My World Cup idea

[Neil Pickup]

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

Still I doubt if Exeter City will ever make Europe.

Which has what relevance?

 

[Craig]

No I had writen some thing else, delated it all except that bit.

 

[Richard]

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.

By that theory the best thing to do would be to have a World Cup every 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years or so - just so everyone could anticipate it. The Universe might have ended by the time it was planned, of course...
Whatever the time period, the longer in theory always the more anticipation. But the important thing is to get the balance between making somethin anticipated and using it to it's optimum potential. IMO that would be a Cricket World Cup every 2 years.

 

[age_master]

By that theory the best thing to do would be to have a World Cup every 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years or so - just so everyone could anticipate it. The Universe might have ended by the time it was planned, of course...
Whatever the time period, the longer in theory always the more anticipation. But the important thing is to get the balance between making somethin anticipated and using it to it's optimum potential. IMO that would be a Cricket World Cup every 2 years.

whats wrong with every 4 years, it works well for the olympics, the rugby and soccer WC's and most think it works well for the cricket world cup



as for Marc and the beer - imagine how much you would enjoy a beer if you didn't have one for a whole 10 minutes

 

[marc71178]

as for Marc and the beer - imagine how much you would enjoy a beer if you didn't have one for a whole 10 minutes

ROFLMAO.

Cannot believe an Aussie is lecturing me on Beer Consumption...

 

[Craig]

By that theory the best thing to do would be to have a World Cup every 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years or so - just so everyone could anticipate it. The Universe might have ended by the time it was planned, of course...
Whatever the time period, the longer in theory always the more anticipation. But the important thing is to get the balance between making somethin anticipated and using it to it's optimum potential. IMO that would be a Cricket World Cup every 2 years.

But to make it every two years you would need to re-scheldule the whole calender.

 

[Richard]

whats wrong with every 4 years, it works well for the olympics, the rugby and soccer WC's and most think it works well for the cricket world cup

It works well for the Olympics because they have the Commonwealths in the interim period, plus the Winter Olympics. Not to mention the Parolympics. These are multi-sport events and would not work well if they were biennial.
It works well for the soccer WC because that lasts 2 years - all bar 2 teams have to qualify. There are 2 years off and 2 years on.
It works well for the rugby WC because every year there are Six and Tri Nations, events of a magnitude unmatched in the cricket World.
What is wrong with every 4 years is these wrong-headed analogies with these sports.

 

[Richard]

But to make it every two years you would need to re-scheldule the whole calender.

Not that difficult - just change from a five-year plan to a six- or seven-year plan. A very good thing, I'm sure you'll agree.

 

[marc71178]

What is wrong with every 4 years is these wrong-headed analogies with these sports.

Erm, is your ignoring the ICC Champions Trophy deliberate?

That's every other year and fills in the gap nicely.

Cricket cannot sustain the expense of a World Cup every 2 years, and the length of such a Tournament would soon mean it becomes as devalued as most of the triangular series going on.

 

[Richard]

Devalued, eh? I don't see attendances dropping at multi-nation ODI tourneys around The World, do you? IMO they're far more interesting than two-way ODI series.
Similarly, World Cups generate far more money than they expend (otherwise they wouldn't be played, would they?) and hence every 2 years would be a good thing not a bad thing.
The alternative, of course, is to make the Champions Trophy a more extensive tournament. Right now it's nowhere near the scale of Tri or Six Nations.
It has been getting better every time they staged it (the original Willis Mini World Cup and Knockout Trophy of 1998 and 2000 were rather obviously just a chance for Ban and Ken to stage international events). Just needs them to realise the potential and stage it at other times than the rainy season in Sri Lanka and the English autumn, beyond the county season!

 

[marc71178]

Similarly, World Cups generate far more money than they expend (otherwise they wouldn't be played, would they?) and hence every 2 years would be a good thing not a bad thing.

The majority of the money is generated due to the sponsorship.

Sponsors would not offer so much for something that isn't as unique.

Costs would remain the same.

 

[Richard]

Example:
World Cup is staged every 8 years, rarity makes sponsorship revenues worth $7,000.
World Cup is staged every 4 years, rarity makes sponsorship revenues worth $4,000.
World Cup is staged every 2 years, rarity makes sponsorship revenues worth $2,500.
Which is the preferable?
This is what must be remembered; not how much money is generated, but the ratio of money:time.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, and then compare the revenue with the cost of staging the Tournament in terms of getting stadia up to scratch etc.

It's not going to happen because it would be too much.

 

[Richard]

Before long all the major nations in the cricketing World will have stanged it.
Hence, all the stadia are up to scratch.

 

[marc71178]

The stadia will be at least 20 years old, they'd need work done on them.

Every 2 years is overkill - 4 years is not.

 

[Richard]

Says who?
I'll tell you who - anyone who works on the assumption that present is correct.
If the World Cup was held every 2 years it would not be considered overkill.
The stadia will be 20 years old, where? If you have a World Cup in England, West Indies, the subcontinent, southern Africa and Tasman-land then it's once every 8 years.
That doesn't suggest to me the stadia will need redeveloping.
Where was the World Cup last held 20 years ago?

 

[marc71178]

By the time 2011 comes round, Australia and NZ.

If the ICC thought every 2 years would be worthwhile financially, do you really think they'd have not introduced it by now?

 

[age_master]

It works well for the rugby WC because every year there are Six and Tri Nations, events of a magnitude unmatched in the cricket World.

true, if you dont count the Champions trophy, the VB series and all the other 3 or 4 way series held in England, India, or sharjah etc.

maybe they could just bring oin more teams for the VB series ( and each team play eachother less times - its 4 atm i think)


and says who?? umm most other people and the ICC apparently...

 

[Richard]

By the time 2011 comes round, Australia and NZ.

If the ICC thought every 2 years would be worthwhile financially, do you really think they'd have not introduced it by now?

Yes, because they're obsessed with this wrong-headed analogy with other quadrennial big events. It's assumed, without any evidence to support, that this must be best for cricket too.
As it stands Australia and New Zealand (who have pretty darn impressive stadia in any case, due to the combination with Rules Football and Rugby Union) would have last staged a World Cup 13 years ago if one were to be held there in 2005. Even if it was 2009 it would still only be 17.

 

[Richard]

true, if you dont count the Champions trophy, the VB series and all the other 3 or 4 way series held in England, India, or sharjah etc.

maybe they could just bring oin more teams for the VB series ( and each team play eachother less times - its 4 atm i think)

The other tri-series are nothing like the magnitude of Six and Tri Nations. Especially when they're at "off shore" venues.
That's why a World Cup every 2 years is such a neccessary, to make one-day international cricket more meaningful.
Enough people make the mistake of dismissing it as inferior to the Test-matches as it is.