-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
How many nations do you prefer for the 2015 WC?
- Thread starter laksh_01
- Start date
One of the best written comments I have ever read on CW. It is presently not International but Imperial, earlier managed by greed of England Australia and Now South Asia. People controlling have changed but attitude's have not
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Personally I disagree with those points to a degree.
You cannot equate the football world cup (which has a lot more countries entering it) with the Cricket World Cup and there is a qualifying tournament where in theory any team can make it to the World Cup.
I think the associate nations are better served by being given more spaces in the T20 than they are in ODIs.
You cannot equate the football world cup (which has a lot more countries entering it) with the Cricket World Cup and there is a qualifying tournament where in theory any team can make it to the World Cup.
I think the associate nations are better served by being given more spaces in the T20 than they are in ODIs.
Janus
School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Tokenism! The hallmark of an elitist system is to provide inferior fair to the disadvantaged and fob it off as generosity. T20 is not enough, full equal play is the only fair system that can remove this sense of superiority that pervades all levels of cricket in the Full members.
The Number of Countries is not an excuse. There are plenty of less popular sports whose governing bodies recognise that an open structure is the only one that is healthy for the game. Without an open structure cricket will contract and decay and rot. It will be a remnant of the past without any meaning to those outside and ever dwindling club.
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Funny how you call it an ever-dwindling club when more and more nations are taking it up.
Everybody has a chance of making the World Cup, it just will take them some time.
There is absolutely no benefit in setting up a qualifying competition where Test nations play small nations, as the result in a 50 overs game would be a foregone conclusion. By letting nations of similar standards playing each other, they actually get a chance to improve their abilities, rather than being steamrollered every game.
T20 is a lot better option because there is more chance of a competitive game owing to the length of the game. The better sides will come through over time, and if they end up becoming competitive then the ICC will allow them into more competitions.
Everybody has a chance of making the World Cup, it just will take them some time.
There is absolutely no benefit in setting up a qualifying competition where Test nations play small nations, as the result in a 50 overs game would be a foregone conclusion. By letting nations of similar standards playing each other, they actually get a chance to improve their abilities, rather than being steamrollered every game.
T20 is a lot better option because there is more chance of a competitive game owing to the length of the game. The better sides will come through over time, and if they end up becoming competitive then the ICC will allow them into more competitions.
Janus
School Boy/Girl Cricketer
It won't be a growing sport though if the ICC introduce a ten team world cup as it will be practically impossible to break into an elite of over financed nations when yours is financially crippled by being excluded from the television and sponsorship revenue that the world cup brings. Zimbabwe and Ireland's prize money from the 2007 world cup being the case in point here.
And I don't advocate a free for all either. The reason I mentioned the Ice Hockey tournament is because I'd like to see a promotion and relegation style system. quality is maintained while being open and fair.
And I don't advocate a free for all either. The reason I mentioned the Ice Hockey tournament is because I'd like to see a promotion and relegation style system. quality is maintained while being open and fair.
Janus
School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Only in ODI though. Test cricket shouldn't be some sacred cow only for the privileged few. All forms of cricket should be open to rigorous competition, without that how will Test cricket grow and strengthen?
Any do tell me how one is supposed to become competitive when the Full members are taking all of the revenue and associates are left with mere scraps?
Last edited:
laksh_01
State Vice-Captain
The ICC Chief Executives' Committee has recommended to the ICC Board that the 2015 Cricket World Cup should consist of just ten countries. The ICC Board is due to meet on 11 October.
Don't be fooled into thinking that by reducing the competition to ten teams that there will be less games or the tournament will reduce in length - ICC are committed to having at least 48 games for the broadcasters!
Join with cricket lovers around the world and show how that you disagree with this recommendation by signing up to our online petition.
ICC Cricket World Cup Petition
Don't be fooled into thinking that by reducing the competition to ten teams that there will be less games or the tournament will reduce in length - ICC are committed to having at least 48 games for the broadcasters!
Join with cricket lovers around the world and show how that you disagree with this recommendation by signing up to our online petition.
ICC Cricket World Cup Petition
slugger
State Vice-Captain
It doesnt matter what number you decide on to make the world cup, its the qualifing thats the issue, as ive suggested the CT tournment is best suited for this allow 16 teams to enter in a ko system, the top 8 teams are randomly drawn off aginst the bottom 8 teams. over a four year period the points accumaleted from when a team exit's the ct tournment qualify for the world cup.
exit at round one 1 point (8 teams)
exit at round two 2 points (4 teams)
exit at round three 3 point (2 teams)
exit at round four 4 points (1 team) Runner up
exit at round five 5 points (1 team) Winner
the associate nations are trying to qualify for the ct tournment and because its yearly they are always improving.
exit at round one 1 point (8 teams)
exit at round two 2 points (4 teams)
exit at round three 3 point (2 teams)
exit at round four 4 points (1 team) Runner up
exit at round five 5 points (1 team) Winner
the associate nations are trying to qualify for the ct tournment and because its yearly they are always improving.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
FWIW Ireland are much more likely to cause an upset in a 50-over game than in 20 overs. They're just much better suited to 50 over cricket. I realise that's the exception, but still. It's odd to imply that Associates should play T20 because they're more likely to be competitive when the only reason people want rid of them is because they had the cheek to be competitive in the first place.
Debris
International 12th Man
I always think that a World Cup should take as many teams as it can logistically, that is the point of the World Cup. Not sure if more than 16 is possible logistically but more is better. I realise that there would be some very lop-sided games but they can be entertaining in their own way. All the major sports seems to have at least 16 and the bad teams often get smashed. And I do like to watch the sides that you don't usually get to see. Seedings will sort the groups out so they are even.
Last edited:
laksh_01
State Vice-Captain
Taken from Cricket Europe
In recent years, fielding in cricket has adopted many tactics from the world of baseball, and cricket fielding has improved as a result. Mike Young, a former manager in minor league baseball, is widely regarded as one of cricket's finest fielding coaches, and has worked with many national sides.
But there is something else baseball can teach cricket – how to treat the smaller teams in a world cup.
In 2006, Major League Baseball launched the World Baseball Classic, an international baseball tournament. Whilst there was already a Baseball World Cup, dating back to 1938, the WBC would be the first tournament to include players from Major League Baseball and the Japanese professional league.
Whilst baseball is often thought of as a sport played in just a handful of countries, 16 teams were invited to participate in the event. Predictably, this attracted some criticism, with the talk of horrendous mismatches being similar to that we see ahead of the Cricket World Cup.
And sure enough, the smaller teams didn't impress all that much. However, the general consensus amongst baseball journalists, players and officials wasn't to say “let's get rid of them for the next tournament”, it was instead “let's hope they learn from their experience and come back stronger next time”.
And sure enough, in the 2009 tournament, the smaller countries began making waves. Italy beat Canada, Australia beat Mexico, and a Dutch team made up almost entirely of players from the Dutch national league twice beat a Dominican Republic team full of MLB players and ended up finishing seventh in the tournament.
This has been the catalyst for the decision to expand the 2013 tournament to twenty, or possibly twenty four, teams. This stands in direct contrast to cricket, where the performances of Kenya in 2003 and Ireland in 2007 seem to be the catalyst for a reduction in teams.
Other sports are also much more keen to include the so-called minnows in their flagship events. The Rugby League World Cup will expand from 10 to 14 teams in 2013, whilst the other rugby code recently rejected proposals to cut its world cup from 20 teams to 16. Basketball expanded its World Championship from 16 teams to 24 in 2006 precisely due to the increased competitiveness of the sport's less well established sides. The plan is to expand to 32 teams in the near future.
In addition, where a sport has automatic qualifiers for their tournaments, they are usually the hosts and the best performing teams. In Rugby Union, it's the top 12 teams from the previous tournament, and has been as few as the four semi-finalists in the past. Tradition counts for nothing – England had to qualify for the 1999 tournament.
Cricket, on the other hand, doesn't care how well you do – if you're not one of the sainted few, you have to qualify. Ireland finished ahead of three full members at the 2007 World Cup, and still had to qualify, whilst India, Pakistan and Zimbabwe were all given automatic entry. At the 2009 World Twenty20, Ireland and the Netherlands both finished ahead of Bangladesh and Australia, but still had to qualify for the 2010 event, with Bangladesh and Australia along with Zimbabwe – who didn't even play in 2009 – given automatic entry.
The problem with the cricket world cup is not the participation of the “minnows”, it is with the format of the tournament. The ICC made the ludicrous decision to specify a minimum number of matches in the world cup in its TV rights deal with ESPN. This meant that the swift and compact sixteen teams in four groups round one in 2007 was followed by a long and drawn out Super Eight stage that seemed to never end. Combined with silly ICC rules that stripped all the atmosphere of West Indies cricket from the tournament, the event was widely considered a disaster even before the farcical final.
This led to a reformat for 2011, where two groups of seven will be played – the format that was criticised as being long and unwieldy at the 2003 World Cup in South Africa. This will be followed by quarter finals, which were criticised in 1996 when South Africa were eliminated at that stage after winning all five of their group games.
For 2015 then, it's looking like we'll have ten teams. For those of you thinking it will be a streamlined tournament with two groups of five teams each – forget about it. It's likely to be a repeat of the 1992 tournament when all the participating teams will be grouped together. This would lead to a grand total of 45 first round games. It is highly unlikely that the ICC will settle for two games on one day for TV reasons, so that means that in a time period in which most other sports have played their entire tournament, cricket will still be playing the first round. The semi-final line-up could be decided with as many as a dozen matches still to be played.
It will likely be, to be blunt, dull. It will lead to calls to reduce the teams even further, making it even more unlikely for any associate/affiliate representation in what the ICC claims is its flagship tournament.
So what format should be used? Whilst some are proposing a 12 team format, I would prefer a return to 16 teams. Four groups of four in the first round, followed by a straight knock-out from the last eight onwards. Almost every game will count with the bare minimum of dead games. If one of the big boys goes down early on, that shouldn't be seen as bad for the tournament, it should be seen as good for the sport.
The ICC are failing in their duty to protect the sport. The attitudes in place now are an indication of the ICC's past as a branch of the MCC – a gentlemen's club style attitude of exclusivity and wanting to protect the interests of the main members. It's an anachronism in the world in which we now live. How ironic that the MCC is now seen as a more forward thinking organisation than the organisation it spawned.
That the main international baseball tournament could, in a few years time, have twice as many participants as the cricket world cup should be seen as a disgrace by all at the ICC. Sadly, they probably don't care, as long as the money keeps rolling into the coffers.
The relentless pursuit of money at the cost of actually developing the sport is a betrayal of the principles of the spirit of cricket. “Catch the Spirit”, said the ICC's slogan in their centenary year in 2009. Catch it? The ICC are about to drop it.
In recent years, fielding in cricket has adopted many tactics from the world of baseball, and cricket fielding has improved as a result. Mike Young, a former manager in minor league baseball, is widely regarded as one of cricket's finest fielding coaches, and has worked with many national sides.
But there is something else baseball can teach cricket – how to treat the smaller teams in a world cup.
In 2006, Major League Baseball launched the World Baseball Classic, an international baseball tournament. Whilst there was already a Baseball World Cup, dating back to 1938, the WBC would be the first tournament to include players from Major League Baseball and the Japanese professional league.
Whilst baseball is often thought of as a sport played in just a handful of countries, 16 teams were invited to participate in the event. Predictably, this attracted some criticism, with the talk of horrendous mismatches being similar to that we see ahead of the Cricket World Cup.
And sure enough, the smaller teams didn't impress all that much. However, the general consensus amongst baseball journalists, players and officials wasn't to say “let's get rid of them for the next tournament”, it was instead “let's hope they learn from their experience and come back stronger next time”.
And sure enough, in the 2009 tournament, the smaller countries began making waves. Italy beat Canada, Australia beat Mexico, and a Dutch team made up almost entirely of players from the Dutch national league twice beat a Dominican Republic team full of MLB players and ended up finishing seventh in the tournament.
This has been the catalyst for the decision to expand the 2013 tournament to twenty, or possibly twenty four, teams. This stands in direct contrast to cricket, where the performances of Kenya in 2003 and Ireland in 2007 seem to be the catalyst for a reduction in teams.
Other sports are also much more keen to include the so-called minnows in their flagship events. The Rugby League World Cup will expand from 10 to 14 teams in 2013, whilst the other rugby code recently rejected proposals to cut its world cup from 20 teams to 16. Basketball expanded its World Championship from 16 teams to 24 in 2006 precisely due to the increased competitiveness of the sport's less well established sides. The plan is to expand to 32 teams in the near future.
In addition, where a sport has automatic qualifiers for their tournaments, they are usually the hosts and the best performing teams. In Rugby Union, it's the top 12 teams from the previous tournament, and has been as few as the four semi-finalists in the past. Tradition counts for nothing – England had to qualify for the 1999 tournament.
Cricket, on the other hand, doesn't care how well you do – if you're not one of the sainted few, you have to qualify. Ireland finished ahead of three full members at the 2007 World Cup, and still had to qualify, whilst India, Pakistan and Zimbabwe were all given automatic entry. At the 2009 World Twenty20, Ireland and the Netherlands both finished ahead of Bangladesh and Australia, but still had to qualify for the 2010 event, with Bangladesh and Australia along with Zimbabwe – who didn't even play in 2009 – given automatic entry.
The problem with the cricket world cup is not the participation of the “minnows”, it is with the format of the tournament. The ICC made the ludicrous decision to specify a minimum number of matches in the world cup in its TV rights deal with ESPN. This meant that the swift and compact sixteen teams in four groups round one in 2007 was followed by a long and drawn out Super Eight stage that seemed to never end. Combined with silly ICC rules that stripped all the atmosphere of West Indies cricket from the tournament, the event was widely considered a disaster even before the farcical final.
This led to a reformat for 2011, where two groups of seven will be played – the format that was criticised as being long and unwieldy at the 2003 World Cup in South Africa. This will be followed by quarter finals, which were criticised in 1996 when South Africa were eliminated at that stage after winning all five of their group games.
For 2015 then, it's looking like we'll have ten teams. For those of you thinking it will be a streamlined tournament with two groups of five teams each – forget about it. It's likely to be a repeat of the 1992 tournament when all the participating teams will be grouped together. This would lead to a grand total of 45 first round games. It is highly unlikely that the ICC will settle for two games on one day for TV reasons, so that means that in a time period in which most other sports have played their entire tournament, cricket will still be playing the first round. The semi-final line-up could be decided with as many as a dozen matches still to be played.
It will likely be, to be blunt, dull. It will lead to calls to reduce the teams even further, making it even more unlikely for any associate/affiliate representation in what the ICC claims is its flagship tournament.
So what format should be used? Whilst some are proposing a 12 team format, I would prefer a return to 16 teams. Four groups of four in the first round, followed by a straight knock-out from the last eight onwards. Almost every game will count with the bare minimum of dead games. If one of the big boys goes down early on, that shouldn't be seen as bad for the tournament, it should be seen as good for the sport.
The ICC are failing in their duty to protect the sport. The attitudes in place now are an indication of the ICC's past as a branch of the MCC – a gentlemen's club style attitude of exclusivity and wanting to protect the interests of the main members. It's an anachronism in the world in which we now live. How ironic that the MCC is now seen as a more forward thinking organisation than the organisation it spawned.
That the main international baseball tournament could, in a few years time, have twice as many participants as the cricket world cup should be seen as a disgrace by all at the ICC. Sadly, they probably don't care, as long as the money keeps rolling into the coffers.
The relentless pursuit of money at the cost of actually developing the sport is a betrayal of the principles of the spirit of cricket. “Catch the Spirit”, said the ICC's slogan in their centenary year in 2009. Catch it? The ICC are about to drop it.
ozone
First Class Debutant
The Cricket World Cup is (and has been for as long as I can remember) been geared towards ensuring that the top sides all play each other at least once. This makes sense from a commercial point of view, and therefore goes some of the way to justifying the 'Super' stage of the tournament where the best teams play each other. However, I completely agree with the notion that more minnows need to become involved in the tournament if cricket wants to expand to become a worldwide sport and I would personally expect to see them playing in the ICCs main tournament, rather than to pass them off into the Champions Trophy.
I would therefore support the idea of a 16 team tournament with 4 seeded groups of 4, the top two in each group progressing to the super 8's stage where they separate to two more groups of 4. The top 4 teams would then go into a knockout format. This would provide a 39 game tournament and (assuming the highest seeds progress) would see the winning side playing up to 6 of the other top 8. To win the tournament, a side would have to play 8 games, winning at least 6.
The T20 WC would also be expanded eventually to 24 sides (gradually expanding from 12-18) divided into groups of three with the final aim to be only the top side going into the Super phase. With the full 24 sides, the Super 8's would then work similarly to the WC.
I would scrap the Champions Trophy.
I would therefore support the idea of a 16 team tournament with 4 seeded groups of 4, the top two in each group progressing to the super 8's stage where they separate to two more groups of 4. The top 4 teams would then go into a knockout format. This would provide a 39 game tournament and (assuming the highest seeds progress) would see the winning side playing up to 6 of the other top 8. To win the tournament, a side would have to play 8 games, winning at least 6.
The T20 WC would also be expanded eventually to 24 sides (gradually expanding from 12-18) divided into groups of three with the final aim to be only the top side going into the Super phase. With the full 24 sides, the Super 8's would then work similarly to the WC.
I would scrap the Champions Trophy.
