-
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.
Quick question
- Thread starter Perm
- Start date
Craig
World Traveller
nightprowler10
Global Moderator
Obviously not...
PhoenixFire
International Coach
Pretty much agreed.
Perm
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Such as yourself?
Manee
Cricketer Of The Year
Indeed. I'd like to change 'express rational thought' to 'supress irrational thought', though.
99*
International Debutant
Defeats the purpose of having teams like Ireland in the tournament then. If we only want the 'best' tournament then it should only have the Big-8 and not bother with teams like Ireland, Canada etc etc.
The Baconator
International Vice-Captain
I think I see Richard's point, in that it made there be a lot less competitive games in the Super 8, which was really boring. If it wasn't for that, I don't think anyone could have an issue at all.
But it was too damn special to vote anything other than Yes.
But it was too damn special to vote anything other than Yes.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Yep, that's a very fair point, and one I'd subscribe to entirely. I don't think the World Cup is the place for such teams. I think I$C$C is trying to achieve the creation of the illusion of expansion by having them involved. I see no benefit to anyone by such teams being involved (and normally being thrashed out of sight).
What I'd much prefer is some sort of qualifying round comprising of the preliminary group-stage from the previous Cup, though in a more foolproof manner. Then the Super Eight being the start of the tournament. That'd also achieve the cut-down in time that so many people are apparently so keen on.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Yeah, don't mind that idea at all. Make everyone qualify except hosts and holders, leaving six places to play for. That would give the associates game time against the big sides. Could result in the same outcome though, as there is nothing to say Ireland wouldn't beat Pakistan in a qualifying game.
edit actually it's slightly problematic as there is only generally the West Indies who host the WC alone (we tend to give games to Scotland, Holland IIRC). Then again I guess you just crop down the number of qualifying places available when Asia host it
edit actually it's slightly problematic as there is only generally the West Indies who host the WC alone (we tend to give games to Scotland, Holland IIRC). Then again I guess you just crop down the number of qualifying places available when Asia host it
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
That's why I said make a more foolproof system - maybe have two games between each team, leaving more opportunity for anomalaic results to be ironed-out.
Having multiple hosts would make that even easier.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
It'd take some nerve to keep calling it the World Cup with a system like that. It's once every four years and the sub-standard sides don't play test sides much in between. If not for the world cup, noone will ever know how close or how far assosciate nations are from the top level. And seriously, one tiny chance of the slightest bit of glory every four years. You have to give us something.
andruid
Cricketer Of The Year
Had this random idea whilst blogging some time ago. If all the 10 test teams commited to just two ODIs per annum against whichever World Cup going Associates were around in the 4 years cycle leading up to each World Cup it would collextivelly give these 4 or 6 associates 80 ODIs worth of preperation in tems of exposure to the big guns before the main eventr. Just a thought.