BCCI - negative press day

Firstly they blocked Universal DRS even going to the vote stage despite all the other boards wanting it, the players wanting it, the ICC itself voting to have it in 2011, and the Executive Commitee noting the improvements in technology made it reliable
So who was at the Executive Board meeting that failed to vote on it? Well it was chaired by the head of the Indian National Congress party / ICCC President Sharad "Not Corrupt" Pawar, Alan " Offends noone" Isaac the former New Zealand Z team player (now head of being ignored at the ICC), Haroon "Actually Im a saffer definately not an Indian honestly" Lorgat who became ICC Cheif executive with absolutely no controversy at all and certainly isnt a Pawar lacky *cough cough*, and IS Bindra the ICCs chief advisor ("look guys just listen to what Pawar says"), one representative from each from the member boards and 3 associate reps.

And now Tony Greig has flipped out about them at the MCC "Spirit of Cricket" Lecture :

India is pre-occupied with money and T20 cricket and sees its IPL and Champions League as more important than a proper international calendar. To compound the problems, India has not only sold part of the game to private interests but some of her administrators are seen to have a conflict of interest, which makes it more difficult for it to act in the spirit of the game.

We can huff and puff as much as we like and have all sorts of external reports, but this situation can only be resolved by India accepting that the spirit of cricket is more important than generating billions of dollars; it's more important than turning out multi-millionaire players; and it's more important than getting square with Australia and England for their bully-boy tactics towards India over the years. It's ironic that the world, including India, rightly worships at the Nelson Mandela altar because of his conciliatory attitude but then India eschews his approach by indulging in a little pay back.

IS "Im an ICC not a BCCI Employee" Bindra's view on the subject:

Our cricketing losses Down Under and earlier in England have become an understandable cause of anguish, pain and disappointment for millions of avid Indian cricket fans. TV rights, player endorsements and the longer-term commercial prospects of the game too have taken a beating.
For weeks now former players and the armchair chair critics have been out in droves and the object of their combined fury is the IPL. The T20 format of the game is being blamed for making our players money hungry and ruining their focus and techniques.

It’s time, I believe, to stop looking for villains. The commercial success of IPL is undeniable and it has become an iconic sporting brand. It has brought a whole legion of new fans, especially women and younger Indians who were migrating to Formula One racing, football and American sports, back into the cricketing domain. IPL’s success is also evident in the clones it has fostered across the rest of the cricketing world. Here too fans continue to flock to stadiums and its commercial prospects remain impressive.

Reads as " yeah we lost some tests but dont worry we can still make a stink load of money out of T20 so suck it up Grieg"
Oooh politics.

Don't get me started on the way the ICC is run...

It is not India's fault only. You reap what you sow, and the governing body of the ICC is riddled with conflicts of interest, and people behaving in their countries's interests rather than those of the game. For example, the ECB have repeadedly blocked Ireland's application for full membership because they want to carry on pinching their players (I oversimplify, but only somewhat).

The trouble is no one seems interested in taking a stance.

Implementing the Woolf report's recommendations would be a good start.

As for Bindra: "it's time [...] to stop looking for villains"; it's not a question of looking for villains, it's a question of understanding why the number 1 ranked test team was whitewashed in successive series. Muppet.

Indian dominance of the ICC is a complicated issue. On one hand it is clear that they exert undue influence at times, and have become the dominant partner. On the other hand a large proportion of cricket fans are Indian and so in some ways it is right that they have a greater say than some other members. It should also be remembered that England, in the guise of the MCC, largely held sway until well into the 1990s.

With regard to the issue of the UDRS India's opposition is difficult to understand. Yes, it is true that the system can create debate, and that it is itself not flawless. But it definitely creates a greater proportion of correct decisions - something it is very difficult to argue with. Thus, I can't see India's objection as anything other than an attempt to throw their weight around - one which they have so far been very successful with.

The issue of India not prioritising Tests is not a new one, and one I don't think we should be too critical of them for. All boards, England and Australia included, have made commercially justified scheduling decisions. It just happens that, in England, Tests remain commercially successful. It is wrong to blame the Indian board for the apathy towards home Tests among their supporters.

Conflict of interests is a relevant point raised by Greig. However, it should also be noted that Greig himself often commentates on Sri Lankan cricket, whilst being a tourism ambassador for Mahinda Rajapaksa's controversial government.

----

Moving away from India's dominance the ICC has a wider issue in the way the Full Members manage the smaller nations. It is obvious that the Full Members should take a leading role, but ridiculous that no progress whatsoever has been made in implementing the Woolf Report, which, as predicted, seems to have been an expensive waste of time. The issues raised, as far as I can see, didn't even make the agenda at the Chief Executives meeting.

The number of self-interested decisions towards associate members made by the Full Members is countless - 10 team World Cup with no qualifying (only reversed after massive external pressure), and the reluctance of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh to play Ireland and Afghanistan for fear of being undermined by being beaten come to mind.

The excellent Australian writer Gideon Haigh writes an excellent, if a little lengthy, critique of the ICC in this year's Wisden. It is well worth a read for those that can access it.

Shelsey

Do you need to purchase Wisden or can it be accessed online? Wouldn't mind reading that as I have very little idea of the politics of the ICC and BCCI.

liverbnz wrote:Shelsey

Do you need to purchase Wisden or can it be accessed online? Wouldn't mind reading that as I have very little idea of the politics of the ICC and BCCI.

Unfortunately I think you would have to purchase.

On a positive note Pawar is no longer officially in charge ( just busy pulling strings behind the scenes) as of today, Isaac has taken over with David Richardson (ex SA keeper) replacing Lograt as well.

Apparently the whole structure and constitution is being reformed from 2014


Sums it up that the Indian crews last act was to kaibosh something their own board had recommended. Good riddance.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:On a positive note Pawar is no longer officially in charge ( just busy pulling strings behind the scenes) as of today, Isaac has taken over with David Richardson (ex SA keeper) replacing Lograt as well.

Apparently the whole structure and constitution is being reformed from 2014


Sums it up that the Indian crews last act was to kaibosh something their own board had recommended. Good riddance.

Those appointments were themselves controversial. The Australia/New Zealand president was initially proposed to be the former Australian Prime Minister John Howard - a big cricket supporter and somebody who would offer an independent view from those traditionally filling the post. However, opposition from those that thought he could bloody a few noses, eventually saw Alan Isaac, from a cricket administration background, selected.

...and his first act is to declare that they are not going to stand up to the BCCI on DRS.

Lacky.

Worrying comments from Alan Isaac at the start of his presedency...

He still favours a 10 team World Cup because "the 1992 World Cup, with nine countries, was a fantastic success - there were 87,000 at the final between England and Pakistan. That format where everybody played everybody was very popular and, arguably, is ideal."

I'm not sure looking back 20 years is the best way to judge the best way to run a World Cup. Without wishing to re-open the debate, any less than 14 teams makes it very difficult to credibly call an event a World Cup. And we would lose the only opportunity all cricket playing nations have to show their worth outside of Twenty20.

The unnoficial name will still be:

The Indian Cricket Council.


They are the biggest power (ie money provider) in the game right now. They have chosen to act in ways that feather their own nests and gain payback over English and Australians. As such they have become what they so despised.

So BCCI stopped DRS. They have money, they are interested only in adding more money and playing only T-20s. The ICC is run by the BCCI. BCCI is the big bad bully everyone despise.
Absolutely nothing new in all these, and Shelsey's post above, unlike many that comes from English and Australian cricket fans, is a very sensible response.
While many of the charges against the BCCI has some truth attached with it in parts, the holier than thou attitude is just nonsensical. England and Australia, when they were in command did far greater despicable things, including tacit support to one of the most reprehensible political regimes in South Africa. Those who know a bit of their cricketing history know how Sri Lanka was prevented from playing test cricket for a long time by the very same powers. The list is long, the point is that the powerful, at all times have behaved in a way that enhanced their interest and ensured their staying in control.
Even on the South Africa issue, it was pressure that brought about change. The entire ICC structure, all the heads of boards including that of the ECB and CA have to take their fair share of blame in this matter. None of the member nations asked for a vote on the DRS issue. While boards of NZ, WI, Bangladesh have financial issues, the executives of the ECB and CA can't hide behind that to support them not taking a stand on the issue where it mattered.
BCCI bashing along on an online platform will not make UDRS universal, it demands all the national cricket boards acting in the spirit of the game. The BCCI's attitude on the UDRS is not making a lot of sense, but its not just them, the others are getting away with their complicity.
And Tony G is absolutely the right man to talk about all that, as if his past doesn't exist!!!.

Living in the past and using it not only as an excuse but a motivation and justification in running the sport for the benefit of individuals rather than the game is "pretty weak".

Rather than worrying about Tony Greig playing cricket in his home country several decades ago how about we worry about the Kenyan Minister for Sport proposing active racial discrimination in appointing cricket administrators now?

Yes its not just the BCCI and to be fair its wrong to really blame this sort of thing on a board as a whole (not that MSP ever lays off the WICB ) , its more a case of individuals.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Living in the past and using it not only as an excuse but a motivation and justification in running the sport for the benefit of individuals rather than the game is "pretty weak".

Rather than worrying about Tony Greig playing cricket in his home country several decades ago how about we worry about the Kenyan Minister for Sport proposing active racial discrimination in appointing cricket administrators now?

Yes its not just the BCCI and to be fair its wrong to really blame this sort of thing on a board as a whole (not that MSP ever lays off the WICB ) , its more a case of individuals.

One side issue to get out of the way first. I have been a strong critic of the WICB the way they run cricket in the WestIndies, and it is something I strongly believe that the WICB has played the most significant role in running WI cricket to ground. While the many demands put up by the West Indies players at times are problematic, the greater share of the blame should go to the WICB the way they just sat back when the good times were on, the way they didn't act when the bad times came upon the WICB, the way they tried to build a team of 'Yes Men'. But that doesn't mean they can be blamed for the DRS troubles. Of course they, like all the other boards, didn't wanta vote on the issue, but that is a different issue vs they running WI cricket toground.

Now back to the issue, as all of us know, it was Tony Greig who was getting players for the Packer revolt while he was the captain of England cricket team. despite then existing establishment views, now its been generally agreed that the revolt was in fact a revolution for cricketers, and even for that matter the game itself. Many of his points have to be understood in this context.
It is also interesting to note that it is been the chief of the Bangladesh Cricket Board who has been the only head of boards to speak out openly in favor of the DRS. Of course some players and coaches from other sides did have positive things to say about it all, but the important administrators have by and large preferred to keep quiet on the issue, perhaps other than a state or 2 that was neither here nor there.
Other issues, IPL, ODI overkill....... Are they issues limited to the BCCI alone? Australia now has BBL, Sri Lanka is starting SLPL and other boards are also thinking about all that. Don't forget England had a very interesting arrangement with a criminal!.
Also why is England and Australia playing the ongoing ODI series? Because of the BCCI or IPL? Why is the South Africans playing only 3 tests? Has the answer anything sensible to do with BCCI?

(B)orad of (C)ricket (C)ontrol (I) nternational is like what USA is in the world politics. Love it or leave it.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/page2/content/site/page2/wc_quiz.html?week=30

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:http://www.espncricinfo.com/page2/content/site/page2/wc_quiz.html?week=30

Teams that want DRS should refuse to play without it. There would be some flapping, but eventually it would sort it's self out. And if India want to withdraw from the Test Arena, so be it.

Spot on, DouglasJardinesBox.

Leave India with no opponents, and then they might have to change their tune, the moronic cretins.

There are really 3 problems:

1) The way the ICC is run means that the power is concentrated totally at the top. Think 10 members of 105 with (as near as) all the power and ressources: but also amongst those 10, it needs only 3 countries to vote against a measure for it to fail, so all the most powerful country (at the moment India, but msp's point that in the past it was England is fair) has to do is find 2 allies to block any measure it doesn't like. It is for example well-known that Sri Lanka were going to block DRS in exchange for an extra series against India (the SLCB is in dire financial straits).

2) The current country with the most power (India) is acting purely out of (mainly financial) self-interest in a totally irresponsible manner. This is not only a question of DRS, it is also the contempt with which they treated the Woolf report proposals. India also seems to be partly acting out of some kind of vindictiveness for the poor way they were treated back when England held the balance of power - ironically in doing so they have become the bully they despise.

3) The 3 other big countries (England, Australia, South Africa in that order) seem unwilling to take any kind of a stand. We can reason all we like as to why this is, but certainly in England's case the game is surely financially secure with the sky money. I suspect part of it is simply lack of courage, part of it is because they are playing politics with each other, and part of it is guilt. I also think they fear that if they shook up the whole system and actually made it "fair" they would have less power than they currently do.

What I don't like about Msp's post is he seems to be saying (as a lot of indians do, judging from cricinfo's comments) that to some extent it's ok for India to act as they are and we shouldn't complain, because others have acted worse in the past. That is the kind of argument which says "Germany shouldn't worry about human rights abuses in Ukraine because after all it's not like they are behaving like Nazi Germany". Just because people have done bad things in the past does not mean they can't be a voice for good in the present.

Mike for President.

Mike, what I have been suggesting is not that India can be justified because others did similar things in the past. What I am saying is that the other boards the significant people who have real power haven't acted on DRS, and blaming the BCCI exclusively is totally unfair and in fact is a complete misunderstanding of the situation. I also have tried to suggest that despite their rather autocratic behavior many others have found BCCI bashing as a convenient means to extricate themselves from the kind of share of blame they have in the whole situation.

Msp, here are some of the things you said:

"the holier than thou attitude is just nonsensical. England and Australia, when they were in command did far greater despicable things"

"And Tony G is absolutely the right man to talk about all that, as if his past doesn't exist!"

You have also argued (as I have) that other boards should share some of the blame - you are totally right on this. But those two quotes are what I meant in my last paragraph.

OK.
The holier than thou attitude I referred to mainly comes from some of the media and fan support base of some of the countries I mentioned, putting all the blame on the BCCI and projecting others as hapless victims. This is absolutely nonsensical, and doesn't really show any sense of history whatsoever. Someone who made mistakes in the past can always find ways to reform and change, but empty moral rhetoric, while being involved in the same thing they go after just doesn't cut.
And on TG, I have to again say that because like many others, he also targets the BCCI, unlike we common cricket lovers, he's been someone who's been involved in the game at different levels in different roles. He had his wel known past, he had his fair share of insecurities, he should no better as to why players from different countries would opt to play in the IPL. If Hitler or Stalin start talking up democracy, you have to certainly take it in the larger context of things while factoring in the merit of the argument.

Indeed some in the media (and fanbase) are at least guilty of hypocrisy. That doesn't change the fact that when you approach an argument with "you guys did far worse" you are implicitly at least saying we shouldn't be too harsh on India because England behaved worse before. It is the kind of argument which leads to apologising for Israel's atrocities in Palestine by saying "well they had it bad in the past". I am glad that this is not what you meant.

There are as I say 3 issues here, but one of them is that India does hold the balance of power, and is behaving irresponsibly. They need to be held to account by whoever can, even by those who have behaved less than honorably in the past.

And the first line has to read "While many of the charges against the BCCI has some truth attached with it in parts, the holier than thou attitude is just nonsensical."
How about context and out of context?

"There are as I say 3 issues here, but one of them is that India does hold the balance of power, and is behaving irresponsibly. They need to be held to
account by whoever can, even by those who have behaved less than honorably in the past".
The point is that none is doing it. And I don't see many valid reasons for the lack of effort on the part of the ECB, the CA and the UCB in particular.
Mike, my academic training is in political science and international relations, and the Realist School has been a significant influence. The past based argument was an effort to make the point that the powerful often behave in a rather irresponsible way, and its only sustained collective pressure that has brought about some change.

msp83 wrote:"There are as I say 3 issues here, but one of them is that India does hold the balance of power, and is behaving irresponsibly. They need to be held to
account by whoever can, even by those who have behaved less than honorably in the past".
The point is that none is doing it.

That is not true. Many at the lower echelons of the game (including myself) are trying; many fans have signed numerous petitions on the issue of representational power; and Tony Greig tried - but you dismissed his efforts based partially on his past. Actually TG said quite a bit of nonsense in his address - but that doesn't mean we should dismiss the bits he got right.

The problem with that is that the way the ICC is structured, the pressure has to come by and large from the rather higher echelons. The efforts from the lower levels are not often well coordinated, often they are based on misconceptions and partial understandings as reflected by many posts here as well as larger debates including the one led by TG at the MCC.
Cricket lovers in India have had a tough time with the BCCI, the fans wanted answers after the disasters of last year, but nothing, absolutely nothing happened.
The real pressure has to come from the member boards of the ICC. SL, Pak, Bangladesh, NZ and WI boards have some financial issues but UCB, CA and the ECB can't really say that. In fact if they want they could also get some of the other boards on their side. A vote, even a defeated one, would have made a world of difference to the DRS movement than any fan signed petition could do. The reality is that the boards are making all kinds of deals, the others are not taking position against the BCCI on DRS, as there are other deals that benefit them.
Rather than focusing on the need to restructure international cricket the lack of which has been the basis of all the fundamental issues in international cricket, even someone who's been involved like TG has gon for the easier, populist and soft option, that of BCCI bashing. and the interesting thing is the BCCI just doesn't care one bit about all these.

They (BCCI) are bringing the game into disrepute by their selfish actions. If players acted on the field of play the same way the BCCI are acting off it, the fines and repercussions would be stinging the game to the core. Hiding behind other similar behaviours of other boards in the past is 100% irrelevant and somewhat akin to school playground behaviour. It is all about the present. The game we love is being ruined by greed.

Someone (singularly or collectively) needs to make a stand. If DRS is part of the rules of test cricket, then their is no option to play or withdraw from that form of the game.

msp83 wrote:The problem with that is that the way the ICC is structured, the pressure has to come by and large from the rather higher echelons. The efforts from the lower levels are not often well coordinated, often they are based on misconceptions and partial understandings as reflected by many posts here as well as larger debates including the one led by TG at the MCC.

Quite. Even at the level of the lower boards, coordination is difficult (although we certainly don't base our actions on misconceptions or partial understandings - in fact we probably understand the poor structure of the ICC better than anyone) because everyone is battling for their own interests.

msp83 wrote:The real pressure has to come from the member boards of the ICC. SL, Pak, Bangladesh, NZ and WI boards have some financial issues but UCB, CA and the ECB can't really say that. In fact if they want they could also get some of the other boards on their side.

Absolutely agree. A likely vote would be split 6-4 or 5-5 if the ECB, CA and UCB got their act together and showed some b*lls, so it would be futile (and perhaps that is why these boards aren't taking a stand). But India needs the other 3 far more than the other 3 need India at the moment. Or put another way, if the ECB, CA and the UCB got together and said "if you won't listen to reason on this then we won't play you, or anyone else who doesn't listen to reason" then what would happen?

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:Someone (singularly or collectively) needs to make a stand. If DRS is part of the rules of test cricket, then their is no option to play or withdraw from that form of the game.

How do you make DRS compulsory with the voting system as it currently is?

Shelsey93 wrote:Worrying comments from Alan Isaac at the start of his presedency...

He still favours a 10 team World Cup because "the 1992 World Cup, with nine countries, was a fantastic success - there were 87,000 at the final between England and Pakistan. That format where everybody played everybody was very popular and, arguably, is ideal."

I'm not sure looking back 20 years is the best way to judge the best way to run a World Cup. Without wishing to re-open the debate, any less than 14 teams makes it very difficult to credibly call an event a World Cup. And we would lose the only opportunity all cricket playing nations have to show their worth outside of Twenty20.

Finally some sense in the ICC.

Really? Why?

Because I dont want a tournament to consist of some matches which can only have one winner. I dont mind 2 Associates. 4 is way too much.

Canada vs Kenya matches serve absolutely no purpose. They are not going to become better sides by just playing in a World Cup. And results in a loss of revenue to the ICC.

Ah, like Ireland-England or even Holland-England at the last world cup. You do know with 10 teams neither of those sides are likely to qualify? In that case we should have cancelled the whole 2007 tournament - there was no way anyone was ever going to beat Australia. The associates have been getting better in recent years - it seems a strange way to reward them by giving them less chance of qualifying for a major event.

There is no other sport in the world which treats its lesser sides with as much contempt as cricket. I don't think that's a good thing.

Also, a 10 team round-robin format? How many pointless games is that going to have?

Without wishing to reopen old arguments, a 10-team World Cup is a ridiculous idea in this day and age. It would effectively undo 15 years of drastic improvements in the development of Associate/Affiliate cricket - a process which still has a long way to go.

For a start you'd effectively be limiting the World Cup to the Full Members - at a push Ireland and Afghanistan could get through a qualifying tournament, but the format would probably be designed in favour of the bigger nations anyway. If you don't have Associates at the World Cup, the teams won't get any chance to show their improvement and the players the opportunity show their skill level. As it stands the vast majority of cricket followers forget that cricket is played outside of 8 countries when the World Cup isn't on - that would only get worse if the World Cup was restricted to an elite club.

I'd love to see more nations accepted as Full Members - Ireland aren't a million miles away; Afghanistan probably are, but as a cricket team aren't far away from the lesser Full Members.

The problem with Zimbabwe and Bangladesh is that they've been terribly managed. Zimbabwe were corrupt, and given far too much protection as a Full Member when Ireland and others were more worthy. Bangladesh were thrown in the deep end at a time when they clearly weren't nearly ready - Ireland are much better now than Bangladesh were in 2000. They had to transform from club players to Test players on the world stage - a transition that was never going to work overnight. Ireland are beyond that. Their players are professionals, and well capable of giving any international side a good game. Why should we keep them out of the World Cup?

I'd have a 12 team tournament.

The top 8 ranked ODI teams should get automatic entry.

I'd recommend a qualifying tournament held just before the start of the tournament between the 9th and 10th ranked ODI side and the top 4 Associate sides for 4 slots.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:Canada vs Kenya matches serve absolutely no purpose.

Apart from to Canadians and Kenyans of course.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:They are not going to become better sides by just playing in a World Cup.

Nonsense. Of course they are going to improve by playing winnable matches on a far bigger stage than they're used to.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:And results in a loss of revenue to the ICC.

Far less than a West Indies-England test match (in the West Indies). Let's get rid of those too?

Mike Selig wrote:Ah, like Ireland-England or even Holland-England at the last world cup. You do know with 10 teams neither of those sides are likely to qualify? In that case we should have cancelled the whole 2007 tournament - there was no way anyone was ever going to beat Australia. The associates have been getting better in recent years - it seems a strange way to reward them by giving them less chance of qualifying for a major event.

There is no other sport in the world which treats its lesser sides with as much contempt as cricket. I don't think that's a good thing.

Also, a 10 team round-robin format? How many pointless games is that going to have?

Because the chances of an upset are greater in other sports? I'd like to see more Associate teams in T20 cricket definitely. At least 16 teams. ODIs? No.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:Canada vs Kenya matches serve absolutely no purpose. They are not going to become better sides by just playing in a World Cup. And results in a loss of revenue to the ICC.

The format for the last World Cup was pretty rubbish on the face of it. The group stage format made it very difficult for a top 8 team to be knocked out (even if they lost to an Associate , they only needed a win over a fellow Top 8 team to make up for it, meaning that an Associate really needed to cause more than 1 upset to get through). 2007 was much better, though too long and terribly organised.

I would propose 3 groups of 5 (15 teams, 4 matches per side) from which the top 2 and the best 2 runners-up qualify for the quarter-finals. That way the group stages would have their fair share of Full Member v Full Member matches to create good cricket and money, but would also offer the Associates a fair chance to spring a surprise.

Part of the problem with Canada and Kenya in the last World Cup was that both were much weaker teams than they were when they qualified. In that sense Afghanistan would have been a much worthier qualifier. Having said that even with a weak side Canada came pretty close to beating Pakistan...

How many upsets recently in cricket compared to Rugby Union or Soccer at world cups?

How can you call something a World cup when not every playing country can qualify for it?

I have always advocated 16 teams, 4 groups of 4, top 2 from each group qualify for quarter finals - the trouble is the TV companies don't like it, because there could be a shock result and England or India may not make the quarter finals. No other sport fears surprises quite as much as cricket.

I actually quite like those 2 ideas. That'd give Associates a greater chance of competing against top nations. I dont mind that. The last WC was far too predictable for my liking.

The last WC was pretty good, if too long and too many pointless games. What saved it was the quality of the knock-out cricket. Of course we know why it was made unnecessarily long - after 2007 nobody wanted to see any of the top sides knocked out early, so we had to have enough matches to ensure this.

The last really good WC for me was 1999 - but that was more due to the amazing Australia come-back and Pakistan's use of reverse swing than any particular planning by the organisers.

2003 and 2007 were better formats than 2011, but suffered because everyone knew who was going to win. In fact 2007 could have been a good tournament (decent format, although super 8 stages unnecessary, but fairly exciting in that England still had a chance of making the last 4 until they were unceremoniously thrashed by South Africa). The problem was everyone was fighting for 2nd place, Australia were just so far ahead of the rest of the field.

Mike Selig wrote:How many upsets recently in cricket compared to Rugby Union or Soccer at world cups?

How can you call something a World cup when not every playing country can qualify for it?

I have always advocated 16 teams, 4 groups of 4, top 2 from each group qualify for quarter finals - the trouble is the TV companies don't like it, because there could be a shock result and England or India may not make the quarter finals. No other sport fears surprises quite as much as cricket.

As I said, I dont mind this.
But then how many people would like to see a India vs Kenya S/F? You want the best teams to reach the Knockouts, no? Not because of revenue but because you want to see high quality cricket from both sides.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:How many upsets recently in cricket compared to Rugby Union or Soccer at world cups?

How can you call something a World cup when not every playing country can qualify for it?

I have always advocated 16 teams, 4 groups of 4, top 2 from each group qualify for quarter finals - the trouble is the TV companies don't like it, because there could be a shock result and England or India may not make the quarter finals. No other sport fears surprises quite as much as cricket.

As I said, I dont mind this.
But then how many people would like to see a India vs Kenya S/F? You want the best teams to reach the Knockouts, no? Not because of revenue but because you want to see high quality cricket from both sides.

Not a problem if they get there on merit - what's to say they can't produce the quality of cricket of the team they knocked out? 2003 was a bizarre case - teams conceding matches in both Kenya and Zimbabwe, and thus messing up the league tables. They also played pretty well though, and I wouldn't begrudge them their success. Its just a shame that Kenya didn't kick on from there - whilst Ireland have worked and worked to become more professional after the success of 2007, Kenya just kept doing what they were doing before.

A 10 team World Cup is an absolutely terrible idea, hope they won't go there. 2 associates are absolutely fine, 4 fair enough. 6 will be far too much for my liking though.
For me the 1996 format was pretty good, 12 teams in 2 groups of 6, with the top 4 making it to the QF. Knockout from there onwards. Kenya played some decent cricket then I remember, including a shock win against the West Indies.
10 full members and 2 associates would then be facilitated. I remember even the WC qualifying tournament for 1999 had generated lots of excitement, with Bangladesh winning the tournament over Kenya with a last ball 6 from Akram Khan.
Even a qualifying round for the last 2 full members along side the top 4 associates is a pretty good one, but considering the structure of the ICC, that is unlikely to go through.

10 teams. All the teams play each other. Then semis and finals! Total of 48 matches!

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:10 teams. All the teams play each other. Then semis and finals! Total of 48 matches!

That's the format that's being suggested. If you thought the last WC was predictable... Half the matches will be meaningless as it will be clear after a dozen matches who the strongest teams are, and from then on there may be a battle for 4th spot (if we're lucky) and to decide who finishes where in the top 3.

Rubbish idea. Not only does it set cricket's global development back, but it will also produce an endless tournament which has been the main criticism of past events.

I would also like to see a World cup where everyone can qualify, and everyone must qualify. You know, how it is in most sports.

2 associates means one of Ireland, Holland and Afghanistan can't make it. It also means Namibia, Scotland and UAE stand no chance. How is that fair? Why should Zimbabwe automatically qualify ahead of the aforementioned?

Dropping associate numbers down after their recent improvements sends completely the wrong message - can't people see this?