The Outsider Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 Though I don't disagree with you, but you missing main point. My point is despite starting with 32 teams, only few teams have any realistic chance of winning world cup and rest of the countries are just passengers and you can say are there just to make up the numbers. See betting odds for FIFA 2010 That's because there are fewer teams in cricket amongst which the odds have to be split. Anyhow, the main point is that one sided cricket games are a drudgery. There are very few FIFA WC games which can compare with the sheer boredom and farce that panned out yesterday. And keep watching how the next month is going to be more of the same. Only 8 teams outta 32 were having odds less than 20, means had any realistic chance of winning cup. 24 teams were there just to make up numbers or you can say to gain experience.(In ICC world cup, 8 teams have odds less than 25 and 6 less than 10) Similarly in any Grand Slam we start with 128 players, knowing very well that many of them are there just to make numbers. How many times Federer's first round match has been any thing but formality? How many times Sania Mirza has gone to Grand Slam for any purpose other than making up the numbers or to gain some WTA points? How long do the first two rounds last in a grand slam? How long is the farce going to last in the WC? My point is when all other sports start with such a big group, then why Cricket should not? I agree that game of cricket by nature exposes gulf between two teams very clearly which is not there is Soccer. But that is not reason enough to exclude majority from having first hand experience. I again say that it not problem of number of team we start with but problem of format of tournament which makes many of matches including minnows as redundant. There is T20 for them to get a feel of the big stage. The ICC have already increased the number of teams there to 16. It's also a format most prone to an upset and even one sided matches are not as desperately one sided as in ODIs. In that case, why not have them in tests as well? That will give more 'first class experience' to these trashy teams. your other example on net run rate is simple exaggeration. I had pointed out to a possible situation where one strong team has to beat a minnow by some 150 runs or so, to advance to next stage. This kind of scenarios will make matches involving minnows somehow interesting. It's an exaggeration to bring out the drawback of the suggested format, where margins of victories take on needless importance.
Sir_Afridi Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 Not sure about minnows but WC format should always be like in 1992 WC. All teams play each other once and top 4 goes to semis. This make sure that no team goes into final without playing the best teams.
Feed Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 Ponting says fewer teams is better for World Cup More... Ponting says fewer teams is better for World Cup Brydon Coverdale in Ahmedabad February 20, 2011 Ricky Ponting, the Australia captain, believes the World Cup will be a better event without the weaker Associate nations, but hopes the ICC's decision doesn't hurt the development of the game around the world. The ICC has decided the next World Cup will feature only ten teams, and the Associates will have to use the World Twenty20 as their major chance for exposure to the top level. They have not yet revealed what the qualification for the 50-over World Cup will be. It's a move that has understandably angered plenty of the Associates, who have also received support from leading players such as Graeme Swann, AB de Villiers and Shaun Tait. However, Kenya's capitulation for 69 against New Zealand, and Canada's struggle to contain Sri Lanka on Sunday highlighted one of the problems of adding the less competitive teams to the tournament, according to Ponting. "That's a tough question, for the sheer fact that you need to be bringing some of these smaller nations on in the world of cricket," Ponting said when asked if the Associates should play in the World Cup. "We all want to see the game develop and blossom in different countries around the world. I've always been a bit unsure if World Cups and Champions Trophies are the right place to do that. "The major reason for that is I'm not sure how much a lot of the teams actually learn when they're getting hammered like they tend to do in a lot of those contests. It would probably be a better tournament if there were fewer teams, but we understand the responsibility for the game to continue to grow around the world as well." Ponting's Australian side will meet Canada and Kenya in the group stage this year, while Netherlands and Ireland are the Associates in the other group. One thing the ICC's decision has done is give the minnows something to prove during the current World Cup. "It is so important for us to put out strong performances and show everyone, including the ICC, how much progress the Associates have made and send further strong messages to all that we are competing," Netherlands coach Peter Drinnen said. "We beat Bangladesh last year. We have beaten a full member in the shorter version [England at the 2009 World Twenty20]; other Associates have beaten full members. Whether we win or lose as long as the performances are there people can see the amount of progress we have made in the last three to five years with the introduction of the high performance programme." Drinnen added his name to the growing list of players and coaches who think the move to restrict the number of teams will be bad for the game. "The gains [of playing against full members] are significant," he said. "So it is so important that we keep getting those opportunities as that only enhances our development and increases our progress. To have those opportunities taken away, obviously, is going to be detrimental." The 2015 World Cup will be held in Australia and New Zealand. The last time the tournament was hosted there, in 1992, was also the last time there were no Associates that took part.
akshayxyz Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 "The major reason for that is I'm not sure how much a lot of the teams actually learn when they're getting hammered like they tend to do in a lot of those contests" Didn't expect this from Punter. Anyone who hangs around in top rankings of any sport, must understand how important it is for 'Goliaths' to get a chance to play against 'Davids' - and none of them are bothered about hammering. And if they dont get to play even 3-4 matches in 4 years, what is the motivation for them to continue playing cricket?
phaedrus Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 If anything, the world cup should be open to 4-6 associate teams and the Champion's trophy should be made elite(cuttting it down to 8 teams maybe :idunno:). It would create a distinct feel for both the tourneys btw, first post here, a big hello to everyone on the forum :wavey:
Chandan Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 If anything, the world cup should be open to 4-6 associate teams and the Champion's trophy should be made elite(cuttting it down to 8 teams maybe :idunno:). It would create a distinct feel for both the tourneys btw, first post here, a big hello to everyone on the forum :wavey: Welcome to ICF Phaedrus! In 2015 well have only 10 teams but do not know what will be the format or if only full members will be allowed or there will be some qualification process or not. But it won't be a short WC. Even that WC will have 48 games. So I don't know what format they'd work on. But I agree that T20 is the best format right now for the associates to play with the bigger teams as we have less lop sided matches there.
Zero_Unit Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 ^ I like this idea. Allows all the team to participate and less matches.
Mariyam Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 i agree teams like Canada are pretty uninspiring with almost zero non-immigrants playing. but the Irish and Afghans have lots of ethnic players + there is opportunity to build popular interest. a 12 team world cup therefore would be a perfect number. at the same time, they should play in domestic leageus in India, Australia, etc. as well as perhaps play several ODIs against the major sides (if burnout is a concern, just 2nd an unofficial A team), that would still help. I'm not sure I understand your point. What is wrong if non immigrants are not playing in the Canadian team? I would read the situation in a different way. Canada can make it to back to back WCs beating whatever little competition they faced despite of the fact that mainstream Canada doesn't care much about the sport. If anything that speaks volumes about the efficacy of the methods of the guys who run Canadian cricket, Time and again they get the better of Afghanistan, Nepal and the others where cricket is more mainstream relative to Canada.
vvvslaxman Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 India, Australia, SA, Pakistan, NZ, WI, SL, England, Bangladesh, zimbabwe are more than enough.
Guest prince Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 lots of people are opposed to 10 team tournament but they are also not in favour of 14 teams, so lets have a 12 team tournament but not in 2007 world cup format. 2 groups of 6 teams (points carried forward to super six) super six semis final test playing nations should be automatic choice (9 current teams) so the other 3 should qualify via playing associates team world cup.
vvvslaxman Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 Minnows are fine. But they should not play like 5 matches in a world cup. That is 5 dead matches per minnow. So 4 minnow means approx 20 dead matches.
Raghav_12 Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 lots of people are opposed to 10 team tournament but they are also not in favour of 14 teams, so lets have a 12 team tournament but not in 2007 world cup format. 2 groups of 6 teams (points carried forward to super six) super six semis final test playing nations should be automatic choice (9 current teams) so the other 3 should qualify via playing associates team world cup. Why do we need super six here? Let teams play SF's directly after group stages. Hockey tournaments always follow this format- be it WC or Olympics.
The Outsider Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 I'm not sure I understand your point. What is wrong if non immigrants are not playing in the Canadian team? I would read the situation in a different way. Canada can make it to back to back WCs beating whatever little competition they faced despite of the fact that mainstream Canada doesn't care much about the sport. If anything that speaks volumes about the efficacy of the methods of the guys who run Canadian cricket, Time and again they get the better of Afghanistan, Nepal and the others where cricket is more mainstream relative to Canada. What's wrong is that without the local population playing the sport, the game will never grow in the country beyond a point. The minnow will always remain minnows. They will always be reliant on the same immigrant base, and will never be able to take the game to the next level. UAE, Canada, Holland are never going to become substantial forces of world cricket, unless by some miracle the local population becomes involved in the sport.
vvvslaxman Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 Cricket is more than a game. It is a culture. You need half decent first class structure and history to go with. Even then maintaining is not easy. So ground up becoming a superforce in cricket is not that easy. It will take lot of time.
Serani Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 Afghanistan are the country with most potential if they can sort out the trouble in their country one day, obviously will take a long time.
Raghav_12 Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 What's wrong is that without the local population playing the sport' date=' the game will never grow in the country beyond a point. The minnow will always remain minnows. They will always be reliant on the same immigrant base, and will never be able to take the game to the next level. UAE, Canada, [b']Holland are never going to become substantial forces of world cricket, unless by some miracle the local population becomes involved in the sport. About Netherlands, I am not sure what you saying is right or not. From look of the names it seems like that almost all players are local dutch people, not immigrants from Englant or sub-continent. I believe there is a bit of structure in place in Netherlands and local ducth people also participate in these. In between, how many here think that today's match would not help in development of cricket in Netherlands?
The Outsider Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 About Netherlands, I am not sure what you saying is right or not. From look of the names it seems like that almost all players are local dutch people, not immigrants from Englant or sub-continent. I believe there is a bit of structure in place in Netherlands and local ducth people also participate in these. In between, how many here think that today's match would not help in development of cricket in Netherlands? Most of them are of South African origin. In fact, your post got me curious, so I checked their places of origin on their cricinfo profiles. Kervezee - South African born Barresi - South African born Cooper - Australian born Doeschate - South African born Zuiderent - Holland de Grooth - Holland Borren - New Zealand born Bukhari - Pakistani born Seelaar - Holland born Loots - South African born Westdijk - Holland born If you think today's performance is going to get the average Dutch guy interested in cricket, you are kidding yourself. Most probably don't even know that their country has a team in the cricket world cup.
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