With the change of the 2019 W Cup is this the last we will ever see the minnows play.

[Niall]

Each to their own I guess, for me I'll take a bilateral ODI series any day over anything else, the 5 day stuff all roles into one for me and I find it quite mundane and drab of course I am aware of Kolkata 2001 and Lords 2014 but I get far more entertainment in watching two talented sides face each other in an ODI.

I disagree with your argument on the minnows, and for me its tests, then t20 and ODIS. However again, its like music, all subjective and all that,so no problem with you preferring ODI cricket. However surely you must have had a look at the first test in Australia, and tried to catch up on the Rahane/ Kohli 3rd test partnership? If not I think you have missed out.

 

[Bleed_Blue]

I disagree with your argument on the minnows, and for me its tests, then t20 and ODIS. However again, its like music, all subjective and all that,so no problem with you preferring ODI cricket. However surely you must have had a look at the first test in Australia, and tried to catch up on the Rahane/ Kohli 3rd test partnership? If not I think you have missed out.

I agree it is subjective and I respect your opinion also As I say I really don't watch Test Cricket unless there is nothing else on the box to keep me entertained. But I did see some highlights of the recent Test Series purely because I wanted to see how our batsmen got in in these conditions ahead of the World Cup.

The 5th day at Adelaide was entertaining for a Test Match I like the way India tried to chase down a big score and went after it, ultimately in vein, bat on ball is what I like to see not ball beating bat over and over again.

 

[brockley]

Just a rumour i keep hearing Dogwalker.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The obvious format for a World Cup is to include minnows but allow them to be potentially knocked out pretty early on if they are non-competitive, like say in a preliminary group stage. You know, like world cups in other sports. They get the experience of the tournament, you get the feel of a global competition where anyone can compete, but you don't get 20 games where a test team beats a minnow by 200+ runs. That also means that if the minnows beat a test nation, that test nation can be knocked out, which is what happened in 2007 and why we have the format we've gotten since then, because India got knocked out. The current format is entirely designed to ensure that nobody can be knocked out of the WC until 80% of the matches have been completed, so that people won't stop watching.

Talking about it as protecting the competitiveness of the game is a complete misdirection because the whole problem with the previous format of WCs is that the minnows were competitive. Too competitive. The solution of only having test teams play so that none of the test teams can be eliminated before the final stages is the opposite of protecting the interests of the competitive tournament.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

The 5th day at Adelaide was entertaining for a Test Match I like the way India tried to chase down a big score and went after it, ultimately in vein, bat on ball is what I like to see not ball beating bat over and over again.

Do you not think the game - be it Test, ODI or T20 - is too biased in favour of the batsman at the moment? You may want to see bat on ball, but at times there is no longer a real contest. Nothing has been done to improve balls for the bowler in the way that bats have been improved for the batsman. Some games, you might as well replace the bowler with a bowling machine.

 

[Contra]

I'm all for minnows but the 2007 format didn't give you much of a chance to come back tbh, one or two bad games and you are gone which I think is a bit lame. Having said that, I'm also not a fan of this whole quarter final crap where you are basically insuring the top 8 test playing nations to qualify unless they screw themselves up by being out and out horrible. I'd love to have this tournament removing quarters and simply just have the top 2 teams from each group enter the semi-finals and play each other. Would make the whole league stage waaaaaaaaaaaay more interesting with each match having some degree of context.

 

[brockley]

Faaip in total agreement.But I do like to see the associates more that's why I got foxtel.

 

[hendrix]

The 5th day at Adelaide was entertaining for a Test Match I like the way India tried to chase down a big score and went after it, ultimately in vein, bat on ball is what I like to see not ball beating bat over and over again.

You seriously don't like watching good bowling?
Excuse me for asking this question, but do you think this might be any different if India had a single Test quality bowler?

Even from a neutral perspective, don't you enjoy watching a Dale Steyn spell?

 

[Prince EWS]

There's more associate cricket on YouTube than Foxtel.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Does anywhere show associate cricket live? Would seriously watch that much more than the Big Bash which has usurped the Ford Trophy's time from our schedules.

 

[Prince EWS]

Does anywhere show associate cricket live? Would seriously watch that much more than the Big Bash which has usurped the Ford Trophy's time from our schedules.

Ireland broadcast most/all of their home ODIs live on YouTube. Scotland do it a bit too, and the ICC typically arrange for similar things (either a YouTube feed or just a live feed on the ICC site itself) for associate tournament finals.

 

[brockley]

No Associates vs the Big Buys I mean.
They will probably be in the morning.
There is no way channel 9 will show any game other than the Australia games.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I'm all for minnows but the 2007 format didn't give you much of a chance to come back tbh, one or two bad games and you are gone which I think is a bit lame. Having said that, I'm also not a fan of this whole quarter final crap where you are basically insuring the top 8 test playing nations to qualify unless they screw themselves up by being out and out horrible. I'd love to have this tournament removing quarters and simply just have the top 2 teams from each group enter the semi-finals and play each other. Would make the whole league stage waaaaaaaaaaaay more interesting with each match having some degree of context.

It was indeed lame. The change in format isn't about ensuring that you don't get beaten by a minnow as much as it is about avoiding poor timing of that defeat. A defeat to a minnow in the first stage hurts you a lot more than a defeat to a minnow in the Super 8 stage. The 2007 format essentially placed the knock out games prior to the group stage, which is worse than having a group stage and sudden death over 3 matches.

It works for the Football WC because you don't go into a long drawn out group stage once you've knocked out two teams from each group at the start. The tension keeps building up. They don't let go.

The 2007 WC took the ass-backwards approach of entering a super snooze-fest after the initial knockout stage. If you're going to copy a format from a different sport that works, do it whole-heartedly, not piece-meal. People defending the 2007 format need to get their heads out of their asses.

 

[Bleed_Blue]

You seriously don't like watching good bowling?
Excuse me for asking this question, but do you think this might be any different if India had a single Test quality bowler?

Even from a neutral perspective, don't you enjoy watching a Dale Steyn spell?

Fair question and no my mind wouldn't change. I appreciate the talent of Dale Steyn but frankly I prefer to watch him in ODI getting wickets or attempting to when batsman are looking to come after him or at least be more proactive than they would in 5 day Cricket forces a great bowler like Steyn to use variation that to me is exciting to watch.

 

[dogwalker]

That's the worst cricket post I've ever read.

 

[fredfertang]

That's the worst cricket post I've ever read.

It has some very stiff competition, but you have a point

 

[hendrix]

Fair question and no my mind wouldn't change. I appreciate the talent of Dale Steyn but frankly I prefer to watch him in ODI getting wickets or attempting to when batsman are looking to come after him or at least be more proactive than they would in 5 day Cricket forces a great bowler like Steyn to use variation that to me is exciting to watch.

That's very strange thinking.

It's much harder for a bowler to take wickets when the batsmen aren't looking to score off him. It takes more skill and requires more "unplayable" deliveries. That's why we see someone like Daniel Vettori have a much better ODI average than he does a Test average - he's hard to score off but batsmen aren't going to get out to him easily if they just block him out. There are exceptions to this of course - particularly if the pitch is turning a lot and there are good spin bowlers, sometimes attack is just as good as defense in such situations. But that's not often the case.

I do very much enjoy ODIs where the pressure component of having to score runs while retaining your wicket makes for very intense viewing. But Test cricket definitely requires higher quality bowling in terms of ability to get batsmen out purely on the merit of the delivery.

 

[brockley]

It will be interesting to rate some of the top 10 nations attack,vs some associates.
I rank indias' quite lowly from the tests and one dayers so far,think some of the lower tier sides could have success against Indias' attack.Don't rate Windies attack now no Pollard or Bravo,i mean Sammy?(in the Big Bash he just got Bashed).

 

[Prince EWS]

Don't rate Windies attack now no Pollard or Bravo

Well I mean, Pollard and Bravo should have been in the squad and probably the eleven but they weren't really helping the bowling attack. If anything, the unspoken obligation to give Pollard a couple of overs was probably hurting it.

 

[brockley]

True but i think Bravo definitely one of the better bowlers plays a James Faulkner role.His variations we're top notch.After the last one dayer,it doesn't fill me with great confidence,an out of form Irish batting unit should lap it up.