Why is everyone so against 20/20?

[Richard]

Quite (pleasantly) surprised you haven't had a go at 'em yet.

Oh, I'm quite deliberately refraining from 't - after a short chat with a certain mod (who shall remain nameless, though the perceptive types could probably guess who he might be) I was advised that it was best not to respond to You-Know-Who's posts unless he specifically mentioned or quoted from me.

That was why I was disappointed that Jono didn't do the job for me, though Gelman, Clapo and Matt79 have done a sterling job, it must be said.

 

[Richard]

it's subjective obv, but can't remember a WC as crap as this one.

I can, the previous one was every bit as bad IMO.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I can, the previous one was every bit as bad IMO.

Disagree. Only thing that makes it even comparable is the non-fixture fulfilling which rendered the qualification for the Super 6 into a bit of a lottery.

 

[Pratters]

I thought 96 was pretty good. Did you see the tournament Richard?

 

[PhoenixFire]

2007 was the worst, not doubt.

 

[Richard]

Disagree. Only thing that makes it even comparable is the non-fixture fulfilling which rendered the qualification for the Super 6 into a bit of a lottery.

The things which the 2 had in common...

Poor teams making it way further than they should.
****loads of crap games for every decent contest.
Loads of crap players involved, some of whom were made to look like Kings.
Overzealous officialdom in so, so many different ways.
Australia rarely looked like losing.
And I could go on... all of which detracted from the quality of the tournament.

 

[Richard]

2007 was the worst, not doubt.

I think doubt was even worse than 2007, TBH.

 

[adharcric]

Can't help but agree ... this is the worst WC I've seen by far.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Poor teams making it way further than they should.
****loads of crap games for every decent contest.
Loads of crap players involved, some of whom were made to look like Kings.
Overzealous officialdom in so, so many different ways.
Australia rarely looked like losing.
And I could go on... all of which detracted from the quality of the tournament.

ie. Hayden.

 

[Pratters]

Yeah 2007 was definitely the worst. I thought 2003 was very poor as well. Had written a piece analysing the same which was accepted by Wisden Asia Cricket as best letter of the month way back. Whatever.

 

[Richard]

I thought 96 was pretty good. Did you see the tournament Richard?

Nah. Just read back upon it, near enough everything mentioning the ludicrous missive of having 3 weeks of everyone meandering around the subcontinent (except those who refused to play certain games) for virtually no purpose whatsoever, then a week's knockout.

 

[Richard]

ie. Hayden.

Haha. He was not by any stretch the only one.

And TBH, he actually played well for most of the time. It annoyed the hell out of me that he did, because he had no right to, he's never been much good before. But there were many who were crap and got made to look like World-beaters.

 

[Pratters]

Nah. Just read back upon it, near enough everything mentioning the ludicrous missive of having 3 weeks of everyone meandering around the subcontinent (except those who refused to play certain games) for virtually no purpose whatsoever, then a week's knockout.

I had guessed that you hadn't seen the tournament. The knock out phase was very exciting and the earlier rounds, though tarnished a bit with Windies and Australia not tourning, had it's moments Kenya-Windies. Then, there were non-minnow matches as well which meant there were always matches to look forward to. The format of 96 may not have been the best but the tournament, having viewed it, I found quite good.

 

[Richard]

Haha, yeah, fair noof, as I say - wasn't even aware a WC was going on at the time it was, TBH.

And have honestly not watched so much as full highlights of a single game, either. Weird given that 1992 got me into the game and 1999 got me further into it.

 

[Swervy]

Jono has pretty much taken the words out of my mouth.

I'd add one thing:
The Poor World Cups:
1979
1987
1996
2003
2007
The Good World Cups
1975
1983
1992
1999

Seems to me a World Cup is far from a gurantee of fascinating stuff... which is a shame, but a reality nonetheless.

I thought 1987 was a good one to be honest

 

[Richard]

 

[Dick Rockett]

Most of the haters are from Australia or NZ, the countries that have the least exposure to Twenty20.

In general terms:

They basically don't know what they're talking about and reinforce each others bulldust - it's like a vicious circle of brainwashing where they're not independent or bright enough to judge the format for themselves properly. It's a human nature thing unfortunately and has led to events in the past when obviously evil ideas from a leader of a country were backed by a high proportion of the population. The arguments don't stem from logic or common sense, just hatred and propaganda. Twenty20 hatred is similar to that - tho the original hatred comes from the human nature dislike of change or progress.

The hatred will pass eventually.

Haha, I've had plenty of exposure to your posts, and I'm happy to report I still can't stand you.

 

[Swervy]

beside that, some good cricket played and some good games

 

[Richard]

Go on then... gimme 'em.

 

[chaminda_00]

I think the quality of matches is what makes a good World Cup, apart from the last two World Cups i would say all the matches have been of good quality. The major problem with the last two World Cups, was the teams weren't that well prepared. The fact teams that weren't playing that great make it into a long 2nd round competition.

Even when West Indies were dominating, most teams still felt they had a decent chance of winning, which wasn't the case in the last two World Cups with Australia. There is nothing wrong with a team dominating, it just becomes boring after a while and makes the gams very predictable. The same happens when poor sides qualifly for the 2nd round.

In '99 Zimbabwe qualified for the 2nd round, but they deserved it and played some good cricket to get there and some better cricket once they were there. But it is pretty clear the Super 6/8 format has had its use by date and its probably time to get back to the Quarter Final format in '96.

I can't find vaild reason why '79, '87 and '96 World Cups were of poor quality.