Yeah that's why teams shouldn't just get to automatically qualify for events. We may think we know who will win but teams should actually have to play and beat other teams to progress.
It's only because of that No Result that England are even still alive in the tournament. Scotland were on their way to annihilating them.
Yeah agree with this. Afghans are a very good side in this format and can beat anyone on their day.
Look at who some of the European giants in soccer have to play to make the world cup. And yet Italy have still missed the last two editions.
Apart from the host and reigning champs, I agree with that for white ball (or, for the sake of $, t20). In general international white ball needs more structure to keep people invested, there's just random bilaterals all the time that don't matter since the top 8 from the last event auto qualify.
Tbf, for the last ODI World Cup all the bilaterals were part of the Super League which acted as qualifying. Almost everyone either did not care about it, did not know it existed or just outright hated it.
T20's is the first format which crap players can be elite players if that makes sense.. so in the long run these minnows may actually be good at the format. Tests and ODI's actually involve long sustained concentration and skill to go well in which has never suited the lesser sides where as T20's a opener can come out and spank 90 off 40 and not actually be that good.
That's fair, I actually thought the top 6 or so auto qualified for last years ODI WC. Maybe 1 game matches instead of 3 game series would help the ODI Super League work? I know ODI is essentially on life support but worth a shot. If players are jet setting around the world constantly it might be more interesting than playing 1 bilateral every couple months.
Yep and Australians can't really complain once Australian players start prioritising the franchise money over playing for Australia. We've actively encouraged players (particularly New Zealanders, Pakistanis and West Indians) to play in the Big Bash instead of for their country and felt no gripes about doing so.
I'm a believer in qualifying tournaments for World Cup events. It's basically what the associates do now at the sub-regional and regional level, except that the regional finals have full members as well.
It would cost the ICC more money, for a start.
How? Doesn't the host pay for everything?
England try this in every sport they can get away with (in this case it's just Cricket and Rugby Union)
No, for example: When Rod Tucker is officiating an England v India Test, his salary and the support which led him there is paid by the ICC and his home board, i.e. Cricket Australia.
Fair enough. But the overwhelming majority is traditionally covered by the home board, who then get all the revenue from TV rights, ticket sales, etc.
Technically if Nepal win their 3 remaining matches and Netherlands win their remaining 2, South Africa could miss the Super 8s on NRR.
That's what it means to be a full member. A board which contributes to world cricket resources more than it uses.
Yes. The ICC haven't even tried to hide it this time.
