Calling all

[SkyBlue]

No idea. No money in it I assume. We are playing them this summer though.

The last time you toured Zimbabwe was in '96 and it's clearly not a money issue. It's purely political.

I dont understand why India should fall in line with 'Western nations'. India has its own independent foreign policy and relations.

You wouldn't be saying stuff like this if you had family members dying across the border due to terrorism.

@Molehill, that's the thing. India would've pulled out of the tournament but ICC and broadcasters wouldn't allow that to happen. Let's face the reality. There is no ICC event without India. ICC makes billions through Indian viewership so this is a question you need to ask the broadcasters/ICC on why they are in this position to bend over backwards and adopt a hybrid model approach.

 

[Sunil1z]

Not a good example for you really. When England decided they couldn't play in Zimbabwe, they didn't, which effectively knocked them out of the 2003 World Cup, a tournament they'd have had a chance of making the Final in. When India decide they cannot play in Pakistan, the ICC bends over backwards to include them.

ICC bends over backwards because Broadcasters and sponsors might have backed out. I assume similarly a Euro Cup or FIFA WC would face heavy loss if England doesn’t play .

 

[SkyBlue]

ICC bends over backwards because Broadcasters and sponsors might have backed out. I assume similarly a Euro Cup or FIFA WC would face heavy loss if England doesn’t play .

Nah. World Cup without England is still a big event. ICC events without India clearly is not. One of the reasons '07 WC was a Viewership disaster is because India went out early.

A more relevant example would be champions league without PL teams. There is no CL without PL teams.

 

[honestbharani]

Not a good example for you really. When England decided they couldn't play in Zimbabwe, they didn't, which effectively knocked them out of the 2003 World Cup, a tournament they'd have had a chance of making the Final in. When India decide they cannot play in Pakistan, the ICC bends over backwards to include them.

Yeah but again, that is just a commercial reality. As pointed out earlier, one of the options BCCI put on the table was to have India not play in the CT. That was just unacceptable to every other board, including the PCB.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

. When England decided they couldn't play in Zimbabwe, they didn't, which effectively knocked them out of the 2003 World Cup, a tournament they'd have had a chance of making the Final in.

Not realistic chance though. NZ didn't go to Kenya and we were the only team that could've beaten Australia as they couldn't cope with Bond

 

[SkyBlue]

In football, European Super League would've been a reality if not for large scale protest from EPL teams to the point that the entire project got scrapped within a few weeks.

EPL's money and powerplay allowed them to dictate the rules.

Let's not pretend that these commercial realities are only unique to cricket.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Yeah but the only difference is England don't go into every tournament as favorites.

Neither do India. Australia do.

Favourites:
Pre 1992
Windies (perhaps Aus equal favs in 75)

87 - Pakistan & WI
92 - Aus (but missed semis)
96 - Aus & perhaps Pak
99 - Aus & SA
03 - Aus
07 - Aus, NZ, SL
11 - SL, Ind, SA
15 - Aus, NZ, SA
19 - Eng
23 - Ind & perhaps Eng

 

[Sunil1z]

Not realistic chance though. NZ didn't go to Kenya and we were the only team that could've beaten Australia as they couldn't cope with Bond

Nah . England and SL also gave them a good fight . Although Molehill is exaggerating things because India beat every side in that Tournament except Aus . Looks like Molehill needs to revisit Ashish Nehra 6/23 spell against them .

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Nah . England and SL also gave them a good fight .

That's true but Bond was consistently destroying Australia. Bevan was their only player who had a hope.

 

[Sunil1z]

Neither do India. Australia do.

Favourites:
Pre 1992
Windies (perhaps Aus equal favs in 75)

87 - Pakistan & WI
92 - Aus (but missed semis)
96 - Aus & perhaps Pak
99 - Aus & SA
03 - Aus
07 - Aus, NZ, SL
11 - SL, Ind, SA
15 - Aus, NZ, SA
19 - Eng
23 - Ind & perhaps Eng

If England were favourites for 23 then India were also for 2019 . In case you have forgotten we beat you guys 4-1 in NZ in ODI just 4 months before WC .

 

[SkyBlue]

Neither do India. Australia do.

Favourites:
Pre 1992
Windies (perhaps Aus equal favs in 75)

87 - Pakistan & WI
92 - Aus (but missed semis)
96 - Aus & perhaps Pak
99 - Aus & SA
03 - Aus
07 - Aus, NZ, SL
11 - SL, Ind, SA
15 - Aus, NZ, SA
19 - Eng
23 - Ind & perhaps Eng

Biased list.

I'm talking about recent decades. Post IPL era. India have gone into every tournament since 2011 as one of the contenders to win the tournament. Not outright but genuine contenders.

 

[Sunil1z]

Biased list.

I'm talking about recent decades. Post IPL era. India have gone into every tournament since 2011 as one of the contenders to win the tournament. Not outright but genuine contenders.

Love how he sneaked NZ and SL in 2007 . No one except Aus was winning that tournament.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Love how he sneaked NZ and SL in 2007 . No one except Aus was winning that tournament.

Beforehand we had just beaten them 3-0 and chased down 340 twice. Even England beat Australia to win the tri series. That 2007 Australian WC team was incredibly dominant, but pre tournament there were doubts. SA were also contenders as it was only 2 years after the 438 game.

 

[SkyBlue]

Beforehand we had just beaten them 3-0 and chased down 340 twice. Even England beat Australia to win the tri series. That 2007 Australian WC team was incredibly dominant, but pre tournament there were doubts. SA were also contenders as it was only 2 years after the 438 game.

NZ were 'dark horses' for eternity until Baz became captain and they started playing a more dominant and aggressive brand of cricket.

No way that 2007 can remotely even be considered a contender. It was Aus in a league of their own and then you had SL and SA being a distant second.

Prior to NZ beating Aus 3-0, they lost the CB series to England ffs so it didn't mean much in reality. Even a poor Indian team smashed Sri Lanka in bilaterals prior to the world cup.

 

[Sunil1z]

Beforehand we had just beaten them 3-0 and chased down 340 twice. Even England beat Australia to win the tri series. That 2007 Australian WC team was incredibly dominant, but pre tournament there were doubts. SA were also contenders as it was only 2 years after the 438 game.

India also beat Aus in 98 in Sharjah . Please make us favourites for 99 by this logic .

 

[mackembhoy]

ICC bends over backwards because Broadcasters and sponsors might have backed out. I assume similarly a Euro Cup or FIFA WC would face heavy loss if England doesn’t play .

UEFA managed fine in 2008 without England when they didn't qualify.

The world would manage fine without an England football team, it would give everyone some peace.

England football fans are like India cricket fans. Utterly unbearable in the main, so you make good bedfellows!

 

[honestbharani]

NZ were 'dark horses' for eternity until Baz became captain and they started playing a more dominant and aggressive brand of cricket.

No way that 2007 can remotely even be considered a contender. It was Aus in a league of their own and then you had SL and SA being a distant second.

Prior to NZ beating Aus 3-0, they lost the CB series to England ffs so it didn't mean much in reality. Even a poor Indian team smashed Sri Lanka in bilaterals prior to the world cup.

You guys can simply go to the 2007 WC subforum here in CW to see who were considered actual favorites at least on CW.

 

[Molehill]

Not realistic chance though. NZ didn't go to Kenya and we were the only team that could've beaten Australia as they couldn't cope with Bond

A reminder that Australia only beat England in the group stage because Bichel literally had the game of his life. Not saying England would've won at all, but they were a half decent outfit in that tournament (unlike all others up to 2019) who at least caused problems to the Aussies.

 

[Molehill]

Nah . England and SL also gave them a good fight . Although Molehill is exaggerating things because India beat every side in that Tournament except Aus . Looks like Molehill needs to revisit Ashish Nehra 6/23 spell against them .

There was a big toss advantage in the day/night games. India benefitted against England, although England were on the right side of it against Pakistan. The ball was hooping under lights.

The Aussies were the best team in the tournament, there wasn't a lot between about 5 others, but rain and boycotts allowed Kenya a path to the semis.

 

[Molehill]

Yeah but again, that is just a commercial reality. As pointed out earlier, one of the options BCCI put on the table was to have India not play in the CT. That was just unacceptable to every other board, including the PCB.

So is the CT simply a money making exercise or is it actually a trophy worth winning? It clearly makes more money the longer India stay in it. Should other teams just send their reserves next time (I'm wondering if the Aussies have already cottoned on)?