2015 World Cup: 10 teams and no associates

[gvenkat]

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?

England needed a punchin bag.. Who else better than India?

 

[gvenkat]

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.

You just proved my theory. There are already enough on-sided games. Apart from the England-Ireland what was so fascinating with the minnows? We already have lopsided games with the full members. WHy not have a qualifiers and decided the last three spots?

 

[four_or_six]

You just proved my theory. There are already enough on-sided games. Apart from the England-Ireland what was so fascinating with the minnows? We already have lopsided games with the full members. WHy not have a qualifiers and decided the last three spots?

Netherlands-England and Bangladesh-Ireland were also really good matches, not one-sided ones, it wasn't just Ireland-England. And Canada-Australia was pretty good fun too. The minnows are just such good fun to watch, it lets you see teams outside the usual lot that we watch all the time, and they play with such a good spirit. The world cup is not just about who wins, it's about it being a festival of world cricket.

 

[Teja.]

I typed a long post in response to gvenkat but realized that posting it would be instant-ban. So I'll just settle for saying I thoroughly disagree with his absurdly elitist views on the world cup.

 

[Borges]

World Cup aside, give a choice I would much rather watch the next England-Ireland ODI than the next India-Australia ODI.

 

[Prad100w]

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.

First of all, i hate the fact that associates are not being given a chance. A world cup should be a WC with the world in it. But as the ICC desperately wants to keep it short and probably will as well, then they can go for the qualification process as you have said with slight modification. In my view, the top 5 or 6 teams should go through automatically. And the rest should play the qualification round. Probably this can be based on the rankings and hosting. That means the games leading up to the WC also matters and teams have a chance to improve the rankings to be in contention for the WC spot. That also means 4 associate teams can have a crack at the WC spots. Although realistically few might qualify. But that probably calls up for a fair process at least.

 

[Howe_zat]

You just proved my theory. There are already enough on-sided games. Apart from the England-Ireland what was so fascinating with the minnows? We already have lopsided games with the full members. WHy not have a qualifiers and decided the last three spots?

No, I didn't. I could write a freaking essay on this but I've already posted so much and I cbf to repeat myself. Will summarise thus:

> How good a match is to watch often has very little to do with which sides are playing.
> One-sided matches aren't always rubbish. Don't know about you but I generally like watching cricket, rather than trying to find reasons why I shouldn't have watched something.
> The World Cup is supposed to be a special event that we don't have most of the time, with a massive variety of cricket and cricketers, and a lot of that is thanks to the minnows.

 

[gvenkat]

I typed a long post in response to gvenkat but realized that posting it would be instant-ban. So I'll just settle for saying I thoroughly disagree with his absurdly elitist views on the world cup.

Feel free to email me @ganesh_vg@hotmail.com. I'm pretty thick skinned and I will respond to you.

 

[gvenkat]

First of all, i hate the fact that associates are not being given a chance. A world cup should be a WC with the world in it. But as the ICC desperately wants to keep it short and probably will as well, then they can go for the qualification process as you have said with slight modification. In my view, the top 5 or 6 teams should go through automatically. And the rest should play the qualification round. Probably this can be based on the rankings and hosting. That means the games leading up to the WC also matters and teams have a chance to improve the rankings to be in contention for the WC spot. That also means 4 associate teams can have a crack at the WC spots. Although realistically few might qualify. But that probably calls up for a fair process at least.

Yes that has been my view. Let the top 6 or 7 qualify direct and the rest go through a qualification process. But that does not seem to sit will with most of the folks here.

 

[Daemon]

Yes that has been my view. Let the top 6 or 7 qualify direct and the rest go through a qualification process. But that does not seem to sit will with most of the folks here.

Don't think anyone has problems with a qualification process in place. It's just that majority would like to see more than 10 teams qualify for the WC.

 

[Furball]

You just proved my theory. There are already enough on-sided games. Apart from the England-Ireland what was so fascinating with the minnows? We already have lopsided games with the full members. WHy not have a qualifiers and decided the last three spots?

With the minnows, it's the little moments that make their inclusion worthwhile. It's RtD's gun 100 against England, and the lolz that the Netherlands posting 291 gave everyone else. It's Canada's openers absolutely smacking the Australian bowlers around, even if it only lasted 5 or 6 overs. It's Collins Obuya falling just short of scoring 100 against Australia, it's Canada bowling out Pakistan for 180 and just for a moment, believing there's the chance of a famous upset. It's players like Rizwan Cheema becoming cult figures for battering England in a warm up game. And of course, Keith O'Brien and Ireland mounting one of the greatest come-back-from-the-dead run chases I've ever seen in ODI cricket.

That's all from this World Cup alone, and there's plenty more I've missed, since I didn't actually pay that much attention to group A.

Look, you're the archetypal "cricket crazy as long as it's India that's playing" fan, so you won't get any of this. But the major 8 nations play each other often enough the other 3 years and 11 months in between World Cups. Obviously, winning a World Cup will be one of the pinaccles of a player's career for those lucky enough to do so, but a World Cup is about more than just someone like Tendulkar finally winning one at the 6th time of asking. It's about players who you've never heard of, from countries you didn't even realise played cricket, doing something magical that captures the imagination (and it doesn't even have to be positive - Daan van Bunge will always be remembered as the guy who got hit for 6 6s by Herschelle Gibbs), even if only for a couple of days. For me, that is where the true magic of the World Cup lies.

I know all this, because the same thing happened to me in 1999. I was captured by Gavin Hamilton seemingly blasting 50s at will for Scotland in that World Cup. His selection for England that winter in South Africa is the basis for me beginning to follow Test cricket and England. I'm sure there are thousands of others around the world like me. Remove the minnows, and you kill any ambitions the ICC supposedly has of growing the game.

 

[gvenkat]

With the minnows, it's the little moments that make their inclusion worthwhile. It's RtD's gun 100 against England, and the lolz that the Netherlands posting 291 gave everyone else. It's Canada's openers absolutely smacking the Australian bowlers around, even if it only lasted 5 or 6 overs. It's Collins Obuya falling just short of scoring 100 against Australia, it's Canada bowling out Pakistan for 180 and just for a moment, believing there's the chance of a famous upset. It's players like Rizwan Cheema becoming cult figures for battering England in a warm up game. And of course, Keith O'Brien and Ireland mounting one of the greatest come-back-from-the-dead run chases I've ever seen in ODI cricket.

That's all from this World Cup alone, and there's plenty more I've missed, since I didn't actually pay that much attention to group A.

Look, you're the archetypal "cricket crazy as long as it's India that's playing" fan, so you won't get any of this. But the major 8 nations play each other often enough the other 3 years and 11 months in between World Cups. Obviously, winning a World Cup will be one of the pinaccles of a player's career for those lucky enough to do so, but a World Cup is about more than just someone like Tendulkar finally winning one at the 6th time of asking. It's about players who you've never heard of, from countries you didn't even realise played cricket, doing something magical that captures the imagination (and it doesn't even have to be positive - Daan van Bunge will always be remembered as the guy who got hit for 6 6s by Herschelle Gibbs), even if only for a couple of days. For me, that is where the true magic of the World Cup lies.

I know all this, because the same thing happened to me in 1999. I was captured by Gavin Hamilton seemingly blasting 50s at will for Scotland in that World Cup. His selection for England that winter in South Africa is the basis for me beginning to follow Test cricket and England. I'm sure there are thousands of others around the world like me. Remove the minnows, and you kill any ambitions the ICC supposedly has of growing the game.

To me the best format is 12 teams with top 4 to the super eights. However you seem more interested in seeing some hapless bowler hit for six sixes. You will still get the thing if there are 12 teams. For me the WC is about the best competing or atleast getting an opportunity to play each other. The 12 team format and super eights does not seem popular. Another format would be to select 4 teams from each group and have that as a T20 format.

Look, you're the archetypal "cricket crazy as long as it's India that's playing" fan, so you won't get any of this.

Spare me that BS please, Anytime any one opposes the minnows or support Sachin this is the stereotype that is made. Sigh!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Spikey]

well stop being the archetypal "cricket crazy as long as it's India that's playing" fan

 

[Furball]

Have fired off the following to the ECB:

To whom it may concern,

I find it deeply regrettable to read that the ECB was behind the motion to deny Associate Members of the ICC the opportunity to qualify for the ICC World Cup in 2015.

As a Scot who supports the English team and has followed them closely for the last 8 years, this is an issue I care deeply about, not only because it affects my own nation's chances of qualifying for a third World Cup, but also because it was through watching Scotland, and in particular Gavin Hamilton, in 1999 that I was introduced to this great sport. Hamilton's subsequent selection in the England tour party which toured South Africa in the winter of 1999/00 was perhaps the key event in deciding my cricketing allegiance.

The World Cup must continue to be an event which showcases world cricket, and not just the cricket of an elite group of nations. Part of the magic of the World Cup is seeing cricketers you'd never heard of from nations you didn't realise play cricket steal the limelight and become cult figures, even if it's only for a matter of days. No-one who watched the 2007 World Cup will forget Dwayne Leverock's slip catch to dismiss Robin Uttapha, Daan van Bunge being hit for 36 in an over by Herschelle Gibbs, or Ireland's epic St Patrick's Day win against Pakistan. The 2011 edition also produced several memorable moments, from Ryan ten Doeschate's century against England, Canada giving themselves a fighting chance of upsetting Pakistan by bowling them out for 180, Collins Obuya falling just short of a ton against Australia, Canada's openers smashing the Australian bowlers for the first 5 or 6 overs (always fun to watch the Aussies toil), and of course, Kevin O'Brien's century and Ireland's incredible victory against England. Ireland themselves were extremely competitive and with a bit more luck could have qualified for the quarter final stage - in part because of the massive shot in the arm Irish cricket would have received as a result of their campaign in 2007. In my opinion, it's no coincidence that we're now seeing some exciting talent emerge from Ireland - I wish I could say the same for Scotland!

By denying Associate Nations the opportunity to play in World Cups, you're denying cricket the chance to grow worldwide. It's bad enough that this year's successful format is being ditched - the group stages gave the Associates plenty of games, which is always good for both raising their profile and gaining experience at the highest level, whereas the knockout stages in my opinion raises the pressure stakes and really sorts the men from the boys, which is what you want from the premier limited overs tournament. What's worse is that the elite nations in cricket are effectively closing ranks and denying the game a chance to grow.

The ECB in the last few years has supported the European associates admirably by allowing them to compete in the Clydesdale Bank Pro40 and by regularly playing ODIs against Ireland and Scotland. It is a shame that you are undoing all this good work with this decision.

 

[Furball]

To me the best format is 12 teams with top 4 to the super eights. However you seem more interested in seeing some hapless bowler hit for six sixes. You will still get the thing if there are 12 teams. For me the WC is about the best competing or atleast getting an opportunity to play each other. The 12 team format and super eights does not seem popular. Another format would be to select 4 teams from each group and have that as a T20 format.




Spare me that BS please, Anytime any one opposes the minnows or support Sachin this is the stereotype that is made. Sigh!!!!!!!!!!

What's Tendulkar got to do with any of this?

Why are you so opposed to minor cricketing nations and players getting their chance in the spotlight every 4 years and closing off the game to developing cricketing nations?

 

[gvenkat]

What's Tendulkar got to do with any of this?

Why are you so opposed to minor cricketing nations and players getting their chance in the spotlight every 4 years and closing off the game to developing cricketing nations?

Not opposed. There needs to be a balance. 12 Teams is the best option

 

[Furball]

A balance between what exactly?

I don't actually have any objections to the current format going forward. I thought this World Cup was a pretty successful one.

The only other alternative I'd consider would be 16 teams - 4 groups of 4, top 2 qualify and the quarter final stage is split into a further 2 groups of 4. Top 2 again qualify for the semi finals.

A Super Six/Eight round robin stage is tedious and hasn't really worked in the previous tournaments it's been played in IMO.

 

[gvenkat]

A balance between what exactly?

I don't actually have any objections to the current format going forward. I thought this World Cup was a pretty successful one.

The only other alternative I'd consider would be 16 teams - 4 groups of 4, top 2 qualify and the quarter final stage is split into a further 2 groups of 4. Top 2 again qualify for the semi finals.

A Super Six/Eight round robin stage is tedious and hasn't really worked in the previous tournaments it's been played in IMO.

A balance between too much associates and too few. No need for 16 teams. The best would be 12 teams - 6 groups of two each, Top 4 qualify to te next stage to further 2 groups of 4 and the top 2 again qualify for the Semis.

 

[Furball]

You're just scared of smaller groups after 2007, aren't you?

edit: in my 16 team proposal I'd also have a Plate tournament where those teams eliminated after the initial group stage would go into an 8 team tournament that mirrors the World Cup in format.

 

[gvenkat]

You're just scared of smaller groups after 2007, aren't you?

edit: in my 16 team proposal I'd also have a Plate tournament where those teams eliminated after the initial group stage would go into an 8 team tournament that mirrors the World Cup in format.

You're just scared of smaller groups after 2007, aren't you?

Not scared per say, but being cautious. seriously I feel a team should not be eliminated because of one bad day against a lesser team. There should be an option for that team to come back and that shows the resolve of the team and what they are made of.

in my 16 team proposal I'd also have a Plate tournament where those teams eliminated after the initial group stage would go into an 8 team tournament that mirrors the World Cup in format

Collosal waste of time. So if you want to conduct a plate league, Why not do that as the pre-cursor to the tournament?