sourab10forever Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 Sud: "Forget the monetary stakes; more teams like ND must be given a chance - the quality of cricket is so good. 3 teams from IPL - well, I am not sure it is so well deserved! " Forget the monetary stakes? The organisers stopped hearing you at that point. THIS IS JUST ANOTHER IPL +BigBash. What are others doing? the limit must be 2 from a team.or else must follow a specific pattern. INDIA-top 2 (Seeing the demand)team from the LEAGUE stages and not from the finals. Australia 1 team only . 1 from south Africa(ram slam) 1 from England(NatWest T20 Blast) 1 from West Indies(CPL) 1 from SL/NZ. and(SLPL ) 1 from pakistan. (nothing but 1 each from the top 7 teams on the T20 rankings and INDIA getting 1 extra for being the hosts.) Two set of Qualifers Qualifiers 1 :one team each from bangladesh,SL or NZ. Qualifiers 2 :SUBORDINATE team(MUST get a chance as well)that is Kenya, Zim, NED etc (on a regulation basis).1 team qualify from the each qualifer . BOTH the IPL teams must be in the same group. **** the money.You have IPL for that.:nice:
JaFanatic Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 Watch world cup or t20i championship or even champions trophy if you only want one team from each country. Not sure if you would really watch a cricket match featuring a domestic team from a minnow nation :giggle:
sourab10forever Posted September 14, 2014 Author Posted September 14, 2014 we could use this league as a practice for WT20. Most of the under-dog teams are seen only in the WT20.they need some exposure too. We saw how well Nederland's team performed in bangladesh.if they get some more chances,our World cups will no longer be a tri series
sourab10forever Posted September 14, 2014 Author Posted September 14, 2014 BCCI,being the boss must become a leader. If T20 is the future of cricket....they must may well make it a non-dominated format
velu Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 i think paki , bangal and lankan teams should have 2 rounds to get a chance to play in CL..
sachin34357 Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 BCCI has 50% stake hence 4 teams. CSA and CA has 25% each so thats why they get 2 slots each.
moniker Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 **** the money?? Need not pay the players as well then, **** the money!
sourab10forever Posted September 14, 2014 Author Posted September 14, 2014 **** the money?? Need not pay the players as well then' date=' **** the money![/quote'] with so much of crowd coming in for even a"ND vs SE"match also.....no problem on the ground collection and the team owners can pay them handsomely. Hardly 6 to 7 matches on an avg can pay(a bit less wont bother them so much considering so many new ones are getting atleast a chance to play)
CSK Fan Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 BCCI has 50% stake hence 4 teams. CSA and CA has 25% each so thats why they get 2 slots each. Hows does this logic make the tournament better? If we want to see IPL teams play each other, we have IPL
G_B_ Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 Its not so simple the bcci did try with 3 teams from the ipl inititally. But the tournament commercially bombed and the broadcasters wanted the big teams. So they are forced to play 4 teams. The thing is Indian fans are just not that interested in watching Wayamba v Perth or whatever. So more matches involving IPL teams the better. If anything its better to boost the number of paklistani teams from a commercial POV. I hear Lahore lions have been getting a lot og eyeballs.
Zap_Brannigan Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 The very 1st CL had just 2 teams from each of India,SA,Aus and Eng and 1 team from Pak,NZ,SL and WI with no qualifying stages. Then that was cancelled thanks to pak terrorists. So pak team was removed and 1 more IPL teams was added. Then they realized that teams from NZ,SL and WI werent as good and there were too many 1 sided games. In 2010 CL, the one in SA, these 3 teams won a grand total of 1 game out of the 12 they played. That 1 game was won by SL against NZ team. In other words, they lost every game against SA,Aus and IPL teams. This was why qualification stages was needed. The 4th IPL team and inclusion of Pak team are answers to not so good ratings. Quality and ratings dictated the rise in the number of IPL teams. Maybe if the other countries showed interest in their club teams as much as Indians care about the IPL teams, there would be less number of IPL teams.
rkt.india Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 Its a joint venture between BCCI, CSA and CA...thats why they have more teams than others.
Zap_Brannigan Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 Its a joint venture between BCCI' date=' CSA and CA...thats why they have more teams than others.[/quote'] No.Its about quality. Originally, it was supposed to have 2 teams from Ind,Aus,SA and Eng. But then, Eng pulled out while even the solitary teams from others were found lacking in quality.
zakk Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 4 teams from different countries should be added directly to the main groups instead of qualifiers :hmmm:
Vilander Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 its as good as it can probably get, pak teams fails in qualifiers, IPl teams ompete with SA/Aus teams in finals. This is a failed concept anyway with only India being market for cricket, and Indians watching only Indian teams play and the game as such being pretty non athletic and common as cricket, having a CL is in itself a big achievement, this should run for an other 10 years before mothballing.
Recommended Posts