• 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.

The disappointment of the 2019 Cricket World Cup being a 10 team World Cup

How many teams would you like there to have been in 2019 Cricket World Cup?


  • Total voters
    54

andruid

Cricketer Of The Year
I am thinking a 16 team tournament. 2 groups of 8, with the top four from each group going to a straight knockout quarterfinals, semifinals then finals. Fairly simple, everybody gets a decent amount of exposure and the best teams win out, through a reasonable balance of consistency and game day alertness.

Generally I feel like the reason the ICC changes formats so much with the 50 over world cup is the obsession with trying to gerrymander high profit match ups at every WC, and occasionally failing at it. They don't seem willing to establish a simple purely meritocratic format and let that settle in and become standard because they are too tempted to try force a high stakes India v. Pakistan,or Australia v. England to guarantee a profitable tournament.

Consider that in 2003, they used this rule where teams would carry the points they won against fellow qualifying teams in the first group stage to the super six stage. No doubt the intended design was that if an associate snuck through by beating up the other minnows and NRR, (as twas the most likely scenario for an unfashionable associate team getting into the super sixes) they would be hamstrung by having lost points to the bigger nations they snuck through with. Lo and behold Kenya get into the super sixes carrying 8 points from New Zealand's boycott and the shock upset of Sri Lanka in Nairobi and ride those points, plus a win over a demoralized Zimbabwe all the way to a semifinal meeting against India. great fairy tale, bad for the pocket book.

Come 2007, and they set up a 4 teams per group, group stage in the hope that the cream would rise to the top and the weaklings get shunted aside ASAP, before the serious business of super 8 with lots of epic battles among the proper cricketing nations. Then India and Pakistan choked and and the world got to see Ireland v Bangladesh in a match slot the ICC though they would be India v. Pakistan. back to the drawing board. Numbers at the Cricket World Cup have been going down ever since, I suspect to reduce the risk of the wrong team (for various reasons) showing up at the business end of the tournament.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The ICC looks to the world cup as the money maker rather than the opportunity to expand the sport. That's fine but there needs to be a way of expanding the sport and injecting money into the associate nations that results in a long term wider revenue base. Currently they don't really have that.
 

cnerd123

likes this
The ICC looks to the world cup as the money maker rather than the opportunity to expand the sport. That's fine but there needs to be a way of expanding the sport and injecting money into the associate nations that results in a long term wider revenue base. Currently they don't really have that.
The ICC does have extensive grassroots devleopment programmes for Associate countries, but the effectiveness of them is questionable, as well as whether or not they're receiving the level of funding they should if the ICC is serious about growing the game.

For me funding into grassroots programmes doesn't mean much if those Associate countries don't gent sufficient exposure or opportunities to show what they're capable of. Taking part in big global tournaments like the World Cup, Asia Cup and WorldT20 does so much to raise their profile both domestically and overseas.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
How much of the ICC funding developing associate countries is just throwing money away though let's be honest. Highly unlikely to ever make a return on the investment.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
define return on investment
profiting in the long run, or even breaking even

To clarify, I'm sure that's not the only or even the key reason in funding emerging cricketing nations, just pointing it out
 
Last edited:

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
yea not only is that not the point, I'm not sure how you'd even begin to calculate it.
It's a pretty safe assumption IMO

how much income could emerging cricketing nations possibly generate for the ICC, if any, compared with funding?
 

cnerd123

likes this
it's not really relevant though is it. You're trying to get into a 'does cricket make money to exist, or exist to make money' argument, and that's a pointless argument to have.

And even If you do want to take the the stance that 'cricket exists to make money', then you should realise that how much you stand to earn is limited by how many people actually care about cricket. And no one is going to care about a sport they do not have access to. Increasing the visibility and participation of cricket in Emerging Nations can not feasibly make the sport poorer in anyway.

The question right now is if the ICC is doing enough towards achieving that. Money is nice, but increasing opportunities for Associates to play against Full-Members, or on a high-profile platform, is what's really key. Blocking Associates from the World Cup is clearly a backwards move, as is the BCCI refusing to let cricket be in the Olympics simply because they don't want to work with the IOC.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
it's not really relevant though is it
Of course it's relevant. It was the whole point of my post. I never claimed it was, or should be, the primary decisive factor for funding emerging nations. In fact I directly said quite the opposite.

Everything that you said however, is irrelevant to my post tbh
 

cnerd123

likes this
Of course it's relevant. It was the whole point of my post. I never claimed it was, or should be, the primary decisive factor for funding emerging nations. In fact I directly said quite the opposite.

Everything that you said however, is irrelevant to my post tbh
8-) whatever brah
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I mean, I even said this before your response:

To clarify, I'm sure that's not the only or even the key reason in funding emerging cricketing nations, just pointing it out
but you still seem to have ignored it pretended that I'm saying that they shouldn't be funded because of profits

8-) whatever brah
you just need to read a bit more carefully bud :)
 

andruid

Cricketer Of The Year
if cricket was solely about money then it would be confined to subcontinental t20 leagues
By the powers vested in me, and the need to make this post fully accurate, I hereby determine that Australia shall henceforth be a subcontinent cricketing nation
 

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
By the powers vested in me, and the need to make this post fully accurate, I hereby determine that Australia shall henceforth be a subcontinent cricketing nation
Australia broke away from the subcontinent (and by extension Gondwana) some 180 million years ago.
 
Last edited:

StephenZA

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The question right now is if the ICC is doing enough towards achieving that. Money is nice, but increasing opportunities for Associates to play against Full-Members, or on a high-profile platform, is what's really key.
I don't think anybody really likes a drubbing so associate nations playing against full-members does not always help a situation. Particularly in what is meant to be a showcase tournament. Having qualifying nations and a ten team tournament seems more sensible. But actually advertising and creating a proper showcase of the associate nations getting into the WC, and the pre-tournament played to do so, could probably be done much better. From a money point of view, obviously ICC can always do more but it is also a problem for the associate nations boards and governments to make a step up and fund if they want a competitive team, ICC can not do it alone for every associate nation. Quite often the lack of development is not just about ICC but in country support.
 

cnerd123

likes this
Yup couldn't agree more.

But to me, right now, the reason a lot of country support is not available because the Associate teams are not being displayed

When HK lost ODI status, our government funding got cut. Had we lost every single game and kept ODI status, the money would still be pouring. Instead, we won a ton of games, performed way beyond expectations, and were popular and recognised all over the ****ing world. We were a stunning success when you compare resources available to performance delivered. Without a ****ing doubt

Now look at us. The ICC doesn't give us ODI recognition. Our performance Vs India in the Asia cup got us literally nothing from the government. But had we best Namibia or ****ing Canada they would give us a million more dollars. Because ODI status.

This **** is sometimes so much more complicated than simply blaming the lack of country supports it. The country will support it if the ICC supports it first. And they do, but just not in the way that matters.

Giving countries T20I status and creating this pathway to the world cup, now that might be the best idea they've ever had...
 

James90

Cricketer Of The Year
I'm genuinely conflicted about this because I understand how important these tournaments are for associate nations. It undoubtedly helps them to grow the game, which is certainly good thing.

On the other hand, this World Cup has been fantastic with few guaranteed wins against minnows. I was also captivated by the qualifiers. I've never watched associate cricket as much as I did during the qualifying tournament.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
It seems as though everyone is pretty much in agreement that 10 team WC was a good thing, but that the qualifiers for the last few spots among the associates/lower-ranked sides should be held directly before the tournament (essentially part of the tournament) and given a higher profile.
 

Top