Ireland's Victory

[foreignfield]

Looking at the bright side of life, Zim are one of only fours sides left in the tournament that have not been hammered at least once (NZ, Aus, India, Zim).

[grant]

Chris Gayle getting an autograph from AB de Villiers

[Trevor]

I am Zimbabwean but to be honest, Ireland are a better team than Zimbabwe.They are spirited and not intimidated by big names ( etc Chris Gayle).They should campaign to take Zimbabies position in the Top 10 full members club and save us this eyesore we are seeing at this worldcup

Get away from this forum man, go back to icketeurope4.net/CEIRELAND/DATABASE/FORUM/index.shtml..I see right through you, Zimbabwean my foot...

[Dr_Situ(ZimFanatic)]

Zim have fought well in every match unlike previous WCs. Neither they have conceded 400 nor lost by >200 runs.

[grant]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/co ... 43001.html

But thinking about them once every four years isn't really being inclusive, is it? Associate nations are, in my opinion, fighting the wrong battle. They ought to be fighting for the right to play at least 15 ODIs per year against the top Test nations. Between the two World Cups the Associates should at least play 60 games against the likes of Australia, India, South Africa and New Zealand, besides playing a lot more against the lesser teams - Test nations and otherwise.


The bigger issue here is the default qualification of some of the Full Members. With what credentials do the likes of Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, West Indies, and now even England, find places in the World Cup? Good Test cricket credentials - like England possess, cannot and must not ensure guaranteed participation in the World Cup.

Since the last World Cup, to date, in ODIs West Indies, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe all have win-loss ratios of less than 0.5 against the other Test-playing teams. England have a win-loss ratio of 0.18 against reasonable opposition in World Cups since 1996.

How about making the next World Cup a ten-team tournament with only the top five teams in the ICC ODI rankings qualifying automatically? Let the four-year cycle put equal pressure on everyone to be on top of their game to ensure they are in the top five, and make everyone outside the top five try hard to get in. Let Ireland, Afghanistan and Scotland have a real go at becoming a part of the next World Cup by giving them equal opportunities for the next four years.

This is how it should be.........

[foreignfield]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/co ... 43001.html

But thinking about them once every four years isn't really being inclusive, is it? Associate nations are, in my opinion, fighting the wrong battle. They ought to be fighting for the right to play at least 15 ODIs per year against the top Test nations. Between the two World Cups the Associates should at least play 60 games against the likes of Australia, India, South Africa and New Zealand, besides playing a lot more against the lesser teams - Test nations and otherwise.


The bigger issue here is the default qualification of some of the Full Members. With what credentials do the likes of Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, West Indies, and now even England, find places in the World Cup? Good Test cricket credentials - like England possess, cannot and must not ensure guaranteed participation in the World Cup.

Since the last World Cup, to date, in ODIs West Indies, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe all have win-loss ratios of less than 0.5 against the other Test-playing teams. England have a win-loss ratio of 0.18 against reasonable opposition in World Cups since 1996.

How about making the next World Cup a ten-team tournament with only the top five teams in the ICC ODI rankings qualifying automatically? Let the four-year cycle put equal pressure on everyone to be on top of their game to ensure they are in the top five, and make everyone outside the top five try hard to get in. Let Ireland, Afghanistan and Scotland have a real go at becoming a part of the next World Cup by giving them equal opportunities for the next four years.

This is how it should be.........

I don't think Aakash Chopra would advocate the same qualifying process if India were outside the top-whatever.

I only have two problems with the current format, neither of which will be adressed by any change in the format itself because everything is dictated by tv demands anyway: a) it takes too long (play two matches every day and it becomes much shorter) and b) the uneven-numbered groups make it impossible to play the final round of matches per group simultaneously. As it stands teams playing last have an unfair advantage in knowing what they have to do to qualify or eliminate an opponent. Just imagine for a second India going deliberatly slow in their final match, knowing that if they chase down a small target in more than 47.4 overs, Pakistan will be knocked out of the tournament ...