No Associates in 2015 World Cup
max.it
From today's ICC Media Release following the ICC Board meeting in
Mumbai:
The Executive Board confirmed their decision made in October 2010 that
the ICC Cricket World Cup 2015 in Australia and New Zealand and the
ICC Cricket World Cup in England in 2019 will be a 10-team event.
The Board agreed that the 2015 World Cup will comprise the existing 10
Full Members, however, they gave notice to all Full Members that
participation in the 2019 ICC Cricket World Cup will be determined on
the basis of qualification.
It was also agreed that post the ICC Cricket World Cup 2019 there will
be promotion and relegation introduced in the ODI League.
shariq...@yahoo.com
In the absence of associates I think the ideal format was the one
followed in the 1983 and 1987 World Cups where each team played the
other twice in a round robin, with the two top teams in each group
making it to the semis. This makes each game significant and the path
the knockout round that much tougher. Having associates and a
quarterfinal in the mix generally favors the team that gets hot and
not necessarily the team that has played most consistenly
Shiva IYER
wrote:
agree with this.... the 1983 format was one of the best formats, each
playing
the other in the group twice... a great yardstick for consistency.
I also believe that the finals should be a best of 3 affair..
Once batting first, once chasing and the 3rd game if necessary where
the
toss comes into play...
Take it Easy
b22c17...@l18g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, shariq...@yahoo.com
says...
I would prefer a full round robin (45+3 matches) or a super six format
(20+9+3) or even a super 8 (20+16+3). As I mentioned in an earlier post,
it is better for most teams to meet most other teams. Also the 3rd team
in one group could be stronger than the 2nd team in another group.
Takeiteasy.
Andrew Dunford
"Shiva IYER" <om.sr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:15aa7816-1669-475e...@l2g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Everybody in this thread is doing a fine job of ignoring the OP's point,
which is that a well-performed team at the past two World Cups has just been
excluded from the next competition.
To me the issue of how many teams compete is less important than the
principle of an open tournament for which any team can enter and attempt to
qualify. A World Cup by invitation only smells bad.
Very disappointing.
Andrew
max.it
It will hit sponsorship for a start.Especially when at this time 26 of
the 32 Irish counties( Wards, not cricket counties) are bankrupt.
Young Ireland players with nothing to 'chase' or aspire to, will now
certainly try their luck for an England place.Any from Dockerell,
Balbrinie, Ackland, Stirling, Porterfield, Rankin, in 8 years could be
playing for England.
When the body 'obliged' to be the icc custodian of cricket in Europe
votes against you, while at the same time poaching your players. Well
you are suckin' the hind tit from the beginning of that debate. This
decision could well kill Irish cricket.
The headline on the MCC website "Britain, a Nation of bad losers" has
been borne out by the antics of the ECB and their deal with BCCI, CA
and the International Clown Council.
R Bharat Rao
> To me the issue of how many teams compete is less important than the
> principle of an open tournament for which any team can enter and attempt to
> qualify.
I agree. IMO, it would have been better to take the lowest ranked
nation (say Zim or,, Bangles) and have them play the best of the
Associates, to determine the final participant -- this gives an
associate team some chance -- no matter how small -- of reaching the
world stage. Play amongst each other, win through, and then go to the
lowest ranked nation and play a best of 5, with the winner getting a
slot in the WCup....
> A World Cup by invitation only smells bad.
>
> Very disappointing.
I agree. To be a World Cup, every nation needs some chance, no matter
how improbable, to make it.
Bharat [why didn't we play a 32 team KO in the London Olympics?]
jzfredricks
> Very disappointing.
In just about every aspect :(
I've no issue with the post-2019 idea of a tables. That gives teams
who think they are deserving *a* chance. To give them ZERO chance is a
clusterfuck.
Geico Caveman
Shameful.
Countries with a history of using expat players will be the biggest
beneficiaries from this.
Dare one say that England had a major hand in this ?
jzfredricks
wrote:
> Dare one say that England had a major hand in this ?
Slim chance.
It was probably the-power-behind-the-throne rewarding Zimb and Bangles
for their votes.
Geico Caveman
Unlikely.
India does not stand to gain anything by excluding Ireland. It may be
argued that the presence of these weak(er) teams reduces the chances of
events like 2007 happening (where India crashed out thanks to having
only Bermuda as the piss-poor team in their group).
India does not need to reward any country for their votes, in this
fashion. An Indian tour is a money making opportunity in itself that is
a sufficient carrot.
On the other hand, England is the gendarme of cricket in Europe and
stands to gain everything by making sure that playing for England is
the only way forward for Irish (and Dutch) talent.
Follow the "money" as they say.
FWIW, I do not doubt that this shameful decision had to have had the
acquisence of BCCI, but I have no reason to think that they (instead of
the ECB) were the prime movers behind this. It might even have been a
chip that ECB promised something BCCI in return for some other favour
(that we do not yet know about).
jzfredricks
wrote:
The teams that most benefit from it are Zimb and Bangles, as under a
qualification system they would be the most likely to miss out.
You scratch my back I'll scratch yours.
higgs
wrote:
>
> > On Apr 5, 11:50 am, Geico Caveman <spammers-go-h...@spam.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> Dare one say that England had a major hand in this ?
>
> > Slim chance.
>
> > It was probably the-power-behind-the-throne rewarding Zimb and Bangles
> > for their votes.
>
> Unlikely.
>
> India does not stand to gain anything by excluding Ireland. It may be
> argued that the presence of these weak(er) teams reduces the chances of
> events like 2007 happening (where India crashed out thanks to having
> only Bermuda as the piss-poor team in their group).
>
Say what?
India played 3 and lost 2, ie won 1 game.
Not exactly world beating stuff.
Every group had 2 minnows.
Failing to beat the minnows meant elimination.
> India does not need to reward any country for their votes, in this
> fashion. An Indian tour is a money making opportunity in itself that is
> a sufficient carrot.
>
> On the other hand, England is the gendarme of cricket in Europe and
> stands to gain everything by making sure that playing for England is
> the only way forward for Irish (and Dutch) talent.
>
> Follow the "money" as they say.
>
> FWIW, I do not doubt that this shameful decision had to have had the
> acquisence of BCCI, but I have no reason to think that they (instead of
> the ECB) were the prime movers behind this. It might even have been a
> chip that ECB promised something BCCI in return for some other favour
> (that we do not yet know about).
Yet we have the likes of you and Nirv telling us that India rules
world cricket, is the financial powerhouse in the room and that 'this
is the new world order, live with it'.
Yet as soon as the ICC makes a crap decision, you say it is all down
to England.
Do you have any proof of any of this, or is it all speculation?
It's interesting that the ICC press release stressed the financial
aspects of the decision and underlined this by stating that India’s
matches against England, Australia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka attracted
hundreds of millions of viewers
Higgs
Andrew Dunford
"Geico Caveman" <spammers...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:2011040423220616807-spammersgohere@spaminvalid...
I sometimes think the internet would die without half-baked conspiracy
theories for which there is little logic, let alone evidence.
This is a vote for the Full Members protecting their little club. It
doesn't need to be laid at the foot of the BCCI, ECB or any other one
nation.
The idea that England will gain a large amount from having access to
Ireland's players is wide of the mark. There aren't that many international
quality players produced in Ireland and they already defect to England for
money reasons and the lure of playing Test cricket anyway.
Andrew
jzfredricks
> It's interesting that the ICC press release stressed the financial
> aspects of the decision and underlined this by stating that India’s
> matches against England, Australia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka attracted
> hundreds of millions of viewers
As good as some of the Associate players are, it's fucking ridiculous
to say the EBC organised this so that they could pinch players from
Ireland.
max.it
Andrew Dunford
"max.it" wrote in message news:4d9abc3...@news.btinternet.com...
Don't be silly - there haven't been three because Ireland hasn't yet
produced three players England would want. The idea is you first do enough
in county cricket to be of interest to the selectors.
Do you think George Dockrell or Boyd Rankin would turn down the chance to
play for England if the opportunity arose?
The point I am making is that England doesn't have to vote Ireland out of
the World Cup to get access to the players they want, owing to the bizarre
qualifying system that allows players to swap from an Associate to a Full
Member nation overnight.
Andrew
JPD
> I agree. To be a World Cup, every nation needs some chance, no matter
> how improbable, to make it.
To accomplish that, you need a full qualification system a la the FIFA
World Cup. I've suggested it before on this group, not with the
slightest expectation that the ICC would ever do it, of course.
OK, so ten teams to compete in 2015? Fine. My system would be:
(1) India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and New Zealand qualify as the semi-
finalists of the previous tournament.
(2) Australia qualifies as a host.
(3) South Africa qualifies as the next-highest-ranked team required to
make six automatic qualifiers.
(4) Four places remain for results-based qualification in a
preliminary tournament, played in the UK in the preceding August/
September. Why the UK? Because that's where the venues will be
available at the appropriate time of year. The remaining 7 ODI teams
(England, West Indies, Bangladesh, Ireland, Zimbabwe, Netherlands and
Kenya) plus the top-ranked "other" team (currently Afghanistan) would
play a full round-robin (7 games each, 28 matches total) in 16 or so
days with the top four teams to qualify for the World Cup. Bonus
points in these games, and every game scheduled with a reserve day so
that D/L doesn't kick in until about 9 hours has been lost.
The marketing department will know in September which teams will be
playing in February - that's plenty of time. The FIFA World Cup
lineup is not known until late November prior to the June/July
tournament, so if they can handle it, cricket should be able to.
JPD
JPD
> I sometimes think the internet would die without half-baked conspiracy
> theories for which there is little logic, let alone evidence.
There would still be porn.
JPD
max.it
<adun...@artifax.net> wrote:
I can name 2 too many.
>
>Do you think George Dockrell or Boyd Rankin would turn down the chance to
>play for England if the opportunity arose?
Now, it will be the only chance they are likely to have to play any
hiher level cricket.
>
>The point I am making is that England doesn't have to vote Ireland out of
>the World Cup to get access to the players they want, owing to the bizarre
>qualifying system that allows players to swap from an Associate to a Full
>Member nation overnight.
>
>Andrew
>
No, but they just made it impossible for an Ireland player to progress
while playing for his own national team.
PlaySafe
PlaySafe
> On Apr 5, 8:42 am, R Bharat Rao <rao.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree. To be a World Cup, every nation needs some chance, no matter
> > how improbable, to make it.
>
> To accomplish that, you need a full qualification system a la the FIFA
> World Cup. I've suggested it before on this group, not with the
> slightest expectation that the ICC would ever do it, of course.
>
> OK, so ten teams to compete in 2015? Fine. My system would be:
>
> (1) India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and New Zealand qualify as the semi-
> finalists of the previous tournament.
That would be too many teams qualifying automatically which decrease opportunity for Associates. Only Winner (or two finalist) should qualify automatically. More places would mean Associates get to play more matches against Good Full Members. Even if they some associate nation don't qualify they would be happy that they played at least 6 Test teams.
> (2) Australia qualifies as a host.
and new Zealand in this case if only finalist or winner of previous WC qualifies.
Geico Caveman
Actually, the teams the lose the most (other than Ireland of course)
from this are Zim and Bang. Without Ireland, Scotland, etc., all their
opponents are *real* Test playing nations (I obviously consider these
two to be frauds when it comes to Test quality cricket). They then have
absolutely no hope of qualifying for the next stage unless one of the
Test nations has an off-day.
In terms of how teams gain from Ireland being excluded (-100 lose a
lot, 0 gain/lose nothing, 100 gain a lot),
England 100
West Indies 20
Every other *real* Test playing nation - 0
Zim/Bang -30
Ireland -100
Geico Caveman
> On Apr 5, 2:22 pm, Geico Caveman <spammers-go-h...@spam.invalid>
> wrote:
>> On 2011-04-04 22:22:11 -0500, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> On Apr 5, 11:50 am, Geico Caveman <spammers-go-h...@spam.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Dare one say that England had a major hand in this ?
>>
>>> Slim chance.
>>
>>> It was probably the-power-behind-the-throne rewarding Zimb and Bangles
>>> for their votes.
>>
>> Unlikely.
>>
>> India does not stand to gain anything by excluding Ireland. It may be
>> argued that the presence of these weak(er) teams reduces the chances of
>> events like 2007 happening (where India crashed out thanks to having
>> only Bermuda as the piss-poor team in their group).
>>
>
> Say what?
>
> India played 3 and lost 2, ie won 1 game.
> Not exactly world beating stuff.
>
> Every group had 2 minnows.
> Failing to beat the minnows meant elimination.
Except that Bangladesh are not quite at the same level as Bermuda.
Not quite Test material. Not quite minnow. A Pluto of sorts.
>
>
>> India does not need to reward any country for their votes, in this
>> fashion. An Indian tour is a money making opportunity in itself that is
>> a sufficient carrot.
>>
>> On the other hand, England is the gendarme of cricket in Europe and
>> stands to gain everything by making sure that playing for England is
>> the only way forward for Irish (and Dutch) talent.
>>
>> Follow the "money" as they say.
>>
>> FWIW, I do not doubt that this shameful decision had to have had the
>> acquisence of BCCI, but I have no reason to think that they (instead of
>> the ECB) were the prime movers behind this. It might even have been a
>> chip that ECB promised something BCCI in return for some other favour
>> (that we do not yet know about).
>
> Yet we have the likes of you and Nirv telling us that India rules
> world cricket, is the financial powerhouse in the room and that 'this
> is the new world order, live with it'.
I don't actually since I do not post much on RSC.
> Yet as soon as the ICC makes a crap decision, you say it is all down
> to England.
Read above. BCCI obviously agreed to it, but it was no skin off their nose.
>
> Do you have any proof of any of this, or is it all speculation?
You do not need proof when it is pretty clear who stands to gain the
most from something like this.
You mean to say that if India were the only Test nation in Asia and the
ICC made a decision to exclude Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh,
Afghanistan, Nepal, etc. from the cup, and India had a track record of
siphoning off good talent from other countries, going so far as to have
former captains of their team from such siphoned off talent, you would
not smell a rat ?
Come off it.
This "murder" of Irish cricket has England's paw prints all over it.
>
> It's interesting that the ICC press release stressed the financial
> aspects of the decision and underlined this by stating that India’s
> matches against England, Australia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka attracted
> hundreds of millions of viewers
They had to. Did you honestly expect them to say,
"Ahem, this is really embarrasing, but one of our oldest members ...
Well, ahem, the oldest member of all, has expressed an interest in
acquiring 2-3, possibly 4 players from Ireland, and we think that
continuing to allow Irish participation in WC until a convenient number
of years are past (or as Giley put it emphatically, Dockrell is an old
man) would detract from that goal. As always, we seek to advance the
participation of Associate nations in cricket unless of course, their
participation becomes an inconvenience to our valued members. The
second string Irish team is welcome to participate in the expanded
World Twenty20, which as IPL veterans will testify, is neither here nor
there. They may even hope to attract the attention of suitable England
counties. We are obviously supported in our resolve by our paymasters
in Mumbai since they have no interest in the matter, though subsequent
discussions between Giley and Shashank may reveal a future quid pro
quo."
?
>
>
> Higgs
Geico Caveman
England do not need many international quality players from Ireland.
Just a few to cover the inadequacies of home grown talent. A Morgan
here, a Pieterson there, a Dockrell there, and you are talking about a
really strong team.
jzfredricks
> playing teams and other would convert to play Baseball.
Where they can then play in the World Series?
jzfredricks
> On Tuesday, April 5, 2011 2:01:44 PM UTC+5, JPD wrote:
> > On Apr 5, 8:42 am, R Bharat Rao <rao.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I agree. To be a World Cup, every nation needs some chance, no matter
> > > how improbable, to make it.
>
> > To accomplish that, you need a full qualification system a la the FIFA
> > World Cup. I've suggested it before on this group, not with the
> > slightest expectation that the ICC would ever do it, of course.
>
> > OK, so ten teams to compete in 2015? Fine. My system would be:
>
> > (1) India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and New Zealand qualify as the semi-
> > finalists of the previous tournament.
>
> That would be too many teams qualifying automatically which decrease opportunity for Associates. Only Winner (or two finalist) should qualify automatically.
Just copy the football WC - only the host gets automatic
qualification. Might need a tweak for the sub continent, as 4 hosts is
probably too many.
jzfredricks
wrote:
> Actually, the teams the lose the most (other than Ireland of course)
> from this are Zim and Bang. Without Ireland, Scotland, etc., all their
> opponents are *real* Test playing nations (I obviously consider these
> two to be frauds when it comes to Test quality cricket). They then have
> absolutely no hope of qualifying for the next stage unless one of the
> Test nations has an off-day.
Sorry pal, this makes zero sense. I suggest you have a sit and think
about it.
jzfredricks
wrote:
> This "murder" of Irish cricket has England's paw prints all over it.
fuck you, you nutter.
Andrew Dunford
"Geico Caveman" <spammers...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:2011040513193143658-spammersgohere@spaminvalid...
A really strong team that lost by ten wickets in the quarter final, having
earlier lost to Ireland and Bangladesh.
Quoting Morgan (and who knows why you mentioned Pietersen) as an example
simply shows the paucity of your 'logic'. They already have Morgan without
needing to vote Ireland out of the World Cup and they can probably get
Dockrell similarly if they choose.
Andrew
Andrew Dunford
"Geico Caveman" <spammers...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:2011040513032075249-spammersgohere@spaminvalid...
You fail to understand what constitutes a success for Bangladesh and
Zimbabwe. Success is being invited along to the World Cup as a Full Member
and given great wheelbarrow-loads of money from the ICC for taking part.
> In terms of how teams gain from Ireland being excluded (-100 lose a lot, 0
> gain/lose nothing, 100 gain a lot),
>
> England 100
>
> West Indies 20
>
> Every other *real* Test playing nation - 0
>
> Zim/Bang -30
>
> Ireland -100
Nonsense. Every Test nation will benefit if the television deal is more
saleable, which it is without the Associate Members.
Andrew
max.it
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 6, 4:16=A0am, Geico Caveman <spammers-go-h...@spam.invalid>
>wrote:
>> This "murder" of Irish cricket has England's paw prints all over it.
>
>fuck you, you nutter.
This is the murder of Irish cricket, and it hangs heavy on ECB.
What a cosy bunch, poach the players, and then scrap the team so you
can poach more. If you knew a little more about Irish cricket, you
would know which players the ECB are watching. I don't mean that they
will ever play for England, just that now they won't have a fuckn'
Ireland to fuckn' play for. When a wee Ireland lad gets the ECB 'nod'
what should he do? Play for Ireland? No world cup, no sponser, no
fuckn' prospect.
Or take the shillin'?
There will be no fuckn' ECB cricket 'colony' in Ireland.
bastaird mongrel Béarla, beidh ár lá a thiocfaidh.
jzfredricks
> >On Apr 6, 4:16=A0am, Geico Caveman <spammers-go-h...@spam.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >> This "murder" of Irish cricket has England's paw prints all over it.
>
> >fuck you, you nutter.
>
> This is the murder of Irish cricket, and it hangs heavy on ECB.
It's probably the Welsh contingent - I don't trust those fuckers :)
> What a cosy bunch, poach the players, and then scrap the team so you
> can poach more. If you knew a little more about Irish cricket, you
> would know which players the ECB are watching. I don't mean that they
> will ever play for England, just that now they won't have a fuckn'
> Ireland to fuckn' play for. When a wee Ireland lad gets the ECB 'nod'
> what should he do? Play for Ireland? No world cup, no sponser, no
> fuckn' prospect.
> Or take the shillin'?
> There will be no fuckn' ECB cricket 'colony' in Ireland.
You're a couple of hundred years too late if you want to complain
about an Irishman seeking working in England.
I'm the opposite of Andrew when it comes to country jumping. I'm all
for it, on the proviso that new country has robust immigration laws
that aren't "overlooked" when it comes to sportstars. I simply believe
that if (for example) the Home Office says you're English, that should
be enough for the ICC.
So I've no problem with England looking to poach Irish players. I
don't think it will happen much. I'd also have no problem with Ireland
poaching English players.
I *do* have a problem with excluding the Associates in the next WC. I
hope it's clear to all that I'm vocal in my support for then
Associates in general, and Ireland in particular.
ICC voting blocks are bad, but England is a block of 1.
Geico Caveman
Zim and Bang are already full Test playing nations. Ireland's
participation or otherwise has no impact on what you list above.
>
>> In terms of how teams gain from Ireland being excluded (-100 lose a
>> lot, 0 gain/lose nothing, 100 gain a lot),
>>
>> England 100
>>
>> West Indies 20
>>
>> Every other *real* Test playing nation - 0
>>
>> Zim/Bang -30
>>
>> Ireland -100
>
> Nonsense. Every Test nation will benefit if the television deal is
> more saleable, which it is without the Associate Members.
>
> Andrew
Except that England has an extra sweetener that no other Test playing
nation has since it is the only Test playing nation in Europe.
Perverse incentives lead to perverse outcomes.
Geico Caveman
Ran out of cogent things to say rather fast.
Geico Caveman
Which presumably told them that Ireland was one country they could
poach players from, given that Bang and SL players are unlikely to move
to England.
>
> Quoting Morgan (and who knows why you mentioned Pietersen) as an
> example simply shows the paucity of your 'logic'. They already have
> Morgan without needing to vote Ireland out of the World Cup and they
> can probably get Dockrell similarly if they choose.
>
> Andrew
Since I never claimed that shutting Ireland out was driven by a desire
to keep Morgan, you are merely constructing a strawman argument.
They did it so they could acquire O'brien, Dockrell and God knows who
else is in the pipeline. Exclusive rights to the rich vein of
cricketing gold next door.
Andrew Dunford
"Geico Caveman" <spammers...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:2011040518044450073-spammersgohere@spaminvalid...
It would if the ICC were to make them (Zim especially) qualify and they were
unable to do so.
>>> In terms of how teams gain from Ireland being excluded (-100 lose a lot,
>>> 0 gain/lose nothing, 100 gain a lot),
>>>
>>> England 100
>>>
>>> West Indies 20
>>>
>>> Every other *real* Test playing nation - 0
>>>
>>> Zim/Bang -30
>>>
>>> Ireland -100
>>
>> Nonsense. Every Test nation will benefit if the television deal is more
>> saleable, which it is without the Associate Members.
>>
>> Andrew
>
> Except that England has an extra sweetener that no other Test playing
> nation has since it is the only Test playing nation in Europe.
What does England stand to gain given they already have access to Ireland's
players?
Andrew
Andrew Dunford
"Geico Caveman" <spammers...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:201104051811388930-spammersgohere@spaminvalid...
They already recruit Ireland players successfully without needing to exclude
Ireland from the World Cup. Players who join willingly.
>> Quoting Morgan (and who knows why you mentioned Pietersen) as an example
>> simply shows the paucity of your 'logic'. They already have Morgan
>> without needing to vote Ireland out of the World Cup and they can
>> probably get Dockrell similarly if they choose.
>>
>> Andrew
>
> Since I never claimed that shutting Ireland out was driven by a desire to
> keep Morgan, you are merely constructing a strawman argument.
?
> They did it so they could acquire O'brien, Dockrell and God knows who else
> is in the pipeline. Exclusive rights to the rich vein of cricketing gold
> next door.
You misunderstand my point which has zero to do with retaining Morgan. As
above - they already get the Morgans and Joyces and have no need to vote
Ireland out of the World Cup in order to continue to attract other Irish
players such as Dockrell or O'Brien, not that they'd want the latter.
And there's no evidence of a 'rich vein of cricketing gold' in Ireland.
Andrew
jzfredricks
wrote:
> On 2011-04-05 16:30:38 -0500, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > On Apr 6, 4:16 am, Geico Caveman <spammers-go-h...@spam.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> This "murder" of Irish cricket has England's paw prints all over it.
>
> > fuck you, you nutter.
>
> Ran out of cogent things to say rather fast.
I was just making it easier for you by talking down at your level.
Jeff Urs
> On Apr 6, 12:11 am, PlaySafe
> > playing teams and other would convert to play Baseball.
>
> Where they can then play in the World Series?
No, but they could play in the Baseball World Cup or the World Baseball Classic.
--
Jeff
Geico Caveman
The qualifiers were never under serious discussion. 10 vs 12 teams were.
JPD (I think) proposed a method where 4 semifinalists, hosts and one
highest ranking team from the previous edition would for form 6
automatic qualifiers with everyone else having to qualify. For next WC,
that would have been India, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, Pakistan, Australia
and South Africa.
At the rate Afghanistan were improving, it would not have been a
foregone conclusion that either (or both) of Ireland and Afghanistan
would not beat West Indies or even England in such qualifiers in 2014.
But that would be too logical to be considered. So, 12 teams was the
only way that the likes of Ireland were going to get to play in WC2015.
>
>>>> In terms of how teams gain from Ireland being excluded (-100 lose a
>>>> lot, 0 gain/lose nothing, 100 gain a lot),
>>>>
>>>> England 100
>>>>
>>>> West Indies 20
>>>>
>>>> Every other *real* Test playing nation - 0
>>>>
>>>> Zim/Bang -30
>>>>
>>>> Ireland -100
>>>
>>> Nonsense. Every Test nation will benefit if the television deal is
>>> more saleable, which it is without the Associate Members.
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>
>> Except that England has an extra sweetener that no other Test playing
>> nation has since it is the only Test playing nation in Europe.
>
> What does England stand to gain given they already have access to
> Ireland's players?
>
> Andrew
Not all of them. This way they get to tell any Irish players: "The only
way any of you will ever play any serious cricket before you are
geriatrics (and no one considers Twenty20 to be serious cricket) is by
playing for us. There is no Irish team any more.".
Geico Caveman
Play man not ball, eh ?
Geico Caveman
Not nearly as many as would join if they had no other recourse. Even
the stiffest Irish patriot will quail at the prospect of being without
a career and no chance of having one.
What is amusing here is that you are choosing to argue against the obvious.
Andrew Dunford
"Geico Caveman" <spammers...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:2011040519515977923-spammersgohere@spaminvalid...
There are few enough players of the required quality that the phrase "not
nearly as many" is redundant.
I don't see the status quo changing at all. Those who can secure themselves
a county contract will do so, as they do now. If they make sufficient
impact in county cricket and England wish to pick them, they will opt to
play for England, as they do now. And they will still have to serve the
four years' residency in England before they can be picked.
> What is amusing here is that you are choosing to argue against the
> obvious.
It would only be obvious if England stood to gain from Ireland's exclusion.
I don't think there was a single player in Ireland's 2011 World Cup squad
that England would have picked for that tournament given the chance.
Andrew
will s
smells badly of BCCI
It is a disgrace, you either want to grow the game or not
The format should be simple ....... 4 groups of 4 with the 2 top teams
progressing to quarter finals.
jzfredricks
I think that's too simple, or lacking an important element.
There might be 17 teams "good enough". What then?
The cricket WC needs a ranked qualification system that allows any
country to qualify if they are good enough (and in your case good
enough is defined as "top 16").
higgs
wrote:
PKB
Higgs
higgs
wrote:
> On 2011-04-04 23:52:36 -0500, higgs <kenhig...@hotmail.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 5, 2:22 pm, Geico Caveman <spammers-go-h...@spam.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> On 2011-04-04 22:22:11 -0500, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >>> On Apr 5, 11:50 am, Geico Caveman <spammers-go-h...@spam.invalid>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Dare one say that England had a major hand in this ?
>
> >>> Slim chance.
>
> >>> It was probably the-power-behind-the-throne rewarding Zimb and Bangles
> >>> for their votes.
>
> >> Unlikely.
>
> >> India does not stand to gain anything by excluding Ireland. It may be
> >> argued that the presence of these weak(er) teams reduces the chances of
> >> events like 2007 happening (where India crashed out thanks to having
> >> only Bermuda as the piss-poor team in their group).
>
> > Say what?
>
> > India played 3 and lost 2, ie won 1 game.
> > Not exactly world beating stuff.
>
> > Every group had 2 minnows.
> > Failing to beat the minnows meant elimination.
>
> Except that Bangladesh are not quite at the same level as Bermuda.
>
> Not quite Test material. Not quite minnow. A Pluto of sorts.
>
Other major teams had Zimbabwe, Kenya (who had done v well in 2003)
and Ireland in their groups.
Bottom line is, India weren't good enough.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> India does not need to reward any country for their votes, in this
> >> fashion. An Indian tour is a money making opportunity in itself that is
> >> a sufficient carrot.
>
> >> On the other hand, England is the gendarme of cricket in Europe and
> >> stands to gain everything by making sure that playing for England is
> >> the only way forward for Irish (and Dutch) talent.
>
> >> Follow the "money" as they say.
>
> >> FWIW, I do not doubt that this shameful decision had to have had the
> >> acquisence of BCCI, but I have no reason to think that they (instead of
> >> the ECB) were the prime movers behind this. It might even have been a
> >> chip that ECB promised something BCCI in return for some other favour
> >> (that we do not yet know about).
>
> > Yet we have the likes of you and Nirv telling us that India rules
> > world cricket, is the financial powerhouse in the room and that 'this
> > is the new world order, live with it'.
>
> I don't actually since I do not post much on RSC.
>
Well that is what we get told on a regular basis
> > Yet as soon as the ICC makes a crap decision, you say it is all down
> > to England.
>
> Read above. BCCI obviously agreed to it, but it was no skin off their nose.
>
>
Who told you that?
>
> > Do you have any proof of any of this, or is it all speculation?
>
> You do not need proof when it is pretty clear who stands to gain the
> most from something like this.
>
As explained elsewhere, England stand to gain very little from it.
> You mean to say that if India were the only Test nation in Asia and the
> ICC made a decision to exclude Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh,
> Afghanistan, Nepal, etc. from the cup, and India had a track record of
> siphoning off good talent from other countries, going so far as to have
> former captains of their team from such siphoned off talent, you would
> not smell a rat ?
>
I'm sure we'd be told that it was the double-dealing of the ECB.
Yes, I'd smell a rat, but then I'd be labelled a racist and a forked
tongue Caucasian.
That's how it goes on rsc.
> Come off it.
>
> This "murder" of Irish cricket has England's paw prints all over it.
>
>
Says you
>
> > It's interesting that the ICC press release stressed the financial
> > aspects of the decision and underlined this by stating that India’s
> > matches against England, Australia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka attracted
> > hundreds of millions of viewers
>
> They had to. Did you honestly expect them to say,
>
> "Ahem, this is really embarrasing, but one of our oldest members ...
> Well, ahem, the oldest member of all, has expressed an interest in
> acquiring 2-3, possibly 4 players from Ireland, and we think that
> continuing to allow Irish participation in WC until a convenient number
> of years are past (or as Giley put it emphatically, Dockrell is an old
> man) would detract from that goal. As always, we seek to advance the
> participation of Associate nations in cricket unless of course, their
> participation becomes an inconvenience to our valued members. The
> second string Irish team is welcome to participate in the expanded
> World Twenty20, which as IPL veterans will testify, is neither here nor
> there. They may even hope to attract the attention of suitable England
> counties. We are obviously supported in our resolve by our paymasters
> in Mumbai since they have no interest in the matter, though subsequent
> discussions between Giley and Shashank may reveal a future quid pro
> quo."
>
>
I'd expect them to tell the truth.
How about something like 'India runs the ICC, we're doing things our
way, so take a hike'
Higgs
PlaySafe
> On Apr 6, 12:11 am, PlaySafe
> > playing teams and other would convert to play Baseball.
>
> Where they can then play in the World Series?
Yes if they are from Canada, some others would move back to their old professions. Ireland players would seek opportunity to play for England or be content with county. Afghans will be looking to play for Pakistan.
PlaySafe
> On 2011-04-05 16:39:01 -0500, "Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> said:
>
> >
> >
> > "Geico Caveman" <spammers...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:2011040513032075249-spammersgohere@spaminvalid...
> >> On 2011-04-04 23:40:38 -0500, jzfredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com> said:
> >>
> >>> On Apr 5, 2:22 pm, Geico Caveman <spammers-go-h...@spam.invalid>
> >>> wrote:
They will be getting money as full members in general, but for CWC as an ICC tournament do they differentiate between Full Members and Associates. Also if Bang or Zim do not qualify to play CWC, will they be getting any money from it ?
Geico Caveman
>>> Say what?
>>
>>> India played 3 and lost 2, ie won 1 game.
>>> Not exactly world beating stuff.
>>
>>> Every group had 2 minnows.
>>> Failing to beat the minnows meant elimination.
>>
>> Except that Bangladesh are not quite at the same level as Bermuda.
>>
>> Not quite Test material. Not quite minnow. A Pluto of sorts.
>>
>
> Other major teams had Zimbabwe, Kenya (who had done v well in 2003)
> and Ireland in their groups.
>
> Bottom line is, India weren't good enough.
There is no argument about that. India 2007 were a pile of crap.
Which butresses my argument - India would (and ICC would given the
losses they had to incur when India exited early) want more minnows and
weak teams in WC, not less.
They did that by designing WC2011 to prevent that from happening. What
makes you think that fiscally they want to be in a situation that an
off-colour India team loses to, say, Bang, Eng, NZ and exits the WC ?
>
>>> is the new world order, live with it'.
>>
>> I don't actually since I do not post much on RSC.
>>
>
> Well that is what we get told on a regular basis
Take it up with those who tell you that on a regular basis.
>
>>> Yet as soon as the ICC makes a crap decision, you say it is all down
>>> to England.
>>
>> Read above. BCCI obviously agreed to it, but it was no skin off their nos
> e.
>>
>>
> Who told you that?
BCCI stands to gain nothing (actually no Test playing team save England
gains anything) by excluding minnows.
The ICC risks losing a big chunk of money from an early India exit
(which would be made less likely by the existence of more minnow teams
that even an off-colour India might be expected to beat).
>
>>
>>> Do you have any proof of any of this, or is it all speculation?
>>
>> You do not need proof when it is pretty clear who stands to gain the
>> most from something like this.
>>
>
> As explained elsewhere, England stand to gain very little from it.
Except the core of their team given their track record of poaching
players from other countries.
>
>> You mean to say that if India were the only Test nation in Asia and the
>> ICC made a decision to exclude Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh,
>> Afghanistan, Nepal, etc. from the cup, and India had a track record of
>> siphoning off good talent from other countries, going so far as to have
>> former captains of their team from such siphoned off talent, you would
>> not smell a rat ?
>>
>
> I'm sure we'd be told that it was the double-dealing of the ECB.
I have a bridge I need to sell you then.
>
> Yes, I'd smell a rat, but then I'd be labelled a racist and a forked
> tongue Caucasian.
>
> That's how it goes on rsc.
I have never called anyone a racist who did not deserve it. FWIW, I
think you are a tad defensive about ECB but that is miles from racism.
>>
>> They had to. Did you honestly expect them to say,
>>
>> "Ahem, this is really embarrasing, but one of our oldest members ...
>> Well, ahem, the oldest member of all, has expressed an interest in
>> acquiring 2-3, possibly 4 players from Ireland, and we think that
>> continuing to allow Irish participation in WC until a convenient number
>> of years are past (or as Giley put it emphatically, Dockrell is an old
>> man) would detract from that goal. As always, we seek to advance the
>> participation of Associate nations in cricket unless of course, their
>> participation becomes an inconvenience to our valued members. The
>> second string Irish team is welcome to participate in the expanded
>> World Twenty20, which as IPL veterans will testify, is neither here nor
>> there. They may even hope to attract the attention of suitable England
>> counties. We are obviously supported in our resolve by our paymasters
>> in Mumbai since they have no interest in the matter, though subsequent
>> discussions between Giley and Shashank may reveal a future quid pro
>> quo."
>>
>>
> I'd expect them to tell the truth.
You expect too much of this bunch.
Geico Caveman
>>> They already recruit Ireland players successfully without needing to
>>> exclude Ireland from the World Cup. Players who join willingly.
>>
>> Not nearly as many as would join if they had no other recourse. Even
>> the stiffest Irish patriot will quail at the prospect of being without
>> a career and no chance of having one.
>
> There are few enough players of the required quality that the phrase
> "not nearly as many" is redundant.
>
> I don't see the status quo changing at all. Those who can secure
> themselves a county contract will do so, as they do now. If they make
> sufficient impact in county cricket and England wish to pick them, they
> will opt to play for England, as they do now. And they will still have
> to serve the four years' residency in England before they can be picked.
Which is why Ireland will conveniently have to wait 8 years before they
have a chance of playing in a WC again.
Two nice crops of Ireland talent for the England team, eh ?
>
>> What is amusing here is that you are choosing to argue against the obvious.
>
> It would only be obvious if England stood to gain from Ireland's
> exclusion. I don't think there was a single player in Ireland's 2011
> World Cup squad that England would have picked for that tournament
> given the chance.
>
> Andrew
Since it is impossible for me to prove 2+2=4 to someone who appears to
have a vested interest in believing that it is 5, further discussion
with you is pointless.
Geico Caveman
Smells more of the ECB.
BCCI (or ACB, PCB, NZCB, etc.) gain nothing from an Ireland exclusion.
Given the fiscal disaster that was WC2007, the ICC stands to lose a
great deal if an off-colour India exit WC2015 early.
All that argues for more minnow participation, not less.
ECB on the other hand would prefer to poach Irish talent for the next 8 years.
Jeff Urs
--
Jeff
Andrew Dunford
"Geico Caveman" <spammers...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:2011040610552975249-spammersgohere@spaminvalid...
> On 2011-04-05 20:27:23 -0500, "Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net>
> said:
>
>>>> They already recruit Ireland players successfully without needing to
>>>> exclude Ireland from the World Cup. Players who join willingly.
>>>
>>> Not nearly as many as would join if they had no other recourse. Even the
>>> stiffest Irish patriot will quail at the prospect of being without a
>>> career and no chance of having one.
>>
>> There are few enough players of the required quality that the phrase "not
>> nearly as many" is redundant.
>>
>> I don't see the status quo changing at all. Those who can secure
>> themselves a county contract will do so, as they do now. If they make
>> sufficient impact in county cricket and England wish to pick them, they
>> will opt to play for England, as they do now. And they will still have
>> to serve the four years' residency in England before they can be picked.
>
> Which is why Ireland will conveniently have to wait 8 years before they
> have a chance of playing in a WC again.
You just don't get it, do you?
Under the current arrangements, Irish players can already serve the England
residency qualification period whilst playing county cricket and whilst
playing for Ireland. Excluding Ireland from the World Cup provides no
additional advantage.
> Two nice crops of Ireland talent for the England team, eh ?
As I have written five or six times previously, if these supposed crops of
talent are good enough to play for England, they will play for England
whether or not Ireland is attending the World Cup.
>>> What is amusing here is that you are choosing to argue against the
>>> obvious.
>>
>> It would only be obvious if England stood to gain from Ireland's
>> exclusion. I don't think there was a single player in Ireland's 2011
>> World Cup squad that England would have picked for that tournament given
>> the chance.
>>
>> Andrew
>
> Since it is impossible for me to prove 2+2=4 to someone who appears to
> have a vested interest in believing that it is 5, further discussion with
> you is pointless.
Your '2+2=4' is nothing more than a conspiracy theory containing no logical
basis.
Andrew
max.it
Players from the republic have to reside 4 years, players from the
north as I understand, can walk on in.
snipped from BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/12971731.stm
Deutrom says 2015 hosts Australia and New Zealand were the prime
movers behind the move back to a 10-team World Cup, which was the
format back in 1992.
The Cricket Ireland chief believes that India then drove through the
plan to restrict the 2015 competition to full-member countries,
although he believes they were supported by a number of other nations.
Continue reading the main story
The next World Cup will be like the American World Series - you
are crowned World Champions but the world did not take part
Phil Simmons Ireland coach
On Tuesday, Cricket Australia chief James Sutherland described his
country's schedule for this year's World Cup as "unsatisfactory".
"The Australian team had two seven-day breaks at one stage and during
that period the only cricket they were playing was against minnow
countries,'' said Sutherland.
"So from our point of view, we went a bit stale there in the middle.
The decision to go to a 10-team competition is something we're very
supportive of."
*****************
jzfredricks
> Deutrom says 2015 hosts Australia and New Zealand were the prime
> movers behind the move back to a 10-team World Cup, which was the
> format back in 1992.
I can deal with 10 being selected as the number of teams. I'd like
more, but 10 is ok.
> The Cricket Ireland chief believes that India then drove through the
> plan to restrict the 2015 competition to full-member countries,
> although he believes they were supported by a number of other nations.
India hey? I wonder why they did that?
To appease the murderous ECB?
max.it
It now provides the only single chance to play test and wc cricket.
>
>> Two nice crops of Ireland talent for the England team, eh ?
>
>As I have written five or six times previously, if these supposed crops of
>talent are good enough to play for England, they will play for England
>whether or not Ireland is attending the World Cup.
They wouldn't have to if icc hadn't raised the bar on full membership.
Like - Ireland need to have a self supporting FC system. OK, we can do
that. ICC decides the cricket season in Ireland is too short, and
games must be played in Emirates, oh, yeah, we nearly forgot, you have
to fund that yourself too. ICC Blackguards.
>
>>>> What is amusing here is that you are choosing to argue against the
>>>> obvious.
>>>
>>> It would only be obvious if England stood to gain from Ireland's
>>> exclusion. I don't think there was a single player in Ireland's 2011
>>> World Cup squad that England would have picked for that tournament given
>>> the chance.
Maybe not before, but there might be a few in contention for 2015 now.
Andrew Dunford
"max.it" wrote in message news:4d9cef14...@news.btinternet.com...
Not correct. Any player - regardless of where he was born - must reside in
England or Wales for four years before being eligible to represent England
in a Test, one-day international or T20 international. Those are the ECB's
own rules, which are stricter than those enforced by the ICC.
> max.it
>
> snipped from BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/12971731.stm
>
> Deutrom says 2015 hosts Australia and New Zealand were the prime
> movers behind the move back to a 10-team World Cup, which was the
> format back in 1992.
>
> The Cricket Ireland chief believes that India then drove through the
> plan to restrict the 2015 competition to full-member countries,
> although he believes they were supported by a number of other nations.
> Continue reading the main story
>
> The next World Cup will be like the American World Series - you
> are crowned World Champions but the world did not take part
>
> Phil Simmons Ireland coach
>
> On Tuesday, Cricket Australia chief James Sutherland described his
> country's schedule for this year's World Cup as "unsatisfactory".
>
> "The Australian team had two seven-day breaks at one stage and during
> that period the only cricket they were playing was against minnow
> countries,'' said Sutherland.
>
> "So from our point of view, we went a bit stale there in the middle.
> The decision to go to a 10-team competition is something we're very
> supportive of."
I am strongly inclined toward disagreeing with anything James Sutherland
says.
Andrew
Calvin
wrote:
>> "So from our point of view, we went a bit stale there in the middle.
>> The decision to go to a 10-team competition is something we're very
>> supportive of."
>
> I am strongly inclined toward disagreeing with anything James Sutherland
> says.
He's CA's Ken Higgs.
--
cheers,
calvin
higgs
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 10:43:03 +1000, Andrew Dunford <adunf...@artifax.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> "So from our point of view, we went a bit stale there in the middle.
> >> The decision to go to a 10-team competition is something we're very
> >> supportive of."
>
> > I am strongly inclined toward disagreeing with anything James Sutherland
> > says.
>
> He's CA's Ken Higgs.
>
> --
>
> cheers,
> calvin
Hi Calvin,
still carrying that grudge, I see.
Have you remembered what started it all off yet?
Higgs
Calvin
> On Apr 7, 10:49 am, Calvin <cal...@phlegm.com> wrote:
> still carrying that grudge, I see.
I'd hardly call it a grudge. More like a project.
> Have you remembered what started it all off yet?
Your first post?
--
cheers,
calvin
Southpaw
> "max.it" wrote in messagenews:4d9cef14...@news.btinternet.com...
> > On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 11:23:36 +1200, "Andrew Dunford"
>
> >>"Geico Caveman" <spammers-go-h...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
> >>news:2011040518044450073-spammersgohere@spaminvalid...
> >>> On 2011-04-05 16:39:01 -0500, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net>
> >>> said:
>
> >>>> "Geico Caveman" <spammers-go-h...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
> >>>>news:2011040513032075249-spammersgohere@spaminvalid...
> >>>>> On 2011-04-04 23:40:38 -0500, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com>
So let's see. Playing 7 games in about 15 days across 3 countries
would've been too much cricket, enough to make a team stale. Playing 7
games in about 30 days is too little cricket, enough to make a team
stale.
Oh, and for England this schedule was so intense, half their team got
injured and had to leave the tourney mid-way.
-Samarth.
Uday Rajan
>
> > > On Tuesday, Cricket Australia chief James Sutherland described his
> > > country's schedule for this year's World Cup as "unsatisfactory".
>
> would've been too much cricket, enough to make a team stale. Playing 7
> games in about 30 days is too little cricket, enough to make a team
> stale.
I thought the WC schedule was poor too, but that's no justification
for cutting out the Associates. I'd rather see two associates in and a
shorter league phase.
> Oh, and for England this schedule was so intense, half their team got
> injured and had to leave the tourney mid-way.
It was clear from the outset that the WC was one tournament too many
for England. They had an intense Ashes series, a long drawn-out odo
series in Aus, and had more or less been on the road for about 5
months before they were knocked out of the WC. The players gave it
their best, but it was far too much to ask of any team. I hope the
regular England players get a little bit of a break now. The domestic
season seems to have begun, but the ECB should try to insist that the
counties allow the regular members of the England squad to rest.
Southpaw
As I understand, the next World Cup (2015) is also in March, right
after the Ashes and the Commonwealth Bank (or whatever it's called)
ODOs. If this is true, then despite 1992 being rain-affected, the
greedy Aussie administrators have *once again* decided to schedule a
WC in March, unwilling to forego any of their regular season schedule.
If this is true, then England have an even bigger problem then. They
will be coming into the *next* World Cup off a very similar prior
schedule to this one. And of course, the next World Cup won't involve
7 games in 30 days incl. Ireland, Bangladesh, and Netherlands. It will
involve 9 games in 30 days, with hardly any minnows.
This is pretty much what India faced in 1992. A 5-test tour of Aus,
followed by B&H ODOs, followed by a round-robin 9-team World Cup.
And of course, this is the schedule the ICC administrators like James
Sutherland *like*.
-Samarth.
Calvin
> As I understand, the next World Cup (2015) is also in March, right
> after the Ashes and the Commonwealth Bank (or whatever it's called)
> ODOs.
No, the next Ashes series in Aust is being moved forward a year to 2013/14
precisely to avoid this problem.
--
cheers,
calvin
Southpaw
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 13:00:41 +1000, Southpaw <arbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > As I understand, the next World Cup (2015) is also in March, right
> > after the Ashes and the Commonwealth Bank (or whatever it's called)
> > ODOs.
>
> No, the next Ashes series in Aust is being moved forward a year to 2013/14
> precisely to avoid this problem.
>
> --
>
> cheers,
> calvin
So the World Cup will largely be in one of Dec/Jan/Feb then? If so,
that's great! Except for the associates missing from it of course. :-(
-Samarth.
Calvin
> On Apr 6, 8:14 pm, Calvin <cal...@phlegm.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 13:00:41 +1000, Southpaw <arbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > As I understand, the next World Cup (2015) is also in March, right
>> > after the Ashes and the Commonwealth Bank (or whatever it's called)
>> > ODOs.
>>
>> No, the next Ashes series in Aust is being moved forward a year to
>> 2013/14 precisely to avoid this problem.
>>
> So the World Cup will largely be in one of Dec/Jan/Feb then? If so,
> that's great! Except for the associates missing from it of course. :-(
It won't start before mid January at the earliest, and more probably late
Jan / early Feb.
--
cheers,
calvin
Mohan
> that's great! Except for the associates missing from it of course. :-(
Frankly, I don't understand what's the big deal about leaving out
associates. Far more talented players miss out on the world cup due to
the 11-per-country limit and no one cares about that, so why is so
much hue and cry is being made about an O'brien or a Dockerel not
being able to play?
Mohan
jzfredricks
You miss the point. People have/do/always will care about their own
country.
*I* feel sorry for Irish. I want to see them play. I want to see
Ireland play England.
Actually... no I don't... those freakin leprechauns!
Andrew Dunford
"Mohan" <dpus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e05d5ac9-acbc-4135...@e21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Because people can tell the difference between eligible but not picked, and
not even eligible.
Andrew
Mohan
> "Mohan" <dpuse...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Big deal. If "eligible but not picked" group has dozens of players of
talent level say, 80 on 100 and "not eligible" group has a couple of
players of talent level 60, which is the group we should worry about
more? Who deserves to be part of the world cup more - the Rohit
Sharma's and Pragyan Ojhas's or your OBrien's and Odumbe's? And why is
it assumed that Irish players have some right to be part of the world
cup that they are being denied? If Rohit Sharma can be told that "Oh,
you are not among the top 11 players in your country and hence you
can't play, even though you *are* better than some who are playing the
world cup" and that is seen as just, then I don't see anything unjust
in Ireland is being told you can't be part of the world cup because we
say so. If the Sharma's and Ojha's have to "deal with it, because that
is the system", then let the Irish deal with it too.
Mohan
jzfredricks
Why even have teams, franchise or national?
Why don't we just play a round, then pick the best players and form
new teams?
Every game could be an allstar game.
Last game should have the best 22 players.
Mohan
Except, we don't need to do anything that extreme. I will any day
support having a second or even third team from some of the top test
playing countries in the world cup than any of these associates.
Mohan
jzfredricks
> Except, we don't need to do anything that extreme.
Why not?
You said it's not fair for Sharma to sit out when O'Brien gets to
play.
Is it fair for Dale Steyn to sit out on the GF when Perera gets to
play?
Mohan
Adding a second or third team from some country doesn't dilute the
team loyalty for the fans in a way having a made up team for every
game does.
Mohan
jzfredricks
What does fan loyalty have to do with fairness?
Mohan
I am not advocating having an extremely fair system at the cost of
everything else. Just saying that if leaving out Ireland is being
considered unfair, then there is much more unfairness happening which
can be corrected first without sacrificing fan loyalty, so we might as
well consider fixing those first before considering Ireland's case.
Mohan
will s
"jzfredricks" wrote in message
news:5eb24f3f-3563-4105...@p16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 6, 1:45 pm, "will s" <wlsutton5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> smells badly of BCCI
>
> It is a disgrace, you either want to grow the game or not
>
> The format should be simple ....... 4 groups of 4 with the 2 top teams
> progressing to quarter finals.
I think that's too simple, or lacking an important element.
There might be 17 teams "good enough". What then?
The cricket WC needs a ranked qualification system that allows any
country to qualify if they are good enough (and in your case good
enough is defined as "top 16").
Its simple .... host country has one spot, defending Champion has another
and the next 6 in the rankings from previous World Cup
the bottom 4 spots are decided though playoffs in the proceeding 2 years
jzfredricks
Sounds fine. That's the element I was talking about. It allows ANY
country to qualify if they are good enough.
Andrew Dunford
"Mohan" <dpus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:50fc66d5-c711-490c...@l18g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
If you can't tell the difference between saying to Rohit Sharma "go away and
score more runs than the other blokes with whom you're competing for a place
and then we'll pick you" and saying to Kevin O'Brien "it doesn't matter how
many thousand runs you score, you can't come" then I really can't help you.
The system for the World Cup is nation-based. It's a competition for the
best national teams and as a team competition introducing the idea of
individual player rankings is meaningless. Save it for your auctions and
franchises.
Andrew
Mohan
There is a limit of 11 players for Test playing nations and there is a
limit of 0 for Associates. Both are arbitrary limits. If we are
arguing which is unfairer, then we really need to look at who is
losing out because of the limit. If it turns out that the 12th player
in India/Australia/South Africa is far better than the best player in
Associate countries, then it is that limit of 11 which is more unfair/
unjust/whatever than the other limit of 0.
> The system for the World Cup is nation-based. It's a competition for the
As I said, if the argument is "that's the system, deal with it", then
same can be said to Ireland.
Mohan
Mohan
Or if you don't want to think in terms of players, there is a limit of
1 team for Test playing nations and 0 teams for Associates. Both are
arbitrary limits. Who is missing out due to the limit? It is the 2nd,
3rd, 4th... teams from Test nations and the first team of Associate
countries. If the 2nd/3rd teams from Test nations are better than the
first team of Associates, then it is that limit of 1 which is causing
greater damage. Sure, individual players in 2nd team can work their
way through to first team, but they will only be doing so by pushing
some of the first team players to second team. If it is the case that
2nd team of Test nations will always be better than the first team of
Associates for foreseeable future, then to me, that limit of 1 for
Test nations is causing more injustice than the limit of 0 for
Associates.
Mohan
Nirvanam
Fair!
Southpaw
That's fair. That's still close enough to peak season. So are they
going to curtail the ODO-fest then? Because the New Year's day test
will end on the 6th, and if the World Cup starts 3-4 weeks later, I'm
not sure there's time for a 7-ODO or tri-nation series.
-Samarth.
>
> --
>
> cheers,
> calvin
Southpaw
I think the Rohit Sharmas and Pragyan Ojhas will still get many
opportunities to play international cricket, and if they do well, even
a World Cup in future. In the case of a minnow like Ireland, the World
Cup is the only stage where they can play 50-over cricket with the
best. It's not like they will play in Asia Cup or Champions Trophy or
any such tournament.
I do sympathize with what you say re: the flaws of the country-based
system.
But that's a different issue. Given the passport-based system, O'Brien
and Dockerell are way harder done by than Rohit Sharma and Pragyan
Ojha, if their entire opportunity at a certain level of cricket is
taken away. Including the associates will fix this grave injustice. It
will still leave the slight disadvantage that the passport-based
system leaves Rohit/Pragyan, but I'm guessing you will get around to
fixing that soon. :-)
-Samarth [ Ojha should've been picked ahead of Chawla anyway, I knew
that even before the WC started ].
Priya
>
> - Show quoted text -
You come up with several thinking out of th box theories and generally
make astsute observations.
But this idea of yours sucks big time.
Australia 1 playing Australia 2 for all the marbles at the 2015 WORLD
cup is not a mouth watering prospect. No one except perhaps the
immediate family members of the players is going to give a crap about
that match. Besides, we already have those types of matches: It's
called teh Ranji Trophy or the Sheffield Cup or whatever it is called.
Cricket would be the laughing stock of the sporting world if the ICC
were to ever take you up on this goofy idea.
Can you imagine Brazil vs. Brazil for the soccer World cup? And the
Davis Cup, there may have been occasions in the past where the USA
would have fielded 5 or 6 teams, Australia 1 or 2, and the Swedes
would have rounded out the competition with one team. The hell with
everyone else.
Frankly, it's a ludicrous proposition.
skp
Calvin
Final Test finishes c. 6 Jan followed by 2 x T20s and then a short 3-game
ODO series in mid January with the WC starting in late Jan and ending at
the end of Feb would make the most sense. So we can rule that out straight
away.
--
cheers,
calvin
Andrew Dunford
"Mohan" <dpus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:21098656-a2c8-4878...@j13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Your crusade has taken a wrong turn. This is a conversation about the World
Cup, but you are talking about something else I don't recognise as having
anything to do with the World Cup.
If you don't like the national team model, by all means campaign for
something else such as an IPL-style franchise structure but I see no value
in subverting the idea of a national representative team into some
artificial structure that has no meaning.
Andrew
Mohan
There are two separate points here. First, limiting the test nations
to one team in the world cup is already robbing teams far stronger
than Ireland or Kenya of a chance to participate in the WC. Sure, most
people don't even see it as robbing because they don't recognise "one
team per country" as imposing a limit. They can't even imagine that
there can be more than one team per country, so how is it stopping
anyone from participating? But just because people don't see it,
doesn't mean the limit doesn't exist. So, if we can agree that the
limit exists and teams are getting robbed, teams much stronger than
the Associate teams (at their peak, the Aus and Windies 2nd teams were
probably good enough to be No.2 in the world - compare that to Ireland
who are probably the 15th best team in the world - 9 test teams and
second teams of a few top test teams being ahead of Ireland), then
there is little point about crying about the "injustice" of keeping
the Associates out.
Second issue is should we actually have second teams from test nations
in the WC? I would definitely like to see that happen, but not as
strongly as I would like to see the whole passport-based structure
demolished. I don't see why you think having a second team subverts
the idea of a national representative team. You will just have two
separate representative teams, that's all. As to skp's point that no
one will care about an Aus vs Aus finals - maybe, but what are the
chances of it happening? Even the most dominant team has probably
about 60% chance of reaching the finals and their second team will
probably have about 20% chance. So maybe, once in 8 or 10 world cups
we might have such a scenario and even in such a case, a simple
workaround is to have a rule that if both the teams of a country make
it to the last four, then they will always face each other in the
semis. So the finals will always be between teams from different
countries. But look at the advantages - you are encouraging the top
nations to produce more talented cricketers, standard of matches in
world cup will improve, number of India matches will double and if
Australia has two teams in the next world cup, number of host team
matches will double. It will be a marketers' dream!
Mohan
Mohan
> On Apr 6, 9:31 pm, Mohan <dpuse...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 7, 9:14 am, Southpaw <arbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > that's great! Except for the associates missing from it of course. :-(
>
> > Frankly, I don't understand what's the big deal about leaving out
> > associates. Far more talented players miss out on the world cup due to
> > the 11-per-country limit and no one cares about that, so why is so
> > much hue and cry is being made about an O'brien or a Dockerel not
> > being able to play?
>
> > Mohan
>
> I think the Rohit Sharmas and Pragyan Ojhas will still get many
> opportunities to play international cricket, and if they do well, even
> a World Cup in future. In the case of a minnow like Ireland, the World
> Cup is the only stage where they can play 50-over cricket with the
> best. It's not like they will play in Asia Cup or Champions Trophy or
> any such tournament.
The second-stringers get a chance to play international cricket thanks
to rotation policy, which itself is a recent phenomenon. And they get
a chance because they are considered to be international class. No one
is giving them an international match as charity. Similarly, if the
minnows were good enough to play the established teams, their boards
too would have been able to host series against the top teams and
their players too would have got a chance. They are not in a position
to do that because they are not good enough. I don't see why they
should be given a world cup spot just because they can't play against
top teams otherwise. My point is, if you want to give a spot to
someone, there are better teams which deserve that spot than the
minnows.
Mohan
Southpaw
> On Apr 7, 8:08 pm, Southpaw <arbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 6, 9:31 pm, Mohan <dpuse...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 7, 9:14 am, Southpaw <arbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > that's great! Except for the associates missing from it of course. :-(
>
> > > Frankly, I don't understand what's the big deal about leaving out
> > > associates. Far more talented players miss out on the world cup due to
> > > the 11-per-country limit and no one cares about that, so why is so
> > > much hue and cry is being made about an O'brien or a Dockerel not
> > > being able to play?
>
> > > Mohan
>
> > I think the Rohit Sharmas and Pragyan Ojhas will still get many
> > opportunities to play international cricket, and if they do well, even
> > a World Cup in future. In the case of a minnow like Ireland, the World
> > Cup is the only stage where they can play 50-over cricket with the
> > best. It's not like they will play in Asia Cup or Champions Trophy or
> > any such tournament.
>
> The second-stringers get a chance to play international cricket thanks
> to rotation policy, which itself is a recent phenomenon. And they get
Yes, and India having the financial muscle to raise multiple teams
also is a recent phenomenon. In the 70s probably only 1% of the
country was interested in cricket. The disproportionate nature of the
cricket economy and viewership itself is a recent phenomenon.
> a chance because they are considered to be international class. No one
> is giving them an international match as charity. Similarly, if the
OTOH a team like Zim is getting to play international cricket even
though not as good as Ireland. Ireland are ranked #10 in the world in
ODO cricket - higher than Zim, and not too far from BD. This is a
charity! BD and Zim get to play in bilateral series and Champions
Trophy etc., but not Ireland. As you agreed above, the Indian second-
stringers also get an opportunity at international ODO cricket against
top 8 teams, which is also an opportunity to become first-stringers.
Opportunities that are not available to Irish players. Given the
above, it's not hard to see that the Irish cricketers especially
(since they are higher ranked than Zimbabwe) are especially
disadvantaged.
> minnows were good enough to play the established teams, their boards
> too would have been able to host series against the top teams and
> their players too would have got a chance.
That's where the second-string Indian cricketers have an advantage
then. Their board has the money and the clout to organize bilateral
series for them against top teams (while resting the first-string).
ZCU doesn't have this money/clout but it get these as charity. OTOH
Irish cricketers neither have the board's clout nor the charity, hence
are the most disadvantaged here.
-Samarth.
They are not in a position
> to do that because they are not good enough. I don't see why they
> should be given a world cup spot just because they can't play against
> top teams otherwise. My point is, if you want to give a spot to
> someone, there are better teams which deserve that spot than the
> minnows.
>
Mohan
<snip>
> That's where the second-string Indian cricketers have an advantage
> then. Their board has the money and the clout to organize bilateral
> series for them against top teams (while resting the first-string).
It is not just financial muscle though. They are better talented than
the Ireland players too, imo.
> ZCU doesn't have this money/clout but it get these as charity. OTOH
> Irish cricketers neither have the board's clout nor the charity, hence
> are the most disadvantaged here.
Yes, Zim is a disgrace, I agree.
Mohan
max.it
wrote:
>On Apr 8, 8:09=A0pm, Southpaw <arbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
><snip>
>> That's where the second-string Indian cricketers have an advantage
>> then. Their board has the money and the clout to organize bilateral
>> series for them against top teams (while resting the first-string).
>
>It is not just financial muscle though. They are better talented than
>the Ireland players too, imo.
>
The question is. How would the India 2nd string do against the India
senior team? I think Ireland done ok V India, away from home - etc.
Surely nobody would chance playing Ireland these days without a full
strength team? Agatha Christie mentioned the Irish way. Popping up
from behind a bush, and knocking you on the head. We've been doing it
against the odds for years, it's just becoming more frequent lately.
>> ZCU doesn't have this money/clout but it get these as charity. OTOH
>> Irish cricketers neither have the board's clout nor the charity, hence
>> are the most disadvantaged here.
>
>Yes, Zim is a disgrace, I agree.
A clever dick dug up this. It has been suggested that revenue from tv
is one reason to exclude associates. Ireland games generated a high of
84% of the peak viewing, I guess this was the India game post England
whipping. Also, if only 12% of the tv sets in Ireland were watching
Ireland playing cricket, that would be more tv sets than there are in
all of Zimbabwe. Only 32000 Zims have access to dish or cable.
>
>Mohan
Mike Holmans
brought forth:
However, the contract for the 2015 broadcasting rights specified that
all 10 Full members would take part. Australia/NZ as hosts decided
that they wanted to replicate the 1992 format, which had worked very
well for them and ESPN Star were very keen to have a guarantee of 9
India games, mostly in Perth.
The most vociferous opponents of any change were, predictably enough,
Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and West Indies, all of who stand to lose out if
there's a qualification tournament which they don't win. They got
outvoted, in effect, with regard to the 2019 tournament in England.
The ECB had very little to do with any of these machinations. That you
insist on promoting the idea that the ECB were seriously active in
excluding Ireland merely reflects your prejudice about England. The
people you should be blaming are Indian TV and CA/NZC.
Cheers,
Mike
--
max.it
If you assumed a little less about my prejudices towards England and
Ireland and a wee bit more about my insight of Irish cricket, I might
almost believe you, but you don't, so I won't.
Being from God's orange blessed own 6 counties, I have been privilaged
to have been screwed by the English and bombed by the Irish on
multiple occasions. So methinks your allegation of prejudice is
somewhat either, un-founded, ignorant or mis-guided.
I am British by birth, education and culture, although and I think
this is relevent, I'm more of your regular papist bashing Irish hating
UVF Ulster loyalist. It is only fair that you should know this. Not
that I expect you to understand, it is a very complicated issue, and I
wouldn't expect you imagine the offence you have cause with your
remark.
I do love a scandal though, and everyone at that meeting is guilty of
participation in a scandal.
You are however almost correct, about ECB, and clearly you have not
read my contribution to uksc this evening. I posted parallel rather
than X to rsc.
ECB are in favour of a qualifier for 2015. They confirmed this in
three emails posted on cricket ireland forums. The emails suggested
the qualifiers must take place in 2013 /2014.
The machine of the meeting means that 7 full members only need agree,
so no vote would have been needed, probably not much discussion
either. 7 from 13 is fair can't deny that, but when three of the 13
have votes that cannot be used to trump the 7?
ECB are more concerned with the 36 games V Oz before 2015 than
anything else.
jzfredricks
> If you assumed a little less about my prejudices towards England and
> Ireland and a wee bit more about my insight of Irish cricket, I might
> almost believe you, but you don't, so I won't.
just my $0.02 then I'll slowly/respectfully back away;
You did seem a *little* harsh on the ECB, with respect to murdering
Irish cricket.
Mike Holmans
brought forth:
>On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 20:54:59 +0100, Mike Holmans
><mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>However, the contract for the 2015 broadcasting rights specified that
>>all 10 Full members would take part. Australia/NZ as hosts decided
>>that they wanted to replicate the 1992 format, which had worked very
>>well for them and ESPN Star were very keen to have a guarantee of 9
>>India games, mostly in Perth.
>>
>>The most vociferous opponents of any change were, predictably enough,
>>Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and West Indies, all of who stand to lose out if
>>there's a qualification tournament which they don't win. They got
>>outvoted, in effect, with regard to the 2019 tournament in England.
>>
>>The ECB had very little to do with any of these machinations. That you
>>insist on promoting the idea that the ECB were seriously active in
>>excluding Ireland merely reflects your prejudice about England. The
>>people you should be blaming are Indian TV and CA/NZC.
>If you assumed a little less about my prejudices towards England and
>Ireland and a wee bit more about my insight of Irish cricket, I might
>almost believe you, but you don't, so I won't.
I took my cue from your writing the following: "This is the murder of
Irish cricket, and it hangs heavy on ECB. What a cosy bunch, poach the
players, and then scrap the team so you can poach more."
Forgive me for thinking that this implied that you were blaming the
ECB. Since you say you weren't, I'd be interested to know what you'd
say if the ECB were really to blame.
Cheers,
Mike
--
max.it
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
This must be the 'couch', I'll give it a whirl for free.
It all started when ECB screwed up ACUS, and some other odd issues
concerning the migration process between associations, and not to
mention even more odder issues leading up to the great migration of
umpirial power from ACUS to ECB membership and quals recogitions -.
I spent years getting to GL4 level and almost as soon as I do, ECB
coup the ACUS and scrapped the heap. I'm still not cleared to umpire
in England despite being qualified to umpire any type of game at any
level (if selected)
Do you mind if I smoke? ECB is all about arses and elbows. I know
from experience. I even have the little 3 lions enamel pin badge to
prove it.
max.it
<mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
That was a quote can't remember from where. Cricket europe dot net or
com carries all the articles I quoted from.
The lack of transparency regarding the 'death of the spirit' meeting,
and the subsequent 'no further comment' from ICC, justifies such
speculation. Indeed generates such speculation.
I'm off now on bull terrier duties.
>Cheers,
>
>Mike
>--