2019 "World" Cup Shamblefier - Scotland robbed again, no Associates at World Cup for first time ever

[Howard Littlejohn]

The results have been there for everyone to see. We've had previous tournaments that have had the stronger nations only. And we've seen world cups that have included lots of minnows alongside the stronger nations.

And in most of those tournaments, all after 1987, an Associate has managed to spring a surprise against the better teams.
Zimbabwe in 1983 and 1992. Sometimes the "minnow" has been the story of the WC. Kenya over the West Indies, the rise of Ireland, and last time the performances of Afghanistan.
Whether this WC will have less blowouts and less dead rubbers is debatable (more dead rubbers is quite likely). The lack of much needed exposure and money for Zimbabwe and Ireland, the absence of any hope beyond T20 for Associates, they are definite.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

There were 9 teams in 1992. It was a great tournament. With one nation that could be regarded as a minnow. The same as this one. It's my preferred format.

There are other ways to promote cricket in associate countries without watering down the showpiece event.

 

[The Speaker]

The results have been there for everyone to see. We've had previous tournaments that have had the stronger nations only. And we've seen world cups that have included lots of minnows alongside the stronger nations.

Statistically, the results between full members have been just as likely to be lopsided as those between full members and associates, so you are wrong. Matches between associates have provided highest proportion of close contests, which is presumably what we want to see in a tournament. We already know that the reason the World Cup is like this is because certain nations had a big sook over the fact that Bangladesh and Ireland knocked out India and Pakistan in 2007.

If you had your way, that would never have happened, which means that Ireland would have never been set on the path to Test cricket.

There were 9 teams in 1992. It was a great tournament. With one nation that could be regarded as a minnow. The same as this one. It's my preferred format.

The fact that you still use the term minnow says a great deal about your mindset.

There are other ways to promote cricket in associate countries without watering down the showpiece event.

You know what 'waters down' showpiece events? Never ending group stages with a massive amount of dead rubbers.

There is no other sport in the world that does a World Cup like this. There's a word used for a round robin competition where everyone plays everyone else: a league.

That's what the ODI Championship should be for.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Statistically, the results between full members have been just as likely to be lopsided as those between full members and associates, so you are wrong. Matches between associates have provided highest proportion of close contests, which is presumably what we want to see in a tournament.

By itself it isn't. Yemen and Botswana might play out a cliffhanger but there would be zero people there, zero watching on tv and no one would care.

You want to see the best teams play each other. Aus whipped India in the final in Sth Africa. Sri Lanka whipped us in the final in 1996. They were great performances and great games even though they were lopsided. Best vs best.

We already know that the reason the World Cup is like this is because certain nations had a big sook over the fact that Bangladesh and Ireland knocked out India and Pakistan in 2007.

If you had your way, that would never have happened, which means that Ireland would have never been set on the path to Test cricket.

If the only tool you have is a hammer, you see every problem as a nail. The world cup is not the only tool available to grow the game.

I've posted before that I would like to see cricket make world cup qualifying a bigger event so that the associate nations actually get to play against and host member nations.

The fact that you still use the term minnow says a great deal about your mindset.

The fact you'd quibble about this says a great deal about yours! You have obviously got a passion for these associate nations but surely you'd acknowledge that yours is not a widely held attitude of cricket fans around the world.

You know what 'waters down' showpiece events? Never ending group stages with a massive amount of dead rubbers.

There is no other sport in the world that does a World Cup like this. There's a word used for a round robin competition where everyone plays everyone else: a league.

That's what the ODI Championship should be for.

There is no other sport like cricket where a handful of nations treat the sport like a religion and most of the rest haven't heard of it. It's a unique sport with a unique structure. The 2019 structure has been used in cricket world cups before.

In the 2015 world cup Afghanistan, Scotland, Zimbabwe and UAE played six games each and combined for two wins... and those came when they played each other. That's why the tournament gets boring. And it's what has been trimmed out this time around.

22 of 42 group stage matches involved one of those teams - that's why the tournament feels too long.

 

[The Speaker]

By itself it isn't. Yemen and Botswana might play out a cliffhanger but there would be zero people there, zero watching on tv and no one would care.

You want to see the best teams play each other. Aus whipped India in the final in Sth Africa. Sri Lanka whipped us in the final in 1996. They were great performances and great games even though they were lopsided. Best vs best.

This is demonstrably untrue. We already know from other sports that, in terms of viewership, what people are most interested in is context. People will follow anything as long as there is a reason behind the game being played. The "who's playing?" aspect is not as important as the "what are they playing for?".

In a format where every match matters, such as the one I put forward in my Alternative World Cup thread, viewers would stay attached the whole way through, because there are few dead rubbers.

If the only tool you have is a hammer, you see every problem as a nail. The world cup is not the only tool available to grow the game.

It is the tool that can have the most impact with the least effort. For international teams to be able to look at the World Cup and know that they have a chance of being on that stage, and for sponsors to know that they can sponsor a team that has a genuine chance of being at one of the biggest world sporting events...that is irreplaceable.

I've posted before that I would like to see cricket make world cup qualifying a bigger event so that the associate nations actually get to play against and host member nations.

Great! But that says nothing about how big it should be.

The fact you'd quibble about this says a great deal about yours! You have obviously got a passion for these associate nations but surely you'd acknowledge that yours is not a widely held attitude of cricket fans around the world.

No, most cricket fans now realise that the best Associate nations are really no different to some full member nations, and have therefore done away with using the term.

There is no other sport like cricket where a handful of nations treat the sport like a religion and most of the rest haven't heard of it. It's a unique sport with a unique structure. The 2019 structure has been used in cricket world cups before.

Bad excuse. Every sport has a unique structure. The 2019 tournament has only been done once, and it was abandoned because the ICC could not see a way to include Associates in it, which they wanted to do in order to help grow the game.

In the 2015 world cup Afghanistan, Scotland, Zimbabwe and UAE played six games each and combined for two wins... and those came when they played each other. That's why the tournament gets boring. And it's what has been trimmed out this time around. 22 of 42 group stage matches involved one of those teams - that's why the tournament feels too long.

No. This is a lie. As I said before, statistically across the World Cup tournaments that have been held, the proportion of close contests between full members vs associates has been the same as full members vs full members.

The reason the tournament gets boring is because the format is bad, which has nothing to do with the number of teams and everything to do with overlong group stages with too many dead rubbers. This next tournament has decided to fix the problem by making the group stage longer and having more dead rubbers.

If they had more teams, they could have two games on every day, and they could ensure that there would be full member vs full member matches all the time just for people like you. This would make the tournament shorter and reduce the chances of it ever getting 'boring'.

 

[Rob]

At least they haven't patronised Ireland and Scotland by holding matches there like they did in 1999. That would have just been trolling.