My World Cup idea

[Craig]

This is precisely the point. The World Cup is cricket's most glittering showpiece. It needs to be on display. Once every four years is insufficient IMO. Planning four years down the line is just too far.
The ten-year plan is already too packed; a twelve or fourteen year plan would IMO be much better.

Even then it is likely to have Kenya becoming a Test nation by 2011 (when the 10 year plan ends), 2013, or 2015.

 

[Richard]

Australia would've won the last 3

In cricket you cannot say "would have" in terms of a result.
There is never any certainty about something that didn't happen.

 

[Richard]

I'd rather it was less frequent - makes it more of a show!

What makes it a show is what it is - that is not going to be altered by whether it is biennial or quadrennial.
It simply means we get to see that great (well, with the exception of 2003) show more often.

 

[marc71178]

Every 4 years allows a big build up.

I don't think Cricket could sustain it every 2 years.

And in most people's eyes 2003 was one of the better Tournaments - it had a little bit of everything to keep everyone happy.

 

[Richard]

I don't, frankly, give a damn about what "most" people thought - it had a load of crap players doing well, matches cancelled, plenty of results going the wrong way (eg Ban-Can, SL-Ken, SA-WI, SA-NZ), several good players missing-out on participation.
No-one will ever change my mind that the 2003 CWC was the worst since World Cups started. The 1999 event truly did have about everything a true cricket fan could want. The 1992 one likewise.
And 2 years would allow a perfectly feasible build-up. Just it would start about a year after the last one finished, rather than three.

 

[marc71178]

So because of shock results the Tournament was rubbish?

That is the most stupid thing I've ever heard!

 

[Neil Pickup]

Better cancel the FA Cup, then.

 

[marc71178]

Can't do that - it's Manure's only chance of a Trophy this year!!!

 

[Richard]

Better cancel the FA Cup, then.

Shame is, there are so many games then lower league teams are inevitably going to beat those above them sometime.
In a tournament of just the small number of games in a cricket World Cup any shock is, naturally, disappoiting as far as I'm concerned.
I hated South Africa losing to West Indies and New Zealand - personally, I like the team I perceive as the better one to win. It seems a bit unjust otherwise.

 

[Richard]

So because of shock results the Tournament was rubbish?

That is the most stupid thing I've ever heard!

It is stupid because your values are on the unexpected.
Personally I find placing value on the unexpected, and enjoying upsets, equally stupid.
It's remarkable how many of my comments have been "the stupidest you've ever heard". Yet another example of the most recent is the best remembered.

 

[Swervy]

Shame is, there are so many games then lower league teams are inevitably going to beat those above them sometime.
In a tournament of just the small number of games in a cricket World Cup any shock is, naturally, disappoiting as far as I'm concerned.
I hated South Africa losing to West Indies and New Zealand - personally, I like the team I perceive as the better one to win. It seems a bit unjust otherwise.

surely a part of the attraction is the possibility of a minnow upping their game and catching a test playing team by surprise.

regarding SA, WI played well enough to win.....NZ as far as i could see outplayed a rather flat SA team.

would you rather just have a one game world cup between the 2 teams people think are the best...and if the team most people think are better actually loses, then should we disregard that result

 

[Richard]

No, because that would waste all the money-making opportunities. :P
Some people like the possibility of good teams underperforming and losing to inferior sides.
Personally it's the sort of thing that I dread. If people want to value it, though, I'm not going to brand them stupid.
I like to watch cricket, but I still have hopes as to what's going to happen, and I'm disappointed if it doesn't. I tend to be more exact and rigid than some people but I don't, frankly, see that that's a crime.

 

[Swervy]

No, because that would waste all the money-making opportunities. :P
Some people like the possibility of good teams underperforming and losing to inferior sides.
Personally it's the sort of thing that I dread. If people want to value it, though, I'm not going to brand them stupid.
I like to watch cricket, but I still have hopes as to what's going to happen, and I'm disappointed if it doesn't. I tend to be more exact and rigid than some people but I don't, frankly, see that that's a crime.

the unpredictable side of things, for me anyway, is one of the joys of the game.

If you didnt have that then Gilchrist would average 55 every test innings,harmison would take a wicket every 29 runs in tests without fail...Australia would win all the time...davison would not have scored that amazing 100 vs WI's in the world cup,Botham wouldnt have scored 149 and 118 vs Australia in 1981...or taken that spell of 5-1 in 81...Bradman would have scored nigh on 100 every game he played...and so on.

But if thats the way you see the game..then fair do's

 

[Richard]

That's really not very sensible. If the expected was your average remaining the same every innings the game really would be boring.
Fortunately, the expected is that each innings will change the average. And it's what happens about 499 times out of 500. About.

 

[Swervy]

That's really not very sensible. If the expected was your average remaining the same every innings the game really would be boring.
Fortunately, the expected is that each innings will change the average. And it's what happens about 499 times out of 500. About.

you know exactly what I mean

 

[Neil Pickup]

So what did you think to Costinha's wonder-strike on Tuesday night? 8D

 

[Richard]

P*** off! :!(

 

[age_master]

I don't, frankly, give a damn about what "most" people thought - it had a load of crap players doing well, matches cancelled, plenty of results going the wrong way (eg Ban-Can, SL-Ken, SA-WI, SA-NZ), several good players missing-out on participation.
No-one will ever change my mind that the 2003 CWC was the worst since World Cups started. The 1999 event truly did have about everything a true cricket fan could want. The 1992 one likewise.
And 2 years would allow a perfectly feasible build-up. Just it would start about a year after the last one finished, rather than three.

if players you call crap are doing well, do you ever change your opinion of a player. players do change and develop their games...


as for the 2 years thing - if you eat chocolate every 2 days would you value it as much as if you ate it every 4 days - no, because you become more accustomed to the taste. its the same thing witha a world cup, if its more often, it becomes less valued because there are more oportunities to win.

 

[Craig]

P*** off! :!(

Now you know how much stick I got from Arsenal beat Inter 5-1.

Still I doubt if Exeter City will ever make Europe.

 

[marc71178]

as for the 2 years thing - if you eat chocolate every 2 days would you value it as much as if you ate it every 4 days - no, because you become more accustomed to the taste.

Interesting theory that one - doesn't work always (such as me with Beer