How many nations do you prefer for the 2015 WC?

[Flem274*]

To all you sanctimonious, elitist, statistic brandishing ****** how can a tournament be called a "world cup" if the tournament is a closed shop? All of these arguments about quality and statistics are just symptomatic of the narrow-minded cult like edifice that is the ICC. What other sport worldwide advocates the total segregation of teams based on some supposed level of quality which is impossible to measure accurately. How is it that a team can play world cup matches and win and yet still walk away with prize money that wouldn't even pay for the time and effort of attending the tournament, yet another team gets millions for winning nothing?

In football nobody says that San Marino should be excluded on grounds of quality, nobody cares if they lose to German 8-0. Nobody even cares if a new world record goal score happens against a weak team. The point is that these weak teams have a chance.

I'm not surprised by any of this as despite being called the International Cricket Council the ICC still maintains that Elitist attitude of the Imperial Cricket Council. The Only answer that makes sense is braking away from this corrupt force and forming a truly fair and sporting institution, a governing body that puts the sport first and consigns the elitists to the age of Amateur captains and fat, over Lunched batsmen.

Incidentally I believe the world cup should be abolished and replaced with an Ice hockey style International league structure with promotion and relegation between the divisions.

AWTA to an extent. Associates should certainly get a chance in ODIs.

Re Tests: I certainly think if Bangladesh deserve test status, the Ireland do as well, as long as the qualifying thing is reversed immediately if Morgan wants to play for them.

Though tbh I doubt any of the other associates are at Ireland/Bangladesh level unless we forgive Zimbabwe. I'd prefer FC tours to/from some nations to play A teams in a several match series buidling up to a one off FC game against national teams, along with these teams hosting and touring Bangladesh especially. See who can put up a decent scrap against the current nations before deciding what to do with them.

If these teams were given a fair go, I think we'd see decent but not outstanding FC players defecting to the minor teams, which builds a nice solid base for them (but that stupid qualification rule would need to be reversed. It should be wait four years before playing for a current test side, not the other way around).

Netherlands with Dirk Nannes would provide major lolz. Also gives NZ a chance to ship both Marshall brothers off to Ireland as well.

 

[Flem274*]

I'd also like to add that playing A teams would benefit the test sides as well. There isn't enough A team cricket played for my liking, and I believe the step between FC and test is good for seeing who might be up to it. While NZ A might not get as much out of playing Ireland as they would out of playing England A, it's still good time in the middle against FC standard teams.

EDIT: Sorry for the rambling but another idea is you could merge associates until they're strong enough to go their separate ways. Might be a struggle to set aside national rivalries though. Perhaps associate world XIs instead that tour the globe?

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think that 10 teams is too few. There has to be the carrot dangled for these teams to have something to work towards, and for many of them it is the WC - international exposure as a cricketing team, invaluable experience, etc.

T20 is not the answer, we need to be developing a wide range of skills for these players. The only reason that minnows have supposedly "interfered" with the World Cup is because they were good enough to beat the historically stronger teams. It seems ridiculous to then punish them by removing the possibility of them getting a game in the WC because of their collective "success" in improving to that stage.

 

[outbreak]

I think teams getting test status is a different issue (they should introduce a league system with the top 2 teams from the international cup taking over from the bottom 2 test teams and receiving test status).

But the world cup should put all nations on a level playing field and they need to introduce more structure that goes towards qualifying. I enjoy seeing sides that you normally don't get a chance to see comming onto the big stage and getting exposure. Afew of these minnows i rate as high as some of the test nations these days and on their day they could win afew games. I think it's just that the ICC always looks at things in terms of financial s and not in terms of the sport. For them if a major team gets knocked out early or doesn't qualify they'll be worried about the lost revenue. I don't see how cricket can grow with attitudes like this in the game.

 

[juro]

Lets have 16 teams:

Round 1, 4 pools of 4. Top 2 from each pool go through to round 2.

Round 2, 2 pools of 4. Top 2 from each pool go through to semi finals and final

That gives 3 games for the bottom 8, 6 games for teams 5-8 and up to 8 games if you make the final. There are 39 games total and not many mismatches.

 

[laksh_01]

Lets have 16 teams:

Round 1, 4 pools of 4. Top 2 from each pool go through to round 2.

Round 2, 2 pools of 4. Top 2 from each pool go through to semi finals and final

That gives 3 games for the bottom 8, 6 games for teams 5-8 and up to 8 games if you make the final. There are 39 games total and not many mismatches.

I prefer round 2 to be Quarter Finals. No more pools or super 8s. Simple 4 Quarters matches > 2 Semis > 1 Final = 7 Matches after groups. Perfectly done.

 

[juro]

My logic was a bit of a compromise, giving more games among the top teams.

I also like the idea of going straight to quarter finals. This gives the games maximum significance, raising the stakes for both the players and the audience. That would surely help to boost the ratings...

 

[laksh_01]

How many of u feel that ICC takes decisions too early in terms of everything?

Even the World cup qualifying slots are decided 2 years in advance, which i strongly disagree (Though it would have made sense for the qualified teams to prepare if they had regular matches against Test nations but without matches i disagree of qualifying 2 years in advance). For example - Afghanistan & Scotland who missed out of qualifying last year are way much stronger now at the point of WC than Kenya & Canada who qualified.If u ask me I would have chosen to conduct the Qualifiers 6-8 months ahead of the WC not 2 years or chosen the top 4 from WCL div 1.

 

[juro]

It's bewildering, isn't it. The teams that qualified 2 years ago may not bear any real resemblance to the teams that will turn up to the world cup.

Another option would have been for the top 6 from that world cup qualifier have gone through to another round, held where the WCL Division One tournament was held in July this year. Instead, the WCL Div One was held with no real relevance...

 

[turnstyle]

How many of u feel that ICC takes decisions too early in terms of everything?

Even the World cup qualifying slots are decided 2 years in advance, which i strongly disagree (Though it would have made sense for the qualified teams to prepare if they had regular matches against Test nations but without matches i disagree of qualifying 2 years in advance). For example - Afghanistan & Scotland who missed out of qualifying last year are way much stronger now at the point of WC than Kenya & Canada who qualified.If u ask me I would have chosen to conduct the Qualifiers 6-8 months ahead of the WC not 2 years or chosen the top 4 from WCL div 1.

Preparing for a World Cup isn't just limited to on field. Boards need time to organise sponsors etc. 2 years is fine.

 

[jashan83]

Preparing for a World Cup isn't just limited to on field. Boards need time to organise sponsors etc. 2 years is fine.

Guess wat now we finished the question abt when the Associate shud be selected

 

[turnstyle]

Guess wat now we finished the question abt when the Associate shud be selected

I'm hoping it's not as terrible as it sounds. I'd gladly give up a virtually guaranteed spot at a World Cup if it meant games in this odi league. Just seems so strange to scrap this and the Intercontinental Cup after such a vast improvement of teams 11-16 since it was introduced in 2004. Mind you, look what the ICC did to Namibia this year. Anythings possible with those bunch of arsshats in Dubai

 

[juro]

Yes, it could potentially be good if the ICC structure it right. However, our fears are understandable, and the ICC telling us not to worry doesn't help.

GIVE US THE DETAILS, ICC!!!

And while you're at it, give us the details for the World T20 tournament too! It is supposed to be held in 2012, right? 16 teams, right? How are teams supposed to qualify if there are no T20 matches held between the Associates and Affiliates? Is this going to be on invitation like the last qualifier where the USA got invited despite low ranking in the WCL?

GIVE US THE DETAILS, ICC!!!

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

Indeed.

Frankly I can't see any grounds at all to have anything less than eleven teams - we have eleven pretty damn competitve ODI teams at the very least. Eleven's a funny number though so we'd be stuck with twelve, and I don't think that's a bad thing at all with Afghanistan's progress.

I voted for sixteen though. I think seeing different countries represented and allowed different cricketers is one of the best things about the World Cup. I'd be much more interested in seeing a rare televised Ireland v Scotland encounter than yet another India v Sri Lanka contest as one of a thousand second tier group games. Who could ever forget John Davison's hundred against the West Indies? Or Dwayne Leverock's catch? Or Ireland's victory of Pakistan which I still rate as my favourite ever game of international cricket? Ireland's tie with Zimbabwe was a great contest too, and I still have fond memories of Jeremy Bray's century - although I admit those two are stretching it a bit for the casual cricket follower. These moments are what make the initial stage of the tournament interesting and exciting and for me they're just as special as the last few games for that reason.

We do have to make sure we get the format right - there's a fine balance between ensuring the associate stage of the tournament doesn't last too long and providing them with sample sizes big enough to avoid complete flukes - but they definitely have a massive place in the tournament for mine. I'm thoroughly disappointed that we'll be seeing less of them and calls for them to just play the T20 tournament instead no only show a ignorance towards the strengths of teams like Ireland and Zimbabwe and the overall improvement in proper cricket skills of the associate nations but are a genuine slap in the face.

 

[_Ed_]

Or Dwayne Leverock's catch?

One of the greatest moments in World Cup history.