The Outsider Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 so how are these minnows going to become better?? Surely not by playing amongst each other? If they are only going to play against the best teams once every 4 years (and now even that is going to be scrapped from 2015 WC) they are always going to struggle at the bigger stage. You seriously believe being hammered by Sehwag and Steyn is going to improve their cricket? Most of these minnows do not have a genuine cricket base to start with. If you really want to improve their standard, build a cricket base in those nations. Where are you going to get a constant supply of players from when your source is Asian immigrants and soccer discards? And even if they have to compete with teams globally, they should start with playing in domestic leagues of other countries. Have a rule that each test nation has to include an associate nation's team in their domestic competition. Why mess with international cricket?
The Outsider Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 Well, India and Lanka were not minnows, but certainly were underdogs and were never expected to win too many matches. Being minnows and underdogs are completely different things.
Sid Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 so how are these minnows going to become better?? Surely not by playing amongst each other? If they are only going to play against the best teams once every 4 years (and now even that is going to be scrapped from 2015 WC) they are always going to struggle at the bigger stage. How do you can say playing best teams once a year will make them good.Teams become better when they have good talented players and some nice talent coming through their domestic system,which isnt the case in these minnow nations.Take for example Kenya ,who have been playing the same ordinary cricketers like Odoyo etc(pardon me Sir John :D ) for the last 15 years and I havent seen good cricketer coming through from there.These ordinary oldies keep on getting selected and come to the world events,get thrashed and go home.
The Outsider Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 S=G is right. The best would be to include the weaker teams in ODIs that usually follow a bilateral test series. So if India goes to play tests in SA and are playing a few ODIs after that, they should be made to invite one of the weaker teams and make it a triangular tournament. A few bucks will be lost, but it will do the game a lot of good. As I wrote above, these minnow countries do not even have a genuine cricket base. How is a regular thrashing from Sehwag and Steyn going to improve their cricket? All it will do is debase international cricket even more. If you want to improve their standard, start with making cricket popular in these countries at the grass root level. If Kenya had gotten enough exposure after that WC, they could have improved a lot. There was no encouragement whatsoever for their success. The players did not have a sponsor even for the basic kits. Giants like BCCI can pay for their kits, boards can pool some money to make sure the players have shoes and bats to play with. It's peanuts for most boards. Kenya's problem has nothing to do with exposure. They are simply not producing newer and better cricketers at the grass root level. The core of their team is still the same as it was 8 years ago. You think Tikolo could have become a world beater if he had played more against top team? And don't lose sight of how Kenya reached the semi final in '03 on the basis of forfeitures. It's not their fault that teams did not tour and they fully deserved the points from those matches, but that does not mean that the general quality of their cricket became top notch all of a sudden. But we know that the boards wont do it unless ICC makes them do it. IF we want this game to grow and spread, ICC will have grow a pair and take a few steps. Why mess with standard of international cricket when the game is not even popular in these countries?
Chandan Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 I heard the 2015 wc will only have 10th teams Yes. This decision was taken along with the approval of ICC test championship: LINK Here is it explained better: ICC avarice dooms Associates to the wilderness The leading countries' reluctance to give up their larger shares of the ICC's cake has come at the cost of spreading the game Martin Williamson October 21, 2010 The recent announcement of a restructuring of the bloated international calendar by the ICC was an opportunity to restore sanity to the world game. Instead, all it has confirmed is that the battle within the ICC between the money men and those with a genuine interest in the world game is over. As expected, the bean counters have won. The 2015 World Cup will have 10 teams, and while ICC officials say that no final decision has been taken on how these teams will be selected and that there might be still be a chance for Associate members to participate through a qualifying tournament, there is little likelihood of this materialising. The working party that made the recommendations was made up of David Collier (England), James Sutherland (Australia) and N Srinivasan (India) with no Associate representation, and only David Richardson of the ICC there as anyone remotely independent. With a sub-committee like that it's no wonder this decision was reached. The headline news regards the World Cup, a distended tournament, which, lest we forget, was brought to its knees in the Caribbean in 2007 largely as a consequence of the ICC's dreadful management. Instead of tackling the root causes of the malaise the ICC simply culled four of the six Associates to ensure there could be no repeat of the commercial disaster that came from India's early exit. In 2015 the ICC will go a step further and remove the Associates altogether. While fans might have hoped this will mean a leaner event, the depressing news is it won't. The reality is that the number of matches will come down by one, from 49 to 48. But there will be more cheer for the commercial arm of the ICC because there will be more games involving the lucrative teams. In a bid to deflect flak, the ICC claims no decision has been made about the structure of the 2015 World Cup, offering a flickering hope of a qualifying tournament that might allow Associates to win through to the finals. Sadly this just won't happen. It appears a stalling exercise to assuage critics until the dust has settled. When I raised qualification involving Full Members as a possible suggestion a few years ago, at the time Zimbabwe cricket was imploding, I was told by a senior ICC official it would never happen. The reasons, he said, were two-fold. Firstly, the Full Members would never agree to a structure that could result in them missing out. In a straight qualifying competition involving countries at the bottom of the ODI table, at least three Full Members could quite realistically be beaten by leading Associates and so miss out on the World Cup. While financially the ICC would ensure they would not lose money - for example, India's and Zimbabwe's earnings from the 2007 competition were massively more than Ireland's, though the first two made early exits and Ireland made the Super Eights - the implications for sponsorship and local exposure would be considerable. While it seems a ludicrous suggestion at the moment, India were as recently as 2005 eighth in the ICC's ODI rankings. It is possible that by 2015 a major country could again be out of form and risk getting sucked into a qualifying event. Given pressure from within the ICC as well as from media partners, who signed a colossal TV rights deal, led to a restructuring of the 2011 competition, neither would be willing to accept anything that might, however remotely, risk the commercial appeal of the World Cup, especially in the massive subcontinental market. So for all the rhetoric about expanding the game - and to be fair here, there are many within the ICC who genuinely believe in this vision - a glass ceiling has been lowered into place, which ensures Associates will probably not be able to play again at a full World Cup. In defence of the ICC, six Associates, as was the case in 2007, was too many. While Ireland made the headlines, others, including Kenya and the dismal Bermudans, were totally outclassed. A qualifying system between the top Associates and the worst Full Members would be fairer and would have also ensured the competition could genuinely be called a World Cup. The two small pluses are that the emergence of Twenty20 means the Twenty20 World Cup, generously expanded to 16 teams, will give Associates a chance to bloody a few noses every couple of years. But the top Associates have not welcomed this, as it all but ensures their remote chances of attaining Test status, which could only come through impressive performances in 50-over games, disappeared. The other gain is that the unloved Champions Trophy might be consigned to the dustbin. The only way Associates might return is if those controlling the finances stop pretending and just state that certain countries - probably no more than three or four - have to play in any tournament, leaving the rest to scrap among themselves for the other places. At least it would be more honest than the situation we have at the moment. The Associates have been fighting a battle for recognition they were never likely to win. For all the pretence of the ICC being a democratic organisation, most people know the game is now run by three countries who are hellbent on keeping an increasing share of the pot between themselves. However much they might claim to have the interests of cricket at heart, the revamping of the World Cup has exposed that as a sham.
The Outsider Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 If the Indian football team receives a 0-10 hammering from Brazil every month for the next 5 years, will the standard of football improve in India?
Sid Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 If the Indian football team receives a 0-10 hammering from Brazil every month for the next 5 years' date=' will the standard of football improve in India?[/quote'] Exactly it doesnt matter ,how many times big teams play the minnows unless the so called minnows doesnt produce any quality players who can help them atleast challenge the big teams
Sachinism Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 I don't know why people are moaning about the minnows. They went through qualification process by playing and beating teams that are of a similar standard. They've earned the right to come and play against the big dogs, yeh they'll receive a trashing, but there is a lot they will learn and take away from the tournament.
The Outsider Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 Yes. This decision was taken along with the approval of ICC test championship: While, I would have preferred 12, but 10 is much better than 14 or 16. Let's face it, the minnows are absolutely trash for the most part. Their best chance is in the T20 format, where they have rightly increased the number of teams and that's also happens every 2 years instead of 4.
girishk14 Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 They dont deserve to play, cos there is no use in the matches. But it all comes down as swann put it perfectly - "U CANT TAKE THE WORLD OUT OF THE WORLD CUP". If Brazil can play North Korea in FIFA , why cant the same happen in cricket?
someone Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 If the Indian football team receives a 0-10 hammering from Brazil every month for the next 5 years' date=' will the standard of football improve in India?[/quote'] You have little idea about the power of sports. If India even qualifies for the Fifa World Cup, it will be a huge boost to everyone in the country from the youths to sports facilities. Just see China 2002 world cup, it was a diaster in the pitch like everybody expected, but it left a huge positive mark in chinese football which every child in China still looks towards and aims to improve. The "success" of 2002 has meant football has been a huge craze in China and they are bound to improve. If you do not allow minnows to be the main tournament, where is the benchmark for the country to improve for future?
Sir john Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 i think minnows team should be 12 in a world cup. they deserve this, if ICC want to globalize the game,if onlt 10 nation play in the world cup,than there is no chance of game globalization. there are some countries where people are now getting interested in cricket,so i think 12 team should be in a world cup is good.
Raghav_12 Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 10 teams will be too less. All big cricketing nations have responsibility of supporting development of cricket worldwide. I think best format would be 12 teams, in groups of 6 each. Four of then progressing to SF's and then final. This will ensure that league stage of tournament holds some interest and purpose of league stage will not only be to take minnows out of race.
cowboysfan Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 Absolutely not.The ICC has made the right decision in reducing the teams to 10 for the next world cup.People like to compare the Cricket world cup to the Fifa world cup but they are completely different.An odi match takes about 7 hours to complete and it is really not fair to the public or the companies paying for the ads when you know there no contest between the teams.
yoda Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 I like the idea of letting fewer non test playing nations in the WC, enough to make up the numbers to come up with a good league stage format. The current number is too much and makes several WC games useless and this is not the way a premier tournament should start.
The Outsider Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 If India even qualifies for the Fifa World Cup, it will be a huge boost to everyone in the country from the youths to sports facilities. If they are good, they will qualify. They are going to become good by popularizing the sport at the grass root level, improving facilities, and incentives. Not by showing up on a football pitch and getting thrashed by Brazil. Just see China 2002 world cup, it was a diaster in the pitch like everybody expected, but it left a huge positive mark in chinese football which every child in China still looks towards and aims to improve. The "success" of 2002 has meant football has been a huge craze in China and they are bound to improve. Yeah, the regular qualification of Canada to the cricket world cup has really made the sport so popular in the country that people are afraid it might take over Ice Hockey. Is that the power of sport you claim to have an idea on? If you do not allow minnows to be the main tournament, where is the benchmark for the country to improve for future? Read my posts above. Can't be bothered to retype the same things.
Sir john Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 people idea for 10 is very much harsh,12 is good i think.
kabira Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 10 is right number. Some of the minnows want to become Test nation. First of all they should work on their domestic infrastructure.
satyam1729 Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 ^ in 10 team no minnow is there. Bangladesh .
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now