Associates in for World Cup 2015

[Mariyam]

Whats the point of playing minnows when they can't dream of winning at least one game against biggies' date=' 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.[/quote'] Ireland won against England. Bangladesh beat us and South Africa last time. Kenya reached the semis once. Pakistan won the WC once. The point is, minnows add to the unpredictability. That is always good for the WC. If we start including minnows in all tournaments from now on, maybe after a decade they will reach a competitive stage. I agree we might get bored for the next 3-4 years and the ICC may have to make some losses. But in the long run, it will be a win win situation for all.

[someone]

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.

You are a deluded one and I see no point in arguing with you as you still did not answer all questions in that post.

[Zap_Brannigan]

You are a deluded one and I see no point in arguing with you as you still did not answer all questions in that post.

Nice cop out!! Why don't you 1st tell me how the format was more beneficial to India. If that's what you meant cos thats what this "After all the biggest benefits with that format was India" sounds like. Which other question are you talking? Having 2 games on the same day? I don't see how that is going to change the number of boring games we will have so that's not a solution. Additionally, Considering that Espn pressured ICC to have a long league format, i don't think they will dilute their ad revenue by having 2 games on the same day.

[someone]

Nice cop out!! Why don't you 1st tell me how the format was more beneficial to India. If that's what you meant cos thats what this "After all the biggest benefits with that format was India" sounds like. Which other question are you talking? Having 2 games on the same day? I don't see how that is going to change the number of boring games we will have so that's not a solution. Additionally, Considering that Espn pressured ICC to have a long league format, i don't think they will dilute their ad revenue by having 2 games on the same day.

Maybe you could start my answering my questions completely rather than ignoring certain parts? The format was better for all teams who are the best consistently, instead of one or two teams getting some certain "fluke" wins and thereby eliminating those teams(India 2007), it would be based more on maintaining your form. And maybe let me remind you, in 2007 there were more protests about that format. And define boring? Do you mean competitive. watch IPL, private league where there is little difference on paper/pitch. Do you mean passion and emotions? that is world cup. You want teams from different parts of the world cup to join the festival. Just see 2010 fifa world cup, you already know only 5-6 predefined teams are going to win, so why bother with other teams? But it was North Korea who made the event memorable, just like Ireland in 2011, just like Abinav in Beijing for India.(a minnow country winning some gold medal)

[Sachinism]

Another boring 40 days of world cup cricket!!Yay!

Blame ICC for the format. They need to make sure some of the bigger teams don't have an off day and get knocked out by a minnow, so they provide them with a sh!tload of matches so they're guaranteed to go through. ICC has invested so much into associate nations, it would stupid to abandon them now. They always provide a few exciting games in the WC. Let's not make it seem like all matches between top nations are the most exciting thing imaginable. Just yesterday the WC runner-ups got totally owned in what looked like a very, very one-sided contest. Anyone against having associate nations in the next WC, have any of you watched 'Out of the Ashes'?

[mishra]

:hitler:

Any chnace for Afghanis to qualify?

:hitler:

[Sidhoni]

My thread merged... :((

[Zap_Brannigan]

Maybe you could start my answering my questions completely rather than ignoring certain parts? The format was better for all teams who are the best consistently, instead of one or two teams getting some certain "fluke" wins and thereby eliminating those teams(India 2007), it would be based more on maintaining your form. And maybe let me remind you, in 2007 there were more protests about that format. And define boring? Do you mean competitive. watch IPL, private league where there is little difference on paper/pitch. Do you mean passion and emotions? that is world cup. You want teams from different parts of the world cup to join the festival. Just see 2010 fifa world cup, you already know only 5-6 predefined teams are going to win, so why bother with other teams? But it was North Korea who made the event memorable, just like Ireland in 2011, just like Abinav in Beijing for India.(a minnow country winning some gold medal)

2007 format was very similar to FIFA WC format in that a fluke loss could eliminate a team. Ireland which made the 2nd round in 2007 on the back of the win against Pak couldnt repeat it on the back of the English win in 2011. So you want the unpredictability of the FIFA/2007 WC format but also don't want it? What did we have in group A? 4 good teams and 3 bad to horrible teams fighting for 4 slots. Atleast in group B, on paper there was some kind of chance for BD and Ireland. What did group A have? 20 games out of which half were over before the end of 1st innings. Be it cricket or football, in a short league, the best teams may always not go to the next round and an ideal scenario would be like the 2011 WC 1st stage but only if the difference in quality of the teams is not huge. In 2011, by having 14 teams, the quality was diluted. Something like in 1999(without the points carrying over), in which the top 6 teams from each group fight for just 3 spots, would also be long enough such that minnows do not unfairly go to the next round while giving good teams time to recover from 1 bad game. This wont happen as ICC deems is very important for their bottom line that India goes to the next round.

[phaedrus]

This world cup had scheduling issues, you can have the minnow matches the same day as one of the other matches and get it over with quickly. the organisers were keen on having India/big matches on the weekends and ended up stretching the tourney to no end.

[Zap_Brannigan]

Blame ICC for the format. They need to make sure some of the bigger teams don't have an off day and get knocked out by a minnow, so they provide them with a sh!tload of matches so they're guaranteed to go through. ICC has invested so much into associate nations, it would stupid to abandon them now. They always provide a few exciting games in the WC. Let's not make it seem like all matches between top nations are the most exciting thing imaginable. Just yesterday the WC runner-ups got totally owned in what looked like a very, very one-sided contest. Anyone against having associate nations in the next WC, have any of you watched 'Out of the Ashes'?

I am blaming ICC and not the associates. I dont want the associates to be completely out of the picture but 2011 format was really bad. ICC signed the TV rights deal with ESPN stating that India will play a minimum of some number of games. So they cannot afford to lose India in the 1st round. Atleast when there were 10 teams I could expect good competition for the majority of the tournament but a repeat of 2011 would just be awful. The least ICC could do is have a super six instead of QF, so that atleast some games remain meaningful.

[Mariyam]

@ Zap : you have a great argument , re: you comparing football and cricket wcs and ICC wanting India to go ahead for monetary purposes. :hatsoff: But, lets look at it from a different angle. ICC in its stated charter stands for the promotion of the game world wide. In a century of existence, it has done precious little in spreading the game except for filling its own coffers. I think it is a very short sighted business plan if they are unwilling to take risks at the present to secure massive future profits. What I am saying is that, let there be one or two boring world cups, a la WC 2007. No harm done , if it gets more countries involved. There are so many more markets to tap. If it were left to me, I would have granted a WC to China and USA some years in the future. And in the interim period sent coaches ( on ICC payroll) to teach the local people right from youth level all the way to professionals. Taken up publicity campaigns etc. Think of this: A Ryan Ten Doeschate is not a household name in Holland. Hell, if Tendulkar were to walk the streets of Rotterdam, chances are that he wouldn't be recognized. And this is the best cricketer we are talking about, not some aira gaira nathu khaira. This should shame ICC. If a Lionel Messi or a Ronaldo were to walk the streets in any of the nations that have played WC football, he would be instantly recognized. What I'm trying to say is that; ICC has to be more accountable. Otherwise don't call it the World Cup. Just call it cup of the British Commonwealth + Holland, because thats what it is now. Also, you mention about 20 meaningless matches in group B. So what??? Do you watch all the games in the WC? Let there be minnow vs minnow matches. The idea is to get local people support their respective minnows. I'm totally for the inclusion of 14 teams in the WC. The more the merrier. I would want more teams in T20 WC and Test matches and all those trilateral series also.

[phaedrus]

If a Richard Messi or a Ronaldo were to walk the streets in any of the nations that have played WC football, he would be instantly recognized.

Richard Messi would not be recognised. Lionel would

[someone]

2007 format was very similar to FIFA WC format in that a fluke loss could eliminate a team. Ireland which made the 2nd round in 2007 on the back of the win against Pak couldnt repeat it on the back of the English win in 2011. So you want the unpredictability of the FIFA/2007 WC format but also don't want it? What did we have in group A? 4 good teams and 3 bad to horrible teams fighting for 4 slots. Atleast in group B, on paper there was some kind of chance for BD and Ireland. What did group A have? 20 games out of which half were over before the end of 1st innings. Be it cricket or football, in a short league, the best teams may always not go to the next round and an ideal scenario would be like the 2011 WC 1st stage but only if the difference in quality of the teams is not huge. In 2011, by having 14 teams, the quality was diluted. Something like in 1999(without the points carrying over), in which the top 6 teams from each group fight for just 3 spots, would also be long enough such that minnows do not unfairly go to the next round while giving good teams time to recover from 1 bad game. This wont happen as ICC deems is very important for their bottom line that India goes to the next round.

Again you totally ignored to answer several parts in your post but in a short answer to above, the quality of cricket does not increase nor decrease with having more teams. Even with less teams, that does not mean there will be more better quality as there have and will be straight forward victories. The simple fact is your reasons are purely selfish which is based on "I do not know these players", these are unknown for me so they have no quality". That just takes away the basic reason of any game which always starts from unknown and nothing.