I think the best format was the 92 world cup, where every country played against every other country. There were only 9 countries then in the WC, and we saw quality games through out the tournament (except the ones involving Zim - but to give them credit, they did beat England, which may have hit England psychologically, causing them to lose the world cup).
Who can forget the Kiwis rolling through every nation, only to lose to Pak (twice) with Mark Greatbatch producing some innings that inspired Jayasurya the next time. Also, opening the bowling with Dipak Patel (spinner) - classic.
How about India's narrow 1 run loss to Australia. I still remember Javagal Srinath's hit off the last ball with 4 runs to win - an easy catch that was dropped, only for V Raju to be run out while trying to run the 3rd run (he was slow). Or India's victory over Pak (always special).
How about the 2 SFs. 1st Inzi smashing NZ (60 off 36). Was this the SF or the Group match? Then SA losing to England because of some stupid rain rule (which lead to Duckworth-Lewis system).
And finally, the finals. I remember bunking school for this match and the next day was punished in front of the class. Oh, so worth it :) Imran Khan and Javed Miandad's go slow approach before the bashing in the slog overs. I thought Pak would never reach even 180 at the rate they were going. Yet they scored almost 250 and won. I remember Imran kissing the ground at the end of the match. Classic.
Re: WC Format
by TMChu on Feb 22, 2011 03:21 AM
good one, i was too young then to even remember anything about cricket. But definitely seem to be a mush better tournament than say since 1999.
Re: WC Format
by Sreejith Sreedharan on Feb 22, 2011 02:14 AM
So, at the end, what i am saying is - we should have a WC with the top 8 teams playing each other and the top 4 go through to the SF stage.
FIFA WC has only 32 teams, when there are more than 150 countries playing football. Sameways, let the minnows become world leaders before they can lay claim to the WC. SL were nowhere before 1996. They worked hard and won it.
By the way, sorry for posting the same article 3 times, but rediff kept saying error while posting. Anyways, good day guys.
Re: WC Format
by Sharanu on Feb 22, 2011 03:44 AM
too remember those days. i think india failed because of poor opening they got. shastri hitting 15 runs off 64 balls, or manjrekars innings aganst australia ( i mean that was only true one day innings he played) India had so many players under 20 (sachin, kambli,jadeja) all played brillantly only srikant shastri kapil and siddu failed miserly
I think the best format was the 92 world cup, where every country played against every other country. There were only 9 countries then in the WC, and we saw quality games through out the tournament (except the ones involving Zim - but to give them credit, they did beat England, which may have hit England psychologically, causing them to lose the world cup).
Who can forget the Kiwis rolling through every nation, only to lose to Pak (twice) with Mark Greatbatch producing some innings that inspired Jayasurya the next time. Also, opening the bowling with Dipak Patel (spinner) - classic.
How about India's narrow 1 run loss to Australia. I still remember Javagal Srinath's hit off the last ball with 4 runs to win - an easy catch that was dropped, only for V Raju to be run out while trying to run the 3rd run (he was slow). Or India's victory over Pak (always special).
How about the 2 SFs. 1st Inzi smashing NZ (60 off 36). Was this the SF or the Group match? Then SA losing to England because of some stupid rain rule (which lead to Duckworth-Lewis system).
And finally, the finals. I remember bunking school for this match and the next day was punished in front of the class. Oh, so worth it :) Imran Khan and Javed Miandad's go slow approach before the bashing in the slog overs. I thought Pak would never reach even 180 at the rate they were going. Yet they scored almost 250 and won. I remember Imran kissing the ground at the end of the match. Classic.
Re: WC Format
by Sharanu on Feb 22, 2011 03:43 AM
i too remember those days. i think india failed because of poor opening they got. shastri hitting 15 runs off 64 balls, or manjrekars innings aganst australia ( i mean that was only true one day innings he played) India had so many players under 20 (sachin, kambli,jadeja) all played brillantly only srikant shastri kapil and siddu failed miserly
I think the best format was the 92 world cup, where every country played against every other country. There were only 9 countries then in the WC, and we saw quality games through out the tournament (except the ones involving Zim - but to give them credit, they did beat England, which may have hit England psychologically, causing them to lose the world cup).
Who can forget the Kiwis rolling through every nation, only to lose to Pak (twice) with Mark Greatbatch producing some innings that inspired Jayasurya the next time. Also, opening the bowling with Dipak Patel (spinner) - classic.
How about India's narrow 1 run loss to Australia. I still remember Javagal Srinath's hit off the last ball with 4 runs to win - an easy catch that was dropped, only for V Raju to be run out while trying to run the 3rd run (he was slow). Or India's victory over Pak (always special).
How about the 2 SFs. 1st Inzi smashing NZ (60 off 36). Was this the SF or the Group match? Then SA losing to England because of some stupid rain rule (which lead to Duckworth-Lewis system).
And finally, the finals. I remember bunking school for this match and the next day was punished in front of the class. Oh, so worth it :) Imran Khan and Javed Miandad's go slow approach before the bashing in the slog overs. I thought Pak would never reach even 180 at the rate they were going. Yet they scored almost 250 and won. I remember Imran kissing the ground at the end of the match. Classic.
* 12 ODI teams 3 Associates = Total 15 teams. * 15 Teams, divided into 3 groups A, B, C of 5 teams each. * Round Robin among them, and the Top 2 qualify for the Super Six (Also carry pointswon against its fellow qualifier). * At Super Six, each team plays against the qualifiers from the other 2 groups. Top 4 reach Semifinals (S1, S2, S3, S4) * S1 plays on S2 and the winner moves into Finals * S3 plays on S4 and the loser is eliminated. * Now, Winner of S3 Vs S4, takes on Loser of S1 Vs S2, with the winner moving to Finals, loser eliminated. * Finals is Best-Of-Three.
Stats:
Total Matches: 30 (Group Stage) 12 (Super Six) 5/6(KnockOut) --> 47/48 Matches Assuming, only test teams enter super six, number of games involving Minnows (2 minnows in a group) : 21 ( just 44% of the matches).
Stats for 2011 Format:
Total Matches: 42 (Froup Stage) 4 QF 2 SF 1 Final --> 49 Assuming, only test teams enter QF, number of games involving minnows (3 minnows in a group) : 30 ( 62% of the matches)
Stats for 2007 Format:
Total Matches: 24 (Froup Stage) 24 (Super Eight) 2 SF 1 Final --> 51 Assuming, only test teams enter Super Eight (which didn't happen though), number of games involving minnows (1 in two groups, 2 in the other two group) : 16 ( 32% of the matches)
Re: How about this format for the WorldCup:
by salam jaigadkar on Feb 21, 2011 07:39 PM
nice format, nice stats , send it to any news channel first to get attention from ICC
Re: How about this format for the WorldCup:
by salam jaigadkar on Feb 21, 2011 07:40 PM
nice format, nice stats , send it to any news channel first to get attention from ICC
Re: How about this format for the WorldCup:
by salam jaigadkar on Feb 21, 2011 07:39 PM
nice format, nice stats , send it to any news channel first to get attention from ICC
ponting is right when he said that minnows are nothing in wc. Instead in wasting time in them total team should be 10 which it use to be. If icc want to make it big then they should put only one group and make them play with every team in first round.
Re: minnows in wc
by ajay bhathire on Feb 21, 2011 04:02 PM
the non test nations rarely play international cricket. I think they should make more international tours, in that way they will be able to improve their game. For eg Kenya has started playing odi from more than 15 yrs and they are a good team. Still they are not test playing bcoz they rarely play international one days. Atleast Bangladesh play test thats why their performance has shown some improvement but not to the level of international level. By giving the non test playing teams more chance only they will be able to improve.
ponting is right when he said that minnows are nothing in wc. Instead in wasting time in them total team should be 10 which it use to be. If icc want to make it big then they should put only one group and make them play with every team in first round.
1) It happens in soccer WC. Asian teams get thrashed too in Soccer. Only 7-8 teams out of 32 have a realistic chance of winning the soccer WC.
2) Minnows need some exposure. They cannot play among themselves forever. Teams like Srilanka, Pakistan and India started off as minnows in the first WC and see where they are now. It was not long ago that minnows thrashed India and Pakistan out of the 2007 WC. Kenya reached the 2003 WC semis too. Bangladesh has improved leaps and bounds by playing regularly against the big teams. They are just out of a 4-0 whitewash of Newzealand. Yes, test matches can be restricted - not T20s and One days. 3)Players playing for the smaller teams need some recognition and revenues. They need a stage to show their talent. People from Holland were purchased in the IPL. Cricket should push in some money in to these smaller countries to make it a more global sport
Re: Need 16 teams
by Raj on Feb 21, 2011 04:05 PM
all the teams in soccer wc get selected only by winning in group league unlike cricket where everyone is invited. Do some research before writing here.
Please pay close attention to Gavaskar's comments, he was just speaking of Sehwag thinking of 200 and kohli thinking of 100 and Ravisastri also was repeating the same. But truth was both of them were playing for the team and please don't infuse this records virus in next gen cricketers- let them play for the team like australians do.
Re: Gavaskar-Sastri always speaking of records and 100s not of te
by Raju on Feb 21, 2011 12:53 PM
What's wrong in getting records as long as they are also winning ? Would you refuse a bonus for working extra hours at the office and tell the boss its just my job and I dont want any more money ? Dont be a hypocrite.
Re: Gavaskar-Sastri always speaking of records and 100s not of te
by sakar panch on Feb 21, 2011 01:02 PM
They are two of the most useless commentators. Shows Indian culture of going by ignoring merit based selections. Star Ckt were allowed to only select Ravi Sastri, Gavaskar and Manjerakar (all bombay folks) as commentators.
One wonders why the better (entertaining) commentators like Arun Lal and Sivaramakrishnan not been taken in! Do we see the pattern emerging?
Re: Re: Gavaskar-Sastri always speaking of records and 100s not o
by shubasrikrishna on Feb 21, 2011 02:16 PM
Raju you not getting the point what Kiran is saying. It is the focus.. They always focus on Individual centuries. I see this not once , on many occasions. The focus should be on the teams victory and not on centuries. Manjrekar is also like that... Probably Marathi blood.
Re: Re: Re: Gavaskar-Sastri always speaking of records and 100s n
by santosh deshpande on Feb 21, 2011 05:58 PM
Mr subhakrishna, u useless south indian, dont promote regionalism. U might be south indian as your name suggests. I've been to south india & I,ve seen d way u beha=ve with ppl fom other states. And most imp thng, maharashtra has d max number of ppl who have come from other states tht emphasises the fact tht marathi ppl have always shown gratitude towards ppl from other & wud continue to do tht in d future. U better understnd it, u useless south indian
Re: Re: Re: Gavaskar-Sastri always speaking of records and 100s n
by santosh deshpande on Feb 21, 2011 05:51 PM
Mr subhakrishna, u useless south indian, dont promote regionalism. U might be south indian as your name suggests. I've been to south india & I,ve seen d way u beha=ve with ppl fom other states. And most imp thng, maharashtra has d max number of ppl who have come from other states tht emphasises the fact tht marathi ppl have always shown gratitude towards ppl from other & wud continue to do tht in d future. U better understnd it, u useless south indian
Re: Re: Re: Gavaskar-Sastri always speaking of records and 100s n
by santosh deshpande on Feb 21, 2011 05:51 PM
Mr subhakrishna, u useless south indian, dont promote regionalism. U might be south indian as your name suggests. I've been to south india & I,ve seen d way u beha=ve with ppl fom other states. And most imp thng, maharashtra has d max number of ppl who have come from other states tht emphasises the fact tht marathi ppl have always shown gratitude towards ppl from other & wud continue to do tht in d future. U better understnd it, u useless south indian
Re: Re: Re: Gavaskar-Sastri always speaking of records and 100s not o
by Against Pseudos on Feb 21, 2011 05:06 PM
Shubasrikrishna:
No problem. ICC will review your expert comments and award the match to Bangladesh. You rightly pointed out that since none of their batsmen scored century they must be declared the automatic winners. ;-)
Re: Gavaskar-Sastri always speaking of records and 100s not of te
by Varun on Feb 21, 2011 02:41 PM
Everybody does. Sehwag and kohli not worried about records is nice fantasy, but hardly the truth. It is not sachin alone.
