does the super 8 go to long

[Richard]

Even more said, though, I think, by the fact that of the 1999 England and Australia u19 squads of 28 players in total, 6 Australians and 2 Englishmen have made serious careers in the professional game (though several have hung around on the fringes - Daniel Harris, Graham Napier, etc.) - and just 2 (Bell and Clarke) have become viable Test players, to date at least. And only in the cases of Voges, Johnson and maybe Foster is there even the possibility of that changing, really.

 

[Craig]

Nathan Hauritz batted #3 for Australia Under 19s once, and Vikram Solanki was the main spinner for England Under 19s once. Says a lot, really.

Not at your post directly, but at the examples you posted

 

[cricman]

I think U-19 players/perfromances are More Significant in Asian Sides than the rest of the world. The U-19 players that play for pakistan, India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh are introduced to FC alot earlier than U-19 players from the rest of the world and you see that more teenagers play international cricket from the subcontient than the rest of the world

 

[LA ICE-E]

true that. jus look at the 3 bangladeshis that are playing right now in the wc

 

[pup11]

Not only Bangladesh look at India almost every new-young-player who comes into the Indian team comes on the basis of good U-19 performances. Eg: Yuvraj,Kaif,Raina,Pathan,D.Karthik,Uthappa,P.Chawla and many others have been selected to play for India just on the basis of good U-19 performances without even playing first-class cricket, thats why all these cricketers have had a tough time after making a good start at the international level.

 

[pup11]

Hayden: The WC is too long.

Now Hayden is saying that this WC is too long a tournament and how he is unhappy with the facilities at the grounds, I mean with the kind of form Hayden is in atm why would he ever want this WC to finish.


Anyways this is the article regarding Hayden's comments:
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/australia/content/story/289931.html

 

[Craig]

I think he is correct 100%.

Now at the risk of being ripped to shreds by Camps, what is it with the West Indian cricket associations managing to screw everything up? From the domestic structure (like getting rid of the West Indies 'B' team) to this?

 

[pasag]

Was the same length in 2003 iirc.

 

[Jamee999]

And 3 wins (especially the first, being a dead and quite-possibly-fixed game) is nothing in the way of evidence of being ODI-class.

It shows progress, as does the SA game.

 

[LA ICE-E]

And 3 wins (especially the first, being a dead and quite-possibly-fixed game) is nothing in the way of evidence of being ODI-class.

fixed? the first wasn't fixed or at least that we know of, and that's a really bad excuse. Every time a minnow like bangladesh then and ireland now beats top 8 team, there's talks about match fixing what the hell..

 

[LA ICE-E]

they are going to have two matches a day for the super 8, i think for the next one(exactly was my suggestion)

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/wc2007/content/current/story/290096.html

 

[Craig]

I was thinking today that if we have the Super 8s and it being admitted that it goes too long, why not have it in a Group stage, going off the tables here:

The way I have is that you have Group 1 and Group 2, with the winners of Group A and Group D top Group 2, then winners of Group B would be in Group 1 and winners of Group C go into Group 2 and then the runners up in Group A and B go into Group 2 and the runners up C and D go into Group 1 (Avoid teams playing each other twice especially after the round robin stage is over).

So it would look like:

Group stage:

Group 1
* Austalia
* Sri Lanka
* England
* Ireland

Group 2
* West Indies
* New Zealand
* South Africa
* Bangladesh

Every team would play each team in the their respective Groups once and I would wipe the slate clean with no points carried over and Net Run Rate only applies if there is a tie or match abandoned and the Reserve Day is unplayable as well.

Semi Finals:

Semi Final 1: Winner Group 1 v Runner up Group 2
Semi Final 2: Winner Group 2 v Runner up Group 1

Final:

Winner Semi Final 1 v Semi Final 2

All games would have Reserve Days.

So what do people think? Good or not, let me hear your feedback.

 

[Matt79]

Yep - too long. Games every second day, on average, would be more appropriate than games every fourth day on average, which is the situation in this WC.

 

[Craig]

Yep - too long. Games every second day, on average, would be more appropriate than games every fourth day on average, which is the situation in this WC.

Well for the West Indies had a space of 19 days between games. I mean it would get pretty boring, you can only train so much and surely any form/match fitness would start to drop from not playing all that often.

 

[marc71178]

Yep - too long. Games every second day, on average, would be more appropriate than games every fourth day on average, which is the situation in this WC.

The only reason it's 1 game a day at the moment is because the ICC wanted rain days this time following the problems caused in SA by rain.

We've been fortunate that there's not really been any major rain to disrupt it this time round (so far) but had they not provided for it, sods law dictates we'd have had a lot of rain!

 

[LA ICE-E]

I was thinking today that if we have the Super 8s and it being admitted that it goes too long, why not have it in a Group stage, going off the tables here:

The way I have is that you have Group 1 and Group 2, with the winners of Group A and Group D top Group 2, then winners of Group B would be in Group 1 and winners of Group C go into Group 2 and then the runners up in Group A and B go into Group 2 and the runners up C and D go into Group 1 (Avoid teams playing each other twice especially after the round robin stage is over).

So it would look like:

Group stage:

Group 1
* Austalia
* Sri Lanka
* England
* Ireland

Group 2
* West Indies
* New Zealand
* South Africa
* Bangladesh

Every team would play each team in the their respective Groups once and I would wipe the slate clean with no points carried over and Net Run Rate only applies if there is a tie or match abandoned and the Reserve Day is unplayable as well.

Semi Finals:

Semi Final 1: Winner Group 1 v Runner up Group 2
Semi Final 2: Winner Group 2 v Runner up Group 1

Final:

Winner Semi Final 1 v Semi Final 2

All games would have Reserve Days.

So what do people think? Good or not, let me hear your feedback.

yeah that be good too and is being used in the 20/20 wc, or quarter finals or having two games a day, couldn't they have reserve days even if it was two games a day? cause they had reserve days for the group stage and that was two a day.

 

[nightprowler10]

I was thinking today that if we have the Super 8s and it being admitted that it goes too long, why not have it in a Group stage, going off the tables here:

The way I have is that you have Group 1 and Group 2, with the winners of Group A and Group D top Group 2, then winners of Group B would be in Group 1 and winners of Group C go into Group 2 and then the runners up in Group A and B go into Group 2 and the runners up C and D go into Group 1 (Avoid teams playing each other twice especially after the round robin stage is over).

So it would look like:

Group stage:

Group 1
* Austalia
* Sri Lanka
* England
* Ireland

Group 2
* West Indies
* New Zealand
* South Africa
* Bangladesh

Every team would play each team in the their respective Groups once and I would wipe the slate clean with no points carried over and Net Run Rate only applies if there is a tie or match abandoned and the Reserve Day is unplayable as well.

Semi Finals:

Semi Final 1: Winner Group 1 v Runner up Group 2
Semi Final 2: Winner Group 2 v Runner up Group 1

Final:

Winner Semi Final 1 v Semi Final 2

All games would have Reserve Days.

So what do people think? Good or not, let me hear your feedback.

Not bad at all if they have to keep the super 8s. Personally I'd prefer they go back to the footy-like system they used in '96.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Not bad at all if they have to keep the super 8s.

that's what i suggested before even the tournament started but some of there that i said, i changed my mind about but still that wouldn't be a bad format.
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22014

 

[LA ICE-E]

oh and you know how people are saying the current format is a bad one, and well the biggest critic of it- richard said this in the beginnings and a lot of people were saying this is the best format just like him and then you see all of a sudden it changes when the big moneys are out.

I don't have any problem with the current format (I do have a problem with ANY game involving a non-ODI-standard team being classed ODI), I think it's impossibly better than those used in 1996, 2003 and 1999 - get the one-sided games out of the way first, even if it does mean having 8 substandard teams in the competition.

There's no harm in having the substandard teams play up-to-standard teams if it's just making a quick, graceful exit and enjoying the time they spend there.

This current format is the best used since 1992, as I've said more than a few times. The Super Eight and the 1 group-game involving ODI-standard teams in each group should be great viewing.

 

[LA ICE-E]

looks like the next wc isn't going to be any shorter, but longer. 53 matches, now then what will be the format? because the current one has 51 not 53 so what possible formats could we have?I would prefer to have the same format with quarter finals or two groups for the super 8. Because if you have four groups then you could have a home team in each group and that gives you great crowds. http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/pakistan/content/story/290430.html