2 Champions Trophies vs World Cup

[vcs]

Actually, they needed 4 attempts to win the CT considering they were runaway favourites and clearly the best team in the world going into the 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006 editions. Not that it should be much of a factor when it comes to ranking teams historically.

 

[Spark]

Actually, they needed 4 attempts to win the CT considering they were runaway favourites and clearly the best team in the world going into the 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006 editions. Not that it should be much of a factor when it comes to ranking teams historically.

I mean no one took it at all seriously until quite recently IIRC. Certainly the Aus sides of the early 00s seemed to think it an annoying distraction.

 

[honestbharani]

I would say that it was the format more than anything that often meant it was more of a "on the day" better team winning it than the world's best. The WC took a lot more time to arrive at their denouements and thus, we always knew who the best side were. And the post 1996 WC editions had a HUGE league stage which meant it was always going to come down to the quality of the side during the semis and the finals. The CT, being a more condensed tourney, I think helps slightly lesser sides spring surprises in the KOs far more frequently than the WC KO stages do.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Originally the CT was a pure knockout tournament, wasn't it?

When did that change?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Originally the CT was a pure knockout tournament, wasn't it?

When did that change?

Only the first two were knockout tournaments. Been a traditional group+knockout format since 2002

 

[vic_orthdox]

Only the first two were knockout tournaments. Been a traditional group+knockout format since 2002

Cheers.

 

[vcs]

I mean no one took it at all seriously until quite recently IIRC. Certainly the Aus sides of the early 00s seemed to think it an annoying distraction.

I don't remember them sending weakened teams etc. to any CT, TBH. I'd say no one took the WT20 2007 particularly seriously, for example. There were a lot of experimental teams and weird tactics in that event.

The 2000 match was a very tough contest and a really sweet win for India, coming after the match-fixing scandals.

 

[vic_orthdox]

There was one or two of the early ones where they didn't get any preparation at all (from memory). Flew in, played one game, lost, went home. Don't think it meant that they didn't take it seriously - just that the scheduling meant that they couldn't prepare for it seriously.

 

[Spark]

I don't remember them sending weakened teams etc. to any CT, TBH. I'd say no one took the WT20 2007 particularly seriously, for example. There were a lot of experimental teams and weird tactics in that event.

The 2000 match was a very tough contest and a really sweet win for India, coming after the match-fixing scandals.

It wasn't so much that weakened teams were sent so much as flat out weak teams like the USA were involved to pad numbers.

 

[Agar]

I'm about 90% convinced it's a fail attempt at baiting.

Oh, it was baiting all right. Wasn't a fail, reeled in quite a few fish as can be seen from all the thrashing and flailing from a few people.

 

[ArsalanSajid]

I was very happy with the Idea of changing of Champions trophy into Test championship so we could have champions of all three formats of the game, for me Champions trophy is just waste of money and time because we already have 50 overs WC to decide champion of the format.

 

[mr_mister]

honestbharani you need to drop this narrative regarding Australia's '99 WC campaign


they lost a couple of close games in the first group stage but then dominated the super 6 and the rest is history

dont make it sound like they fluked it

 

[honestbharani]

honestbharani you need to drop this narrative regarding Australia's '99 WC campaign


they lost a couple of close games in the first group stage but then dominated the super 6 and the rest is history

dont make it sound like they fluked it

How did you get that, from this:

I would say that it was the format more than anything that often meant it was more of a "on the day" better team winning it than the world's best. The WC took a lot more time to arrive at their denouements and thus, we always knew who the best side were. And the post 1996 WC editions had a HUGE league stage which meant it was always going to come down to the quality of the side during the semis and the finals. The CT, being a more condensed tourney, I think helps slightly lesser sides spring surprises in the KOs far more frequently than the WC KO stages do.

 

[mr_mister]

tbh I only read your initial post touching on the subject not your later clarification. My apologies hb

 

[honestbharani]

No worries mate.

FTR, I never thought they "fluked" their way to the WC. I just said they did not look the best side in the tournament going into the business end but ended up winning it.