QUESTION - Is the gap between the best four teams at this WC and the other full members bigger or smaller than gap between full members and associates?

What do you folks think

This is the most important question, concerned after the quater-finals of the ongoing World Cup. The four teams to qualify for semis ans no doubt the best in the world as per limited overs are concerned. But looking at the other six I feel pity over their approach towards the game. Its difficult to say that whether the quick approach or the over thinking approach is ruining the game but overall something is going wrong.

Once steered champion is like a naive in the game, with big names are only names(Chris Gyle). Same is with Pakistan. Despite some effort from Misbah and few members the team is like carrying the loads of bad selection. English team has forgotten the approach of the game.
I differ a bit if we place Sri Lanka. Their lose in the last 8 was just a bad day for them. But again all other are just a name created by their Greats.

I am pretty much impressed with the approach of Bangla Desh and Ireland. They are playing some quality cricket but some times are unable to click as a team. Individually their players are of a level that can be recognized t the top.

If associates started clicking together as a whole, they will also challenge the superiority of top teams.

Yes. The ICC should take note and reduce the next World Cup to four teams who play each other multiple times over two months before semi finals and the final.

That would surely make the World Cup so much better, fit in with David Richardson's strategy, and not be at all boring and long-winded.

Bit of a vague question. The gap between Aus and say the West Indies or England is undoubtedly bigger than the gap between the latter two and say Ireland. On the other hand the gap between India and Sri Lanka is certainly less than that between say Pakistan and most associates apart from Ireland and Afghanistan (of which there are 94).

This tournament has overall made a mockery of the "competitive" reasoning for reducing the next world cup. The next tournament's proposed format makes a mockery of the "we need games that matter" reasoning. Of course we all know that $$ rule, and the given reasons are removed from reality (I refer you to a meeting of the ICC where the chairman of a board went as far as to say "we bring in xxxx, why on earth should Ireland be allowed the same chance to qualify for the quarter-finals as us?"; oh and I also refer you to the spat over who got to present the trophy this time around).

It is clear that a 10-team world cup for which the qualifying process is manifestly unfair is a nonsense. Hopefully that will be changed soon.

What is really needed is a shift in the mentality of those watching and marketing the game. I cannot believe that matches such as UAE vs Ire or Scot vs Afg wouldn't be attractive to fans around the world.

What is also needed (but won't happen) is a complete change in the way cricket is governed, and an end to this nonsense of "status" (a hang-up from the old imperial days as a means of separating the haves from the have-nots). There is no reason why when Nepal play Hong-Kong in a 50 over match with PP, etc. that match is not called an ODI. There is no reason why should France wish to play Germany in a 5-day match that match shouldn't be considered a test match. Conversely, there is no reason why the West Indies say should have to play test cricket at all. If all they want to do is play T20 and 50 over stuff then why not?

I'm not sure ODI cricket has ever had more than 4-5 good teams for any length of time. Aus and SA are generally there, then maybe NZ and a subcontinental or two. Only eleven serious ODI teams, rare to find more than four doing anything half decent.

On a separate note, I'd be disappointed if Windies simply gave up on Test cricket. More so because they aren't particularly blessed in the two shorter formats. I mean they are ranked seven or so in T20 and ODI. Think it's time people accept that the Windies are bad because they are bad. It's not disinterest, or bad management (although both may have a role), they are just gawdawful as a cricketing team. You don't open with Dwayne Smith (average 18) because you have untapped talent.

ask yourself the question...give Eng 7 games in a do or die round robin format vs non-minnow sides.....and what will be the prognosis....i predict atleast 2 to a possibly 4 and most likely 3 wins
ditto WI

the gap is far closer........then exhibited by the flawed world cup format

KP_fan wrote:ask yourself the question...give Eng 7 games in a do or die round robin format vs non-minnow sides.....and what will be the prognosis....i predict atleast 2 to a possibly 4 and most likely 3 wins
ditto WI

the gap is far closer........then exhibited by the flawed world cup format

I would back England to win precisely zero of those in Aus/NZ conditions, as shown in this World Cup where we got nowhere near to even making Aus/NZ/SL break a sweat and were well beaten by Bangladesh

Teams change...get better , get worse...Gaps can open and close.

Whatever : I totally agree the idea of reducing the format to a ten team round robin taking up just the same time is daft.  The logical system is surely sixteen team's , four groups ... Even if the usual suspects - or most of them - come through to the knockouts , there will be plenty of entertaining matches on the way .  This time round you'd be hard pressed to nominate many better contests than Afghanistan v Scotland.  And with only two from each group progressing the seedings might be interesting ; if they were based partly on previous Cups and partly on rankings over a set period between them it would also give a bit more meaning to random ODIs perhaps.  Maybe in this instance cricket could learn from football ?
Still time to have a rethink on 2019.  I'm not holding my breath for a radical change but I don't think it is quite set in stone yet.

alfie wrote:Teams change...get better , get worse...Gaps can open and close.

Whatever : I totally agree the idea of reducing the format to a ten team round robin taking up just the same time is daft.  The logical system is surely sixteen team's , four groups ... Even if the usual suspects - or most of them - come through to the knockouts , there will be plenty of entertaining matches on the way .  This time round you'd be hard pressed to nominate many better contests than Afghanistan v Scotland.  And with only two from each group progressing the seedings might be interesting ; if they were based partly on previous Cups and partly on rankings over a set period between them it would also give a bit more meaning to random ODIs perhaps.  Maybe in this instance cricket could learn from football ?
Still time to have a rethink on 2019.  I'm not holding my breath for a radical change but I don't think it is quite set in stone yet.

There are few things Fifa do well, but one of them certainly is the globalisation of the game, definitely the ICC should take note and learn from them.

Rugby Union is, I think, an even better example to cricket as its a sport that given the nature of it means shock results are very unlikely, much like cricket.

At a push you would say there are 12 competitive teams in RU, but probably closer to 7 or 8 at the moment.

But they still manage to have a WC featuring 20 teams, with such a structure that one of England, Wales, Aus will not make the quarter-finals.

Rugby is IMO a more apt comparison because the number of teams are similar (120 vs 106 for cricket, whereas football is closer to 200), the number of competitive teams and indeed the countries involved (with the notable exception of France) are similar. Yet Rugby is growing their world cup to 24 teams, and the next WC is scheduled to be in Japan.

Cricket by contrast...

Rugby teams likely to win the world cup

SA
NZ
Aus
Eng
Ireland
Wales
and at a push with a bit of luck, Argentina.

That means that there are almost always three 50-50 quarter finals, or two 50-50 QFs and a crazy group.

Cricket teams likely to win the world cup (going by the prediction game)
Aus
NZ
SA
India

Rugby also doesn't have a one billion population which can threaten to take their toys and go home.