Which would've meant more games in the Tournament and a lot more mismatches in theory.the main reason is super 8 is too long and pointless, i liked the orginal system of having Quarterfinals, its more exciting, They should have made the first round with only 2 groups like they use too.
Yeah, good oneLocation: liverpool
nuff said :P
But they don'tIf they can stage the Olympics and Football WC in two weeks then they can stage the cricket one in the same time frame. And yes, I am aware ODIs take one day but they will have to simply play some games at the same time. Not like anyone would care. The whole thing's been a non-event for me, but that does have a lot to do with the awful time difference. Still that didn't stop me from watching the FWT in the WI in 95 or the WC in 99. Cricket's lost its spark.
If Bangladesh can do something, India can.Dude, what world do you live in? Bangladesh beat SA. Could India have done that? No way in hell. Bangladesh - not a team I like very much, I gotta say - have done better at the Super 8s than India would've. I think India might've lost to pretty much all the test teams.
They got thrashed 4-1 in WI just some time ago, remember? By a team that's getting walloped by everyone else.
Agreed. Not with having two groups though. That'd just be like two big, dire Super Eights at the start.the main reason is super 8 is too long and pointless, i liked the orginal system of having Quarterfinals
No, it wouldn't, because there's still the need for reserve days following the criticism last time that they didn't provide for them.The World cup as been the worst ever, Woolmer murders has cast a shadow over this.
The first round format was fine how ever the super8 should have been in two groups of 4 with a game a day for the first round of matches and then 2 games on the same day therfore it would have taken about 2 weeks. The tournement would have last for around 30 not 56
Top post .To create a great WC we need 100% commitment from all the teams. You don't hear of Australia getting up to late night frolics unlike England/SouthAfrica.I think perhaps our expectations were a little high. Being frank, there really are not too many decent international teams. For mine, even putting aside their cricketing ability, West Indies, Pakistan, India and England totally lack stomach for the fight. Moreover, there's no desperation to want to get better.
I remember Australia, after their Ashes defeat in 2005, there was incredible purpose an honest, total post mortem and, coming out of that, there was real resolve to address their weaknesses that had been laid bare in England. By contrast, there's very little of that same purpose, that same desperation to address your deficiencies, among other international sides.
Consequently, again leaving aside playing ability, you have half of your 'major' cricketing nations not displaying total intensity during the most important tournament in ODI cricket. Very hard to expect a great World Cup out of that. Don't blame the ICC (it's so easy to bash them all the time). Rather, blame the players of the aforementioned nations.