What is the equation now?

Participate in discussion with your fellow Zimbabwe cricket fans!
sloandog
Posts: 9843
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:28 am
Supports: MidWest Rhinos
Location: Manchester UK

Re: What is the equation now?

Post by sloandog »

Flakeman wrote:
Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:03 pm
Keen for us and Scotland to progress. The nice guys of the tournament, and as mentioned, will ensure that this 10 team thing is placed in the garbage where it belongs !
It's bad though isn't it, that something like that would have to happen if two lesser sides got through, and the more lucrative, traditional countries didn't. The ICC need to get it back to at least a 12 team world cup

User avatar
eugene
Posts: 7653
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:31 pm
Supports: Matabeleland Tuskers

Re: What is the equation now?

Post by eugene »

I think a 12 team tournament would be good, although 10 teams does allow for the best format - a round-robin. The 1992 World Cup was one of the best for this very reason. The problem for the ICC is the need to always have an India v Pakistan match-up and none of Australia, England, or India to be eliminated early. It really means the tournament is always going to be manufactured to a large degree.
Neil Johnson, Alistair Campbell, Murray Goodwin, Andy Flower (w), Grant Flower, Dave Houghton, Guy Whittall, Heath Streak (c), Andy Blignaut, Ray Price, Eddo Brandes

foreignfield
Posts: 4944
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:39 am
Supports: Mountaineers

Re: What is the equation now?

Post by foreignfield »

It's absurd to chop and change the format every time. I'be quite happy with the 1999 format, but as long as there's no change in the powers that be who run the show (and where should that change come from?) we will have more manufactured World Cups as eugene says.

The next time India win a World Cup they might as well bring back a challenger format where everybody else plays for the right to face India in a best of 17 final.

Or why not play a double round robin with ten teams: India will play Pak, Aus and England twice; the big three automatically qualify for the semis (and only play for their seeding in the first round) where they are joined by the best of the rest.

Kriterion_BD
Posts: 7037
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:41 am

Re: What is the equation now?

Post by Kriterion_BD »

Flakeman wrote:
Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:03 pm
Keen for us and Scotland to progress. The nice guys of the tournament, and as mentioned, will ensure that this 10 team thing is placed in the garbage where it belongs !
10 teams is actually generous by the ICC because you have will another 2 freeloading teams earning money off the back of the Big 3. Criticizing this 10 team WC format is a very commie thing to say. Don't wait for freebies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjtuZBykSzM (Noreaga - Blood Money Part 3)

Kriterion_BD
Posts: 7037
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:41 am

Re: What is the equation now?

Post by Kriterion_BD »

eugene wrote:
Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:56 pm
I think a 12 team tournament would be good, although 10 teams does allow for the best format - a round-robin. The 1992 World Cup was one of the best for this very reason. The problem for the ICC is the need to always have an India v Pakistan match-up and none of Australia, England, or India to be eliminated early. It really means the tournament is always going to be manufactured to a large degree.
The 12 team could still have a round robin, it would only add 2 more games per team which is maybe 6-8 more matches in total. Its really just about protecting the top n number of sides. The ICC won't be bothered if WI or AFG miss qualification because the sponsors really only care about 3 teams when it comes to the $$$ behind an ICC event.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjtuZBykSzM (Noreaga - Blood Money Part 3)

User avatar
eugene
Posts: 7653
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:31 pm
Supports: Matabeleland Tuskers

Re: What is the equation now?

Post by eugene »

Kriterion_BD wrote:
Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:06 pm
eugene wrote:
Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:56 pm
I think a 12 team tournament would be good, although 10 teams does allow for the best format - a round-robin. The 1992 World Cup was one of the best for this very reason. The problem for the ICC is the need to always have an India v Pakistan match-up and none of Australia, England, or India to be eliminated early. It really means the tournament is always going to be manufactured to a large degree.
The 12 team could still have a round robin, it would only add 2 more games per team which is maybe 6-8 more matches in total. Its really just about protecting the top n number of sides. The ICC won't be bothered if WI or AFG miss qualification because the sponsors really only care about 3 teams when it comes to the $$$ behind an ICC event.
A 12-team round robin would take forever, and the CWC already lasts too long anyway. The tournament should ideally last a month, not the 6-7 weeks we are currently looking at. The T20 CWC really has a great duration.
Neil Johnson, Alistair Campbell, Murray Goodwin, Andy Flower (w), Grant Flower, Dave Houghton, Guy Whittall, Heath Streak (c), Andy Blignaut, Ray Price, Eddo Brandes

User avatar
zimbos_05
Posts: 3057
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 6:00 am

Re: What is the equation now?

Post by zimbos_05 »

The problem is that the ICC never actually looked after the game. They allowed T20 to come in and take over and the fans were loving, especially in India (the most lucrative market). If the ICC can make money in these formats, then that is what they will go with.

We then also have the Champions Trophy, which again was designed for the elite to bring in money. When you have too many tournaments all the time, people don't want to be watching the same thing over and over. Their is too many T20 leagues and attempts to start more, and not enough time. We had the Champions League as well (and even then, the IPL teams were bullying everyone and being able to take players from their domestic sides). I love T20 when done right. I watch the BBL. About the only T20 comp I watch.

There is no status given to the World Cup as should be, not when there is a direct competitor in the Champions Trophy. Not when you have T20 comp after T20 comp offering big dollars. The West Indies are a prime example. Look how many of their players chose a domestic T20 league over the world cup qualifiers. The ICC did not step in when teams were struggling (like zim, or Kenya) and we end up with big gulfs in talent and class and therefore the big teams so far and away smashing the smaller guys, it makes playing these smaller guys less enticing, hence less series for them.

World Cups deserve the world to be involved, hence the name. It does not happen when you play favourites and try to get rid of everyone from it, and then offer them little cricket and support outside of it.

Terryalderman
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:51 am

Re: What is the equation now?

Post by Terryalderman »

Most other sports have qualification for world cups. Why should cricket be different?

User avatar
eugene
Posts: 7653
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:31 pm
Supports: Matabeleland Tuskers

Re: What is the equation now?

Post by eugene »

Does anyone actually watch all these T20 Leagues? I watch a bit of the CPL as it is in a similar timezone, but how many T20 Leagues do we really need?
Neil Johnson, Alistair Campbell, Murray Goodwin, Andy Flower (w), Grant Flower, Dave Houghton, Guy Whittall, Heath Streak (c), Andy Blignaut, Ray Price, Eddo Brandes

Kriterion_BD
Posts: 7037
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:41 am

Re: What is the equation now?

Post by Kriterion_BD »

eugene wrote:
Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:15 am

A 12-team round robin would take forever, and the CWC already lasts too long anyway. The tournament should ideally last a month, not the 6-7 weeks we are currently looking at. The T20 CWC really has a great duration.
10 team WC makes the Qualifer super cutthroat and entertaining. Right now it looks like ZIM are front-runners with WI and Scotland being next in line. Ireland and Afghanistan are almost out. But at the start of the tournament most would have had the teams in a very different order. Every game has been meaningful. If ZIM had lost to Afghanistan, or Scotland, or Ireland...it would have made outright qualification much harder. Same for all the other major sides. This has been a top tournament.

I believe the 2019 World Cup will be like that as well. Each team will play 9 games. That will automatically sort out the 4 best sides. Say a team starts off hot and wins the first 4 games, and then cools off. They could miss out on the semis. The 4 semifinalists will be the teams that consistently play quality cricket.

I would ideally like a 12-14 team World Cup, but this way works fine since 13 teams are getting an even bigger exposure via the ODI league. Thats the equivalent of having a 13 team WC every year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjtuZBykSzM (Noreaga - Blood Money Part 3)

Post Reply