• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

What is the point of the Champions Trophy?

howardj

Well-known member
If people want to question the point of the CT, you could say what is the point of any tournament outside of the World Cup. The fact is people want to see cricket, and cricketers by and large want to play cricket. Therefore, you'll always need to have tournaments outside of the World Cup. I'd argue that the CT is far more meaningful than the Tri-Series that used to be served up in Australia year after year or a multitude of other series played around the place.
 

pup11

Well-known member
If people want to question the point of the CT, you could say what is the point of any tournament outside of the World Cup. The fact is people want to see cricket, and cricketers by and large want to play cricket. Therefore, you'll always need to have tournaments outside of the World Cup. I'd argue that the CT is far more meaningful than the Tri-Series that used to be served up in Australia year after year or a multitude of other series played around the place.
AWTA.
 

zaremba

Well-known member
Dougie Brown was just on the radio saying that the CT is the competition which the players least like in the cricketing calendar, that they'd rather have a rest from cricket, that the event lacks credibility and that now it has been postponed it won't be missed.

Brown was speaking in his role as head of the Professional Cricketers' Association.

This gives you a fairly good idea of what the players, at least in this country, think about this tournament.

The only people that I feel sorry for are the Pakistan fans who probably don't get enough good cricket to watch.
 

andruid

Well-known member
To play a multi-nation tournament over a short period of time.

The original idea was to raise funds for cricket's developing nations (hence the first official I$C$C-organised version was held in Bangladesh and Kenya) but that's now changed.

.
Even that was not a particularly sincere reason given that Kenya's cricket administration actually lost money staging the tourney in 2000


Now we are facing the likly hood of two tourneys in two years.What a joke
 

zaremba

Well-known member
Huh? When was that idea even mooted?

The World Cup has always been every 4 years - 1975, 1979, 1983, 1987/88, 1991/92, 1995/96, 1999, 2002/03, 2006/07. AFAIK n0-0ne has ever suggested it be moved to 3 - though 2 has been suggested by at least 1 person.
It was held in 96, then 99 :unsure:
I hadn't realised this. '99 was in England which confuses matters, but there were definitely only 7 years between the 2 world cups in 95/96 and 02/03. How come we missed a year?
 

morgieb

Well-known member
I don't know, just ANOTHER one-day junket. It's dire that this often **** tournament is the 2nd best specialist one-day tour. :ph34r:
 

James90

Well-known member
This purpose of this tournament has always baffled me. What's the point in having it when we already have a World Cup? It's essentially just a World Cup which everyone dismisses - utterly pointless event.

That doesn't mean it's not interesting, of course, or that the players don't treat it seriously and prepare for it completely. Merely that its place in a packed international schedule is highly questionable. The last Champions Trophy for example was a much more enjoyable competition than the last World Cup for mine and showcased some much better cricket overall - but the stigma attached to it was almost non-existent.

If the ICC wants a global tournament every two years then it should make the World Cup a biannual event. People will say this would take away some of the rarity involved with winning it, I know, but personally I think the positives of doing this outweigh the negatives. For one, this whole "building for the World Cup" process every team seems to want to go through now wouldn't be so pointless immediately after each Cup.
Awaota.

Unneccesary installation into an already packed international schedule. Would possibly change my mind if it came to Australia though. When was the last time we had a proper international tournament? 1992 World Cup? Haven't even had an U19s tournament ffs.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
It was held in 96, then 99 :unsure:
I hadn't realised this. '99 was in England which confuses matters, but there were definitely only 7 years between the 2 world cups in 95/96 and 02/03. How come we missed a year?
Yeah, I didn't spot that either actually. If you go purely on a yearly thing it should be, obviously, '87, '91, '95, '99, '03. So the 2002/03 Cup should have been in 2003/04.

I guess there's times when it has to be fiddled around a bit.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
I might be imagining things, but...

In 2005 I had some Uni resits and was in my local library studying for them. I got a bit bored though, and it was the day before the commencement of the 5th Ashes Test, so took a bit of a break, reading the cricket pages of the papers and then looking through the cricket books (I had cricket fever, get it every time I'm REALLY looking forwards to a match). I am sure in one of them it said that the 99 WC was a new plan to hold it every three years but that it was quickly abandoned.

Yeah, I wrote all that to say one line :ph34r: :laugh:
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Rings a bell actually, but as I say - it never actually happened. It should be every 2 years, not every 3. Odd numbers just confuse matters.
 

zaremba

Well-known member
It's not only the PCA chairman who shares my view: Mike Atherton wrote this today in the Times:

"No tears need be shed for the ICC Champions Trophy, a misnomer of a tournament conceived out of pure greed. Like most things with a solely monetary value, it is a worthless affair."
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
As I've said so many times already - it is truly odd that these comments are made about the Champions Trophy before they're made about Twenty20 internationals and bilateral ODI series.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
I can see why you'd say that about bilateral ODI series, but not T20s as many Cricket fans and former pros are now fans of the format and as such it makes sense to have an international tournament, whereas the argument against the CT is that there is already a much better & more important ODI tournament.

WRT bilateral ODI series, the reason they don't come in for such stick is:

a - they serve their purpose in team building etc
b - it is like people don't really target international friendlies in football, even if they think they are a waste of time. They would be highly critical though, if a second global tournament was brought in that was a bit shorter and with less teams than the WC. For many, the ODI series are like the international friendlies I guess. Not me, they are way more important than Tests, who cares that England lost the Tests to SA we are well on our way to an ODI series victory :ph34r:
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I do indeed think bilateral-series ODIs are kinda like international friendlies - not all do by any stretch - and as such they are indeed important as without them you wouldn't have World Cups or Champions Trophies. But there is an excess of them - it is this excess that should be done away with before the Champions Trophy. No-one is suggesting for a second that bilateral series be removed completely.

As far as Twenty20 internationals are concerned - however important some people may consider them, they pale in comparison to the IPL and the Champions Trophy is potentially a much more important thing than any Twenty20 game to the game of cricket.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
That's your opinion, though. For me the T20 WC is much more important than the IPL, as I care how England do, couldn't give a **** about Rajastan (sp?) Royals or whoever. It is domestic cricket with a few more overseas players than normal and as such I really don't think you will ever get your wish of it removing the need for T20 internationals.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
The IPL is a higher standard of Twenty20 (refuse to use the term "standard of cricket") than a Twenty20 international will ever be though. We wait to see whether this nullifies the need for Twenty20 internationals as I hope it might. I always said it was unneccessary anyway - most Twenty20 fans are happy to see a county play the thing, so we really don't need international teams to do so.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
The IPL is a higher standard of Twenty20 (refuse to use the term "standard of cricket") than a Twenty20 international will ever be though. We wait to see whether this nullifies the need for Twenty20 internationals as I hope it might. I always said it was unneccessary anyway - most Twenty20 fans are happy to see a county play the thing, so we really don't need international teams to do so.
What makes you say its a higher standard? Wouldn't really agree on that :unsure:

WRT to T20 fans - I'm not sure if that's still the case. It was originally but I think in any sport where it's possible there will always be a desire for an international game.
 
Top