Are Cricket World Cup Squads too small ?

[Adorable Asshole]

11 + 1 extra kepeer + 1 spinner + 2 pacer + 2 bats

So 17 imo but 18 if you want 1 extra bat.

 

[Starfighter]

The squad should be comprised of natural born citizens of their respective territories.

Nice anti-England strategy

 

[Starfighter]

I don't think there should be a fixed squad at all, so long as the team's board covers the costs of bringing extra players or switching them in and out.

Having a closed squad with no changes once the comp's started is a relic from the days when players travelled by ship, well before the World Cup even existed.

 

[NZTailender]

22 players per squad but everyone has to field their second xi team in the tournament as well. It should play out over 3 months.

 

[Silver Silva]

22 players per squad but everyone has to field their second xi team in the tournament as well. It should play out over 3 months.

That would cause too many problems ..
you would destroy the cricket calender for the year , Test series , T20 leagues and other tournaments would be directly or indirectly affected if you tripled the duration of a Cricket World Cup , the cost to hosting the tournament would skyrocket , TV ratings might drop off for such a long event especially when the second XI's will be mandated to play , teams who don't have the luxury of fielding a competitive second XI for World Cup standard would struggle even more against teams that have the resources to do so ..

 

[the big bambino]

I like15 limit and seeing how the selectors account for conditions and skills and still stuff things up trying to balance their squads. Like someone said earlier (spikey I think) I'd probably go the extra player so you can squeeze in a reserve keeper.

 

[NZTailender]

That would cause too many problems ..
you would destroy the cricket calender for the year , Test series , T20 leagues and other tournaments would be directly or indirectly affected if you tripled the duration of a Cricket World Cup , the cost to hosting the tournament would skyrocket , TV ratings might drop off for such a long event especially when the second XI's will be mandated to play , teams who don't have the luxury of fielding a competitive second XI for World Cup standard would struggle even more against teams that have the resources to do so ..

alternatively: it'd be a laugh

 

[wellAlbidarned]

18 is good for ODIs, enough to have a like-for-like replacement for every first choice player. For T20 you could go even higher as we see extreme specialist role players becoming more of a thing

 

[GIMH]

I think the stupid thing is you’re allowed injury replacements. It kind of underlines the fact the squad is too small.

 

[ankitj]

Nice anti-England strategy

Anti NZ too

 

[GIMH]

Nice anti-England strategy

Would cost us Stokes and that’s it. Off the top of my head it would have cost Oz Symonds in 03 and 07. Not the slam dunk you thought perhaps

 

[Starfighter]

Would cost us Stokes and that’s it. Off the top of my head it would have cost Oz Symonds in 03 and 07. Not the slam dunk you thought perhaps

Settle petal. I think it's pretty obvious who SCC aimed the comment at.

 

[centurymaker]

Backups
1 WK
1 pacer
1 spinner
1 all-rounder
1 batsman

= minimum 5 backup players

So 16 players should be the absolute minimum.

Ideally, it should be 17-18 as you might need a backup opener and/or an additional pace bowler. Even in bilaterals you see squads of 17-18 players. So it's dumb as **** from ICC that they are still persisting with 15.

 

[Marius]

IIRC correctly '92 WC only had 14-man squads.

 

[Stefan9]

18 would be ideal.