ganeshran Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 what would have you chosen between 10 and 14? 10. with last two ranked teams competing with four associates for the two remaining spots and the top 8 teams qualifying directly
mishra Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Comeon.... Give these guys a break... You want to develop cricket, at the same time you arent ready to give one day playing against upcoming nations
ravishingravi Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 I would go for 10 teams with qualifiers for associate teams including Bangbros and.Zim
broken_wings Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Many of you missed the main point here. ICC has made this decision only to get the support from associates in order to amend the rule about appointment of ICC chief so that BCCI can appoint their personnel as ICC Chief. they need eight of ten Full Members and 38 of 50 Associates votes in favour of the motion. So, its actually not a victory of Associates rather victory of ICC...oops..did i say ICC...my bad..BCCI ! :)
rajmarie Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Many of you missed the main point here. ICC has made this decision only to get the support from associates in order to amend the rule about appointment of ICC chief so that BCCI can appoint their personnel as ICC Chief. they need eight of ten Full Members and 38 of 50 Associates votes in favour of the motion. So, its actually not a victory of Associates rather victory of ICC...oops..did i say ICC...my bad..BCCI ! :) Well....That was anyway going to happen. But atleast associates were made part of the WC. I hope the associates can get themself in a better cricketing standard...& 4 teams of Ireland caliber comes to 2015 WC. Afganistan has all the time now to get in this WC. Disappointed with 10 teams for 2019 WC though. 12 teams is ideal for WC.....but ICC will try to sell those WC with guarantee 9 India match. F U ICC
someone Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Anyone saying 10 teams really do not have logic. If 10 teams, why should India be in Olypmics, it is just meaningless in the whole summer games. If you want so called "competitive" cricket between elite teams, make your own private league(IPL). As if it is a true public sport, the true meaning is connecting nations with other nations. Making minnows become the best(eg:India) and vice versa.
Zap_Brannigan Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Its not that the associates are not welcome in the WC but the greedy ICC will make the schedule such that India will play as much as possible i.e. like the just concluded WC. We will end up with a boring 1st round because of the number of games the minnows will play. If the WC format is such that the minnows are given their due for a few days and then the most powerful team move on to the next round,most will not have a problem. 2007 was a one off and i am willing to bet that India will make it to the 2nd round on a similar format. But iCC is not.
someone Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Its not that the associates are not welcome in the WC but the greedy ICC will make the schedule such that India will play as much as possible i.e. like the just concluded WC. We will end up with a boring 1st round because of the number of games the minnows will play. If the WC format is such that the minnows are given their due for a few days and then the most powerful team move on to the next round,most will not have a problem. 2007 was a one off and i am willing to bet that India will make it to the 2nd round on a similar format. But iCC is not. But stupid to say that. After all the biggest benefits with that format was India. Remember the disaster 2007 WC. It is better to have more group matches to get the best team overall. If you want to say smth which can improve, it is the schedule, there could be more number of matches each day to make the WC shorter.
ganeshran Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 maasah allah :yay::yay: SJ Daru party ho jaye :drinks:
Cricket Tragic Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 maasah allah :yay::yay: SJ Daru party ho jaye :drinks: :cantstop:
Sir john Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 SJ Daru party ho jaye :drinks: doctor say to me no alcohol and smoke.:((
King Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 I would have still liked to see 10 teams with a qualifying round for the 9th and 10th spots. Again there will be plenty of games that are not going to be worth watching.
ganeshran Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 doctor say to me no alcohol and smoke.:(( Then you dont drink, mujhe party de do.. thoda kharch bhi kam ho jayega... wat say? :drinks:
yoda Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Wonder whatever happened to the idea of 10 or 12 teams including a qualifier for the 2/4 spots.
Ultimate_Game Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 14 for me. You can't exclude most of the countries from "world cup" and expect cricket to grow.
Captain of Bhangra Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 While you get the disadvantage of sh*t matches, like Kenya v Canada etc, you also get some excitement. If there were no associate nations in the World Cup, we would not have witnessed Kevin O'Brien's century against England, which I hold to be the GREATEST innings of all time in ODIs (Sorry SRT)...
Zap_Brannigan Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 But stupid to say that. After all the biggest benefits with that format was India. Remember the disaster 2007 WC. It is better to have more group matches to get the best team overall. If you want to say smth which can improve, it is the schedule, there could be more number of matches each day to make the WC shorter. How was India the biggest beneficiary? Just because it was intended to make sure all top 8 teams remain till the last week in the WC and we went on to win the tournament, it doesnt mean we are the biggest beneficiary. ICC and ESPN were the biggest beneficiary. Among teams, England is the only team that actually lost to a minnow and so they were the biggest beneficiary.Even SL and Pak has easy opponents in the knock out stage before meeting India. But that is just luck of the draw. 2007 happened and so what? Its not like India is the sole beneficiary of a long drawn out league that gives leeways even if a team loses a game or 2 against the minnows. All top 8 teams had it. It is stupid to base entire tournaments on a one off result. This is pure greed by the ICC. I, as an Indian fan, would take the chance of India being eliminated in the 1st league stage in a multi league tournament similar to 99,03 and 07. Apparently ICC doesnt.
Mariyam Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Its the job on the ICC to spread cricket the world over. The same set of countries have been playing cricket since the 70s. We've had very few additions. Look at how football is handled: they have 24 ( not too sure) countries in the WCs and there is ample competition. ICC should not only permit these 'Associates' to play in the WCs, but regularly have them perform in 3 way series, Champions Trophy, T 20 WC etc.
urbestfriend Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Whats the point of playing minnows when they can't dream of winning at least one game against biggies, let alone winning the cup? Just makes the whole tournament longish and boring...If you want to spread cricket, use t20 Worldcup where they can compete better. 12 teams would have been good, allow 2 best minnows an entry into the worldcup.
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