2015 World Cup: 10 teams and no associates

[Blaze 18]

Why should England, South Africa, Pakistan, etc. have to play qualifiers?I think the top eight in the rankings should all automatically qualify. Bangladesh, Netherlands, Ireland, Zimbabwe, Canada and Kenya could fight for the last two spots in a pre-tournament qualifier.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Why should England have to play qualifiers?

because they lost to two of those nations who, according to you, should have to qualify, and hasn't reached the semi-final since 1992?

 

[jashan83]

They should have Top 8 teams directly qualify for the World Cup The 2 bottom test teams and 6 associate should play a round robin league for qualification. The top 2 from that should qualify. This league should be held in Aus and NZ to make sure that the same conditions are used and no one can cry foul on conditions. Ideally it would be great if this tournament is just held before the cup.
28 matches.

Or they can go for a 12 nation world cup with 4 pools of 3 each and 2 rounds, so that one off wins of Bd over India etc if happen can be negated. Then Top 2 teams from each pools qualify for a round of 8 where each team plays the other.
First Round:- 24 Matches (Finish it in 10 Days, sometimes 3 matches in a day with innovations like
1st Match:- 8 AM to 4 PM
2nd match:- 12 Noon to 8 PM
3rd Match:- 4 PM to 12 Midnight)

Second Round:- 28 Matches:- 25 Days
SF & Finals:- 3 :- 5 Days

Total 55 matches to be finished in 40 days

As per the present Ranking the pools would be

A:-Aus,WI,Neth
B:-Ind,NZ,Zim
C:-SL,Pak,Ire
D:-SA,Eng,BD,

 

[Blaze 18]

BBC Sport - Cricket - Ireland consider legal challenge to 2015 World Cup blow

Interesting.

 

[Furball]

Why should England, South Africa, Pakistan, etc. have to play qualifiers?I think the top eight in the rankings should all automatically qualify. Bangladesh, Netherlands, Ireland, Zimbabwe, Canada and Kenya could fight for the last two spots in a pre-tournament qualifier.

England and the West Indies really don't have any sort of divine right to automatically qualify ahead of associates and minor Test nations that they haven't really outperformed in the last 4 World Cups.

 

[gvenkat]

England and the West Indies really don't have any sort of divine right to automatically qualify ahead of associates and minor Test nations that they haven't really outperformed in the last 4 World Cups.

If you look at the World cup records from 1992 - 2011. Apart from Zim upsetting England in 1992, Kenya beating WI in 1996 and Bangla beating Pakistan in 1999(which was dicey). Kenya beating SL in 2003 and Ireland beating Pakistan in 2007, Ireland beating England in 2011. THe rest of the games involving them have been boring, lopsided and appalling. IF England and WI have more than provided their share of fight in these tournaments.

So Just becuase Ireland beat England does not give them the right to be in the WC as much as England or the WI. However the Qualification phase should be there which will give them a fair chance. If there is a qualification between WI, Ban and Zim with Ireland, Ned and Kenya. You can be rest assured that apart from Ireland Ned and Kenya will stink up the place and even Ireland apart from their customary upset will not be able to sustain the competition. The ICC should give this a go, which will give every team the right to qualify.

Having a FIFA like qualifying is a waste of time.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'd have no problems with us having to qualify at all. Let's be frank, our results don't warrant automatic inclusion.

The suspicion I have is that because our market is one of the two main cash cows for cricket revenue the ICC wouldn't want to take the chance of us missing out, which would be a real, if not likely, possibility.

If we're stuck with 10 teams, which it seems we are, at least give the little guys a chance of eating at the table with the test nations.

Details aren't important, be it winners plus hosts, top 6 from the rankings, semi-finalists from 2011 plus hosts, top 8 or whoever qualifying automatically, the key is that it should at least be possible to qualify for non test nations.

 

[gvenkat]

I'd have no problems with us having to qualify at all. Let's be frank, our results don't warrant automatic inclusion.

The suspicion I have is that because our market is one of the two main cash cows for cricket revenue the ICC wouldn't want to take the chance of us missing out, which would be a real, if not likely, possibility.

If we're stuck with 10 teams, which it seems we are, at least give the little guys a chance of eating at the table with the test nations.

Details aren't important, be it winners plus hosts, top 6 from the rankings, semi-finalists from 2011 plus hosts, top 8 or whoever qualifying automatically, the key is that it should at least be possible to qualify for non test nations.

Have the top 8 automatically qualify and have the 9,10 play a league with the top 3 from the associates before the WC in the same conditions. Then we will have a nice balance. As such these Warm ups are a waste of time. They could play this instead.

 

[Furball]

Have the top 8 automatically qualify and have the 9,10 play a league with the top 3 from the associates before the WC in the same conditions. Then we will have a nice balance. As such these Warm ups are a waste of time. They could play this instead.

Why exactly do the top 8 have a divine right to qualify?

Had to laugh at your earlier list - there's been an upset at each World Cup since 1992. Ireland also managed to run the West Indies close this year and beat Bangladesh in 2007, as well clinch a tie with Zimbabwe.

The game of cricket gains nothing if the elite nations maintain the World Cup as a closed shop. Would the game have developed as it has if the white nations had just opted to play amongst themselves?

 

[gvenkat]

Why exactly do the top 8 have a divine right to qualify?

Had to laugh at your earlier list - there's been an upset at each World Cup since 1992. Ireland also managed to run the West Indies close this year and beat Bangladesh in 2007, as well clinch a tie with Zimbabwe.

The game of cricket gains nothing if the elite nations maintain the World Cup as a closed shop. Would the game have developed as it has if the white nations had just opted to play amongst themselves?

Having a FIFA like thing is a waste of time. You mention the upset and have time to laugh at it, but conveniently brush aside the fact that the rest of the games have been boring. The top 8 can be picked from the previous WC, which would give the 9th and 10th teams to play a qualifiers with the associates. We can argue till the cows come home. But the fact of the matter is apart from the odd upset the standard of cricket from the associated with the exception of Ireland has been pathetic. If indeed Ireland are good enough they would easily beat Zim and the rest of the associates and qualify as the 10th team. The same applies to the rest of the associates too. There is no need to have a mismatch like we had between Australia and Canada or Nederlands and West Indies.

 

[juro]

I got a reply from the ICC!

My email:

Can you please let me know how removing even the possibility of associates and affiliates competing in the 2015 fits into the ICC Mission.

The response:

Thanks for your email. Your comment is duly noted.

Kind regards,
James Fitzgerald

Shame I didn't make a comment. I asked a question! What chances of actually getting more than a response effectively just confirming they received my email??

 

[_Ed_]

That's a ridiculous response.

But at least it's a sign that they're probably receiving a huge number of these emails and finding it hard to deal with them all.

 

[turnstyle]

If you look at the World cup records from 1992 - 2011. Apart from Zim upsetting England in 1992, Kenya beating WI in 1996 and Bangla beating Pakistan in 1999(which was dicey). Kenya beating SL in 2003 and Ireland beating Pakistan in 2007, Ireland beating England in 2011. THe rest of the games involving them have been boring, lopsided and appalling. IF England and WI have more than provided their share of fight in these tournaments.

So Just becuase Ireland beat England does not give them the right to be in the WC as much as England or the WI. However the Qualification phase should be there which will give them a fair chance. If there is a qualification between WI, Ban and Zim with Ireland, Ned and Kenya. You can be rest assured that apart from Ireland Ned and Kenya will stink up the place and even Ireland apart from their customary upset will not be able to sustain the competition. The ICC should give this a go, which will give every team the right to qualify.

Having a FIFA like qualifying is a waste of time.

Agree. Holland v England was appalling. How Holland let that minnow back into the match is beyond me.

How about a World Cup first round where everyone plays India once, then whoever loses by the least amount gets to play India in the final?

 

[GIMH]

In 07, Ireland beat Bangas and Bangas beat Saffa. Ireland also tied with Zimbabwe.

Ireland were robbed against WI in this WC by poor umpiring as well.

Also, thinking back to 07, Bermuda were complete trash BUT added something to the tournament by virtue of entertainment. That's what a WC is all about. I see the top teams play each other all the time.

And qualifiers wouldn't be pointless, because I'd rather see England playing a few associates in qualifying games than meandering through a 23-match ODI series against a team we just walloped in Tests. And presumably in qualifying you'd play a mix of full and associate members and would therefore have actual meaningful games against the 'proper' teams as well.

Cricket needs to get over its elitist roots. Even only giving three or four sides a chance to qualify is a disgrace. Every member should have the chance, simple as.

 

[Furball]

Having a FIFA like thing is a waste of time. You mention the upset and have time to laugh at it, but conveniently brush aside the fact that the rest of the games have been boring. The top 8 can be picked from the previous WC, which would give the 9th and 10th teams to play a qualifiers with the associates. We can argue till the cows come home. But the fact of the matter is apart from the odd upset the standard of cricket from the associated with the exception of Ireland has been pathetic. If indeed Ireland are good enough they would easily beat Zim and the rest of the associates and qualify as the 10th team. The same applies to the rest of the associates too. There is no need to have a mismatch like we had between Australia and Canada or Nederlands and West Indies.

How would cricket look if in the 30s, England had decided that playing India was a waste of their time and they weren't going to bother?

 

[GIMH]

How would cricket look if in the 30s, England had decided that playing India was a waste of their time and they weren't going to bother?

Jono wouldn't post here. ****. Why didn't we just do it?

 

[Spikey]

Also, thinking back to 07, Bermuda were complete trash BUT added something to the tournament by virtue of entertainment. That's what a WC is all about. I see the top teams play each other all the time.

YouTube - Bermuda cricket catch With Commentary

Never forget.

 

[_Ed_]

YouTube - Bermuda cricket catch With Commentary

Never forget.

Honestly - and 100% seriously - my favourite moment of that World Cup.

 

[Spikey]

I dare say that's a popular opinion - certainly I share it.

 

[Howe_zat]

I still remain baffled by the idea you know automatically how entertaining a match is going to be by who's playing in it.

From 2011, and trying to see each match as a neutral:

Will take Canada-Pakistan over South Africa-West Indies.
Will take Holland-England over Australia-New Zealand.

Will take just about anything over England-Sri Lanka, Pakistan-West Indies or Bangladesh-West Indies.

Will take nothing over England-Ireland.