AWTA.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.
Even that was not a particularly sincere reason given that Kenya's cricket administration actually lost money staging the tourney in 2000To 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.
.
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.
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?It was held in 96, then 99
Awaota.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.
It was held in 96, then 99
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 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?
It's where the umbilical cord connects to the baby, isn't it?What is the point in having a belli button
What makes you say its a higher standard? Wouldn't really agree on thatThe 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.