• 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.

**2007 World Cup**

James

James

Cricket Web Owner
Haven't the ICC learnt anything from previous World Cups?

Surely five associate nations shouldn't be allowed into the tournament?

3 Scotland (12) 4 Holland (16) Bermuda (15) Canada (14) Ireland (13)

With Bangladesh (11) Kenya (10) Zimbabwe (9) also taking part there's going to be so many mis-matches which will turn off the average fan I reckon.

And a Super 8 with 24 matches and the whole tournment lasting nearly two months. Golly gosh, it's just crazy. You might as well just start with the Super Eights, it's that predictable
.

What do you guys think? Have the ICC got it all wrong?
 
Somerset

Somerset

Cricketer Of The Year
Absolutely - 14 at the 2003 World Cup was pushing it. 16 is far too many IMO, 12 would be an adequate number with two groups and reasonable competition throughout.
 
James

James

Cricket Web Owner
I can honestly say I see this being the worst ever World Cup. It reminds me of the Rugby League World Cup of a few years back.
 
Magrat Garlick

Magrat Garlick

Rather Mad Witch
James said:
Haven't the ICC learnt anything from previous World Cups?

Surely five associate nations shouldn't be allowed into the tournament?

3 Scotland (12) 4 Holland (16) Bermuda (15) Canada (14) Ireland (13)

With Bangladesh (11) Kenya (10) Zimbabwe (9) also taking part there's going to be so many mis-matches which will turn off the average fan I reckon.

And a Super 8 with 24 matches and the whole tournment lasting nearly two months. Golly gosh, it's just crazy. You might as well just start with the Super Eights, it's that predictable
.
Click to expand...
Spot on. The first month is there to perhaps get some interest in the smaller cricket countries, but that only lasts two weeks - which we can safely ignore. Then we get to the real World Cup, which lasts exactly a month. I don't mind too much, actually :)
 
King_Ponting

King_Ponting

International Regular
But kenya were the real dark horse last cup and another minnow may well be this cup. Not all that predictble really cept we all know who'll win the cup, just who plays them in the final is the question.
 
FaaipDeOiad

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
King_Ponting said:
But kenya were the real dark horse last cup and another minnow may well be this cup. Not all that predictble really cept we all know who'll win the cup, just who plays them in the final is the question.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's that straightforward...

Anyone can win a World Cup, it's not always the best team in the world, it's the best in the matches they play over those weeks. Sri Lanka weren't the overall best ODI team in the world in 1996, but they still won. India probably weren't in 1987 either, and the West Indies were still the best more often than not in 1992 and didn't win.
 
Somerset

Somerset

Cricketer Of The Year
King_Ponting said:
But kenya were the real dark horse last cup and another minnow may well be this cup. Not all that predictble really cept we all know who'll win the cup, just who plays them in the final is the question.
Click to expand...
If New Zealand hadn't pulled out of their match in Kenya, I doubt they would've reached the super six, and eventually semis though. And apart from beating Sri Lanka, they only recorded wins against Canada, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe...
 
Somerset

Somerset

Cricketer Of The Year
Samuel_Vimes said:
Indeed.

By the way - what would happen in the event of a tie in the semis and final? We've seen a few of them recently...
Click to expand...
Would probably the side top on points in the Super Sixes I'd think...
 
Scaly piscine

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The problem with the competition is not the number of Scotland etc. type teams, it's the number of group stages in what should be a largely knockout competition. The first group stage should remain the same, then when the top 2 teams go through each group it should be a straight knockout. But I guess the moneymen have spoken. As for the first stage the 'important' games are of course when the top 8 teams play each other, as those results are carried through to the Super Eights
 
King_Ponting

King_Ponting

International Regular
Samuel_Vimes said:
Indeed.

By the way - what would happen in the event of a tie in the semis and final? We've seen a few of them recently...
Click to expand...
The team that won in the super sixes stage would go thorugh in the semis (ie the famous Aus south africa draw) In the final the team with the higher amount of points in supersixes, or if they are equal after that stage it would go down to runrate
 
vic_orthdox

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
FaaipDeOiad said:
I don't think it's that straightforward...

Anyone can win a World Cup, it's not always the best team in the world, it's the best in the matches they play over those weeks. Sri Lanka weren't the overall best ODI team in the world in 1996, but they still won. India probably weren't in 1987 either, and the West Indies were still the best more often than not in 1992 and didn't win.
Click to expand...
Maybe that's why Australia won it :p
 
Kweek

Kweek

Cricketer Of The Year
Somerset said:
Absolutely - 14 at the 2003 World Cup was pushing it. 16 is far too many IMO, 12 would be an adequate number with two groups and reasonable competition throughout.
Click to expand...
ooi! since when did you stop supporting the dutchies!!! (dutchies were the ones lucky with 16 8-) )
 
FaaipDeOiad

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
vic_orthdox said:
Maybe that's why Australia won it :p
Click to expand...
Bleh. I mean the one India did win then... 83? ;)

Australia weren't the best team in the world in 1987 either, or even particularly close to it.
 
Somerset

Somerset

Cricketer Of The Year
kwek said:
ooi! since when did you stop supporting the dutchies!!! (dutchies were the ones lucky with 16 8-) )
Click to expand...
It's not that I'm not supporting them - it's just that I don't think they stand a chance of producing cricket that would be competitive enough to challenge the world's best. The non-test nations have a chance with the 12th spot in that system anyway, leaving a possible path for Holland.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I don't mind the current format too much. The top 8 teams will still play each other and it is a 'real' world cup with so many teams in it. Plus, with the new format of the Champions Trophy, I think the ICC have hit it upon the right formula for both tournaments.
 
S

Steulen

International Regular
Too bad that Group A starts off with two rounds of minnows vs. title pretenders. Probably not even a hint of suspense left come round 3. Although I'll be rooting for the cloggies to take their
revenge on the redhaired lasses :).
 
Neil Pickup

Neil Pickup

Request Your Custom Title Now!
This is the best possible format we could have. The minnows will be home after a week and a half, having only been stuffed twice as opposed to the four or five thrashings Namibia and Holland got last time out - then we get the super eights which will be excellent cricket. This is the major chance the minnows have of International exposure, to me it's churlish in the extreme to desire their removal.

As for the length - well, if you want reserve days then that's what happens. I seem to remember a little bit of complaint last time out about the lack of reserve days...
 
aussie

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
any people (especially me fellow britains) know if you will be able to make the trip to the caribbean come 2007.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top