Stuge Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Doesn't get easier for the Top 6 teams to squeez in through to QF.Even if they are in there worst form. I suggest associates gets more exposure by playing against more matches plus one or two upset won't affect the tournament like the one you suggested above .
someone Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Of course. See Football World Cup as well, there are so many weak teams from Asia in it. But it's a world cup for a reason and having more kind of teams will only make the tournament beautiful.
sourab10forever Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 I suggest associates gets more exposure by playing against more matches plus one or two upset won't affect the tournament like the one you suggested above . moer they play..lesser are there chances of qualifing.Just like longer the format of the game,lesser the chances of them winning.
brendan07 Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Never have been a fan of it. World Cups should be limited to 12 at the absolute most. Too many pointless games and a tournament that goes for 2 months!
brendan07 Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Probably can name 10 (9 test nations plus Ireland). Then have a pre tournament between the associates and the top 2 qualify ( 1 in each group). No need for 14 or 16. That's too many in a odi WC, leave that for t20,
kruiser Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 how many followed Afg - Bangla match? or Will see the ZIM - UAE match? these matched stup the momemntum and the buildup of the tournament. IMO, there should be qualifiers right before the main event with bottom 2 test playing nations and the top 8 associates. Then take 4 qualifiers to make the total number as 10. Divide in 2 groups (20 matches), skittle the teams down to 6 and play a super six (15 matches) followed by semis and Final. (3 matches) Total main event can be easily completed in a month.
putrevus Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Why are people after minnows and standard of cricket nonsense.World cup is an incentive for every minnow team to show case their talents.Don't we have CT for test nations only already. USA has hosted even world cup soccer way back in 1994 , how many great soccer players US has produced so far .Soccer unlike cricket has looked to expand. ICC/MCC have always been an exclusive club which put interests of England and Australia first and rest of the teams just catered their needs and filled their cricketing calendars. Media and fans of other countries cannot stand one sided affairs, who asked them to care. Before 2005 for almost 20 years Ashes were so one sided but that did not stop England from playing Ashes. WI beat the crap out of both Australia and England for a decade yet they kept playing WI. Even now England shamelessly is poaching players from this minnow country.Heck their captain is an Irish player but their media is first media which complains about standard and duration of cricket in world cups . For the sake of expansion of the game minnows are vital and they need to start two tier test format where in every two years top team from tier 2 will replace worst team from top tier or something in those lines. We don't need another kenya.
sweetaskandy Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 I dont mind minnows. Maybe allow 2 in 50 over WC and 4 in T20 WC.
sweetaskandy Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 That would equate to Ireland each time it seems and the next best for the real thing. T20 must be the format that is opened up as it is best suited to winning new fans.
Sachinism Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Why play a World Cup and then restrict it to as few teams as possible? The underdog stories are the best. These lower teams need to feel they will get the opportunity to compete with the best.
Marut Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 What if Australia and England kept playing between themselves?. The game has to expand. And I am fine with few one sided matches. The problem to these one sided matches is that the fixtures need to be such that the top 4 qualifying teams get to play top 8 often in four years before world cup. Atleast enough games like sides like Bangladesh are playing. Historically, this is what they did too!! Cricket was played only in some British colonies in the past, and over a period of many decades, some of their colonies became strong teams themselves. India when they started playing as a nation in 1932 had a cricketing culture going back to 1790. Some sort of first class cricketing structure has there been in India, SA, SL, and WI since the 1880s. NZ's history goes back to early 1800s. These teams did not become test playing nations overnight or even in the space of a decade or two. All these nations had been playing cricket in some form much before the first test between Australia and England took place in 1877. Playing test cricket will require a strong grass root structure for cricket in the country. At least two to three decades of strong roots is necessary to forge test quality teams. Even Bangladesh has a cricketing culture going back to the 19th century, but they could not adapt to the rigours of test cricket. The only way to give test status to assoc nations is by creating a two or three tier division, with one of the teams getting the chance to move up the ladder every four years or so. For example, it could be like this (two tier division is also a good idea): Division One: Australia England South Africa India Division Two: New Zealand Pakistan Srilanka West Indies Division Three: Bangladesh Ireland Scotland Afghanistan
AmreekanDesi Posted February 18, 2015 Author Posted February 18, 2015 Why play a World Cup and then restrict it to as few teams as possible? The underdog stories are the best. These lower teams need to feel they will get the opportunity to compete with the best. the problem is that in ODI cricket upsets are very rare and unlikely because of the duration of the game. even less in tests which iswhy Banglas are perennially spanked t20 is where yo ucan get upsets and where minnows should be encouraged to play cant compare soccer to cricket. in a 90 min game upsets are very possible
AmreekanDesi Posted February 18, 2015 Author Posted February 18, 2015 Never have been a fan of it. World Cups should be limited to 12 at the absolute most. Too many pointless games and a tournament that goes for 2 months! and numerous games with empty stands it worked last time in india because we have a big population but I nAus or eng where pop are a percentage of that theres not enough ppl to fill stadiums for 8 hrs either
RedFever Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 the problem is that in ODI cricket upsets are very rare and unlikely because of the duration of the game. even less in tests which iswhy Banglas are perennially spanked t20 is where yo ucan get upsets and where minnows should be encouraged to play cant compare soccer to cricket. in a 90 min game upsets are very possible +1
Ashrafool Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 the problem is that in ODI cricket upsets are very rare and unlikely because of the duration of the game. even less in tests which iswhy Banglas are perennially spanked t20 is where yo ucan get upsets and where minnows should be encouraged to play cant compare soccer to cricket. in a 90 min game upsets are very possible Right, cricket will never come close to competing with soccer. And no by your logic soccer wc should be played by likes of brazil, germany, argentina, italy, spain. Soccer will one day become more popular in US whereas cricket will continue to expand in third world countries by your approach.
Zero_Unit Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 If anything Bang and Zim should be part of associates now There is something seriously wrong in the cricketing world. Top 6 teams are too strong for 7-8. And then you have Bang and Zim in their own category. You could possibly add Ire with the last two but more often than not, Ireland will loose to Zim and Bang. And then you have the associates who can barely win anything against the top 10 beside some UPSETS. Even if you add those 2 with the associates, they will come out as the top 2 (instead of IRELAND and AFGHANISTAN) almost EVERY SINGLE TIME which will make no sense. This is a total waste. But also by keeping them with the top 8, they will come out loosing MOST OF THE TIME aswell. This is a dilemma with this two teams.
Zero_Unit Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 name one star who has risen outsie big 8 all these years? Maybe Shakib? The last minnow to make the grade up to a proper cricketing nation was SL. Ten detchove (i think i spelled it right), Dirk Nannes, Boyd Rankin, Eoin Morgan, Ed Joyce, Nabi( ranked #8 odi allrounder) Don't be a f'ing *****. We were once a super minnow aswell. EVERY DAMN TEAM starts off as a minnow -_-
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