ICC conference

[brmtaylor.com admin]

Some of this is applicable to Zimbabwe. It looks like there will be a qualifying tournament for the World Cup in 2015 for a start. I'm not a huge fan of this idea to be honest, I would prefer a 12 team tournament involving all of the full members plus a few associates. The risk of a qualifying tournament... what if Zimbabwe or even Bangladesh have an absolute shocker? Particularly if it was Bangladesh that didn't make it through, think of the outcry. It would be like a smaller version of India not making it past the group stages in 2007... Bangladesh is a big, cricket-mad country. I can't imagine the TV rights would be as nice should, say, Kenya make it through and Bangladesh didn't.

The most bizarre decision though would have to be the abolition of runners in international cricket. Here's a proposed rule change... stop changing rules which have worked perfectly well for over a hundred years. So I take it the reasoning was that the ICC don't want people having runners if they aren't truly injured (ie. runners when a batsman has cramp), but what about players that actually do need a runner? Now they have to retire hurt, or if it is a close match continue batting and potentially worsen the injury. Good thinking ICC!

As for the other changes, powerplays and 2 balls etc... it's neither here nor there. They've been changing the ODI format forever so it's nothing new, it's a good bet the change will be revoked soon enough anyway (who can forget the resounding failure that the supersub experiment was). When they change the rules to Test matches it gets to me though, so I'm annoyed at this ruling on runners and I'm not fully on board with the UDRS either. One of the key aspects of cricket is (or was) respecting the umpire's decision - and sure there were some howlers but it was part of the game and it went both ways. If a UDRS has to be implemented, then what is the point in keeping the umpires? Just stick a computer at square leg and another at the non-strikers end. If the ICC are hellbent on using technology then why not cut the number of referrals to 1 per team per innings? Any more than 1 encourages players to refer on any marginal decision and hope for the best. Cut it to 1 and then players would only use it if they were 100% convinced the umpire was wrong.

[eugene]

I like the use of the UDRS. Many sports, particularly in the USA use technology and society hasn't come crashing down. I don't really see what reasoning there is to not use accurate technology when it exists and is readily available.

The abolition of runners is also a good idea. Every other sport players have to play through injuries and tough things out, why should cricket be any different? This using a runner because of a few cramps is pathetic. If you dont want to run just hit boundaries. Plus runners normally caused more harm and than good for the batting team due to the added confusion.

I will reserve judgement on the powerplay changes and the idea of using different balls from each end.

The World Cup qualifying tournament was a must. There has to be a chance for every single country that plays cricket to qualify for the world cup if they want to.

[bayhaus]

I like the use of the UDRS. | The abolition of runners

I will reserve judgement on the powerplay changes and the idea of using different balls from each end.
There has to be a chance for every single country that plays cricket to qualify for the world cup if they want to.

I agree with the above the technology is out there let be used. The suspense of waiting for a decision and to see the big out come out has added a new dimension to the game. If players use new tech in training, video analysis of players, scientifically tested bats, and still dont want that same hi tech to determine their fate as well. Cant have it oth ways, double standards. If you so uptight about it dont use your reviews etc and remain pure and make statement!

I am not sure how the new ball from each end works:?: Any one know how that will work?

[brmtaylor.com admin]

The abolition of runners is also a good idea. Every other sport players have to play through injuries and tough things out, why should cricket be any different? This using a runner because of a few cramps is pathetic. If you dont want to run just hit boundaries. Plus runners normally caused more harm and than good for the batting team due to the added confusion.

Because the rule has worked perfectly well for hundreds of years. I agree that using a runner for cramps shouldn't be on, but to do away with the rule altogether screams of a knee-jerk reaction. And sure it can cause chaos and added confusion, but it's part of the game.

Anyway, at least the World Cup format has been revised. 14 teams will be included in the next World Cup (http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/cont ... 21049.html). I would have been happy for 12 teams but this is fine. It means all of the full members will participate and a few associates too which is good for the game.

Jemisi, I remember that innings by Steve Waugh. Didn't he hobble past 150? One of the grittiest individual performances I have ever seen - Steve Waugh is one of my all time favourite players. His 102 vs England in 2002-03 is probably the best century I have ever seen due to the immense pressure he must have been under, and then to cut the last ball of the day for 4.

[bayhaus]

Each ball gets 25 overs from one end. The umpire from that end keeps hold of the ball on the off-over.

Thanks Jemisi, in 2008 we used the analogy that being in Zimbabwe with the economic crisis that prevailed was like going out to bat and every over had a new bowler, with a new ball. When you came back form Tea, there would be a fresh set of 11 guys on the field ready to bring it!

[eugene]

The solution is simple - a 16 team World Cup and a 16 team T20 World Cup. The format used in the West Indies 2007 World Cup was the best. It allows for the maximum number of teams but limits the minnows to three games. There is also the potential for a few upsets which is good in my book.

[brmtaylor.com admin]

The 2007 World Cup was a farce, I don't think the fans could cope with a repeat of that. At least the right team won though.

[eugene]

The reason the 2007 World Cup wasn't a farce because of the format. The 2007 World Cup was pointless just because Australia was so dominant that there was never going to be any other winner. I don't understand why people don't like a format which allows for a few shocking upsets such as India and Pakistan getting knocked out early. Isn't unpredictability in a tournament a good thing? It has to be better than groups of 7 with lots of meaningless matches. 4 groups of 4 followed by Super 8s is the way to go.

[brmtaylor.com admin]

The reason the 2007 World Cup wasn't a farce because of the format. The 2007 World Cup was pointless just because Australia was so dominant that there was never going to be any other winner. I don't understand why people don't like a format which allows for a few shocking upsets such as India and Pakistan getting knocked out early. Isn't unpredictability in a tournament a good thing? It has to be better than groups of 7 with lots of meaningless matches. 4 groups of 4 followed by Super 8s is the way to go.

I don't care that India and Pakistan got knocked out early.

There were far too many meaningless games, there were five or six teams that were simply not up to it that year (Zimbabwe included). A 16 team tournament I don't think has the ability to work at any time in modern cricket, let alone in the West Indies. West Indies have enough trouble getting anyone into the ground for matches they play let alone matches by teams that are making up the numbers. The tournament went on for far too long (so did the 2011 edition, but at least the matches were generally of a higher quality and as you say there was no clear favourite going into the tournament) and viewer and spectator interest diminished. The blackout in the final wasn't because of the format, but it was pretty fitting for what was a disappointing tournament.

[eugene]

2007 was really an unfortunate year for ODI cricket as even at the Super 8 stage there weren't enough strong teams. I believe at the moment however that most matches between the top 8 would be fairly competitive and meaningful. The 16 team format allows for an increase in nations while also quickly getting down to the top 8 teams we all want to see. Outside of Ireland all of the other associates are much of a muchness and I cant say that the 16th ranked side is really any worse than the 12th ranked side. If a team is really out of their depth at least you only have to tolerate them for 3 matches - not 6.