Sooda Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 Poal :woot: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/poll/2011/feb/22/cricket-world-cup-2011 Is cricket's the worst World Cup?It will take six weeks and 49 matches – many of them hugely one-sided – to decide the winners of the cricket World Cup. Is the tournament worse then even rugby league's oddly formatted event? I must admit I dont know enough about other sports to decide (only follow football closely enough)
someone Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 Certainly it is really long which is surprising for cricket which does not depend a lot of sustained stamina.
punjabi_khota Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 Don't think it is worse than the "world series" :P
vaibhav_delhi Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 dont know but wouldnt have been as bad if holland had managed to win today.
broken_wings Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 eww, today is just 4th day and critics could not even wait to declare this WC as the worst WC. This WC is the most open WC.
Online Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 enough of hating the format and the world cup, if you don't like it BUZZ OFF what's wrong with having an extended tournament? is it too much for your attention span to handle?
broken_wings Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 enough of hating the format and the world cup, if you don't like it BUZZ OFF what's wrong with having an extended tournament? is it too much for your attention span to handle? Exactly. If you do not like it, do not watch it. Why whining about everything ? format, schedule, minnows, grounds and the list goes on !
Ultimate_Game Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 enough of hating the format and the world cup, if you don't like it BUZZ OFF what's wrong with having an extended tournament? is it too much for your attention span to handle? I think you missed the point. The issue is not the length or one-sided games but the relevancy of most of the games. Majority of the games in the world cup are simply to determine which 8 teams make it to quarters and I think we can be certain of 7 of those 8 teams - the only spot which I am not certain about is whether B'desh or Windies make it to quarters. Once quarter finals start, the previous results don't count. Thus most of the games are redundant and are of little consequence with nothing riding on them. The better format would have been a round-robin or super 8 (or super 6) kind of format where every match has something riding on it. Again, the concern is about relevancy of most of the games and not duration or number of games if you read between the lines.
straight.drive Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 ^^^ But the sponsors and investors would want the presence of big teams for the maximum percentage of the tournament, for maximum RoI(return on investment). Hence we have the long drawn out group stage.
Ultimate_Game Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 ^^^ But the sponsors and investors would want the presence of big teams for the maximum percentage of the tournament' date=' for maximum RoI(return on investment). Hence we have the long drawn out group stage.[/quote'] But what's the point of having a "world" cup when you only want the big teams to reach the next round? Why the charade? Why not have a champions trophy kind of a tourney and be done with it? Upsets is what makes it fun to follow sports. If I knew that the big team would win all the time, what's the fun in it? If India or any other big nation can't even handle minnows in the group stages and need the help of scheduling and format to go deep into the tournament then India doesn't deserve to be there. In that case simply have IPL and cancel the world cup. Just because India was upset once in 2007 doesn't mean it will happen every time and we can't change the format of the world cup based on the fear that the big teams will get knocked out. I say have the same format as 2007 world cup and if there are upsets and someone gets knocked out, so be it.
straight.drive Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 But what's the point of having a "world" cup when you only want the big teams to reach the next round? Why the charade? Why not have a champions trophy kind of a tourney and be done with it? Upsets is what makes it fun to follow sports. If I knew that the big team would win all the time' date=' what's the fun in it? If India or any other big nation can't even handle minnows in the group stages and need the help of scheduling and format to go deep into the tournament then India doesn't deserve to be there. [b']In that case simply have IPL and cancel the world cup. Just because India was upset once in 2007 doesn't mean it will happen every time and we can't change the format of the world cup based on the fear that the big teams will get knocked out. I say have the same format as 2007 world cup and if there are upsets and someone gets knocked out, so be it. Precisely, WC is a vain attempt by ICC to keep ODI alive on a ventilator. I say, scrap the ODI's and bring on a bi-annual test championship.
Ultimate_Game Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 But wouldn't we face the same issues there as well? Now the pressure would be there to ensure India goes deep into the Test Championship else ratings and revenue will be affected. Any format or any tournament will fail if we try to make the tourney "upset proof" or to ensure success for one team. Problem with cricket is that the tourneys take forever to end. Look at T20 world cups - even though India was knocked out early in the last 2 cups, the tourneys were a success due to meaningful games and a tight format. The Windies 2007 fiasco was more due to the length and inane regulation of the tournament (e.g., local fans not able to bring musical instruments, tickets priced beyond the local fans, fans could only have sponsored cool drink within the stadia etc.) than India's early exit. I am sure if they have a decent format where every game counts for something akin and a shortened schedule (play 3 games a day) so the tourney gets over within 3-4 weeks, fans everywhere will embrace it.
broken_wings Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 ICC could have scheduled 2/3 matches per day during round league. But again, Sponsor, Ad, revenue thing are there to make our life boring and tasteless ! :p
Ranjha Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 This worldcup is the worst of all time...Without a doubt...Too bad that it will bring shame to the host nations though it might not be their fault but someone needs to own up. But I guess, they will never learn. Windies worldcup was a flop..This is a even bigger flop. and the biggest YAWN FEST EVER....Not worth watching at all so far.
Hindustani Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 LOL, so guardian came to this conclusion after watching just 4 matches ? in yesterday's nagpur match, there were easily 20-30k spectators, a crowd which you fail to get in any other country for neutral teams. the biggest WC failure was 2007 WC, total disaster, shame ICC didn't learnt anything from the mistakes
rkk101 Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 The passion dispalyed by cricket fans i(especially those of sub - continent origin) s second to none and this is integral to the success of any sporting event, so the answer is quite simply a no!. However, the tournament will lose some of its sparkle if the number of associate teams are reduced in forthcoming cups, for whilst it may not happen very often, the possibility of an upset by a minnow is the magic that makes any sporting event worth following. (Im hoping the Kenyans will display a bit more metal today!)
TheWall Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 any sports event in subcontinent is a disaster for the blind west...
ViruRulez Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 dont know but wouldnt have been as bad if holland had managed to win today. ++ great match it was and I was expecting a Holland win :P
Ranvir Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 I was very shocked when I saw the format of the world cup. It seems the ICC learnt nothing from the similarly overlong 2007 world cup. But at least this time there's no super 8 phase containing Ireland and Bangladesh. I'm pretty sure all the big 8 teams will make it to the next round.
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