Best ODI tourney since '03 WC?

[Sanz]

See, I don't think so.

It went on slightly longer than normal but the cricket world cup has always been a fairly lengthy tournament (well, from the 1990s onwards it certainly has, dunno about before that).

In the 1992 World Cup 9 teams played 8 games each- that's more like a season than a tournament. But everyone loved that.

And it gave every team a fair chance to compete (well except SA)

 

[Faisal1985]

I think the Champions Trophy has unveiled the very nature of ODI's. The nature of ODIs as i understood is of a mixture of Tests and T20s. Sometimes you have to play ODI's like T20s and sometimes like Tests......this forces the teams to make profound strategies then just bang bang or tuk tuk.....I don't think the importance of ODIs was this clear ever before......for all those who think ODIs are done or they should be modified are out of their mind....ODIs are a perfect balance and must stay the way they are.....perhaps the only modification could be the Referral system.

You don't want each and every game to be a nail biter either like T20's because then its hard to see the reward of a good innings or a good bowling spell. For example, in the T20 there have been many occasions where there has been a phenomenal innings played or a great bowling spell bowled. I.e SA VS Pak in semis and Kallis's innings.....yet SA lost. And in the final......Razzaq's three quick wickets yet the game got too close and the impact of Razzaq's spell seemed very low or perhaps less significant then what it may have in an ODI......in order for these types of exceptional performances to be rewarded properly in games, i personally think ODIs are the best platform.....

 

[tooextracool]

Nah, it really felt like a long, long time. I agree with you that whilst it had its issues it's much maligned, but it really needs to be trimmed, time wise.

It felt like a long time because of the number of lop sided contests and minnow teams and it wasn't helped by the fact that Bangladesh and Ireland made the super 8's. Im not a big fan of ODI cricket, but this tournament, IMO, is arguably the best ODI tournament we've seen since 1999. And thats only because we've had 7 out of the top 8 teams playing in it. It actually does good to the title of the tournament - 'Champions Trophy'

 

[Xuhaib]

I think the Champions Trophy has unveiled the very nature of ODI's. The nature of ODIs as i understood is of a mixture of Tests and T20s. Sometimes you have to play ODI's like T20s and sometimes like Tests......this forces the teams to make profound strategies then just bang bang or tuk tuk.....I don't think the importance of ODIs was this clear ever before......for all those who think ODIs are done or they should be modified are out of their mind....ODIs are a perfect balance and must stay the way they are.....perhaps the only modification could be the Referral system.

You don't want each and every game to be a nail biter either like T20's because then its hard to see the reward of a good innings or a good bowling spell. For example, in the T20 there have been many occasions where there has been a phenomenal innings played or a great bowling spell bowled. I.e SA VS Pak in semis and Kallis's innings.....yet SA lost. And in the final......Razzaq's three quick wickets yet the game got too close and the impact of Razzaq's spell seemed very low or perhaps less significant then what it may have in an ODI......in order for these types of exceptional performances to be rewarded properly in games, i personally think ODIs are the best platform.....

Nicely done Faisal.

 

[wpdavid]

The first 2020WC was pretty good iirc.

And yes, of course all of the ICC comps have been better than the recent WC's for all the reasons previously stated.

 

[wpdavid]

And it gave every team a fair chance to compete (well except SA)

SA'd have had more of a chance if they hadn't deliberately bowled thslowly to deprive England of the final few slog overs.

 

[Faisal1985]

Nicely done Faisal.

Thank you Sir.

 

[brackenNY]

The first 2020WC was pretty good iirc.

Yeah but that wasn't an ODI tourney.

 

[DingDong]

wrong thread.

 

[silentstriker]

I think most people know that I hate limited overs format. I hate it with a passion. However, they are certainly the financial backbone of world cricket, and we have to live with such formats, I would be content with competitions such as these. Short, no meaningless games, good contest between bat and ball, and the best teams in the world playing almost every day. T20 has many of these things (especially the short part, which is #1 in my admittedly biased opinion), but if ODIs were simply short fast exciting tournaments once in a while, instead of seven game abominations, I would not mind as much. I still wouldn't like it, or particularly watch many of them, but it would be understandable.

Considering how much flak the ICC get, I think it's high time to praise them for hitting on pretty much the perfect formula and execution of an ODI format. Good for them, hopefully this becomes the standard from now on. WC may need to have more teams, but I hope they can keep a format that's similar.

 

[wpdavid]

I think most people know that I hate limited overs format. I hate it with a passion. However, they are certainly the financial backbone of world cricket, and we have to live with such formats, I would be content with competitions such as these. Short, no meaningless games, good contest between bat and ball, and the best teams in the world playing almost every day. T20 has many of these things (especially the short part, which is #1 in my admittedly biased opinion), but if ODIs were simply short fast exciting tournaments once in a while, instead of seven game abominations, I would not mind as much. I still wouldn't like it, or particularly watch many of them, but it would be understandable.

Considering how much flak the ICC get, I think it's high time to praise them for hitting on pretty much the perfect formula and execution of an ODI format. Good for them, hopefully this becomes the standard from now on. WC may need to have more teams, but I hope they can keep a format that's similar.

The WC's not hard to sort out - 12 teams instead of 16, 3 groups of 4, top 2 go through to Super 6, then semis and final. Way less meaningless games whilst still exposing the better associate sides. And yes I know Ireland wouldn't have qualified for the last WC under that system, but so what.

 

[Uppercut]

It would grate me that we'd have to compete against (essentially) every non-test playing nation in the world for two places while Zimbabwe and Bangladesh (who we tied with/beat in the last WC anyway) get there automatically.

 

[wpdavid]

It would grate me that we'd have to compete against (essentially) every non-test playing nation in the world for two places while Zimbabwe and Bangladesh (who we tied with/beat in the last WC anyway) get there automatically.

I can understand that. And clearly the Zim situation in particular is a complete nonsense. I suppose for me the loss of loads of hopelessly onesided affairs massively outweighs the degree of unfairness in terms of who actually qualifies. I'd probably feel differently in your shoes.

 

[Uppercut]

The irony is that an extra "hopelessly one-sided affair" (against Pakistan in the group stages) would have made the whole tournament much better in your eyes. On one hand you say that Associate nations should be cut down because their games with test-playing nations aren't competitive enough, but on the other hand, if they weren't capable of competing, they'd be knocked out in the first round and there wouldn't be a problem.

Ireland's awkward position in relation to the test sides is what brings about the issue. We're no longer bad enough that test nations can count on beating us every time we play them, but we're not yet good enough to compete on a regular basis. Would cutting down the available spots for Associates at the World Cup really be an appropriate response to their ongoing improvement?

 

[wpdavid]

The irony is that an extra "hopelessly one-sided affair" (against Pakistan in the group stages) would have made the whole tournament much better in your eyes.

You sure I said that? I know others have commented on how Ireland reaching the 2nd stage helped ruin the WC, but that wasn't my point at all. Unless I've missed your point completely, in which case you'd better spell it out for me please.

On one hand you say that Associate nations should be cut down because their games with test-playing nations aren't competitive enough, but on the other hand, if they weren't capable of competing, they'd be knocked out in the first round and there wouldn't be a problem.

Ah yes, you must be talking about the weaker sides making it to the 2nd stage. As I said, that wasn't may point at all. As I thought I said at the time, the problem is that most of the associates' games in the 2007 WC were a complete waste of everyone's time. Obviously Ireland vs Pak was an exception, but were there any others? imo, and it in only my opinion, not enough to prevent the competition being devalued by far too many hopelessly lopsided games.

Ireland's awkward position in relation to the test sides is what brings about the issue. We're no longer bad enough that test nations can count on beating us every time we play them, but we're not yet good enough to compete on a regular basis. Would cutting down the available spots for Associates at the World Cup really be an appropriate response to their ongoing improvement?

Well it would be if they were regularly beating the other associates to ensure that they gained one of the small number of places available to them. As you said earlier, it would also help if they were playing on a level playing field with bang & Zim.