The Cricket World Cup thread

[Tubby Isaacs]

This chap won't be playing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/jan/19/sami-patel-fitness-world-cup

[Etienne]

The Cricket World Cup thread

You'd think given the grotesque length of the tournament, he'd have been fit by the end, even if he wasn't at the start.

[Gordon Comstock]

The Cricket World Cup thread

Seven weeks of 50-over cricket, with the most decisive action condensed into ten days at the end.

I know that this World Cup is covered by the ICC's broadcasting agreement which stipulates a large number of games per tournament, but a little organisational creativity wouldn't go a miss - by 2015 it will probably be too late.

I assume that the ICC are pinning their hopes on the enthusiasm and revenue-generating ability of the hosts to pep up a format that clunked and chugged along in the West Indies in 2007 - I was in India last week and every single television advertisment seemed to be connected with World Cup while TV channels had erected countdown clocks across Hyderabad (which isn't even hosting a single game).

[The Purple Cow]

The Cricket World Cup thread

This is the last W.C. where the associate nations will participate. IN 2015 it will revert to being a private post-colonial club again.

Ireland's success in the West Indies probably sealed their fate, as did Oranje's twenty/20 victory over England. They can't risk the major nations (particularly India) not making the latter stages of the tournament.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

The Cricket World Cup thread

To be fair to the ICC for a moment, I think they've got this one about right.

If they'd just made it a top-8 tournament, there would have been no end of moaning from all sorts saying they had excluded the "smaller" nations. They could have held "qualifiers" in that respect that involved the top 8, but then you'd have had just as many people moaning "Why are England having to play Kenya/Holland/Namibia just to qualify for the World Cup, can't be bothered watching that" (and just imagine we'd lost).

Making it 14 teams not 16 (which would have been the knee-jerk idea) at least means that there, are fact, fewer "non-event" games in the first stage, for anyone anticipating that the associate members v top team games will be walkovers and not interested in those. Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing England play Holland and Ireland again.

As for the scheduling, yes, the first stage shouldn't be taking as long. But the football and Rugby World Cups are both scheduled so that every fan can see every game, why not the cricket one as well? If that means only 2 games per day (and as a result 3 or 4 days between games for each team in the first stage) so be it. When it does get to the finals, they've got it right by going back to proper knockout quarter-finals, none of this "Super 8s" bollocks.

No, overall I'm really looking to forward to this.

[Etienne]

The Cricket World Cup thread

Rogin, TPC is talking about the next World Cup, which is going to be the 10 ICC countries and none of the associate nations - with the Associates being compensated with extra places in the T20 World Cup.

Basically, the ICC is saying that T20 is going to be the vehicle for any global expansion, the 50 over game is going to be retained basically solely for the amount of money it brings to India - which is still more than T20 because it's longer and has more opportunities for ad breaks.

I think it's a shame, I'd have liked to see at least 2 associate countries in the World Cup, but as TPC says, then financial concerns dictate you have a bloated tournament like this to ensure that the weather/a shock result or two doesn't chuck out a big country early on

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

The Cricket World Cup thread

Etienne, I see - but surely there will be some mechanism for "promotion/relegation" in and out of that "top 10" sides between now and 2015? Things change, after all. I mean 10 years ago Zimbabwe were clearly part of the "test-playing" club of nations, and Bangladesh weren't, but that's probably the other way round, now. What happens if by 2015 Holland are winning their fair share of (20/20) one-day matches against all-comers, but the West Indies (for example) have continued to decline to the point where they can't beat their own women's team?

[Etienne]

The Cricket World Cup thread

The ICC full members and associate members designation isn't really affected by anything as trivial as current form. Maybe by 2019 there might have been a shift...

[edit]I mean, Zimbabwe's shift downwards in the pecking order is international political more than cricket political, and cricket political more than cricket performance. But they are still going to be at the top table in 2015.

[Kusal Flyer]

The Cricket World Cup thread

I would prefer a 12 team tournament (so all the colonial powers, I like that, plus two to four as the best of the rest. The latter figure really depending on whether you think Bangladesh and maybe Zimbabwe can lift it to a higher level, or realistically that they're left in a limbo which is just above the level of Holland/ Kenya/ Ireland/ North America etc.).

Timetable:

Three groups of four, each winner and runner up advances to 'super six' where they will all play the four teams qualifying from the other groups. After this stage, with points carried through, the leading two sides play the final. 27 days, 31 games.

Days 1-9 (Friday-Saturday): everyone plays three group games, with two clear days between a given teams's matches. Two matches per day

Days 10-24 (Sunday-Sunday): super six, allowing for three rest days and two clear days between matches as above. One match per day

Day 27: final (provided a midweek date is OK)

Top six sides all play each other. Bottom six must pre-qualify for next tournament.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The Cricket World Cup thread

Etienne wrote:

You'd think given the grotesque length of the tournament, he'd have been fit by the end, even if he wasn't at the start.

That's brilliant, LOL.

In the old days (when we typically lost three players in the Sunday League games before each test) we'd need to take the whole development squad, plus the England Lions and the Under 19s to get us through the tournament.

[Kusal Flyer]

The Cricket World Cup thread

Rogin the Armchair Fan wrote:

What happens if...the West Indies (for example) have continued to decline to the point where they can't beat their own women's team?

Possibly they might split into constituent* countries to contest international tournaments. Bad-tempered rivalry, particularly between Jamaica and Trindidad, can be see as both cause and effect of the Caribbean-wide side being so crap in recent years.

* Although both the Leeward and Windward Islands include more than one sovereign states

Etienne wrote:

the 50 over game is going to be retained basically solely for the amount of money it brings to India - which is still more than T20 because it's longer and has more opportunities for ad breaks....financial concerns dictate you have a bloated tournament like this to ensure that the weather/a shock result or two doesn't chuck out a big country early on

Aye, 5050 hasn't disappeared as many pundits predicted a couple of years ago. And doesn't a big country now effectively mean just India? England, Australia and South Africa would grin and bear it, particularly if the shock result was them losing to Ireland or Holland. Pakistan and perhaps Lanka's departure would likely be explained with reference to betting scams, and anyway one's a basket case politically, the other insignifcant economically. West Indies have been poor for years as above, and cricket in NZL is basically a participant not spectator sport.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The Cricket World Cup thread

Anyway, you coming down to watch some cricket? Spare room for you. The last bloke kept on teasing me about my football team having a bowling green next door, so he's not there any more.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The Cricket World Cup thread

Andy Bull on 40 years of ODIs:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/jan/18/forty-years-international-cricket

If anyone has the 1999 Wisden, there's a very good article in similar vein by Scyld Berry. It's amazing to think the World Cup went from Tavare opening in 1983 to Sri Lankan pinch hitters in 1996.

I had no idea that Bradman was connected with the first ODI. Looking back it's incredible it took 8 years from the successful launch of the Gilette Cup for an ODI to happen. Especially seeing the sixties was admitted by most people to be crying out for "brighter cricket".

[Gordon Comstock]

The Cricket World Cup thread

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

Looking back it's incredible it took 8 years from the successful launch of the Gilette Cup for an ODI to happen. Especially seeing the sixties was admitted by most people to be crying out for "brighter cricket".

Absolutely - and it was still another two years from that first ODI before any other nations took it up.

[longeared]

The Cricket World Cup thread

Just as surprising is how long it took for ODI's to be established as an accepted format of the game. India played a total of five ODI's between the 1975 and 1979 World Cups - two matches in New Zealand in 1976 and three in Pakistan in 1978. Then after the 1979 World Cup they didn't play another ODI for a further 18 months.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The Cricket World Cup thread

And "one day specialists" took an incredibly long time to emerge. Scyld Berry reckons that the only one playing in the 1979 World Cup was Brian McKechnie of New Zealand. And that he may have played less for tactical reasons than that they were scratching around for test players who would have gone straight on the teamsheet.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

The Cricket World Cup thread

Kerry Packer's "takeover" of cricket in the late 1970s was mostly based around ODIs, though, wasn't it (I know he organised "his" version of the Ashes, but no-one took it seriously)?

But "World Championship Cricket" on Packer's TV channel was quite the thing, wasn't it, with teams in their coloured "pyjamas", that turned the ODI version from an exhibition sideshow into something that made the authorities sit up and think "we're onto something here"?

When was the first (official) World Cup where teams wore their "pyjama" colours, btw? I recall in 1983 in England they were all wearing whites, and I think they still were in 1987. Certainly by 1995 (or was it 1996?) though I remember everyone was in their coloured outfits, when Sri Lanka won it.

[Etienne]

The Cricket World Cup thread

Packer's main focus was on Super Tests initially, but one dayers became increasingly important - and day/nighters.

1992 was the first cricket World Cup in coloured kit.

[longeared]

The Cricket World Cup thread

Scyld Berry's article from the 1999 Wisden

[Diable Rouge]

The Cricket World Cup thread

Ireland have maintained their form over the previous four years - how difficult would it be for them to eventually gain Test status?

[mafu]

The Cricket World Cup thread

Is there a decent fantasy tournament in the offing for this anywhere? (and would there be any interest here in an OTF competition?)

[Etienne]

The Cricket World Cup thread

I'd be interested, if one could be found.

[jefe]

The Cricket World Cup thread

FAO Ursus, should he be lurking through here:

ESPN3 is streaming barbados v T&T in 20/20 right now, if you get it.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The Cricket World Cup thread

longeared wrote:

Scyld Berry's article from the 1999 Wisden

Ah great. Must be far more of the (often excellent) Wisden pieces online than I thought.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The Cricket World Cup thread

Indeed there is.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/almanack

Anyone who can find Patrick Collins' review of Duncan Fletcher's terrible autobiography gets a gold star.