Fate of 2011 World Cup

[Matt79]

GAGFNZ....

But Scotland needs somewhere to play Bermuda.

 

[Smudge]

I don't think it'd be in the game's best interests to hold a cricket World Cup final in NZ. Firstly, we're a fickle lot when it comes to cricket, and I wouldn't even guarantee that we'd sell it out (if you used the hypothetical situation of no visiting fans whatsoever - which obviously there'd be). And secondly, where would they play it? Eden Park is a horrible ground for cricket, and the Caketin could probably only fit in about 32,000 once you ruled out areas behind/near the sightscreens.

 

[Evermind]

Replace Pakistan with Nepal

 

[Richard]

And had Zimbabwe been in a better state, it would have been almost a co-host in 2003 IMO.

Despite the fact it wasn't in a fit state, it still managed to be a co-host in 2003.

 

[Richard]

The Tri-Series had if memory serves five matches between each of the teams

Only once after 1985/86 did it have five matches per team. It went thus:
1979/80: three
1980/81 & 1981/82: six
1982/83-1985/86: five
1986/87-1993/94: four
(1994/95 is excluded because it wasn't a tri-series but a quadrangular)
1995/96: four
1996/97: three
1997/98: four
1998/99: five
1999/2000, 2000/01, 2002/03, 2003/04, 2005/06, 2006/07, 2007/08: four
2001/02 & 2004/05: three

There was precious little consistency apart from the '86/87-'93/94 years, but four per team was much the most common number (having this in 17 out of the 28 editions). Five was employed 5 times, six 2 and three 4. And as I say, there was also a quadrangular which employed a different format entirely including some games which weren't ODIs.

 

[Sanz]

India should be hosting the world cup on its own. If that is not possible then it should be switched over to Alternate venue.

 

[_Ed_]

Despite the fact it wasn't in a fit state, it still managed to be a co-host in 2003.

Probably wrong wording on my part. They only hosted games involving Zimbabwe in 03, but they may well have had many more games, including some big clashes between top teams (but not SA of course), had the circumstances been different.

 

[Richard]

I'm not totally sure they would TBH. The Cup was awarded to South Africa exclusively; the SAfrican govornment decided to make it more African by giving Zimbabwe's group games to Zimbabwe and a couple of Kenyan games to Kenya. I don't think they'd have given any more to either country if said countries had been in a better state. Principally this is because the SA govornment refused to accept that both countries were in a d-i-r-e state at all.

 

[andruid]

India should be hosting the world cup on its own. If that is not possible then it should be switched over to Alternate venue.

Kenya

 

[Harry Harrison]

I still say dump Pakistan and hold it in India/SL/Bang if the players have no problems touring the last three.

Indiaaaaaaaaaa

Its nice to see that there is a person who is unaware of what was happened in Mumbai. Just 10 boys conquered the biggest city of India. All Cricketers and cricket boards are not greedy to go and play in India as England did. They did just to get some money from IPL. Poor cricket board put their team in danger.

India and secure place