India will tour Bangladesh in December

[tooextracool]

So what should be done to restore the credibility of the Cricket World Cup ?? Here are your choices :-

1. Hand over the World Cup to England ??
2. Let Top Six Teams in ODIs qualify for Super Six ??
3. If Kenya & Zimbabwe reach the Super Six, throw them out and give their spot to England and some other team despite the fact that they lost majority of their matches ??

quite besides the point really....everything seems to be about india-england to you.
my point was that kenya didnt deserve to make the semi finals of the world cup just as zimbabwe didnt deserve to reach the super six....credibility was lost there and you seemed to be completely with kenya and zimbabwe progressing into the super six stage.

 

[tooextracool]

Erm, England didn't play well enough to win the game, and Portugal deserved the win.

although they're defence was poor......but yes they did play better,eriksson was the one who lost the game IMO.

 

[Sanz]

Erm, England didn't play well enough to win the game, and Portugal deserved the win.

And you think England played well enough in the world cup to get a super six spot ??

 

[marc71178]

I think that had they played Zimbabwe they would've had 3 wins from the first 3 games - that gives them confidence into the more difficult games they then encountered.

 

[Sanz]

Kenya and Zimbabwe did not, no matter how many ties you try to rephrase it.

What do you mean by that ? In first round Kenya and England both won 3 matches each. Kenya did play better than England, Pakistan, SA, & WI and deserved its place in the Super Six no mathow many times you repeat your post.

As for Zimbabwe, They were robbed of their chance by English Boycott and I am glad they were awarded the points.

 

[Sanz]

quite besides the point really....everything seems to be about india-england to you.
my point was that kenya didnt deserve to make the semi finals of the world cup just as zimbabwe didnt deserve to reach the super six....credibility was lost there and you seemed to be completely with kenya and zimbabwe progressing into the super six stage.

India-England ?? Where did I talk about India in this thread, The only reason I am talking about England is because England was the country which had the most chance of making to the Super-Six and then to Semifinals.

I dont understand what do you mean when you say 'Kenya didn't deserve' or 'Zimbabwe didn't deserve' ?? If these two countries didn't derserve then who did ?? England, which lost its matches to Australia and India and boycotted the match against Zimbabwe ?? Or NZ which failed to win more matches than Kenya in the Super Six ??

There was no credibility lost, its only sour grapes for some people.

 

[tooextracool]

I dont understand what do you mean when you say 'Kenya didn't deserve' or 'Zimbabwe didn't deserve' ?? If these two countries didn't derserve then who did ?? England, which lost its matches to Australia and India and boycotted the match against Zimbabwe ?? Or NZ which failed to win more matches than Kenya in the Super Six ??

england and NZ won more games by their performances on field than kenya and zimbabwe did.....i dont see how you can count those boycotted matches as wins for zim and kenya.

There was no credibility lost, its only sour grapes for some people.

im quite certain that if most of the matches between minnows and test playing nations were rained off and canada,zimbabwe,kenya etc get into the semi finals you would still say that there was no credibility lost. im also quite sure that millions of people would flock in to see a zim vs kenya game in the super six stage.....if credibility wasnt lost then why are the icc implementing changes to the wc format so that it makes it harder for teams like kenya to reach the super six??

 

[Sanz]

england and NZ won more games by their performances on field than kenya and zimbabwe did.....i dont see how you can count those boycotted matches as wins for zim and kenya.

NZ won more matches than Kenya on the field but England ?? Even if you remove their game against NZ, they still won 3 games which is same as England. How can you say that England won more matches than Kenya. It is not Kenya's fault If NZ decided to not play against them. As for Zimbawe, Now tell me what they could have done to stop the Rain (what did England do in 1992 when Pakistan was 78 all out ?) or if England decided to boycott the game ?? Clearly they were denied a chance to perform and that's why they were awarded the point and England and NZ were penalized and rightly so.

im quite certain that if most of the matches between minnows and test playing nations were rained off and canada,zimbabwe,kenya etc get into the semi finals you would still say that there was no credibility lost.

It will take a Huge miracle for something like above to happen. I mean imagine a situation where all the matches between minnows and test playing nations will be rained off, then Canada, Kenya and Zimbabwe reaching the Semi Finals. The fact that none of this happened and there were more matches rained off in 1992 world cup and there were matches boycotted in 1996 world cup as well.

im also quite sure that millions of people would flock in to see a zim vs kenya game in the super six stage.....

I dont know anything about the popularity of cricket in Kenya & Canada.
But Yes, If there was a world cup finals between Bangladesh & Kenya, I can guarantee you that at least 10 million Bangladeshis and at least 5 million (Bengali population of West Bengal) Indians will watch it. That will still be more than the finals watched between England & NZ.

if credibility wasnt lost then why are the icc implementing changes to the wc format so that it makes it harder for teams like kenya to reach the super six??

Care to explain why did ICC Change the formats of 1987, 1992 and 1996 world cups and introduced a new format in 1999 ?? I am sure all of them had lost their credibility and the 1999 format was credible enough and only one to stay for two world cups. It seems that its just the whinning of some nations leading for this change.

 

[tooextracool]

NZ won more matches than Kenya on the field but England ?? Even if you remove their game against NZ, they still won 3 games which is same as England. How can you say that England won more matches than Kenya.

england and kenya werent even in the same group....it was england and zimbabwe in the same group and england did win more games than zimbabwe,yet zimbabwe went through. the same thing happened with NZ and the WI(who had their match rained off).

It is not Kenya's fault If NZ decided to not play against them.

have i in anyway faulted kenya for this? or have i said that they should have been thrown out of the super six stage?my point was that the teams that played better cricket in the tournament didnt go thro to the super six and that was why credibility was lost.....

It will take a Huge miracle for something like above to happen. I mean imagine a situation where all the matches between minnows and test playing nations will be rained off, then Canada, Kenya and Zimbabwe reaching the Semi Finals.

i said "most matches" not "all matches"......its unlikely but definetly possible and we've already seen boycotts and rained off games take 1 team into the semis and another into the super six

The fact that none of this happened and there were more matches rained off in 1992 world cup and there were matches boycotted in 1996 world cup as well.

because there were 8 minnow teams in 92 or because teams forfeited matches against minnows in 96!

I dont know anything about the popularity of cricket in Kenya & Canada.
But Yes, If there was a world cup finals between Bangladesh & Kenya, I can guarantee you that at least 10 million Bangladeshis and at least 5 million (Bengali population of West Bengal) Indians will watch it. That will still be more than the finals watched between England & NZ..

1) there would barely be any spectators in the stadium
2) there will be a lot more people around the world watching a world cup final between england-NZ(if they do become the best teams in the world) and that would include a large proportion of the bangladeshis and definetly most of the indians......

Care to explain why did ICC Change the formats of 1987, 1992 and 1996 world cups and introduced a new format in 1999 ?? I am sure all of them had lost their credibility and the 1999 format was credible enough and only one to stay for two world cups. It seems that its just the whinning of some nations leading for this change.

none of those formats were changed to ensure that credibility is restored in the wc....rather they were struggling to come up with a consistent format that made it fair for everyone which is why they kept changing the format. the icc themselves have admitted that they are trying to change the format this time to ensure that better teams make it thro to the super six

 

[Sanz]

england and kenya werent even in the same group....it was england and zimbabwe in the same group and england did win more games than zimbabwe,yet zimbabwe went through. the same thing happened with NZ and the WI(who had their match rained off).

So ?? I dont understand your point, these things happen in most tournaments, Zimbabwe won less matches because they were robbed of their chance to play and win One due the weather and due to some team claiming boycotting them. These were things beyond their control and will remain there in every format. No format is full proof, once in a while a minnow will sneak into the next round, you dont go on changing formats after every such incidence.

have i in anyway faulted kenya for this? or have i said that they should have been thrown out of the super six stage?my point was that the teams that played better cricket in the tournament didnt go thro to the super six and that was why credibility was lost.....

You have repeatedly said that they didn't deserve to be in the Semi Finals. IMO they did because NZ failed to win more matches than them in Super Six. NZ & Kenya lost their matches against India & Australia and won against Zim. How can you say that NZ deserved to go to SF and Kenya didn't ?? Are you saying that Kenya didn't play better cricket ?? I beg to differ, IMO they played hell good of a cricket. You think WI played better cricket ?? Well I dont think so. They lost their matches against SL & NZ and were lucky against SA. Same with SA, they failed to win a single game against SL, NZ & WI. If you still think that SA & WI played better than again I beg to differ.

In Group A, Yes England played better than Zimbabwe but didn't deserve to go to super Six because they refused to play Zimbabwe.

1) there would barely be any spectators in the stadium
2) there will be a lot more people around the world watching a world cup final between england-NZ(if they do become the best teams in the world) and that would include a large proportion of the bangladeshis and definetly most of the indians......

Then why not fix matches and let India-Pakistan or India-Australia play in all the finals because that would bring most crowds in the stadium.

none of those formats were changed to ensure that credibility is restored in the wc....rather they were struggling to come up with a consistent format that made it fair for everyone which is why they kept changing the format. the icc themselves have admitted that they are trying to change the format this time to ensure that better teams make it thro to the super six

That means the formats of 1987/92/96 were not fair to everyone and they kept changin the formats to make it fair to everyone and that untill 2003 world cup 1999 formar looked the best out of all the formats. Now that this time England failed to reach the super six 2nd time in a row, it became an unfair format, didn't it ??

I am sure that the new system will be really fair to minnows because it will not be uniform for all the countries and which makes it more difficult for minnows and easier for test nations (baring BD) to make into the next round.

 

[marc71178]

Care to explain why did ICC Change the formats of 1987, 1992 and 1996 world cups and introduced a new format in 1999 ??

Could it possibly be the thing called expansion?

 

[marc71178]

So ?? I dont understand your point, these things happen in most tournaments, Zimbabwe won less matches because they were robbed of their chance to play and win One due the weather and due to some team claiming boycotting them.

By the same token England were robbed of a chance to win a game by (what now appears to be a legitimate concern)

 

[Sanz]

Could it possibly be the thing called expansion?

No because the no. of teams in 1996 and 1999 was same but the format changed whereas no. of teams in 2003 and 1999 wasn't same but format remained same..

 

[Sanz]

By the same token England were robbed of a chance to win a game by (what now appears to be a legitimate concern)

Legitimate concerns ?? If my memory serves me right, Zimbabwe hosted Australia for an ODI less than a month ago and before that they hosted Sri Lanka for a Test & ODI tour.

England were not robbed of anything, they were penalized for their boycott. England did lose to Zimbawe in the Natwest series after that so saying that they were going to win the game is an assumption on your part.

 

[Anil]

By the same token England were robbed of a chance to win a game by (what now appears to be a legitimate concern)

..and how can you be sure that they would have won? especially in one dayers where the better team on the day wins....

 

[Sanz]

Actually england was going to win the World cup after that, they were going to beat everyone on their way to the CUP.

 

[biased indian]

By the same token England were robbed of a chance to win a game by (what now appears to be a legitimate concern)

i took one year to prove that fact(i still dont think that death threat was real one ).in between that time many countries visited there and played cricket with out any problem.and a team visited there last month and played 3 ODI's where as England had to play only one game.

and why is every one not saying anything about sri-lankas win in 1996.
they also don't deserve to win if wi and aus have gone their and won SL would not have faced ENG in QF and ENG might have went on to win the world cup.that was also a great chance lost for england to win the world cup.

 

[Sanz]

Not to forget the 1992 world cup where Pakistan were all out for 74 against England, Too bad it rained and the match was washed out and after that Pakistan was back into the tournament, it went to the finals and won the cup. I am sure Pakistan reached the world cup finals because of the weather and not because of their on field performance. If not for weather, Pakistan wouldn't even have made to the next round, Australia or WI would have and that meaning England was going to win the world cup.

How is that for an assumption

 

[tooextracool]

So ?? I dont understand your point, these things happen in most tournaments, Zimbabwe won less matches because they were robbed of their chance to play and win One due the weather and due to some team claiming boycotting them. These were things beyond their control and will remain there in every format. No format is full proof, once in a while a minnow will sneak into the next round, you dont go on changing formats after every such incidence.

agreed but my point here is that the team that played better cricket didnt get the chance to progress into the super six or semi finals....the only reason i refuted your argument was because you seemed to think that zimbabwe and kenya deserved to go thro to the super six and semi finals when they were actually benefitted from the weather and boycotts.

You have repeatedly said that they didn't deserve to be in the Semi Finals. IMO they did because NZ failed to win more matches than them in Super Six. NZ & Kenya lost their matches against India & Australia and won against Zim. How can you say that NZ deserved to go to SF and Kenya didn't ??Are you saying that Kenya didn't play better cricket ?? I beg to differ, IMO they played hell good of a cricket. You think WI played better cricket ?? Well I dont think so. They lost their matches against SL & NZ and were lucky against SA. Same with SA, they failed to win a single game against SL, NZ & WI. If you still think that SA & WI played better than again I beg to differ.

hold on a second....NZ won more matches than kenya in the tournament didnt they? and kenya went thro ahead of NZ based on their performances in the preliminary stages(which was completely dependent on the boycott). it is performances throughout the tournament that counts..... and who won more games NZ or kenya?
how can you say WI didnt deserve to go through because they were lucky against SA??in the same way i can say that kenya were lucky that one of the WI match got rained off and they were lucky that their game against NZ was boycotted and they were lucky to beat SL. and remind me again....who won the game between kenya and WI? or the one between kenya and SA? or are you going to tell me that kenya were unlucky to lose to WI and SA? Whichever way you look at it WI played better than kenya!!

Then why not fix matches and let India-Pakistan or India-Australia play in all the finals because that would bring most crowds in the stadium.

quite besides the point..... i dont mind seeing any 2 teams there as long as both those teams happened to get there based on their performances ON FIELD!

That means the formats of 1987/92/96 were not fair to everyone and they kept changin the formats to make it fair to everyone and that untill 2003 world cup 1999 formar looked the best out of all the formats. Now that this time England failed to reach the super six 2nd time in a row, it became an unfair format, didn't it ??

92 was the best format but it had to be changed to accomodate more teams...even my dog could see that.
96 had to be changed because many people felt it was unfair to have a knock-out competition in the quarter finals.
were these formats changed for the credibility of the game?no they werent but the one in 07 will be so that the better teams go thro! the icc themselves admit that the better teams were unlucky to not get through in 03...so whats this all about that kenya deserved to go thro to the semis?

I am sure that the new system will be really fair to minnows because it will not be uniform for all the countries and which makes it more difficult for minnows and easier for test nations (baring BD) to make into the next round.

you obviously know nothing about the new format......

 

[Sanz]

agreed but my point here is that the team that played better cricket didnt get the chance to progress into the super six or semi finals....

Well yeah because they boycotted their important matches where they had a good chance of winning. Now what did you want ICC to do for this ?

you seemed to think that zimbabwe and kenya deserved to go thro to the super six and semi finals when they were actually benefitted from the weather and boycotts.

In 1992 Pakistan benefitted from Weather, In 1996 SL benefitted from Boycotts. In 2003 it was kenya & Zimbabwe, It is part and parcel of game you can not change it.

NZ won more matches than kenya in the tournament didnt they? and kenya went thro ahead of NZ based on their performances in the preliminary stages(which was completely dependent on the boycott). it is performances throughout the tournament that counts..... and who won more games NZ or kenya?

NZ won more matches in first round, in Super Six NZ & Kenya both won 1 match each, NZ denied Kenya a chance to perform against them by boycotting their game and they had to pay the price for it. 2003 world cup was a tested format and everyone knew that points would be carried forward to the next round. Unfortunately NZ didn't think that Kenya were going to qualify for super six and thats why they didnt care.

how can you say WI didnt deserve to go through because they were lucky against SA??

Yes, they were lucky against SA and failed to win against other quality teams.

in the same way i can say that kenya were lucky that one of the WI match got rained off and they were lucky that their game against NZ was boycotted and they were lucky to beat SL. and remind me again....who won the game between kenya and WI? or the one between kenya and SA? or are you going to tell me that kenya were unlucky to lose to WI and SA? Whichever way you look at it WI played better than kenya!!

Yes, Kenya were lucky but deserving. If you are going to count Kenyan and WI performances then who won against SL ?? IMO WI played pathetic cricket. If we are talking about who deserved what, then take a look at the 1992 World Cup and you will know that SA were the most deserving but they didn't win thanks to the weather. Their SF didnt really have anything to do with their on-field performance. You keep bringing the weather as if it was a kenyan conspiracy to keep WI & SA out.

i dont mind seeing any 2 teams there as long as both those teams happened to get there based on their performances ON FIELD!

Really ?? Even if it is Kenya & Canada ? I thought no one would watch if these two countries played in the finals. Well I dont have any preference, If a country boycotts a match they should be penalised and all the points should be awarded to the other team, I dont have any problem it it makes to the finals.

Anyways, You are late by 12 years, you should have questioned England and Pakistan's spot in 1992 finals.

were these formats changed for the credibility of the game?no they werent but the one in 07 will be so that the better teams go thro! the icc themselves admit that the better teams were unlucky to not get through in 03...so whats this all about that kenya deserved to go thro to the semis?

If the format was not good why didn't they change it in 1999 ?? In 1983, India were the worst team barring Zimbabwe & Sri Lanka, They won the world Cup, In 1987, Aussies were really one of the worst teams, India, Pakistan and WI were the best, Aussies won the cup, in 1992 SA & NZ were the best teams, none of them won the cup or reached the finals. No matter what format you try, you have to perform well on the field to win the CUP. ICC can admit whatever they want, No matter what format they try, IF countries are going to boycott their matches against minnows, minnows will qualify again for the next round.

you obviously know nothing about the new format......

Neither do you. At least I know more than you. Let me tell you one thing again, It would be even harder for a country to qualify to the next round if they boycott their matches this time. One more thing there is going to be more cribbing after the tournament after one or two of the test playing nations are not able to mae it to the second round.

So far in the proposed plan

First Round - 16 teams divided in to 4 groups, each team plays 3 matches, top 2 qualify for next round

Super 8 round - 8 teams divided into 2 groups, each team plays with each other twice (just like the Prudential World Cup Format) top two teams go to SF.