What is the point of the Champions Trophy?

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

West Indies has done well at it, so it's worth more than any other tournament these days.

 

[Goughy]

Australia really showed that with their attitude last time around didn't they. It's an important one day tournament second only to the WC and means more than virtually any other limited overs competition as the best play the best and the standing order in world cricket is sorted out properly. The last one meant a lot to the players and it meant a lot to the fans - the two entities that only really matter in the sport so I fail to see how it's pointless besides another routine round of ODI bashing.

Not at all. England reached the final in 2004 and WI won it. Who really cares?

It means nothing. If it meant anything then call it a World Cup. Its a World Cup wanna be that doesnt have the prestige.

Another irrelevant ODI tournament with a tin pot to win.

Completely and utterly meaningless and clogs the calender. Make the WC every 2 years or get rid of this. I dont get what the point is.

Of course players and fans want to win but it carries no importance or consequence. It has nothing to do with the format (ie ODIs) but the point of it existence.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Not at all. England reached the final in 2004 and WI won it. Who really cares?

It means nothing. If it meant anything then call it a World Cup. Its a World Cup wanna be that doesnt have the prestige.

Been marginally more competitive than the WC tbh. The WC is overrated.

 

[pasag]

Not at all. England reached the final in 2004 and WI won it. Who really cares?

It means nothing. If it meant anything then call it a World Cup. Its a World Cup wanna be that doesnt have the prestige.

Another irrelevant ODI tournament with a tin pot to win.

Completely and utterly meaningless and clogs the calender. Make the WC every 2 years or get rid of this. I dont get what the point is.

Of course players and fans want to win but it carries no importance or consequence. It has nothing to do with the format (ie ODIs) but the point of it existence.

Irrelevant, no importance or consequence to you but I wouldn't try pretending it's that way for others.

 

[chaminda_00]

As I said it is 50/50 with the fans right now. You shouldn't try and pretend that majority of fans really think this tournament is important. Cus a lot don't, but a lot think it has some place. Saying it pointless is OTT, but saying right now it is a major tournament is not correct as well. The point of the tournament is somewhere inbetween.

 

[pasag]

As I said it is 50/50 with the fans right now. You shouldn't try and pretend that majority of fans really think this tournament is important. Cus a lot don't, but a lot think it has some place. Saying it pointless is OTT, but saying right now it is a major tournament is not correct as well. The point of the tournament is somewhere inbetween.

It is a major tournament though, it's absurd to say otherwise. Just because it's not as big as the WC doesn't make it not major. From how I gauged it last time, it was a lot more than 50/50. I think you're giving a minor but very vocal anti-ODI movement a lot more credit then they deserve. As I said before it's not the greatest thing ever, I'm not arguing that but it's not irrelevant either, which is my point and I think you'd agree with that.

 

[Flem274*]

Not at all. England reached the final in 2004 and WI won it. Who really cares?

It means nothing. If it meant anything then call it a World Cup. Its a World Cup wanna be that doesnt have the prestige.

Another irrelevant ODI tournament with a tin pot to win.

Completely and utterly meaningless and clogs the calender. Make the WC every 2 years or get rid of this. I dont get what the point is.

Of course players and fans want to win but it carries no importance or consequence. It has nothing to do with the format (ie ODIs) but the point of it existence.

If players and fans want to win it, then its obviously important. Personally I'm very happy to say we won it in 2000, it wasn't a world cup victory but it was the next best thing.

It does clog the calendar in a way, but its also good World Cup practice because it revs up the players to peform on the world stage, and winning the Champions Trophy would be a great confidence booster leading into the world cup. I'm sure the players and most fans would rather win a mini world cup than another random ODI series against another team, because to win the CC you have to beat several/all of the teams.

 

[Goughy]

If players and fans want to win it, then its obviously important.

Players and fans want to win every game. That isnt a relevant point regarding its importance. I fail to see how this tournament is a 'major' tournament.

I think its a little childish for people to keep throwing 'anti-ODI' movement comments in virtually every thread. My points have nothing to do with the format, just the existence of the tournament.

The calender would be better without it. If you are going to the effort to get everyone together then at least give a World Championship for winning it.

Its a lot of effort for nothing. Just another made for TV event to generate money.

Its got nothing to do with ODIs (though people can keep telling themselves whatever they want) but the fact that designing a massive secondary tournament that by its nature is inferior to the big event in an already packed schedule is pointless.

 

[Richard]

What a very strange thing to say.

Anyhow if you're suspicious that people aren't up-front enough, then I'm happy to set out my views.

As for ODIs I will happily watch them - and indeed pay good money to go and watch them - and I will occasionally see some excellent cricket. By and large, however, they don't begin to compare with Test cricket and they pale into insignificance beside it.

No, they do indeed. But Test cricket constantly gets boring IMO, I enjoy it more with the ODI change-up, and there's also for mine no point in ODIs without global tournaments. And every 4 years is not enough, and if it was down to me I'd have the World Cup every 2 years. But I$C$C don't, so this is the second-best thing.

As for this particular competition, I've never understood the point of it. It's an unnecessary bolt-on to the already-overfull international cricketing calendar, and now with the advent of 20:20 (whatever your thoughts of that particular format) there is still less room, and even less need, for this competition.

See, I just don't understand this. Yes, the schedule is indeed far too packed. So lance some of the potentially less important stuff. Get rid of Twenty20 Internationls - the IPL is more than good enough to cater for that. Get rid of bilateral ODI series', as many as you need to. Get rid of Bangladesh and other substandard sides from the schedule involving the top 8 teams. But don't take out something that can potentially be an excellent tournament and an excellent advertisment for the ODI game.

In 2004 England, as hosts, played Australia (in the semi?) and the ground was half-empty. Enough said.

And had the scheduling been better, the ticket prices been more realistic and the whole thing basically been better planned, I'm wholly confident that would have been very, very different.

 

[Richard]

once my team is playing in it I want them to win, more than I do most ODI series, where it's nice to win but losing doesn't get me down like a Test loss.

This is an interesting one for mine. I honestly don't care in the slightest about the result of a ODI series, I care about good players doing well, poor players doing poorly, and that's it. As long as lessons are learnt I don't mind in the slightest about the result.

But with the World Cup and Champions Trophy it's really a different matter. I would prefer victory.

However, losing a Test is something that'll always disappoint me more than losing a WC\CT ODI. Although being knocked-out of the World Cup in 1999 was indeed every bit as disappointing as any Test series loss I've experienced.

 

[Bees]

Although being knocked-out of the World Cup in 1999 was indeed every bit as disappointing as any Test series loss I've experienced.

Tell me about it.




I'll be excited about this competition if it reaches free-to-air!

 

[stumpski]

Personally I wish it wasn't played every two years, and in October. I would stage it every four years, so as to avoid World Cup years. The last one was played about six months before the World Cup which seemed quite ludicrous to me. And October should be England's rest period between the home season and the first of the winter tours. Although I recognise that staging it in March, say, would be equally unattractive to southern hemisphere teams. So no easy solution there. As for prestige, how many can name all the winners, in order? Most of us could do that for the World Cups.

 

[zaremba]

Personally I wish it wasn't played every two years, and in October. I would stage it every four years, so as to avoid World Cup years. The last one was played about six months before the World Cup which seemed quite ludicrous to me. And October should be England's rest period between the home season and the first of the winter tours. Although I recognise that staging it in March, say, would be equally unattractive to southern hemisphere teams. So no easy solution there. As for prestige, how many can name all the winners, in order? Most of us could do that for the World Cups.

Quite. The idea that the organisers consider it appropriate to schedule it months before a World Cup demonstrates how piffling it is.

 

[Richard]

Personally I wish it wasn't played every two years, and in October. I would stage it every four years, so as to avoid World Cup years. The last one was played about six months before the World Cup which seemed quite ludicrous to me. And October should be England's rest period between the home season and the first of the winter tours. Although I recognise that staging it in March, say, would be equally unattractive to southern hemisphere teams. So no easy solution there. As for prestige, how many can name all the winners, in order? Most of us could do that for the World Cups.

SA, NZ, SL&Ind, WI, Aus. Easy as.

I quite agree BTW that every 4 years would be much the best solution - having it so close to the World Cup inevitably takes the gloss off not one but both events. The simple truth is, though, that there's no ideal time. September\October has usually been the favoured slot, because there's not often much if any international cricket on then. There's a good reason for that too - it's not suitable, either for weather or distraction (or both) purposes.

 

[Prince EWS]

This purpose of this tournament has always baffled me. What's the point in having it when we already have a World Cup? It's essentially just a World Cup which everyone dismisses - utterly pointless event.

That doesn't mean it's not interesting, of course, or that the players don't treat it seriously and prepare for it completely. Merely that its place in a packed international schedule is highly questionable. The last Champions Trophy for example was a much more enjoyable competition than the last World Cup for mine and showcased some much better cricket overall - but the stigma attached to it was almost non-existent.

If the ICC wants a global tournament every two years then it should make the World Cup a biannual event. People will say this would take away some of the rarity involved with winning it, I know, but personally I think the positives of doing this outweigh the negatives. For one, this whole "building for the World Cup" process every team seems to want to go through now wouldn't be so pointless immediately after each Cup.

 

[pasag]

What is the point of Prince EWS?

 

[GIMH]

This purpose of this tournament has always baffled me. What's the point in having it when we already have a World Cup? It's essentially just a World Cup which everyone dismisses - utterly pointless event.

That doesn't mean it's not interesting, of course, or that the players don't treat it seriously and prepare for it completely. Merely that its place in a packed international schedule is highly questionable. The last Champions Trophy for example was a much more enjoyable competition than the last World Cup for mine and showcased some much better cricket overall - but the stigma attached to it was almost non-existent.

If the ICC wants a global tournament every two years then it should make the World Cup a biannual event. People will say this would take away some of the rarity involved with winning it, I know, but personally I think the positives of doing this outweigh the negatives. For one, this whole "building for the World Cup" process every team seems to want to go through now wouldn't be so pointless immediately after each Cup.

Well they quickly disbanded the WC every three years idea after 99

 

[Prince EWS]

What is the point of Prince EWS?

To save The 4400.

 

[Richard]

If the ICC wants a global tournament every two years then it should make the World Cup a biannual event. People will say this would take away some of the rarity involved with winning it, I know, but personally I think the positives of doing this outweigh the negatives.

I've thought this for a long time - since about 1999 in fact, when I first read someone suggesting it. Sure, it'd make it less rare, but it damn well wouldn't make it so common as to be unimportant. 4 years is rare; 2 years is pretty rare too.

For one, this whole "building for the World Cup" process every team seems to want to go through now wouldn't be so pointless immediately after each Cup.

Well, not every team - and it's certainly not pointless at all, but some people don't agree - understandably - that it's the best way to treat ODIs. It'd mean less change had to be undertaken in order to do it. Had the World Cup been just around the corner as of this post, Paul Nixon might well have been able to stay in England's ODI side as some who don't think World Cup preparation immediately after the event thought he should have.

 

[Richard]

Well they quickly disbanded the WC every three years idea after 99

Huh? When was that idea even mooted?

The World Cup has always been every 4 years - 1975, 1979, 1983, 1987/88, 1991/92, 1995/96, 1999, 2002/03, 2006/07. AFAIK n0-0ne has ever suggested it be moved to 3 - though 2 has been suggested by at least 1 person.