The Outsider Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 That's how the World Cup '11 has been so far, and is likely to stay that way for the majority of the event. The reasons are not too difficult to see, and were pointed out as potential problems even when the format and teams were announced. In a sport, where 9 teams have any realistic chance of making the last 8, the ICC in all it's wisdom decided to play 42 matches in the first round. All to eliminate one team and decide who plays who in the Quarter Finals. Some of the most successful World Cups in terms of excitement and importance of individual matches have been the '83, '87, and '92 WC editions. The concept of having a Quarter Final diminishes the importance of the league stage. After the bug of globalizing a not global, but pretty damn exciting, sport caught on. Bringing in teams with a fledgling cricket structure and horrible cricket outfits has seriously diluted the cricket WC. The top down approach to globalizing cricket was adopted and the results have been horrible. Teams like UAE and Canada have taken part in the tournament. Has cricket been adopted by the local population there? Kenya, after fortituously reaching the semi final in '03 continues to field the same core team as it did 10 years back. What spark did it provide to cricket in Kenya? ICC has the responsibility to spread the game, but it's approach to doing it has been mindnumbing. Instead of focussing on getting the associate nations involved in domestic tournaments of established cricket nations or developing a proper domestic structure in these countries, it has been a case of throwing these below average cricketers in front of the best talents. There might be the odd upset in this World Cup as there have been in every tournament, but surely that odd upset cannot be used as a reason to debase the showcase event of cricket. Watching empty stands in a cricket crazy country like India for the biggest event in cricket, should tell everyone that something is seriously wrong. What good is globalization of cricket when the teams being globalized are barely able to bowl 10 overs before the opposition has knocked down the target. What have the minnows learned in these 10 overs? I would really want to know. It's great news that the next World Cup will feature 10 teams in a format like 1992. Every match will assume value, most matches will be between evenly matched sides, and after a long wait the spectators will finally get the feeling of a World Cup. As an Indian, I just find it disappointing that it will happen in 2015. A 2011 World Cup in the subcontinent in a similar format would have been a treat. Filled stadiums, high pressure encounters, the cheering and jeering. This World Cup will also pick up in the knockout stages, but why go through such a tedious first round? T20 has offered the perfect avenue for the smaller nations to play alongside the top countries. It is a format much more suited to the minnows and even if it's a one sided encounter, thankfully it cannot last more than 3 hours. Foe once the powers to be in ICC have got things right and increased the number of teams in the T20 WC to 16. A premier event like the Cricket World Cup should not be made hostage to the politics of 'globalizing' the game. It should be a contest between the best, not a drudgery played out in front of empty stadiums.
Manny_Pacquiao Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 playing 1 game a day is the biggest blunder made by the ICC. this is what unnecessarily lengthens the tournament.
vvvslaxman Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 usually much maligned Champions Trophy looks far better all of a sudden.
f.b.m Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 Excellent post. Two points: First, genuine question: Does having a long and pointless tournament have economic consequences? Or do the powers that be milk more money from the WC hype rather than having a shorter more exciting tournament? Second, I don't think that cricket can spread in a meaningful way to different countries as long as the majority of matches are country A vs. country B. Maybe world cups notwithstanding, this nation based system must go. Cricket can't spread by building institutions funded top down but needs viewer interest built from bottom up.
DomainK Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 playing 1 game a day is the biggest blunder made by the ICC. this is what unnecessarily lengthens the tournament. Exactly. With three countries hosting the tournament, they could have easily played three matches a day. However, I am not complaining. In my busy schedule, I am happy that the tournament is progressing slowly so that I can keep up. India's matches are coming in the weekend with a week's gap, but I am happy. At least I can watch the matches.
The Outsider Posted February 21, 2011 Author Posted February 21, 2011 Excellent post. Two points: First, genuine question: Does having a long and pointless tournament have economic consequences? Or do the powers that be milk more money from the WC hype rather than having a shorter more exciting tournament? I guess a longer tournament does ensure more days of marketing and advertising related to the World Cup. The sponsors of the World Cup have exclusivity contracts during, just before and just after the event. So, for example Tendulkar cannot be seen endorsing Coke during this time because Pepsi has the official tie up with ICC, even if Tendulkar has a separate contract with Coke. It could of course prove to be counter productive in the case of a long and boring tournament, but I guess that's where the market analysts would come in to calculate the optimal length from an advertising perspective. Second, I don't think that cricket can spread in a meaningful way to different countries as long as the majority of matches are country A vs. country B. Maybe world cups notwithstanding, this nation based system must go. Cricket can't spread by building institutions funded top down but needs viewer interest built from bottom up. Spot on! Whenever the subject of globalizing cricket is brought up, the ICC talks about how the smaller nations are being given a change to compete with the big ones. That's not how to build a sport. The ICC should identify countries which have some local support for cricket and develop a structure there, bottom up. Ireland and Afghanistan could be two such potential countries, though Afghanistan has so many problems of their own. Teams like UAE and Canada, who rely solely on expats are a waste of time.
falconhawk Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 Boring World Cup so far. Who's actually enjoying it? All one sided matches are being played. Good teams vs minnows. Just waiting for competitive matches like Pakistan vs Sri Lanka this Saturday.
Zelig Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 I was expecting zimboks to do well against Australia, but not to be. WI v SA should be interesting if the Windies' top order can hold it together. But, you never know on the newly laid Kotla wicket.
jusarrived Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 its actually a good thing if they finish most off the one sided matches first . Agreed , its boring for now ..but unfortunately these matches have to be played , so get done with it
Manny_Pacquiao Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 . Just waiting for competitive matches like Pakistan vs Sri Lanka this Saturday. what makes u think that will be competitive? sri lanka will win that one easily.
flamy Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 I havent watched any after the first match. Such a waste of buying link lulz. :((
jusarrived Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 what makes u think that will be competitive? sri lanka will win that one easily. Lankans are not that good team either . Pak bat first and post a total of ~270 , it is always difficult to chase under lights in SL.
straight.drive Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 Well lot's of matches with minnows. That's what is making this so boring..
Manny_Pacquiao Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 Pak bat first and post a total of ~270 ' date=' .[/quote'] :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: not happening on sri lanka's turners against murali and co. and if sri lanka bat first, then its gonna be incredibly one sided. i expect a repeat of this match: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/385751.html
jusarrived Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: not happening on sri lanka's turners against murali and co. and if sri lanka bat first, then its gonna be incredibly one sided. i expect a repeat of this match: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/385751.html YK and Misbah play spin well & Murali is finished . Malinga and Kulasekara are a bigger worry for them even if its a spinning track . 270 is gettable these days for any team , with a bit of luck .
straight.drive Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 It can get worse. If this tournament meanders like the one in 2007, ICC would be forced to write obituary to ODI's... The initial signs are pretty depressing. Therewas hardly any attendance for non-India matches.
pensionplan Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 Someone send me a PM once the QF line up's are set. Yawn. Till then I'll pretend that the WC has not begun.
Watson87 Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 i haven't watched a single match this world cup quite busy with other work
zen Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 I agree w/ the sentiments that having the QF makes the group games less interesting. If top two teams from each group went straight to the semis, then the group games would have come alive .... right now, for many, the world cup starts from QF onwards Though looking at how Ind is trying to sort its combination, I can't complain from that PoV. The group games would help them get into rhythm and hopefully peak at the right time .... Aus is another team that wouldn't mind this too.
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