ICC Champions Trophy should be split into two

[Jono]

I think the problem with the ICC trophy was the schedule. Realistically, every match for the first week involved the minnows. I would rather it been mixed up, so the enthusiasm of the ICC trophy starting wouldn't be killed by the first game involving Australia crushing USA or Sri Lanka belting Bangladesh or whatever it is.

Then again I see that they realistically wanted all the minnows home after the first week, but I would rather the ICC trophy open up with NZ vs. Australia or a cracker game. I still remember the WC 2003's first match between WI and South Africa, which for me personally set the tone of the whole tournament.

 

[Richard]

I agree with this:

I don't see what changes are needed.

As it stands, you have each of the four weaker nations (and the USA fully deserved to be there) playing twice, then clearing off home. Good for experience, and not affecting the later stages of the competition. Then you have the effective quarter-finals at the end of the 'groups' and the semis and the final - it's over in two weeks. I really don't see what the problems are, it does exactly what its brief is, it isn't the World Cup.

There is no problem with there being farcical games as long as they're got rid of in the early stages - the cricket in the quarter-final to final stages was good enough to make the tournament entertaining.
It's also a case of there being 8 major nations ATM - there were 10 not that long ago.
Who knows when the next Zimbabwe might happen, or when the next Kenya might appear.
As long as there are 8 good sides and 3 substandard sides, we need another to make-up the numbers.
Major events are also meant to give the minor sides a chance, there's no harm in it as long as there aren't too many games (like WC2003).
I also don't like the idea of 20-over international competitions - the odd game here and there, but I really don't see that the ODI game needs a replacement, it's doing fine with full-houses in most games. And a lot of games at that.
Except, of course, when you play those games out-of-season.

 

[luckyeddie]

It's all in the marketing....

Just tell everyone that the one-sided games in the early stages were 'warm-ups' for the benefit of the stronger sides and then it just became a straight knock-out.

 

[Richard]

Ah, if only they didn't count as "ODI"s.

 

[marc71178]

I agree with this:

So why not add my name to the quote?

Just goes to show that there are times when we agree.

 

[Neil Pickup]

So why not add my name to the quote?

Just goes to show that there are times when we agree.

Because I said it!

 

[marc71178]

That's true, I remembered saying something along those lines, but didn't check the exact post I made.

 

[Richard]

I was intending to attribute it to Neil, but forgot.
And because we can only edit posts less than 24 hours old I can't do it now!

 

[dro87]

I think the icc trophy should be played only by the test teams on a twenty20 format, while the world cup shuold have a qualification sistem very similar 2 the football one, where even the test playing nations have 2 win 2 qualify... Plus the olimpic games with the twenty 20 format open to the hole cricket world, even minnows...

 

[Richard]

Why do we need 20-over international competitions?!?!?!?!?!
ODIs and Tests are fine, we've got quite enough cricket as it is.
The Olympics is another matter, but it won't come around for 8 years at least.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I think the icc trophy should be played only by the test teams on a twenty20 format, while the world cup shuold have a qualification sistem very similar 2 the football one, where even the test playing nations have 2 win 2 qualify... Plus the olimpic games with the twenty 20 format open to the hole cricket world, even minnows...

World Cup Qualifiers on that basis really aren't a good idea.

The gulf in class between England and even European #2 Holland is such that an English Minor County side can still beat Holland, and the gap down to Scotland, Denmark, Ireland, Germany, Gibraltar, France, Israel and Italy as the next tier of nations (probably can add Belgium to that list before too long) is just as large. It would be glorified murder and do nothing for the good of European Cricket Development.

The present system is perfectly fine, and I'm looking forward to next season's ICC Trophy in Ireland as a Qualifying Tournament - reckon Italy can make it?

Group A - Ireland, Bermuda, USA, UAE, Denmark, Uganda
Group B - Holland, Scotland, Namibia, Oman, Canada, WCQS II Winner

WCQS II (Malaysia, February 2005)
Group A - Kuwait, Italy, Nepal, Papua New Guinea
Group B - Qatar, Fiji, Cayman Islands, Zambia

 

[Richard]

What is really needed is an improvement in the quality of European cricket but the trouble, as ever, is that's far easier said than done.
Sorry if I'm slightly stating the obvious, there.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

World Cup Qualifiers on that basis really aren't a good idea.

The gulf in class between England and even European #2 Holland is such that an English Minor County side can still beat Holland, and the gap down to Scotland, Denmark, Ireland, Germany, Gibraltar, France, Israel and Italy as the next tier of nations (probably can add Belgium to that list before too long) is just as large.

Agreed on the basic principle - just wanted to point out a few things:

Holland, Scotland and Ireland have very little separating them (in fact, for me, Ireland and UAE are favourites to go through from Group A)

And Belgium are awful - even that Norwegian team of ex-Pakistanis can beat them. And Norway are on a par with Gibraltar at least...

 

[Barney Rubble]

Just out of interest, do South Korea have a team? It's just that there's a Korean all-rounder in my school 1st XI, and I assume Korea aren't very good at all if they do play, so I'm wondering if he could actually make their senior team if he tried!

 

[Kent]

Why do we need 20-over international competitions?!?!?!?!?!
ODIs and Tests are fine, we've got quite enough cricket as it is.

ODIs are fine?

Too often the 15-40 over periods of ODIs provide some of the most formulaic, unimaginative, boring professional sport in the world, and if I'm thinking that I can only wonder what the average Joe (or average receptionist called Kylie) thinks.

I don't know if I'm just becoming more jaded, but I'm starting to see 100-over cricket as a bit of an insipid compromise. It tries to please conservatives and txt-kiddies at the same time, but ends up being a less than perfect product for anyone.

 

[Richard]

You take the 15-40-over period out of ODIs you just about take the cricket out of it.

 

[Kent]

Taking 5 singles an over to long-off or a cover sweeper is cricket?

 

[Richard]

The contest between a batsman trying to take those 5 singles (and more if he can) and a bowler trying to concede a mere 3 (or less if he can) is regularly for mine far more enthralling cricket than what goes on from the 40th over onwards... though it's a part of one-day-cricket like everything else.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Just out of interest, do South Korea have a team? It's just that there's a Korean all-rounder in my school 1st XI, and I assume Korea aren't very good at all if they do play, so I'm wondering if he could actually make their senior team if he tried!

They aren't members of ICC yet...and they're probably all lost to baseball anyway...

 

[chris.hinton]

but surely 8 best one day teams would provide the best competition

OH.... And the World Cup shoiuld be 16 teams therefore every team as something to play for