Home > Cricket Development, Pakistan > Opinion: Rod Lyall’s article about reduction of associates in WC….

Opinion: Rod Lyall’s article about reduction of associates in WC….

I came across this article in CricketEurope today. I realized that there is still a misconception about the exact nature of what happenned.

First of all, the following lines are in bad spirit:

“But Pakistan’s spoiled superstars were beaten fair and square by a dedicated Irish squad who were the better team on the day, and no amount of fiddling with the rules will save them if they and their masters don’t face up to the lessons of that match.”

One has to keep in mind that Pakistan was one of the 3 countries that actually supported the ODI status for the top 6 associates, and also convinced the others along with NZ and SA to this change. Secondly, singling out Pakistan, and refering to ‘masters’ is in fact objectionable. Also, singling out Pakistan, when it is very clear (and it should be VERY clear after the whole ‘monkey’ affair) about who calls the shots in ICC and International cricket, is also objectionable.

Pakistan can talk about a change in format all that it wants, but it would not really matter. It wouldnt matter even if they were the sole hosts. The loss to the ICC due to an early exit of Pakistan is no more than the loss it would face if it were SA, Eng or Aus who got elimated.

I can give it to anyone in writing, that even if Pakistan had been knocked out like it was, but India had made it all the way to the final, it would have been touted as a very succesful world cup. Secondly, when the Big8 talk about weak teams, they mention Zim and Bangladesh in the same breath. Its not that the criticism is ONLY against Ireland making it through BECAUSE its an associate. The criticism is against the concept that teams that actually have no chance of making the semis are pitched into a 28 game league.

I have discussed this topic and the possible formats etc elsewhere, so I will not go into that here. This posting was just to point out my surprise at Rod Lyall’s article, who usually is wonderful and insightful to read.

Advertisements
  1. January 30, 2008 at 5:27 am

    C’mon Nasir, the PCB is playing ball with the BCCI here.

    Or are they scared of the BCCI like everybody else seems to be?

  2. Rich B
    January 30, 2008 at 5:38 am

    Nasir, you’re right that India is by far the biggest powerhouse in the game, but Pakistan is the team that’s kicked up the biggest fuss since the World Cup. They are the ones who came up with the ‘one bad day’ comment and look like they were behind the meeting which recommended the reduction in teams. I don’t believe they would have been this vocal if they’d got knocked out by Bangladesh, so I think there is a link between their approach and Ireland being an Associate.

    I think CricketEurope is sometimes a bit melodramatic in its reporting and could often be a bit more careful in its choice of words. At times it sounds like the voice of the non-test world, at other times like an angry voice from the sidelines.

    That said, this WC proposal potentially has very serious consequences for the Associate world and I think Lyall is right to speak out strongly against it.

  3. January 30, 2008 at 12:00 pm

    PCB would have been as vocal even if they had been knocked out by Bangladesh……. they would have still brought about the “one bad day” argument…..

    but lets not kid ourselves by thinking that such statements by PCB are giving any sleepless nights to ICC…….

  4. Art
    January 30, 2008 at 3:37 pm

    Nasir,

    It is interesting that you use the words ‘bad spirit’. I guess this could be used in much of what is happening in ICC inspiried and obviously BCCI inspired in many cases ( and I will stand in any open forum and debate that point) rulings on the game.

    Cricket is a game in which you win, lose, draw or tie and after the game you go home and return for your next fixture. It has never been a game for cheats but sharp practice has always been part of it and it has falsely been claimed to be a gentleman’s game when in fact it was, at the start, a game played by gentlemen just as war was.

    The ICC lost the plot some time ago and it is about time a few of the senior people there, Speed included, recognised that the game is played by millions of people in many countries not just a veryselect few at test level who it seems are now granted a completely separate set of rules and laws from the rest of us.

    I think at least for me the final straw on the issue came when I heard the fact that Singh had been a serial offender was dismissed out of hand as being irrelevant to the current case.

    It would seem in many istances recently that the ICC seems to be making strange and rather weird decisions on many front and the only explanation seems to be that they are having a large carrot dangled in front of them from one particular area.

    Its obvious loss of indepence and clear thought needs a very quick remedy and the first step is to return the game back to the umpires as was intended and do away with the ‘electronics’ that semm to assist players in their discontent about almost everything and to attune commentators to everything except the game.

    Perhaps we can look forawrd to in the future the commentators instead of minutely dissecting every umpires decision that they might minutely dissect every play and miss or every dropped catch ad nauseum and leave the umpires to get on with the game and players to play withing the rules, laws and real spirit of the game not some contrived spirit written rubbish penned by silly old duffers wearing rose coloured glasses.

  5. January 30, 2008 at 5:26 pm

    Nasir

    You know the old expression “When good men do nothing”!

    The PCB could of said to the BCCI, we think your proposal is unfair, unethical and not in the best interests of the game.

    But they didn’t and that makes them as guilty as the BCCI.

    If Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh had said NO to the BCCI, this proposal would be dead in the water.

  6. January 30, 2008 at 5:44 pm

    No it would not have…. All the other boards can also join in, and it would still not have bothered BCCI if it wants to go the other way ……

    My comment on the above article is about singling out Pakistan, and not mentioning India….. which is silly by all counts……….. secondly, which ‘masters’ of Pakistan is Rod referring to? CricketEurope is a full fledged publication, it is not an amateur blog. Perhaps more attention should be paid at the choice of words, and also in appropriating blame where it is due, instead of randomly throwing it up in the air.

    Regarding the format and number of teams….. we have discussed that many times on this blog, the 16 team format, with 2 groups of 4 going into the second round is the best…… There is little value in repeating this point….. ICC will do what ICC has to do…….

  7. Nishadh Rego
    January 30, 2008 at 6:45 pm

    Art,

    Before you start on your Anti-BCCI rantings, take a look at these articles.

    http://www.cricketnext.com/news/symonds-gets-hauled-up-but-escapes-punishment/29309-13.html

    http://www.cricketnext.com/news/what-transpired-in-the-harbhajan-hearing/29293-13.html

    Read these carefully and tell me whether the ICC were not fair in dismissing Singh’s case with minimal consequences!!! Its not like the BCCI protests everytime its players receive bans or punishments. This, as is made obvious in the two articles, is a different matter altogether! I would’ve been happy if singh had been but away if there was concrete proof of his racist remarks.

    “Perhaps we can look forawrd to in the future the commentators instead of minutely dissecting every umpires decision that they might minutely dissect every play and miss or every dropped catch ad nauseum and leave the umpires to get on with the game and players to play withing the rules, laws and real spirit of the game not some contrived spirit written rubbish penned by silly old duffers wearing rose coloured glasses.”

    Commentators dissect every aspect of the game quite thoroughly, and if you listened closely to TV or radio commentary, you’d realize that players’ attitudes, techniques, fitness, and overall abilities are scrutinized MUCH MUCH more than that of umpires. However when an umpire makes a good decision, you’ll hear the commentator commend that decision. When an umpire makes a poor decision, you’ll hear the commentator criticise the umpire, and rightly so. The commentator is simply doing his/her job.

    Everyone in the cricketing world is living with the advent of TV replays, live commentary, and widespread coverage so if you think umpires should be exempt from criticism, you are sorely mistaken, and quite frankly are living in another day and age.

  8. Nishadh Rego
    January 30, 2008 at 6:52 pm

    I don’t see why the blame is being put squarely on the BCCI, and the PCB, when members of CA, the ECB, and Ricky Ponting have publicly stated that they would prefer it if fewer Associates played in the World Cup. This decision to reduce the number of Associates in the World Cup was taken by a vote, and boards like Cricket Australia, the WICB, the ECB, CNZ and CSA have enough flout of their own to make their own decisions and not be swayed by the BCCI and the PCB!

  9. fred
    January 30, 2008 at 7:22 pm

    4 groups of 5 teams, followed by knockouts- QF, SF and final- would mean 47 games, and Indian and Pakistan can be as awful as they like and still be playing until at least the 40th. Indian can be beaten by Bangladesh and still fight their way back to a top-two group finish.
    There would be a Group Of Death, where 3 Test nations are in the same group. Associates would usually get beaten, throw in an upset or two, scare a big team. No team would go forward by virtue of 1 win. ALL games would matter (finish first and meet WI in the QF; finish 2nd and meet SL?)
    And we wouldnt have the awful Super-sixes/eights stage.
    You lose, you go home. It’s a World Cup, not a teddy bears picnic.
    An excellent article. The Test Powerhouse Bangladesh opposing associates in the WC? Short memory.

  10. January 30, 2008 at 8:43 pm

    why 4 groups of 5? there is nothing wrong with 4 groups of 4

  11. January 30, 2008 at 8:47 pm

    Ricky Ponting is a wonderful batsman but his views should be taken with a grain of salt.

    He complains about too much cricket then signs a deal with a county. His opinions are always self serving.

    From day one he has bashed the associates.

    I treat his views with the same respect he gives to the associates.

  12. Art
    January 30, 2008 at 9:31 pm

    Nishadh,

    Well anti ICC actually, the BCCI is only part of the game being played here although a major part.

    The articles forget one major point and that is that Singh faced the appropriate action and was found guilty by the appropriate officials and suspended by the appropriate officials in the appropriate manner. All officials in the chain were independent of the playing countries and duly appointed by the ICC. This was done but then for reasons better known to the BCCI and certain players the equivalent of all hell broke loose. Not content with talking up the fact the umpires were incompetent the tirade then broke against the committee of people who found Singh (a serial offender, guilty.

    Threats were issued to the ICC by the BCCI and the ICC buckled. Singh was granted a reprieve given another hearing in which the rules, laws and lore of cricket were discarded and some ‘magic’ solution found, that was wholly acceptable to the BCCI, from somewhere.

    The umpires were condemned, the fair and reasonable process set out by the ICC was condemned and discarded and those who managed the process were tainted.

    Now as to umpires being scrutinised, well it is a play at present isn’t it, certain countries wanted independent umpires and got it now a country condemned certain umpires and had them replaced and overturned due procedure.

    Perhaps there now needs to be some Laws rewritten something like an umpires decision can be debated by any party who wishes and overturned at will. etc etc.

    It is clearly evident that technology in relationship to cricket does show inconsistencies in umpiring decisions simply because decision making is a human process. BUT you either live with it or ensure that every game of cricket at any standard is played with full electronics so evrything can be scrutinised. Impossible, well maybe but let’s not start by declaring people incompetent and due process susceptable to manipulation by powerful people in the game of cricket.

    In the end it was due process in cricket that died nothing else. It has been dying for some time, this latest act just was the final curtain call.

    Perhaps it is time for the ICC under the influence of the BCCI to rewtite the laws of cricket by adding a phrase where they consider appropriate:

    “The umpires are the sole judge of fair and unfair play excepting where powerful groups can intervene at any time to facilitate a result they desire.”

    Due process was consigned to the scrap heap in this case and the consequences of it will be felt for a long, long time.

  13. Nishadh Rego
    January 31, 2008 at 4:10 am

    “Singh faced the appropriate action and was found guilty by the appropriate officials and suspended by the appropriate officials in the appropriate manner. All officials in the chain were independent of the playing countries and duly appointed by the ICC.”

    Look at the circumstances of what happened and how he was convicted. How can you say that it was the appropriate action when the match referee took his decision 8 hours after the end of play based on the statements of three Australian players. Why was their word valued more than that of Sachin Tendulkar, Harbhajan Singh, and Chetan Sharma? I don’t think any action should be taken on the word of any cricketers these days! Don’t you agree?

    Furthermore, an appeal is also an appropriate process as per ICC Rules, and the judge appointed (Judge Hansen) is from the New Zealand High Court (possibly the most neutral and independent person you could have found, and someone who had no interests in obliging to the ICC). He conducted a perfectly legal and appropriate review of the situation and even entertained new evidence (something that the Indians weren’t too keen about, yet it was taken into consideration), later finding that Harbhajan Singh could not be found guilty of racial abuse because noone had heard him say anything, and there was absolutely no proof! Furthermore, Symonds started the whole incident even using rather foul language (he got off without any punishment at all). I see this as a perfectly legitimate solution to the problem, and if you look at everything from day one, I’m sure you would agree. Its hard to see why you wouldn’t unless your just trying to find ways to blame the BCCI. I think the BCCI have been quite brave and must be commended for the stance they have taken in wholly supporting a player who has been wrongly accused.

    Regarding sledging, or mental disintegration as Ponting calls,even the Australian media, former Australian players, and the Australian PM are criticizing Ponting, Symonds and co. for taking it too far., and rightly so! I think the Aussies have to realize that teams are not going to shy away from their tactics anymore.

    “It is clearly evident that technology in relationship to cricket does show inconsistencies in umpiring decisions simply because decision making is a human process. BUT you either live with it or ensure that every game of cricket at any standard is played with full electronics so evrything can be scrutinised.”

    Technology definitely does show inconsistencies in umpiring decisions, but it does so (way more often and in far closer scrutiny) for batsmen, bowlers, and
    fielders. Players get dropped by their employers all the time for bad performances, most of which are viewed, analyzed and dissected by technology, however I don’t hear them complaining!

    Its not like umpires are criticized after every single game of international cricket. Its just that the nature of the dismissals and the way Benson, Bucknor, and even Oxfenford (the third umpire) handled a variety of situations was consistently below par throughout the test match which is why they were sacked for the rest of the series. In addition to the Indian players, it was the Australian players, the media, former cricketers, and the public who criticized the performance of the umpires. The umpiring in that test match was especially poor relative to the standard of umpiring we see around the world today at that level, even with technology in place, which is why they were rightly sacked!!!

  14. Art
    January 31, 2008 at 5:41 am

    The circumstances of how it happened was exactly according to the rules and by people set to enforce the rules. Certain people did not like the outcome and so decided to alter the natural and defined course of events.

    Was Singh wrongly accussed? Not according to the course as set down for his first hearing. Singh is a known serial offender. India has now decided to breach the various codes that bind the game by bringing into disrepute the course of due practice. Is this brave? Not at all it shows again a disregard for the laws and practices of the game.

    As for sledging it is about time a few folks got real about sledging. In all my playing and umpiring I have heard very little sledging. I have heard plenty of banter and spent a lot of time laughing on the field and if I have ever heard sleding I have always made sure as a player and umpire that it is stopped immediately. Banter has been around since the game began and so has sledging for that matter. By far the worst type of sleding that occurs in a game, now that persistent bouncers are not permitted, is the constant appealing as a habit by some times and the constant intimidation of umpires by such methods as charging the umpoiring or refusing to pay respect when appealing. Those traits my friend are not Australian and are the most uncricket like traits in the game.

    In a game of glorious uncertainy the only certain thing is that you walk off when the umpire gives you out, no moaning, no bitching, you just get straight off.

    As for the sacking of umpires Australia has the glorious uncertainty of not having the top umpire officiate at any of its games because he is forbidden by a rule which suggests that he might be biased so we always get not the best and therefore anyone who plays us is in the same boat. Rules were made by small minded people on this matter.

    You are right in one statement and that is if you don’t perform you get dropped by your employer. It might come as news to some but the BCCI and the commentators and players do not employ the umpires in this situation the ICC does and it was the ICC’s job to employ them or not. The pressure put on the ICC by the BCCI, some media and a number of high profile Indian players threw this employment contract out the window and made it impossible for the ICC to do anything else. In other words the BCCI, some media and some Indian players decided that the ICC was not fit enough to employ qualified umpires and by their actions imposed their will.

    As for the prime minister here and a few other ‘high’ profile folks making comments I am afraid they have fallen for the old trick of believing that high office automatically brings knowledge on all things. As I suggested to a prominant politician recently who publicly commented on certain cricket happenings (and when questioned closely by me I discovered that he had never played the game in a team or officiated) that perhaps it might be wise for him to shut up before we all started pointing and laughing at him.

    I note your comment that teams are “not going to shy away anymore.” Again you suggest that umpires, game officials and organisers have somehow allowed Australia vast latitude in how it plays the game. Somehow you seem to believe that Australia is allowed to do things on the field that have been illegal by neutral officials that somehow have been conned or tricked by Australian players into inaction. It is time to get real. The laws are their to be upheld and for a very long time they have been, in recent years the meddling by the officials of certain countries to get their own way has become evident and the rule of law, real traditional and gamemanship from when cricket was first played are now subserviant to a whinging group of officials in certain countries who can’t win a straight game.

    Perhaps it is time for those officials to start up their own game, call it new cricket or something, just leave the glorious uncertainty of the real game alone and get on with playing it or leave it.

  15. fred
    January 31, 2008 at 9:32 am

    Why 5 teams/group?
    Firstly to show that the WC can expand, as opposed to contract.
    Secondly so that the TV Gods will get more games, in particular more games with India, without having that ridicuolus Super Six/Eight stage.
    If India lost 2 of their group games in a 4×4/QF/SF format, they’d be off home and we’d be back where we started!

  16. January 31, 2008 at 11:28 am

    more games against associates dont do anything for the ‘TV Gods’…… the super eight stage was made up so that the big8 can play against each other……………..

    regarding being back to square 1…… we should be back to square 1 because it was not a bad place to be at……. there was nothing wrong with 4 groups of 4….. you can do away with super eights……..

  17. Ram
    January 31, 2008 at 3:36 pm

    Nasir,

    1. In truth, the ‘monkey’ affair and whether or not BCCI is running the ICC does not matter here because the BCCI on its own does not worry about whether 14 or 16 teams play in the World Cup. Their treatment of lesser members, ex: Bangladesh (by not hosting them despite being the country that backed their Test status) is a case in point.

    2. It sounds a bit naive that you say BCCI has the clout to single-handedly make things go their way even if all the other Test boards went the other way. If that were the case, BCCI wouldn’t have participated in the Champions trophy or grudgingly started a domestic Twenty20 competition….they had to do these things because they were outvoted 1-9 in the ICC meetings.

    Remember that it was the PCB who in the first place vehemently proposed the idea of a reduction in the number of teams…If it could be said that PCB is better off because it had backed the ODI status of the 6 Associates, we might as well say that the BCCI really cares about the development of non-Test nations because it has a history of backing the Test status of fringe nations like Zim, Ban…..

  18. Nishadh Rego
    January 31, 2008 at 7:21 pm

    “The circumstances of how it happened was exactly according to the rules and by people set to enforce the rules. Certain people did not like the outcome and so decided to alter the natural and defined course of events.

    Ofcourse the circumstances were within the rules and made by the appropriate person, however were definitely a bit odd and rather harsh considering THERE WAS NO REAL PROOF of Harbhajan saying anything. Its like sentencing someone to life imprisonment for murder before hes been proven guilty. It is the BCCI’s right as a board to protest the controversial conviction (without proof) of its own player! The appeals process is also part of the rules book, and thats what the BCCI went by! Had the BCCI actually refused to continue the tour and brought its players back to India, it would’ve been at their own reputation, their own financial loss, and in the ICC’s hands to take action. HOwever, the appeal that was made was perfectly legitimate!!!

    “Was Singh wrongly accussed? Not according to the course as set down for his first hearing. Singh is a known serial offender. India has now decided to breach the various codes that bind the game by bringing into disrepute the course of due practice. Is this brave? Not at all it shows again a disregard for the laws and practices of the game.”

    Ofcourse he was wrongly accused and convicted without ANY PROPER EVIDENCE. Even the authorities, ie. Proctor can make mistakes, and thats what the appeals process is for!!! In conclusion, we see that Proctor did make a huge mistake by convicting Sing of racial abuse without proof!!

    “As for sledging it is about time a few folks got real about sledging. In all my playing and umpiring I have heard very little sledging. I have heard plenty of banter and spent a lot of time laughing on the field and if I have ever heard sleding I have always made sure as a player and umpire that it is stopped immediately. Banter has been around since the game began and so has sledging for that matter.”

    Mate, I don’t know what you consider sledging, but if you read the many many many articles written by players, and viewed footage of incidents involving Australia, you would know that what the Australians engage in is alot more than banter!!! I’ve been playing 1st and 2nd grade cricket here for 2 seasons and have faced personal abuse myself. I don’t know what level you umpire at, but at serious levels of cricket, there are certainly serious incidents of abuse coming most often from the mouths of Australians. (I’m sorry but its true)

    I just watched the PMs game against Sri Lanka, and the Australian supporters were abusing the Sri Lankans on the boundary, getting into fights with Sri Lankan supports who were simply chanting (Go Lanka Go), and even tearing up Lankan fans’ posters.
    It was really quite pathetic behaviour and happens to be well documented by players, and officials from countries all over the world!!

    “constant intimidation of umpires by such methods as charging the umpoiring or refusing to pay respect when appealing.”

    This is really not as big a problem as you make it out to be, and I haven’t seen any incidences of players charging umpires or refusing to pay respect when appealing (what do you mean by refusing to pay respect when appealing?), and if there have been teams involved in such behaviors, the Australians are up there!!!

    “The pressure put on the ICC by the BCCI, some media and a number of high profile Indian players threw this employment contract out the window and made it impossible for the ICC to do anything else.”

    The only thing done by the BCCI was a written letter of protest at the ban, something which they are entitled to do.

    “Again you suggest that umpires, game officials and organisers have somehow allowed Australia vast latitude in how it plays the game. Somehow you seem to believe that Australia is allowed to do things on the field that have been illegal by neutral officials that somehow have been conned or tricked by Australian players into inaction.”

    I’ve never said or implied anything of the sort. The point i’m trying to make is that the Australians should be surprised if teams stand up to their way of playing the game (which includes sledging in the form of abuse and constant personally directed chatter at the opposition) and fight fire with fire.

    “In recent years the meddling by the officials of certain countries to get their own way has become evident and the rule of law, real traditional and gamemanship from when cricket was first played are now subserviant to a whinging group of officials in certain countries who can’t win a straight game.”

    The Australians are no angels themselves. Who was it who refused to travel to certain countries to play cricket for “political reasons” under instructions from the government and board? Australia! Who is it who are refusing to travel to Pakistan for a tour in March even though there has never been a violent incident invovling touring cricket teams in the history of the game? Australia! Who is it who whinged about playing Associate nations because there was no challenge? Australia! Whose fans constantly chanted and umpires called Murali for no-ball when he toured in 1995-1996? Australia! When Mark Waugh and Shane Warne refused to appear in front of an ICC investigator to answer to match fixing allegations, they got off with a fine from the ACB.

    Australia isn’t perfect and just because you usually win a few more games than everyone else, and are finding it a bit tougher these days doesn’t mean you take it out on everyone else. (For example, Symonds and Pontings documented irritation at India’s 20/20 World Cup victory celebrations.)

  19. January 31, 2008 at 10:14 pm

    I suppose these are some of the quotes that initially set alarm bells ringing.

    From cricinfo Link The PCB’s chief operating officer Shafqat Naghmi said: “We don’t support the format used in the West Indies where if a good team has one bad day, it goes out of the tournament. We will not support this format at all.”

    And Here

  20. Art
    January 31, 2008 at 11:49 pm

    I umpire in Australia First and Second Division and similar divisions elsewhere when travelling (and the occasional inter regional game).

    As for suffering personal abuse on the field I believe I know where the line is in playing and as an umpire I will not allow direct personal abuse to happen in a game I umpire, period, full stop. There will be no racial abuse or religious abuse and believe it or not when folks understand the rules for the most part we all have a great time, winning or losing.

    Now it is time for me to be critical of some umpires (don’t all faint). If there is a real problem as you suggest with attitudes towards you and other players and the umpires don’t curb it then they are at fault and something should and must be done about it.

    You might like to email me personaly on this matter. I know we have our differences but we obviously both love the game and if I can be of help to you in this matter I will do my best.

    (oh and as for chanting no ball at Murali, hmmm when someone let’s a ball go at ear height from time to time out the back of his hand explain to me how this is not chucking even under the new law).

  21. amit
    February 1, 2008 at 4:47 am

    on this discussion about formats, the best format would be 4 groups of 4, but each teams plays the other twice in their group. it would mean a total of 48 matches, would eliminate the “one bad day” factor which was suggested and would give the associates 6 odis each, atleast 4 of them against test playing nations. the associates as of now have to fight it out real hard to get the matches against test teams. it would be great if all the 6 top associates could get 6 games each. the top 2 teams from each group go directly into the quarter finals making it 55 matches in all. it wont be a long tournament as with 2 matches a day, the group stages will be over in 24 days & the next round wont be a drag, and the knock-outs will make it interesting. with 8 teams out of 16 qualifying, the associates can again aim to make it to the next round & be applauded for it without anyone raising concerns about the format as for a big team to go out, they will need 2 “bad days” instead of 1. this format benefits both, the big teams as well as the associates

  22. February 1, 2008 at 5:33 am

    We should realize that this “bad day” argument is essentially an incorrect one….. we should, under no circumstances, be trying to work around it, because it is inherently wrong………. plus it is factually incorrect as well, since Pakistan did not lose only 1 match and get knocked out…………..

    A world cup should have such a format……. never saw Brazil saying that that they will not support a world cup format because Togo can knock them out….. football too is a game, and it is “possible” that Togo “can” beat Brazil…… but they back themselves and participate……

    and btw….. its a world cup…… why should the format be catering to anything?!?

    the semi final, and the final, is also 1 game……. in 1992 world cup, NZ lost ONLY to Pakistan and got knocked out of the world cup….. SA lost only 1 match in 1996 QF……..

  23. February 1, 2008 at 5:53 am

    SA lost only 1 match in 1996 QF……..

    And the “one bad day” argument was used then to get rid of the quarter finals. Now they want to bring them back!

  24. February 1, 2008 at 9:04 am

    Just wanted to register my thoughts on how ridiculous these “arguments” are and to totally agree with Nasir’s comments. A world cup should reflect the state of the game, sadly in cricket’s case it does.

  25. Chris
    February 1, 2008 at 10:56 am

    It seems that every world cup is doomed to have a different format based on the experience of the upcoming host in the previous tournament. I suspect in 2007 the introduction of reserve days (which partly made the tournament longer) was made because of the rain-affected matches in 2003 (which affected South Africa and the West Indies). Now in 2011 it appears that the 4×4 group format will be dropped because of the experience of India and Pakistan in being knocked out in 2 matches each in 2007.

    Hmm…maybe all world cups should be held in Sharjah, UAE from now on 🙂 . That way at least it would be held near the HQ of the ICC and rain wouldn’t be a problem!

  26. neel1210
    February 1, 2008 at 4:02 pm

    Zim, on the account of being a test team, which technically they are not, get $12m for their particiaption in World Cup , while Ireland, that stayed 1 month longer than them get around $1m for participation.

    That’s why I wa request ICC to plase increase number of Test Nations. When you are a Test Nation everything comes along, International Matches, Sponsorship, Telecast Rights, Advertising, Practice Pitches, ICC Grants, Professional Players, and Public Interest. The Structure can be built only after Test Status has been granted and not before that.

    A Good Example is Bangladesh who had very little Structure in 2000 but getting the Test Status meant that they had to bulid a compettive Strcuture which they did. TEST STATUS WOULD AUTOMATICALLY FORCE NATIONS TO HAVE A PROFESSIONAL STRUCTURE and would bring all the above mentioned facilities. I think once the ICC realises that it would bring about faster Development (No Test nation has been added since 2000).

    Also most people must realize Test Status is no big thing and should not hype it or be very rigorous about it. All the current Test Teams went through it. They struggled a bit and have become better teams and so they should encourage the currently weaker teams as well.

    I agree it will be difficult in places like Ireland, Scotland and co where other Sports are established to generate Public Interest but these countries have performed well and deserve Test Status.

    Also countries like Nepal and Afghanistan where the craze is there should be immediatley granted Test Status and the ICC should take care of their finances for the first few years.

  27. neel1210
    February 1, 2008 at 4:03 pm

    Private Leagues are a blessing and more leagues like ICL and IPL should be formed

    1. They provide an alternative career to youngsters who cannot make it to the paying 11.
    2. It helps improving stadium facilities by getting investments from corporates
    3. It provides careers to groundstaff, umpires, commentators and all who love the game
    4. More competitive cricket is on for viewers
    5. Domestic teams would get chance to tour overseas and improve their skills

  28. neel1210
    February 1, 2008 at 4:36 pm

    Can we please have more Teams for the Cricket World Cup. I think we should have a World Cup every 2 years. In 2009 with 32 teams and in 2011 with 64 teams. This way, we would get many more countries and players involved which would only be good for the game.

    The Associates proved that they deserve to play in the World Cup and Ireland’s success was a good indicator. People only watch when their National Side is playing in the World Cup so more teams should be encouraged.

  29. Ram
    February 2, 2008 at 12:24 am

    I think a smart ICC can actually exploit this situation to the advantage of Associate nations by striking a compromise with the Test boards that will likely please all concerned parties…

    ICC can tell the dissenting Test boards that they will favor a reduction provided the concerned board is willing to fore go a certain fraction of its participation money (in millions of $) as compensation for the Associate nation to develop its cricket, and either employs the top 20-25 players of that Associate country in its domestic/grade setup or include that country (and maybe its A team) in its domestic setup by incurring all the costs…

    The prospect of getting millions of $$ and their top players getting paid to play FC cricket would be a much better option for these Associate nations rather than showing their heads once in 4-years and be criticized irrespective of whether they played well or got thrashed….

    I’m sure a Pakistan or India (in fact maybe Eng and SA as well) wouldn’t mind all this if it meant lesser chances of early elimination….

  30. February 2, 2008 at 3:49 am

    Oh dear – neel has found another site for his crazy theories. A 64 team World Cup? Madness.

    Come on neel, lets hear your suggestions for associates to play 30 ODIs and 10 Tests a year and then ignore all requests for you to explain where the money comes from to fund it.

    And what about your idea to boycott cricket until every international ground has a roof on it? That was my favourite.

  31. Rich B
    February 4, 2008 at 4:53 am

    It’s quite clear that there are a number of potential WC formats which would allay some of the full members’ fears without reducing the number of teams to 14 or lower.

    As Ram says, though, there are other ways of balancing the scales. The big one for me would be WC Twenty20, which in the long run would the best format to increase the number of teams for.

    If WC 2011 is reduced to 14 teams, WC Twenty20 2011 should have at least 16.

    This would impact significantly on the competitive structure of Associate cricket, which is currently almost exclusively geared to preparing countries for the 50 over World Cup format. However in the long run it will almost definitely be the best way of introducing emerging nations to the ‘big time’.

  32. fred
    February 5, 2008 at 11:16 pm

    Club players dont want to travel 2 or even 1 hour to play a 20-over game. they arent going to want to skip a week of work and travel 6-10hours on a plane, even for national honours.

  33. amit
    February 6, 2008 at 5:27 am

    even if the wc is reduced to 14 teams, then the associates must put forward other demands so that they take full advantage of this. the wc might be reduced to get more quality among associates than quantity & in 2007, only ireland & canada were able to have respectable scorecards against the test teams. scotland, holland & bermuda were thrashed by 200+ runs in most of their matches against the test teams. these things must be done if the wc gets reduced

    1. reduce the funding given to test playing nations by $1 million & award these extra $10 million to the top 6 associate nations. each test game gets $11 million instead of $12 million & each of the top 6 assocaites get $2.66 million instead of $1 million

    2. professionalise the top 6 assoicates. with the millions of dollars the icc gets, it should not be a trouble for the icc to give professional contracts to about 100 players for a 4 year period

    2. keep odi status for the top 6 nations. teams ranked #15 & #16 will have odi status even though they wont be playing in the wc

    3. give atleast 15 odis & 5 fc matches to each of the 6 associates against test playing nations each year

    4. have atleast 16 teams in the 20/20 world cup in 2011

    5. all test playing nations should include atleast 1 associate in their domestic competitions, 1 associate which isnt far off from the test playing nation this can be done as –

    england – scotland, ireland
    india – afghanistan
    pakistan – uae, oman
    sri lanka – nepal
    bangladesh – bhutan
    west indies – canada, cuba
    south africa – kenya, namibia
    zimbabwe – uganda
    australia – malaysia
    new zealand – png

  34. February 6, 2008 at 2:33 pm

    amit…..
    the ICC is not something apart from the test teams as such…… its just a common platform for all the test teams plus I think 3 associates……. so they will not cut down the world cup revenue…….

    they are planning to cut down development revenue from all the associates and affiliates, except for the top 6 in the future…… and they are asking the other, non top 6, associates to vote on that next year 🙂

  35. amit
    February 7, 2008 at 3:59 am

    nasir, i said those 5 demands should be made from the associate nations if the no of teams in the world cup are getting reduced from 16 to 14. if the test playing nations want to have their way, then they should also allow the associate nations to have their way. the world cup revenue has not got to be cut, just that more amount of it has to go to the associate nations. in 2007, teams like ireland who qualified for the super-8s, got only $1 million last year from the icc & the test teams got $12 millions despite 3 of them being knocked out from the 1st round itself. the funding for the associate nations has to increase to over $2-3 millions for the top 6 associates so that the associates can have proffesional national squads and play cricket all around the year & organise odi & fc tours with test playing nations on their own

  36. Rich B
    February 7, 2008 at 4:17 am

    From what I heard, the lesser Associates and Affiliates were being asked to vote not for an absolute cut in their revenue from next year, but more for a reduced proportion of a significantly bigger pot, which might still end up being more money not less.

    Also, I don’t think they specified that it would only be the top 6 nations that would benefit from this increase – it could easily be all the HPP countries not just the qualifiers for WC 2011.

  37. Art
    February 20, 2008 at 2:46 pm

    The Australian press is reporting that the number will be 14 in 011 and the format will be changed.

    38 day format, two groups of seven with the top four in each group going on to the quarter finals.

    Also the following was resolved that a umpire decision review system be put in place so obviously they are talking more electronics.

    Hi Mr. Speed come an umpire a rung or two down from First Class for a few matches and see what damage this ‘electronic’ age is doing to the real game.

    And as for the statemen t that players and officials who break the Code of Conduct will be hashly dealt with, come on Mr. Speed that will only happen to minor players in minor countries, the latest rulings continue to be a joke.

  38. Ram
    February 20, 2008 at 5:00 pm

    Well…the reduction has been effected and it remains to be seen if the ICC did ask the Test boards any favor in return….maybe the ICC’s stance was weakened by the performance of Associates in the U19 World Cup…

    But..the interesting part is only 2 games would be less in the 2011 WC compared to 2007 despite two fewer teams and 10 fewer days….If at all, this will only intensify the competition in the World Cup qualifiers next year….

    We will have to wait and see if this has any bearing on the future ODI status of Associates, their funding and their fixtures such as the IC Cup…

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: