So the tournament's too long, eh???

[FRAZ]

Well honestly speaking , from a marketing point of view it was necessary to develop the format in such a way .There is just a simple reason behind it and i.e. Pakistani and Indian teams . Had they reached the super 8's then the viewership and interest and bla bla would have been better . Longer versions of the tournaments are made to prolong the chances of having the money maker teams for a longer period of time . I think that any sane marketing oriented person over here will definately agree with me . But anyways !!!

 

[Prince EWS]

mmm condescending. There were far worse players (in all teams) on display than those two. (Haddin and Johnson for example )

That's precisely my point, again. The standard of cricket was poor. Comparatively speaking, McMillan and Franklin were good. That says it all.

I'm not taking anything away from NZ (well, perhaps I am, a bit) - they did as well as their small player pool allowed them to do really. If India, Pakistan and England were as organised, focused as professional as NZ, the standard of world cricket would be much, much better (but unfortunately for you, NZ would drop to about 6th on the world rankings.) I like NZ because they basically operate at maximum capacity all the time - an admirable trait that other nations could learn from.

 

[Fiery]

That's precisely my point, again. The standard of cricket was poor. Comparatively speaking, McMillan and Franklin were good. That says it all.

I'm not taking anything away from NZ (well, perhaps I am, a bit) - they did as well as their small player pool allowed them to do really. If India, Pakistan and England were as organised, focused as professional as NZ, the standard of world cricket would be much, much better (but unfortunately for you, NZ would drop to about 6th on the world rankings.) I like NZ because they basically operate at maximum capacity all the time - an admirable trait that other nations could learn from.

Again...patronising viewpoint. If we operated at maximum capacity there would be a parade down Queen St about now

 

[16 tins of Spam]

Give it up.

 

[thierry henry]

I agree with you EWS, but I think you'd laugh if you saw the way NZers respond to our cricket team.....our public and media generally regard the Black Caps as a bunch of underperforming wussies who should do better. The World Cup performance has been widely panned as an unmitigated disaster. I'm serious.

 

[16 tins of Spam]

our public and media generally regard the Black Caps as a bunch of underperforming wussies who should do better.

Unless they start winning, in which case said media and public act like they've never said a harsh word against the BCs ever.

 

[Fiery]

I agree with you EWS, but I think you'd laugh if you saw the way NZers respond to our cricket team.....our public and media generally regard the Black Caps as a bunch of underperforming wussies who should do better. The World Cup performance has been widely panned as an unmitigated disaster. I'm serious.

Unless they start winning, in which case said media and public act like they've never said a harsh word against the BCs ever.

I prefer to be like that than to settle for mediocrity tbh

 

[marc71178]

10 teams, each plays the other once in a round-robin format. Top four into the semi's, and so on. That's 48 games. I personally have nothing against the minnows, but to be honest if the tournament left them out, would anyone complain?

Yes, I would, and I'd also question how you ever expect the game to grow if you exclude them.

 

[LA ICE-E]

IIRC the 1996 WC was criticised for basically giving a bye to the quarter finals for the big 8, thus rendering the group matches largely irrelevant. We (England) qualified by beating the might of the Netherlands (no offence meant) & the UAE. It was because of this that the "Super" stage was introduced in subsequent tournaments to give the group stage more meaning.

In my mind there's no doubt that the Super 8 was too long & I personally have never liked the idea of carrying results from earlier rounds forward. I'd just propose two groups of 4 teams in the second round instead with the top two teams progressing to the semis.

But the Champions Trophy already patented that format.

(the easy solution: Get rid of the Champions Trophy and replace it with a Twenty20 WC. Everybody wins. Except those who like the middle overs, poor sods.)

you read my mind! but then you know there's the people who wants a tournament for the elite teams alone and then those would try to make the wc a elite team tournament. right now when they complain we can simply say go watch the CT for that but still i'm not a fan of the CT.

 

[LA ICE-E]

10 teams, each plays the other once in a round-robin format. Top four into the semi's, and so on. That's 48 games. I personally have nothing against the minnows, but to be honest if the tournament left them out, would anyone complain?

yeah i would! go watch the CT for your elite teams tournament

 

[Jono]

Don't see the problem. The apostrophe in this case is used to add 'is' at the end of tournament. So it would normally read 'so the tournament is too long' but instead it's 'so the tournament's too long'

I was actually just making a penis joke.

 

[The Baconator]

You'd think of all people, Cameron would never miss a knob gag.

 

[pasag]

I was actually just making a penis joke.

 

[16 tins of Spam]

Yes, I would, and I'd also question how you ever expect the game to grow if you exclude them.

I did say I have nothing against the minnows - I'm happy for them to be there. Unfortunately, people seem to covet a leaner tournament with less hidings, so I think my format (completely unoriginal I admit) is the most likely to deliver that.

I could also strenuously argue that the "minnows growing the game" concept is one of the biggest cons ever, but I'll leave that for another day.

 

[pasag]

Yeah I agree and was thinking of starting a similar thread recently. I don't understand the fascination with growing the game and pumping millions onto places that we will never ever see a return from. What's wrong with it staying how it is? I'm happy with it. Honestly, I don't want to see the game in America or China or any other of those countries. Probably the worst thing about the ICC is their obsession with minnows and developing the game in other countries. And whilst I fully support the growth of cricket in lets say, Holland, its the aggressive nature in which the ICC go to, to make it happen, especially in markets like the US, China and Canada.

And they shouldn't be in the World Cup. And the argument "How will they improve?". Well, who cares really. Not our problem.

 

[Trigger_Tiger]

.....

Now that it's over, I still mistakingly check the web for updates or tune into the SopCast channel from where I used to watch it..........I guess it's length had a positive and lasting impact on many like me.....ULTIMATE addiction to cricker !?!?!

 

[LA ICE-E]

I did say I have nothing against the minnows - I'm happy for them to be there. Unfortunately, people seem to covet a leaner tournament with less hidings, so I think my format (completely unoriginal I admit) is the most likely to deliver that.

I could also strenuously argue that the "minnows growing the game" concept is one of the biggest cons ever, but I'll leave that for another day.

Yeah I agree and was thinking of starting a similar thread recently. I don't understand the fascination with growing the game and pumping millions onto places that we will never ever see a return from. What's wrong with it staying how it is? I'm happy with it. Honestly, I don't want to see the game in America or China or any other of those countries. Probably the worst thing about the ICC is their obsession with minnows and developing the game in other countries. And whilst I fully support the growth of cricket in lets say, Holland, its the aggressive nature in which the ICC go to, to make it happen, especially in markets like the US, China and Canada.

And they shouldn't be in the World Cup. And the argument "How will they improve?". Well, who cares really. Not our problem.

For one, it will never survive that way. While every/most other sport is trying spread you just want it to stay in the 10 countries well eventually other sports will get into those countries and chance are cricket will die quicker than sports that keep trying to spread. They should be in the world cup cause it's the world cup not the champions trophy. Why shouldn't they be in the world cup? because they get bashed? well most teams get bashed by australia does that mean every but australia should be excluded? World cup doesn't necessarily improve their skills but it does help spread the game over those countries just see this for example, it's a fast track of spreading the game over ireland because they did good in the world cup http://www.irishcricketdoco.com/

 

[pasag]

For one, it will never survive that way. While every/most other sport is trying spread you just want it to stay in the 10 countries well eventually other sports will get into those countries and chance are cricket will die quicker than sports that keep trying to spread. They should be in the world cup cause it's the world cup not the champions trophy. Why shouldn't they be in the world cup? because they get bashed? well most teams get bashed by australia does that mean every but australia should be excluded? World cup doesn't necessarily improve their skills but it does help spread the game over those countries just see this for example, it's a fast track of spreading the game over ireland because they did good in the world cup http://www.irishcricketdoco.com/

Firstly the game has survived for hundreds of years and will continue to do so. Saying it will die if we don't try and expand is just silly. It wont. And the World Cup should be the best against the best. Not some marketing exercise to get other countries interested. Honestly, I did enjoy watch the minnows play in the group stages, but they shouldn't be there and it's abit of a disgrace that they are. They're amateurs ffs. A huge amount of these guys only play cricket part time and its an embarrassment to see them on the world stage tbh and it devalues the trophy imo.

 

[Prince EWS]

Firstly the game has survived for hundreds of years and will continue to do so. Saying it will die if we don't try and expand is just silly. It wont. And the World Cup should be the best against the best. Not some marketing exercise to get other countries interested. Honestly, I did enjoy watch the minnows play in the group stages, but they shouldn't be there and it's abit of a disgrace that they are. They're amateurs ffs. A huge amount of these guys only play cricket part time and its an embarrassment to see them on the world stage tbh and it devalues the trophy imo.

Haha, excellent use of TLAs there.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Firstly the game has survived for hundreds of years and will continue to do so. Saying it will die if we don't try and expand is just silly. It wont. And the World Cup should be the best against the best. Not some marketing exercise to get other countries interested. Honestly, I did enjoy watch the minnows play in the group stages, but they shouldn't be there and it's abit of a disgrace that they are. They're amateurs ffs. A huge amount of these guys only play cricket part time and its an embarrassment to see them on the world stage tbh and it devalues the trophy imo.

Firstly, it's not the same playing field anymore. Every sport in the world did try to spread itself for hundreds of years and so to say if you just seat there and let other sports spread while cricket does nothing won't really help it survive. The world cup is still about the best, it's about the best 16 which 81 other teams tried to play in. It doesn't devalues the tournament a bit, what devalues the tournament is all the so called best teams not even giving Australia a run for its money let alone win a game against them. So what are you going to do exclude everyone but Australia and have games between Australian teams? Why shouldn't they be there? They were given a target and a qualification process and they made it through and that a lone gives the credit for them to be there and over that the "minnows" did way better this cup than the previous ones. So who cares if they are ametures or not. They're are ameture players in the Olympics. That doesn't matter. You know what's a disgrace? Professional teams who get paid and gets to train for years losing to the ametures who "shouldn't be there" that's a disgrace. Not ametures being there. It doesn't matter if they are ametures or not. They don't devalue the tournament a bit.

Saying things like that is like saying Australia and the other minnows etc devalues the fifa world cup. It doesn't.