Random Cricket Thread (International Cricket)

[from_the_stands]

It's a pity that only 14 teams play in the World Cup. For the game to spread and continue to be strong, more teams need to be included. Had 16 teams been involved, we'd be seeing Hong Kong and PNG for the first time, with the likes of the Netherlands, Kenya and Canada scratching their heads as to why they didn't make it. The Netherlands and Canada didn't even make the super 6 stage of the qualifiers. And Burmuda were no where to be seen. I guess its a case of no Dwayne Leverock, no Bermuda.

[dan08]

It's a pity that only 14 teams play in the World Cup. For the game to spread and continue to be strong, more teams need to be included. Had 16 teams been involved, we'd be seeing Hong Kong and PNG for the first time, with the likes of the Netherlands, Kenya and Canada scratching their heads as to why they didn't make it. The Netherlands and Canada didn't even make the super 6 stage of the qualifiers. And Burmuda were no where to be seen. I guess its a case of no Dwayne Leverock, no Bermuda.

If they had 16 teams then they would have to go back to the 4 groups of 4 system and the ICC aren't in favour of that after India and Pakistan got knocked out early last time. I guess they could also do a preliminary round like what is happening for the World T20 where 16 teams get cut down to 10 but don't really see the point of another qualifying tournament. I'd say 14 or 16 is about right for the World Cup but would like to see 16+ for the World T20.

[from_the_stands]

It's a pity that only 14 teams play in the World Cup. For the game to spread and continue to be strong, more teams need to be included. Had 16 teams been involved, we'd be seeing Hong Kong and PNG for the first time, with the likes of the Netherlands, Kenya and Canada scratching their heads as to why they didn't make it. The Netherlands and Canada didn't even make the super 6 stage of the qualifiers. And Burmuda were no where to be seen. I guess its a case of no Dwayne Leverock, no Bermuda.

If they had 16 teams then they would have to go back to the 4 groups of 4 system and the ICC aren't in favour of that after India and Pakistan got knocked out early last time. I guess they could also do a preliminary round like what is happening for the World T20 where 16 teams get cut down to 10 but don't really see the point of another qualifying tournament. I'd say 14 or 16 is about right for the World Cup but would like to see 16+ for the World T20.

I would be in favour of 4 groups of 4. But what I would really like is 2 groups of 8, with quarter finals and so on.

[dan08]

It's a pity that only 14 teams play in the World Cup. For the game to spread and continue to be strong, more teams need to be included. Had 16 teams been involved, we'd be seeing Hong Kong and PNG for the first time, with the likes of the Netherlands, Kenya and Canada scratching their heads as to why they didn't make it. The Netherlands and Canada didn't even make the super 6 stage of the qualifiers. And Burmuda were no where to be seen. I guess its a case of no Dwayne Leverock, no Bermuda.

If they had 16 teams then they would have to go back to the 4 groups of 4 system and the ICC aren't in favour of that after India and Pakistan got knocked out early last time. I guess they could also do a preliminary round like what is happening for the World T20 where 16 teams get cut down to 10 but don't really see the point of another qualifying tournament. I'd say 14 or 16 is about right for the World Cup but would like to see 16+ for the World T20.

I would be in favour of 4 groups of 4. But what I would really like is 2 groups of 8, with quarter finals and so on.

2 groups of 8 would take ages, wouldn't it?

[Alviro Patterson]

4 groups of 4 teams would mean fewer World Cup matches (31 compared to 49 at present) and less revenue for the ICC to earn.

Also there is a case of striking a balance between the number of teams and providing a quality tournament. A 2 group of 8 increases the amount of mis-matches, whilst 1 group of 10 (IIRC the WC 2019 format) provides a high standard of cricket but becomes an Elite Tournament.

Probably the optimum number of teams is 18, with 3 groups of 6 and top 2 plus 2 best 3rd places go through to the knockout stages. 5 group stage matches per side, 52 World Cup matches to satisfy both spectators and sponsors. However 18 international teams playing competent ODI cricket is around 8-12 years away, though ICC awarding 6 leading associate nations sides ODI status is a step in the right direction.

[Durhamfootman]

less revenue?

[andy]

less revenue?

haha, its all the ICC and boards care about these days, sadly.

[Alviro Patterson]

less revenue?

haha, its all the ICC and boards care about these days, sadly.

As long as the revenue streams are sufficiently filtered down to the Associates, Affiliates and Grassroots cricket then the game will be able to expand.

[braveneutral]

I like the idea of world t20 being a ridiculous number of sides like 32 in a knockout format. It would spice it up and reward consistency.

[Gingerfinch]

I like the idea of world t20 being a ridiculous number of sides like 32 in a knockout format. It would spice it up and reward consistency.

Like the world snooker championships? Why not.

[GGAS]

I like the idea of world t20 being a ridiculous number of sides like 32 in a knockout format. It would spice it up and reward consistency.

[braveneutral]

I will give the ICC a bell then.

[from_the_stands]

Norway has fallen below both Germany and Belgium in the ICC affiliate rankings!

[andy]

http://www.sportbusiness.com/tv-sports- ... ket-rights

[Arthur Crabtree]

Bit of a shame. I didn't watch it, but IPL was the only cricket on the license fee.