zimcricketforums.com

Lorgat said the ICC's board would decide what that cut-off should be. "Somewhere we have to make the cut-off. Who knows what that would be yet - eight or nine or seven. The cut-off means that teams ranked higher than the cut-off directly get into the World Cup. Whoever is left out, goes into a qualifier."

Using the current ODI rankings to give a hypothetical example, should the cut-off for the next World Cup be fixed at seven, it would mean that Bangladesh and West Indies would not be guaranteed an automatic place in the next World Cup, but must play a qualifier with Ireland, Zimbabwe, Netherlands, Canada and Kenya to determine which three complete the ten-team field. Lorgat said, "That's where the Associates get the opportunity. They (the Associates) have obviously been disappointed (by the 10 team World Cup) because the more teams you make, the more teams can play (in a World Cup), but that's not top competition."

http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc_cricket ... 04195.html

Makes sense to me as far as 50 over world cup is concerned.

I still think associates should play in the world cup. Perhaps reduce the number of teams to 12 which means 2 associates along with the the 10 full members.

If only 10 teams play in the World Cup there is a good chance this tournament will be Zimbabwe's last for awhile.

eugene wrote:If only 10 teams play in the World Cup there is a good chance this tournament will be Zimbabwe's last for awhile.

Doubt it. Say they place the automatic qualification cutoff at 7 - you'd then get a qualifying tourney of West Indies, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Ireland, Netherlands, and one other Associates (below Ireland and Netherlands it's hard to predict). You don't think we could finish top three out of that? I think we could - and with Ireland and Netherlands in the mix, it would actually be a pretty exciting tourney.

The thing that annoys me most about the switch to a 10-side world cup is that it isn't being do make the World Cup shorter, which it's really in need of - it's being done so that the teams that play in it get to play more games each and therefore make more money out of it. The 10-team version will only be, I think, 3 matches shorter than the current 14-team version. That tells you all you need to know about the ICCs priorities here.

What they should really be doing is four groups of 3 or 4 teams, top two qualify straight to the quarter-finals - none of that Super Eight business. 12 or 16 teams, real chance of upsets being lethal to the chances of the losing team, and the whole tourney done in 3-4 weeks.

maehara wrote:

eugene wrote:If only 10 teams play in the World Cup there is a good chance this tournament will be Zimbabwe's last for awhile.

Doubt it. Say they place the automatic qualification cutoff at 7 - you'd then get a qualifying tourney of West Indies, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Ireland, Netherlands, and one other Associates (below Ireland and Netherlands it's hard to predict). You don't think we could finish top three out of that? I think we could - and with Ireland and Netherlands in the mix, it would actually be a pretty exciting tourney.

The thing that annoys me most about the switch to a 10-side world cup is that it isn't being do make the World Cup shorter, which it's really in need of - it's being done so that the teams that play in it get to play more games each and therefore make more money out of it. The 10-team version will only be, I think, 3 matches shorter than the current 14-team version. That tells you all you need to know about the ICCs priorities here.

What they should really be doing is four groups of 3 or 4 teams, top two qualify straight to the quarter-finals - none of that Super Eight business. 12 or 16 teams, real chance of upsets being lethal to the chances of the losing team, and the whole tourney done in 3-4 weeks.

I agree. But clearly the whole 'less matches, and more chance of India getting knocked out' doesn't really fit into the revenue maximisation agenda.

Look at the football, clearly the world's number 1 sport. The format of world cups and Euro Champs etc, is stable and exceptionally straightforward. The cricket world cup is different every time, and often you need to have a degree in statistics to understand how it all works. In football no one complains if North Korea get thumped 7-0, and definitely no one complains if someone like France doesn't make the knockouts. Football is truly a world sport, and I think there are a lot of lessons the ICC could learn.