Printable View
Quite possible; I don't know enough that much about cricket really. I suppose the organisers would say that seeing as they can't take all those countries, taking out the worst offenders is a start in "improving" the tournament. My point is just that to say that the decision was taken because the big teams were afraid of losing is, I think, to overlook the obvious reasons why the change might have been made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
When this was first talked about during the world cup, the issue seemed to be more the total duration of the tournament. That was more to do with the scheduling than the extra teams - they could play lesser matches at the same time to run it of quicker, if that wasn't just a convenient excuse.
No-one's saying they should include all the second-tier countries in the finals. I suggested above a format which would include only the strongest qualifiers (best of the worst offenders, if you like), and which would also reduce the number of games from 49 to 31 while still giving all the top six seven matches each, as now.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
The obvious reason is that Indian TV bankrolls the game and is scared of losing money. The most obvious way that happens is if India don't qualify for the later stages, as happened in 2007.Quote:
My point is just that to say that the decision was taken because the big teams were afraid of losing is, I think, to overlook the obvious reasons why the change might have been made
I'm agreeing with you, by the way. I just wanted to challenge the idea that it was being done because the big countries were afraid of being embarrassed by losing to the small countries.
Fair enough. As for the big countries, I think there's a definite hierarchy nowadays:Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
India (finances the sport)
England, Australia (used to finance and dominate it, respectively)
Pakistan (limited by political instability) South Africa (minority sport status) Sri Lanka (relatively small poor country)
West Indies (see Pakistan on obviously much lesser scale), New Zealand (see South Africa), Bangladesh (see Sri Lanka)
Everybody else led By Zim, Ireland, Netherlands, Canada, Kenya.
(note- this table doesn't equate to playing strength, New Zealand have reached five semi finals in the World Cup).
NZ & SA both have cricket as their main summer sport.
Just not too many punters in the former's case.
And both massively smaller than the combined rugby/soccer interest there.
AB- I think we're largely agreed.
I don't pretend to understanding TV's scheduling in detail, but of the 18 games lost in my plan, nine or 10 of them involved the two weakest teams getting routine thrashings (Kenya and Netherlands lost every game). Is that really what Sky, Star etc. want?
Well there's some hypocrisy by the organisers in a certain way, more minor teams means more leeway for bigger sides, should they muck-up v. one of their main rivals....
More seriously, they should be looking to broaden the game's very narrow appeal.
Never mind Ireland, but hearing great things about the game in the US, who will be a serious threat in the next 20 years or so, even if there's no interest in their own backyard.
hearing great thigns from where? Remember reading that there's only 5 cricket pitches in the whole country.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
EDIT; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_IC...Division_Three
Are you making stuff up agian?
When u think that Ireland were very competitive in all their world cup games and that it doesnt look that difficult to win a cricket world cup - its a joke of a decision. The only thing that set the world cup alight over here amongst the English public was Ireland beating England, nothing else. Only in Southall and the like was the final a big thing
What are you on about??Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Why would I (or anyone) 'make stuff up' ??
It's just what I read.
Maybe the journalists were exaggerating though....
And I asked you where you heard it, so links would help prove you're not making stuff up
So every MB assertion has to be backed up a corresponding link??
Hmm.
That seems unnecessary even by the pedantry standards some seem to crave at every opportunity....
Try Cricinfo or Google if it's so important.
I read it in sports pages, guessing of English papers, but one of them may have been The Irish Times about a cricket project* & league for former gang members in Compton and the LA/Oakland area.
If memory serves me correctly the writer of the piece or possibly somebody senior in that set-up seemed very bullish about their prospects.
Especially tapping into those from the Indian sub-continent stateside and W.Indian immigrants. Plus some more 'local' Afro-Americans and Hispanics.
* There is a similar League in the New York area
It's a nice check to see if people aren't just talking crap. Dodge has posted a link which shows America getting relegated into Division Four of the World Cricket league, being dismissed for 44 against the mighty Papua New Guinea. That really doesn't correspond at all with what you're saying. And that was after trying google, as you suggest.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
One link on Google proves nothing.
The American gentleman did say, erm, in the future....
And was backed up by pundits in the article. Simply by nature of the potential player base.
If you really want to be pedants come back in 5 years and tell me I'm wrong then???
Though I notice you both have a large no.of posts without associated links, as do numerous others.
Does that mean they're all talking cr*p then??
It proves more than no links. Especially when it shows them being all out against PNG for 44 in 20.2 overs, with one PNG bowler recording figures of 4 for 1, and with PNG taking just 7 overs to win.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
You made a claim; Dodge refuted it. Ball's in your court to show something - anything - to back your claim up now. Or, if you're going on a vague article that you read once, you're free to admit that maybe you took it up wrong as well.
Hmm, it must be hard, being so perfect.
Like the man said, ask again in 5-10 yrs. & tell them they're talking cr*p then....
Taking it a bit personal there Ardee? Not a huge deal, but if you're going to make an outrageous claim, you can't be too dismissive of people who try and bring facts into it.
Agreed. Given NZL's sustained success in the tournament it's not inconceivable Ireland could make a quarter-final in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
England fans lost interest when England got knocked out. I think it might be slighter truer to say that the Irish fans in England were most engaged by Ireland's win against England.Quote:
The only thing that set the world cup alight over here amongst the English public was Ireland beating England, nothing else. Only in Southall and the like was the final a big thing
I found that English fans were just happy to beat the Australians in the Ashes this year, and more than a few didnt give a fiddlers about the world cupQuote:
Originally Posted by Gather round