My World Cup idea

[marc71178]

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.

Whereas you have pages of evidence to show how it would work, in spite of almost everyone who's commented on here saying they didn't like the idea.

 

[age_master]

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.

please tell me how often a world cup is not "off shore" for countries....

 

[Richard]

please tell me how often a world cup is not "off shore" for countries....

I mentioned "other tri-series" at the off shore venues.
Other than The World Cup... :rolleyes:

 

[Richard]

Whereas you have pages of evidence to show how it would work, in spite of almost everyone who's commented on here saying they didn't like the idea.

Interesting to see how many "everyone" actually is.
And I don't object to the valuation because there are some very well-informed cricket followers on here, but you appear to take it as gospel that this board must be right if there's a majority who agree upon a matter.
I've not, of course, got pages of anything, just a suggestion (well, a suggestion I got from reading some Notes by Matthew Engel actually, not something that occurred to me) that a biennial World Cup would be far, far better for cricket than a quadrennial one, for reasons discussed.

 

[age_master]

we aren't saying anything because the board says it, it simply that we agree with the boards stance on this particular issue.

as for everyone, well i cant remember too many people agreeing with you throughout the thread...

maybe you should just accept that the majority seem to want it every 4 years, to make sure its still a 'special event' and not just another tornament.

 

[Richard]

It is a World Cup - it will always be special.
If it is held every 2 years instead of every 4, we will be able to enjoy this special event more often.

 

[Swervy]

yeah if it was every two years, we would be pretty soon be coming up to another world cup..the last one is still fresh in the memory,seems like only two minutes ago...4 years is just right

 

[Richard]

The sooner those horrible memories are washed away the better if you ask me!

 

[Swervy]

The sooner those horrible memories are washed away the better if you ask me!

hehehehe...i kind of know what you mean..I really lost it with the world cup in the super sixes...the whole tournament just dragged on....and to be honest the fact that 2 of the final 6 teams were without a doubt there because of England and NZ not playing those games, kind of ruined it for me.

But there were some great moments as well.

 

[Linda]

The sooner those horrible memories are washed away the better if you ask me!

You wouldn't say that if you were an Aussie. We're still riding the wave, and still will be in 2007

 

[raju]

yeah if it was every two years, we would be pretty soon be coming up to another world cup..the last one is still fresh in the memory,seems like only two minutes ago...4 years is just right

By this logic the FA Cup should only be held every 4 years.
I would prefer a more frequent world cup instead of cheap imitations like the ICC Champions Trophy (or whatever they call it). I'd like to see it reduced to 5 weeks maximum though...the last one dragged on too long with too many one sided affairs. The format for 2007 looks a lot better.
Other sports have world championships every year so to just cite football as an example of a successful 4 year cycle system is meaningless and irrelevent.

 

[Jono]

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.

To me it exemplifies how ridiculous your theories are a lot of the time. Its like you purposely think of something that no one else believes is correct, and attempt to justify it just so you can be different.

That being said everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but at the same time I'm entitled to my opinion of your opinion, and right now it's not very high considering you're trying to justify ruining an event and making it "common".

A world cup every 2 years? No way. Its already hard enough picking which tri-series happened in each year, and tri-nation tournaments are already forgotten. If someone can name off the top of their head who toured Australia in 1998-99 then well done, because I can't remember.

Right now you can specifically spot the differences in each world cup as there is a large gap between them, not too large, but large enough to be able to be distinct. Once every 2 years would ruin the aura of the event, no matter how much you try and deny it Richard.

 

[raju]

If someone can name off the top of their head who toured Australia in 1998-99 then well done,

England & Sri Lanka. Australia mauled England in the tri series final.

 

[marc71178]

By this logic the FA Cup should only be held every 4 years.

Not really, seeing as the FA Cup doesn't occupy 1 long period of time, but is spread out.

 

[Deja moo]

Richard : The sooner those horrible memories are washed away, the better!

Horrible memories being the losses for safrica at the hands of NZL and Windies ?

All countries would have horrible memories from atleast one world cup...that is not a case for holding it every 2 years.

Personally, I dont see why the ICC champions trophy is being seen as lesser than the trinations or six nations in stature.

After all all top teams in cricket participate in the ICC trophy, We'll have Ind-Pak, Aus-Nzl, Eng-Srl, Saf-Win this year,and counting the matches with zim and the 2 semis and 1 final, thats 9 matches featuring the top teams in one tournament.
This kind of tournament more than makes up for the 3 non WC years...
The only problem with the ICC trophy ,as I see it, is when it is held just before the WC as in 2002.

 

[hellnback]

Firstly I would like to disagree with suggestions that the World Cup be held every two years. It's the showcase. Making it every two years would devalue it, every four years is PRECISELY the reason side's WANT to win it, it's just 'not another trophy'

The World Cup of '92 remains the best format used for a World Cup Tournament yet. Although there is too many sides to re-introduce this format, it can be achieved with systems the ICC have in place.

I suggest a 10 team World Cup Tournament be implemented.

A second tier program (i.e. non-Test playing nations) should be encouraged, where they play each other home and away (much like the ICC one-day rankings) and gain ranking, the double benefit from this is that the regular play between them will increase their level in the hope of achieving Test status.

Meanwhile the Test teams continue their format, but the ICC take a slightly bigger take from the earnings to enable the second-tier program.

Every 4 years, 6 months before the World Cup Tournament, a World Cup Qualification Tournament is held.

Of the Test playing nations rankings the top 8 automatically advance to the World Cup, the remaining lowest ranked nations compete with the four highest ranked 2nd-tier nations in a round robin format, semi-finals, final format for the right to advance to the World Cup.

Then 6 months later the World Cup is run along the same lines as '92.

The World Cup is about finding the best, and to think that a side can win it without playing certain nations (i.e. say Australia at the moment) is ridiculous.

Round robin means you fight for the right to get there, and playing consistently good cricket against all nations involved.

 

[Richard]

To me it exemplifies how ridiculous your theories are a lot of the time. Its like you purposely think of something that no one else believes is correct, and attempt to justify it just so you can be different.

What, I ask you, would be the point in that? That really is a silly idea, and if you believe I actually do that I pity you.

That being said everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but at the same time I'm entitled to my opinion of your opinion, and right now it's not very high considering you're trying to justify ruining an event and making it "common".

A world cup every 2 years? No way. Its already hard enough picking which tri-series happened in each year, and tri-nation tournaments are already forgotten. If someone can name off the top of their head who toured Australia in 1998-99 then well done, because I can't remember.

Right now you can specifically spot the differences in each world cup as there is a large gap between them, not too large, but large enough to be able to be distinct. Once every 2 years would ruin the aura of the event, no matter how much you try and deny it Richard.

How do you know it "would"? You can only guess it would. And maybe it might. But I don't think it so.