Disgraceful ICC

[El_Zigi]

Many words come into my head when I think about their decision to cut the 2015 WC to 10 teams.

Disgusting. Immoral. Idiotic. Greed. Incomprehensible. Pathetic.

There's a few of them.

The ICC can shove their 2015 WC up their fat moronic behinds.

In fact you cant call it a WC because it wont be a WORLD CUP will it.

[ab5ides1]

Many words come into my head when I think about their decision to cut the 2015 WC to 10 teams.

Disgusting. Immoral. Idiotic. Greed. Incomprehensible. Pathetic.

There's a few of them.

The ICC can shove their 2015 WC up their fat moronic behinds.

In fact you cant call it a WC because it wont be a WORLD CUP will it.

Totally agree. Though I would use some other words not polite for this forum. Would be disappointed if the game (ICC 2011) is changed to reflect it. I think it is quite reasonable to abandon realism when in this case it's so stupid.

[Scritty]

Totally agree as well.

Lograt seems to fail to understand that any business that does not seek to grow - will fail.
It's a universal truth.

Should be at least 12 and maybe have a pre tournament qualifying stage for the 2 associate places.

Disgrace is the word I would use also.

Don't abandon realism though - maybe add an option "2011 style WC or 2015 style"
I see little point simulating a "false" version of the WC myself - no matter how bad the idea is.

Scritty

[nilet]

It was always going to happen though, and to some degree the ICC have made a good decision because teams like canada, kenya are so poor and really don't deserve to playing against the top teams, it's not fair and they are not learning.

Kicking Ireland out though is a shocker as they are improving and beat full member nations - England, the only way for this to change would be for them to be given Test Match Status, which i would like to see, they keep losing players to us England constantly because of this, Eoin Morgan should never be an England player and now their young spinner will turn his back on them and become a very good spinner.

Zimbabwe have got worse, so i think Zim and Ireland should battle it out for the 10th place.

[Chewie]

Should really be 12 teams, and if it has to be 10 teams, then the last spot should be a qualifier between Zimbabwe and the associates. Realistically, everyone should qualify but that'll never happen.

Virtually no support for this move across the two cricket forums I'm a member of (not including this one)

[outbreak]

It's now the tournament formally known as the world cup.
Really it's all greed. The format allows for ONE less game yet people who say it's a good move cite the fact the current one had too many games and was bloated. ONE less game makes such a difference?
The solution for me would to have the same format as this years but run 2-3 games on match days. Allows people to watch the minnows if they like or bigger teams. Personally i found the minnow games to hold my attention better then watching the same teams play each other that have been playing each other over and over in 5 odi series with no point for the last few years.

[enigma]

I'd actually prefer seeing only 10 teams, it reduces the number of pointless matches that don't help the rapidly declining popularity of ODIs at all but I definitely don't approve of weaker "Test Nations" getting an automatic place in the World Cup. I think the points-system can be used to determine the teams that get an automatic place while others must compete with top associates to secure a place for themselves. For example, let's say team ranked as no.1 has 75 points & the range for automatic selection is 25 points then those teams above 50 points get an automatic place while others must compete with the associates. The point of this is to ensure that we get a World Cup without too many boring, imbalanced matches by allowing only the most competitive teams into the World Cup.

As for giving Ireland the Test-status, here is what the Irish veteren Trent Johnston had to say about it. He probably understands that Ireland are in no position to play tests without a fuctioning first-class system, they'll just end up like Bangladesh or even worse; in a decade of playing Test-cricket Bangladesh's solitary Test win has come against a depleted Zimbabwe, stronger Test-nations still smash them around with the bat & roll them over like nine pins with the ball because the mental approach needed to play Test-cricket is completely different to winning an ODI or T20I once in a while against a Test-nation & unless Ireland or any other promising team has a competitive first-class structure in place, they won't be able to compete.

In my opinion, even Ban & Zim should be stripped off of their Test-status (I think there could also be a point-based system to review teams' Test-status every 2 or 4 years) & them along with Ireland, etc should be made to play 4-day-cricket regularly with domestic & A-teams of stronger Test-nations & gradually increase their level, get their respective first-class system going & make them competitive, getting beaten to a pulp by stronger Test-nations doesn't do anything for them. One can't expect oneself to bench-press 300lbs on the first day at the gym, one must start with smaller weights, setting one's sights too high too early doesn't help at all; similarly, these weaker nations must first face smaller challenges of domestic & A-teams of stronger nations & gradually grow stronger.

And just because it's called "World Cup", should one expect them to include all the 190+ countries in the world? Of course, not. And let's face it, cricket is likely to always remain an "elite sport" because of its nature & I think most cricket-fans should be ok with that unless they want cricket to become a watered down version of baseball by "globalising" the sport through the T20 crap.

[nilet]

Bangladesh may not have beat a major nation in test cricket but it doesnt mean they should have their test status taken off them, that is crazy considering how much they have improved in such a short time and how they will continue too in the future to be able to compete.

If you dont give other teams a chance then of course they will not succeed, so given them test status for 2-4 years is a joke because it is not long enough to have a long term goal and produce an era of players that are capable of taking cricket in that country to the next level. Maybe they should be given more test matches, they get like a 2 match test series, how much can you learn from that, give them a 4 match series, let them get matches under their belt. Look how much one day cricket they play and how they have got better of the years.

Bangladesh as a country who supports cricket are amazing, no dodgy politics no cheating, they are a breath of fresh air where u never know what your going to get and they have talented young cricketers, Shakib AL hasan the best all rounder in the world, FACT.

[enigma]

considering how much they have improved in such a short time

Yeah, please do tell me how much they've improved after playing Test-cricket for a decade. They still get beaten by stronger teams by humongous margins, as I've said, their batters can't save a test for their life or bowlers bowl the opposition out twice to win a game. In my opinion, they haven't improved by an iota or may be an iota but no more than that but they (along with Zimbabwe) are definitely incompetent at Test-level.

If you dont give other teams a chance then of course they will not succeed, so given them test status for 2-4 years is a joke because it is not long enough to have a long term goal and produce an era of players that are capable of taking cricket in that country to the next level.

As an ardent Bangladesh-backer, the least you should've known is that they've been playing Test-cricket since the year 2000, & by my calculation, that's a little more than "2-4 years", & as I've said their results haven't improved at all, they still get mauled by the stronger Test-teams.

Of course, it'd be unreasonable to expect any team to churn out a strong Test-side in a decade but the least one can expect is a side that is competitive enough to at least draw some of the matches with the stronger teams on a regular basis, if not win them outright but Bangladesh have failed to accomplish even that goal & the couple of draws that they've managed against stronger teams were largely saved by extraneous factors like rain.

Maybe they should be given more test matches, they get like a 2 match test series, how much can you learn from that, give them a 4 match series, let them get matches under their belt.

They don't get more matches because matches against them result in boring one-sided affairs which nobody (except may be Bangladeshis) wants to see. Somehow, I can't seem to picture English, Aussie, Indian, SA, SL, Pak cricket-fans getting excited at the mouth-watering prospect of their teams beating Bangladesh to a pulp in a Test-series; further, the boards, fans & even the cricketers from these countries wouldn't want to exhaust their cricketers beating Bangladesh 3-0, 4-0, 5-0 instead of the regular 2-0. Not to mention, cricket, like many other aspects of life, is driven by commercial interests so market-forces of supply & demand will have their effect (& in fact, I'd like ICC to let the market-forces rule the cricketing-calender even more rather than ICC arranging pointless, boring, uncompetitive series & then crying about how Test-cricket is dying).

As for "getting more matches under their belt", do you think getting beaten 3-0, 4-0, 5-0 would somehow be any better than 2-0? If anything, that'd be even more demoralising for the players as well the Bangladeshi fans.

Look how much one day cricket they play and how they have got better of the years.

In ODIs, they were minnows then, & they're STILL minnows, I guess that's supposed to be a LOT of improvement. I not necessarily denying their ODI improvement but it has been very minimal but then I don't really mind them playing ODIs anyways.

Bangladesh as a country who supports cricket are amazing, no dodgy politics no cheating, they are a breath of fresh air where u never know what your going to get and they have talented young cricketers, Shakib AL hasan the best all rounder in the world, FACT.

It was probably because of the support cricket has in that country that Idiotic Cricket Council awarded them with the Test-status but anyone with some cricketing-sense could've predicted back then that they weren't going to go anywhere in the short-run. Because their problems are largely infrastructural, may be even social/cultural, & others; similar reasons can be unearthed as to why India, for a long time, even with a humongous population & an even bigger interest in cricket couldn't produce a very strong team while countries having comparatively very small pool of players like West Indies, Australia, South Africa did (& even SriLanka, to some degree).

Further, having a couple of talented players can hardly be an adequate criteria to award any team with the Test-status as I'm sure many associate teams have a couple of talented players too. The bottomline is that Bangladesh are just not competent enough at the Test-level, FACT

As I've said, I'd rather see a decent points-based system where teams are promoted/demoted every couple of years based on a pre-set range to keep Test-cricket competitive & to produce cricket of the highest quality. I think that sort of thing would be fair to everyone, if applied properly, & at least the fringe-teams will know how much they need to do before they get to try their luck in Tests; & of course, ICC should try & get the fringe-teams to play enough 4-day cricket against domestic & A-teams of stronger teams in order to gradually raise their level; as I've said, you can't expect someone to bench-press 300lbs straight-away, the strength needs to be built-up gradually using smaller weights.

[Sureshot]

I really fear the impact this will have on the associates. Okay, the quality of the likes of Canada and Kenya is really poor, but Ireland should really have been in the quarter-finals, and with some support of their own structure and domestic facilities (I think the best option is to have the Irish system integrate with England) I feel there is big potential for Ireland.

12 teams is right imo. Not quite sure on what format it would contain and it definitely needs to be shorter than this, but the world cups are what drives the interest. Cricket in Ireland may not be ready for test cricket yet, but I'd back them over Bangladesh in a test match and they have some very good cricketers in their ranks.

It's massively disappointing.

[cricfan1]

The Real fact is Zimbabwe should be scrap from one day and replacement
will be Ireland

Other is bangladesh should not be provided test status untill they seems to be
good in onedayers

Zimbabwe have very telented players but the problem is their biase system
I can say this team will never be good

Zimbabwe got support of Asian cricket council thus no one can replace with Ireland

Latest news is Zimbabawe have refused to Play with Ireland , Why ?

Good news for Ireland is now Ireland can play 15 matches per year.

[enigma]

Ireland should really have been in the quarter-finals,

Why do you think so? Because they beat England in a one-off game? They couldn't even beat Ban & WI. So, in my opinion, the 8 teams that "should" have been there in the QFs were there & any one of us could've predicted who they'd be well in advance because of the pointless nature of the group-stage having so many mediocre teams.

12 teams is right imo. Not quite sure on what format it would contain and it definitely needs to be shorter than this,

The only other way of cutting games, other than doing it by cutting teams, is having more groups but that results in deserving top teams getting knocked out & non-deserving teams sneaking through like in WC2007. To be honest, I've never appreciated non-deserving teams sneaking through like that due to the top team having just one bad game & other extraneous issues like wash-outs, forfeitures, etc

I'd back them over Bangladesh in a test match

They just SEEM better than Ban because they haven't played any Tests yet, even Ban SEEMED a pretty good bet for most people before they actually started playing Tests; they've a couple of good players (but so do Ban) but most of their players are just average FC cricketers at best & the same can be said about Ban.

with some support of their own structure and domestic facilities (I think the best option is to have the Irish system integrate with England) I feel there is big potential for Ireland

Are you hoping that they be included in the County Championship? I don't think Counties would like sharing the pie. Further, having their own FC structure is only half the job but the only way to raise their level further is by ICC organising a separate tournament for the top Associates, where there are let's say the top 3 Associates & another 3 teams, let's say one each from Eng, Aus, Ind & have a 6-team strong FC event every year.

[cardassian]

I like the idea that the associates get to challenge 1 test nation to 1 test per year and that test nations have to accept 1 challenge per year.
If the associate can beat the test nation then they get test status.
Gives associates something to strive for and a way to become a test nation while keeping the standard high as test nations would really hate to lose a test to an associate.
I also don't mind the odd upset in the world cup as it happens in all other sports world cups as well, I figure it's just the nature of tournaments.
Like if you look at the football world cup and how defending champs Italy finished bottom of there pool.
I also think that Bangladesh is a competent ODI team. After all they did beat NZ 4-0 in a series last year and NZ were in the semi's at the world cup so they can't be that uncompetitive surely.
As for test cricket sure they're not very good, but I remember back in the 80s and early 90s where the same was said about Sri Lanka and now they're very good, it took time of course and so it will with Bangladesh.
However to the point of the original post, I also think it's a terrible decision by the ICC and will likely hurt the game going into the future.

[El_Zigi]

For those of you who think Zimbabwe and Bangladesh shouldn't automatically get there places in the 2015 WC, think again.

I recently played the 2015 WC and was beaten in the final by.........................Zimbabwe!

Bangladesh got to the S/F.

ICC and the ICC as bad as each other perhaps.

[enigma]

I like the idea that the associates get to challenge 1 test nation to 1 test per year and that test nations have to accept 1 challenge per year.
If the associate can beat the test nation then they get test status.
Gives associates something to strive for and a way to become a test nation while keeping the standard high as test nations would really hate to lose a test to an associate.

I think you've misunderstood my idea, I was talking about 3 Test-Nations sending their domestic or A-teams, NOT their main team, that'd negate the point of having the tournament altogether because the reason I'm saying these lesser teams shouldn't get Test-status is because they're incapable of taking on the might of main teams of Test-Nations so the purpose of having this tournament & including domestic & A-teams of Test-Nations is that the minnows will at least be able to compete with them & possibly win, & improve gradually & when a minnow starts winning regularly, they can be given Test-status for 2 or 4 years, & as I've said, I don't think there should be "permanent membership", there should be a points-based system & if a team falls below the specified range then they should lose their Test-status & must climb back in through ODI points-system or through the specified tournament.

I also don't mind the odd upset in the world cup as it happens in all other sports world cups as well, I figure it's just the nature of tournaments.
Like if you look at the football world cup and how defending champs Italy finished bottom of there pool.

I have not said that I dislike upsets, I don't mind them as much as you don't; what I do mind though is mediocre teams sneaking through to the next round based on one lucky performace & other extraneous factors thrown in. Let's say, had Ireland won against Ban and/or WI & gotten through because of that then they'd've been deserving QFs but as they couldn't even manage that, I don't think they deserved to be in QFs.

I also think that Bangladesh is a competent ODI team. After all they did beat NZ 4-0 in a series last year and NZ were in the semi's at the world cup so they can't be that uncompetitive surely.

Well, they're still minnows, aren't they! Enough said.

As for test cricket sure they're not very good, but I remember back in the 80s and early 90s where the same was said about Sri Lanka and now they're very good, it took time of course and so it will with Bangladesh.

By that logic, any country may ask for Test-status.

Times change, challenges today are very different; cricket in all the top cricketing-countries was an artifact of British-colonialism & that's mainly why it grew outside of England (while rest of the world found it boring & still does) & the other modes of entertainment were limited but in recent times, the developing-world has grown economically & coupled with the general technological progress allover the world, now cricket must compete with many many new enticing modes of entertainment, in fact, that's why it's receding much more in the developed-world, thus, it can't afford pointless, boring matches, it'd negatively affect the game & find it difficult to bring in new players & audience to the sport, this is especially true of Test-cricket which is the pinnacle of the sport so if they're to be preserved & cricket in general is to be preserved (without it turning into a watered down version of Baseball) then cricket of the highest quality must be ensured at all times & having mismatched Test-series doesn't help at all.

Further, it must be noted that, just featuring their country's team in the WC or giving them Test-status is not necessarily going to make the sport grow in a non-cricketing country, in fact, the only thing that'll most likely bring in & retain new players & audience is when their respective country starts doing well & with some consistency & that'll only happen if the ICC carefully handles them & makes them grow & gradually make them competitive in the mid-term rather than hastily giving them too many matches & thereby diluting the quality of cricket & thus losing cricket's EXISTING audience in cricketing-countries in an effort to capture new audience. The existing audience hasn't taken an oath of watching cricket no matter how many boring matches are dished out by the ICC which is exactly what minnow-backers often overlook.

However to the point of the original post, I also think it's a terrible decision by the ICC and will likely hurt the game going into the future.

I'd say having Zim & Ban on Test-status is a terrible decision & then giving automatic entry to all Test-teams is a terrible decision but restricting the cup to 10-teams is a fine decision in my opinion.

They could've kept the last two places open & let teams fight it out in the qualifiers; then they can have 5 teams in each group & 2 teams from each group can then move into SFs, only 23 matches in total, nice, short & sweet, not to mention a much more competitive WC. While, having 6 teams in each group would add another pointless 10 matches, 5 each played by 11th & 12th placed teams; not worth it, in my opinion. Hence, 10-team WC would be good so long as Associates are at least given the opportunity to qualify.