Chances of a 12 team tournament in 2019?

[Furball]

The 'big 3' associates are genuinely at a point where they need some sort of pathway for genuine progression in the next 4 years.

 

[hendrix]

Aakash Chopra's article on this is so genuinely full of logic flaws I can only come to the conclusion that he knows who butters his bread.

 

[GIMH]

They tried to redo 92 with the 07 Super 8 but India and Pakistan were too **** to make it that far

 

[Immenso]

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.

This would actually be solved by the ECB being less insular, especially now with their hustled extra ICC money - they shouldn't encourage their counties, as they currently do with extra payments, to hoover up international fringe-English talent.

It's possible to have both/all:
- a rich ECB and counties
- strong associates/small 7 countries with shock/horror some of their best players playing professional cricket overseas in a country with too many FC teams.

The logical, les disruptive, and progressive action would be to pressure the ECB to make a small change which would be barely felt as they are using other peoples money anyway. Rather than the regressive action of stalling the growth of international cricket.

 

[Immenso]

BTW. I was a real fan of the 92 tournament and it's structure.

So while I grizzled about how crap it was when they changed it in 96, time has moved in and ODI cricket is genuinely too big for a 9 or 10 team tournament. I grizzled about the structure of this tournament as well before it started (I am a jaded fan of too many crap tournaments). But I'm won over by the associates, but still think we can condense it by a week and also like the top 3 go through idea.

Ire, Afg are genuinely pretty good and have sustainable promise beyond just a golden generation.
Sco and UAE are pretty good, while Nepal would be a likely candidate for a sustainable cricket country.

 

[Pratters]

They tried to redo 92 with the 07 Super 8 but India and Pakistan were too **** to make it that far

I know! It wasn't the format's fault that those teams were crappy. France didn't make the next round in 2002, no one started trying to rejig the whole format so that they make the knock outs for sure every world cup.

Aakash Chopra did write a very basic and crappy article. He suggested that apart from top 5 ODI teams, all should qualify for the world cup including England. Why top 5, I say? Let's have World Cup by qualification every time for all teams except the hosts. If India visits Nepal to play a world cup qualifying game, it would do so much good for cricket in Nepal. Same goes for if England plays a world cup qualifying in Ireland say. It will also give a new lease of life to ODI cricket if the ODIs actually meant some thing with qualifications.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I know! It wasn't the format's fault that those teams were crappy. France didn't make the next round in 2002, no one started trying to rejig the whole format so that they make the knock outs for sure every world cup.

The comparison does not hold. The football WC goes Semi-knockouts -> Knockouts -> Knockouts The 2007 WC went Semi-knockouts -> Snoozefest -> Knockouts. Name one other successful sport with an ass-backwards format like that. The football WC keeps building up the tension at every single stage. That's how you construct a tournament. You don't build it up, then let it deflate for a whole month.

 

[Prince EWS]

The comparison does not hold. The football WC goes Semi-knockouts -> Knockouts -> Knockouts The 2007 WC went Semi-knockouts -> Snoozefest -> Knockouts. Name one other successful sport with an ass-backwards format like that. The football WC keeps building up the tension at every single stage. That's how you construct a tournament. You don't build it up, then let it deflate for a whole month.

Yeah the format was basically created under the (hilariously incorrect, as it was) assumption that the minnows were incapable of winning one-off games. The organisers didn't really want them there from a revenue perspective, so they devised a format to eliminate them early, and it backfired.

 

[Flem274*]

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.

you realise it can rain in a 9 team world cup too right?

the rest is nostalgia, and i don't know how ou can say a fair few of these associate sides haven't played some quality cricket in this cup.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

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.

Pretty amazing to thing the Australians even played a couple of matches against the Danish national team in Copenhagen back in the late 80's. I think the scene is almost entirely made up of expats now, but there were quite a few Danish-born players in those games.

They've certainly gone right off the radar compared to the likes of Scotland, the Netherlands, etc.

 

[Tec15]

Rose tinted memories of the 1992 World Cup, will be the death of the tournament.

 

[marc71178]

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.

If we think that Morgan and Rankin would've been given so much access to the training etc they got if they were playing for Ireland then I don't think we're being honest.

 

[Furball]

They wouldn't have, which is why I don't have too much of an objection to guys like Morgan switching allegiance - what does bug me about the eligibility rules is how backwards they are. It can't be right that Morgan was able to play for England in the World T20 a couple of weeks after playing for Ireland in the World Cup qualifier yet will have to wait for 4 years to represent Ireland again if he calls it a day with England.

IMO an associate player should always remain eligible for their country of birth (I'm drawing a line between a Morgan or Rankin and an associate of convenience like RtD or Dirk Nannes here). To use Morgan as an example, he should be able to switch back to Ireland tomorrow if he wants to - I would just make it a caveat that he would need to wait 4 years to become eligible for England again.

 

[Pratters]

Apparently the World T20 tournament has been reduced to one every 4 years instead of one every 2 years. The next one removed means possible conflict with India's next lucrative assignment with England has no other competing tournaments in 2016.

On the other hand, the ECB will host India for five Tests, five ODIs and a T20 in 2018, in addition to five ODIs and a T20 with Australia. How fortunate for them that the World T20 is no longer in potential conflict with their most lucrative tour.

More really interesting points in this piece up at Cricnfo by @idlesummers.

The ICC is actually not making any efforts to get on board with the Olympic movement, when they do have a chance to, either.

 

[Pratters]

I don't buy the argument that they are using our facilities, so we should have more rights on associate players. It is all fine for club games, but for international, a player has a right to choose which team they want to play for. If you have better players, no one is stopping you from selecting them ahead of the likes of Rankin domestically or internationally. An associate player should be able to switch allegiance to his associate country whenever he wants, and should be able to return to a test team if the test team feels he is good enough, as long they are associate nations, to allow such nations' players to get more exposure. If England have a problem with this, they should focus on trying to develop their own players instead of stealing players. And don't deny them test status, ****s.

 

[Furball]

I don't buy the argument that they are using our facilities, so we should have more rights on associate players. It is all fine for club games, but for international, a player has a right to choose which team they want to play for. If you have better players, no one is stopping you from selecting them ahead of the likes of Rankin domestically or internationally. An associate player should be able to switch allegiance to his associate country whenever he wants, and should be able to return to a test team if the test team feels he is good enough, as long they are associate nations, to allow such nations' players to get more exposure. If England have a problem with this, they should focus on trying to develop their own players instead of stealing players. And don't deny them test status, ****s.

That's the point though, it was the ECB's system that helped develop Joyce, Morgan and Rankin.

 

[Pratters]

That's all good, but why should it stop them from representing their country? Barcelona develops a lot of players for their club. Messi wouldn't have had a career if it wasn't for Barcelona coming forward when he was a kid to get his growth disorder treated properly. Doesn't mean that he is forced to play for Spain some how.

National rights is a personal choice of a player. England can choose to not develop that player if they want to be stingy. However, claiming their talent as their own just because they allowed talent to develop in their backyard is a stinky argument. A player should be able to play for their country.

 

[GotSpin]

I too am devastated that we don't have a WC 2020 every two years...

 

[Pratters]

I too am devastated that we don't have a WC 2020 every two years...

Yeah, I am not either, tbh.

What peeves me is that all decisions are taken to see India, England and Australia get most money out of the golden goose laying bird which is cricket.

 

[GotSpin]

Yeah but this actually a good decision in the end so Im not as willing to criticise the motivations.