Chances of a 12 team tournament in 2019?

[NUFAN]

Qualifier tournaments on site seems ridiculously churlish though.

"Oh yeah we invite you to our grand shebang in this country but only two of you are good enough to stay for next week when it actually starts"

Nah disagree. You would have it at the venues within the countries who didn't get any games like Queenstown or Wollongong (Netherlands would be based there).

 

[GIMH]

The associates all suck at cricket, so do Bangas & Zimbo. England are poor, and India are dire. Pakistan are a joke and West Indies an embarassment.

4 team WC IMO

Oz
NZ
Sri Lanka
Saffa

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Still think there should be associates in the tournament - preferably more than there are at the moment. I'd have a tournament of 16 where at some point the tournament gets split into two sets of 8 and you have a "cup" competition for the Top 8 (should be the main Test playing nations theoretically) and the remaining 8 go into a "plate" competition. Some of the Associate vs. Associate games have been great, and they could do with more experience not less, so allowing the bottom 8 to continue in their own knockout tournament should be do-able.

The bottom 8 competition would run on largely the same schedule as the top 8 competition, but a day earlier for semis and finals. The bottom 8 quarters would be the day games as a warm up to day/night top 8 quarters. Something like that.

It doesn't lengthen the tournament at the business end, but allows the bottom 8 to play more games and continue to be part of the tournament and not completely forgotten.

 

[Furball]

I actually don't object to the current qualification format for 2019. It's fine in theory.

However, in practice the top 8 are set in stone unless Bangladesh or Zimbabwe can usurp someone in free fall (cough West Indies), setting the qualification mark 2 years out is a farce, and the associates will not get enough meaningful cricket to realistically make a dent on numbers 9 and 10 in the qualifying tournament (and quite why the **** you'd hold that event in Bangladesh is beyond me unless the ICC are basically rigging it against us.)

 

[Athlai]

That makes 26; Singapore are 26th.

Just below that are Denmark, Italy, Oman and Jersey.

The best line I can see drawn is at 20 or 21 (Canda/Nepal: http://icc-live.s3.amazonaws.com/cm...0e8c6f39-ICC Global Rankings 29 June 2014.pdf ) ... but it's still pretty arbitrary. While I think Tendulkar probably thought it through better than Crowe, I still think it's probably a fairly arbitrary number tbh.

yeah those 25 are all better than England

 

[Pratters]

12 feels like the right number at this stage to me..

 

[Sarun]

why the **** you'd hold that event in Bangladesh is beyond me

Probably to compensate them that they might not automatically qualify. ICC politics...yadda...yadda..

 

[SeamUp]

I've got to be honest, the 1992 WC format was the best & that was 9 teams. I don't want to deprive growing the game but I want to see the best v the best as much as possible. Zimbabwe, Bangladesh & Ireland must just fight it out but even in these nations it doesn't help if they come to world cups with not their best sides with Eoin Morgan, Boyd Rankin, Sean Ervine & Kyle Jarvis not playing is it ?

 

[Pratters]

The 12 team format, with the top team going ahead to the semis, and number 2 and 3 playing a quarters, which two or three people have suggested, seems like such a great format.

 

[Sarun]

I've got to be honest, the 1992 WC format was the best & that was 9 teams. I don't want to deprive growing the game but I want to see the best v the best as much as possible. Zimbabwe, Bangladesh & Ireland must just fight it out but even in these nations it doesn't help if they come to world cups with not their best sides with Eoin Morgan, Boyd Rankin, Sean Ervine & Kyle Jarvis not playing is it ?

In terms of mass appeal, for a nation like Afghanistan or Nepal (potentially), playing in World Cup generates multiple-fold interest compared to mere opportunities in non-WC's. Rather have large tournaments with lots of teams than have a closed shop that might have only so called "best vs best" types of matches.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I've got to be honest, the 1992 WC format was the best & that was 9 teams. I don't want to deprive growing the game but I want to see the best v the best as much as possible. Zimbabwe, Bangladesh & Ireland must just fight it out but even in these nations it doesn't help if they come to world cups with not their best sides with Eoin Morgan, Boyd Rankin, Sean Ervine & Kyle Jarvis not playing is it ?

We get to see the best v the best the rest of the time and in the Champions trophy. The main appeal of the world cup for me is seeing all these random ****s who I've never heard of before.

 

[Flem274*]

I can't take anyone who wants no Afghanistan, Ireland, Scotland or UAE at the World Cup seriously. They're so much fun.

 

[SeamUp]

I just think it is quite ridiculous in an event like this where Australia almost had 2 weeks between games due to weather as a host nation.

1992 world cup, you knew every day there was a game it could be closely fought out and interest was high by fans of the elite test nations because of it.

Cricket is a funny sport, level of quality is so important due its lengthy duration . I love the game so much but lesser quality cricket is just not entertaining on the eye to me. The game might be a close one but at the end of the day I want the best shots to have been played off the best balls, the ball fizzing off the wicket and hitting the keepers glovers hard or the wickets going tumbling or mastery spin at work.

But that's just me.

 

[G.I.Joe]

The 9 team league format is a condensed version of the ICC ODI championship, isn't it?

 

[Spark]

I've got to be honest, the 1992 WC format was the best & that was 9 teams. I don't want to deprive growing the game but I want to see the best v the best as much as possible. Zimbabwe, Bangladesh & Ireland must just fight it out but even in these nations it doesn't help if they come to world cups with not their best sides with Eoin Morgan, Boyd Rankin, Sean Ervine & Kyle Jarvis not playing is it ?

What, so we should kick out everyone except NZ, Aus, SA and India then? On account of it being "the best vs the best".

 

[SeamUp]

What, so we should kick out everyone except NZ, Aus, SA and India then? On account of it being "the best vs the best".

See now that is an extreme.

9 teams playing round robin was excellent.

When your next group is Ireland, Zimbabwe & [Bangladesh] & in the former 2 their best players know they can play on the world stage and still choose to play for another country & or take the money route, then that is of concern. When your weaker nations can't even be at full strength. Isn't that a bit of slap in the face for the tournament ?

Frequency of games that have a better quality value. Also how can a host nation wait almost 2 weeks between games because one game was ruined by weather [which we know can happen in cricket].

That to me doesn't keep quality of viewing to the tournament.

I'm just speaking from the 1992 world cup perspective & how much I enjoyed it.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

When your next group is Ireland, Zimbabwe & [Bangladesh] & in the former 2 their best players know they can play on the world stage and still choose to play for another country & or take the money route, then that is of concern. When your weaker nations can't even be at full strength. Isn't that a bit of slap in the face for the tournament ?

Might be a fair point, but removing the World Cup as a drawcard is surely not going to help Ireland and Zimbabwe to keep their players?

 

[SeamUp]

Might be a fair point, but removing the World Cup as a drawcard is surely not going to help Ireland and Zimbabwe to keep their players?

That is also a fair point but if we really think Morgan, Rankin, Ervine & Jarvis would have changed their minds either way I don't think we would be honest with ourselves.

The best will always leave those 2 nations for varying reasons.

1) Money ?
2) Involved in better teams ?
3) Play for a country/county with better admin & better opportunity to maximize themselves as cricketers ?

The remaining players we sit with now, we most probably sit with similar quality in 30 years because their best will always leave if good enough.

If not 9, then 10. At least it sill gives Scotland, Afghanistan, Holland and the types to try and knock Ireland , Zim & Bangers off the perch and gives 1/2 of those 3 the chance to still play at a WC.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Play for a country with better admin! Cricket Irelandis run much, much better than the ECB who lurch from one self-created crisis to the next with alarming regularity.

 

[Spark]

See now that is an extreme.

9 teams playing round robin was excellent.

When your next group is Ireland, Zimbabwe & [Bangladesh] & in the former 2 their best players know they can play on the world stage and still choose to play for another country & or take the money route, then that is of concern. When your weaker nations can't even be at full strength. Isn't that a bit of slap in the face for the tournament ?

Frequency of games that have a better quality value. Also how can a host nation wait almost 2 weeks between games because one game was ruined by weather [which we know can happen in cricket].

That to me doesn't keep quality of viewing to the tournament.

I'm just speaking from the 1992 world cup perspective & how much I enjoyed it.

But your argument is contingent on there being high quality even cricket which, as we have seen, has little to no relation to there being Associates in the tournament -- the point is that if you only find high-quality, even cricket entertaining then you wouldn't have watched a single match of this WC, Associates o not. And in any cases this is extremely short-term, narrow thinking. What incentive do Associate players have to play for Associate nations when they know they won't even be represented in an even which people actually watch? That the system already kicks them down is not a reason to kick them down even more.

Nostalgia is not good business sense.