we need is a contest. These games were over as a contest in probably the first half. Added to that in the FIFA world cup there are audiences for teams, who watches those games involving the minnows??
 
Last edited:

Cruxdude

International Debutant
It's not apples and oranges at all.

1 side from North America (USA in 1930) and 1 side from Asia (South Korea in 2002) have ever made it to a World Cup semi final, no African side has ever made it beyond the quarter finals.

By your logic, FIFA should only invite sides from South America and Europe to play in the World Cup as they're the only sides that can realistically win. FIFA wouldn't be able to do that and still credibly claim it as a World Cup.

The cricket World Cup loses all credibility if you make it a closed shop for 10 nations.
Wasn't his argument that only the top associates should be invited to the qualifiers. That makes lot of sense. Increasing the number of associates to play in the qualifiers doesn't make sense economically for the Test nations playing the qualifiers.

The qualifiers play ODIs among themselves. Top x ranked teams play the qualifiers with the 2 bottom test teams. Can't be fairer than that.
 

gvenkat

State Captain
It's not apples and oranges at all.

1 side from North America (USA in 1930) and 1 side from Asia (South Korea in 2002) have ever made it to a World Cup semi final, no African side has ever made it beyond the quarter finals.

By your logic, FIFA should only invite sides from South America and Europe to play in the World Cup as they're the only sides that can realistically win. FIFA wouldn't be able to do that and still credibly claim it as a World Cup.

The cricket World Cup loses all credibility if you make it a closed shop for 10 nations.
No it does not. If you have qualifiers, The bottom 3 and the top 3 from the Associates can play for 3 spots. If they cant make the top 3, They are not good enough.
 

gvenkat

State Captain
Wasn't his argument that only the top associates should be invited to the qualifiers. That makes lot of sense. Increasing the number of associates to play in the qualifiers doesn't make sense economically for the Test nations playing the qualifiers.

The qualifiers play ODIs among themselves. Top x ranked teams play the qualifiers with the 2 bottom test teams. Can't be fairer than that.
The problem with that approach is the Test playing nations fear that they might not qualify
 

Cruxdude

International Debutant
It also spelled out the qualification process it had announced for the 2019 World Cup; there will be ten teams in the tournament, with the top-eight ranked sides gaining automatic entry and the remaining two spots decided by a new qualification competition. Seen through to the logical process there would, for the first time in World Cup history, be the likelihood of a full member nation being eliminated from the competition before its start.
From cricinfo.
 

Top