What Did Everyuone Think Of This World Cup?

[marty344]

Me peronally, I thought the World Cup was very long (it seemed to drag on for an eternity), and a lot of the cricket was quite boring to say the least.

I put some of the poor cricket in the World Cup down to all the lesser teams playing which brought down the quality a notch. Why they have all these teams in the Wold Cup is beyond me. Why not make a tournament before the world cup in whcih all the lesser teams play and the best two teams go throught to the World Cup.

Also i would like to see the top four teams of each group then compete in a super 8 group in which they all play each other. the top four teams then progress to the quater finals. That way the length of the World Cup would still be the same but the quality would be much higher.

I thought the way Australia went about its cricket was very dissapointing. Ponting showed just why he was no longer fit to be captain. I'm interested in seeing how Clarke goes as Captain.

Congratulations to India in winning the World Cup, i felt they were the best team throught the tournament, and Tendulkar finally has that elusive World cup.

What did everyone else think of the World Cup?

 

[Beeswax]

They dominated their quarter and the semi and in the end did it fairly easy in the final. They deserve the endless partying that is ensuing.

I didn't expect a great deal of the Aussies, they don't have a lot of fight in them under pressure these days (quite the opposite) and there appears to be no-one in the team who can inspire anyone else so the World Cup defence was always going to be a step too far.

 

[Shamrock]

Me peronally, I thought the World Cup was very long (it seemed to drag on for an eternity), and a lot of the cricket was quite boring to say the least.

Agreed. Not helped by playing one game a day on most days. at least a week could have been shave with decent scheduling \

I put some of the poor cricket in the World Cup down to all the lesser teams playing which brought down the quality a notch. Why they have all these teams in the Wold Cup is beyond me. Why not make a tournament before the world cup in whcih all the lesser teams play and the best two teams go throught to the World Cup.

Well said. I think that there should be a qualifying tournament too. Some of the test sides got resoundingly thrashed in their games and some of the associate sides were clearly not good enough while Ireland were unlucky not to win 3 games and Holland in patches showed they have potential to raise their game.

Also i would like to see the top four teams of each group then compete in a super 8 group in which they all play each other. the top four teams then progress to the quater finals. That way the length of the World Cup would still be the same but the quality would be much higher.

The problem with that is that it drags the tournament out for ever. I think they have the format close to right but need to have multiple games per day so that it goes quicker

I think the best team won in the end but it is safe to say there was no standout side in the tournament which made it a lot more interesting as a result.

 

[someblokecalleddave]

Me peronally, I thought the World Cup was very long (it seemed to drag on for an eternity), and a lot of the cricket was quite boring to say the least.

I put some of the poor cricket in the World Cup down to all the lesser teams playing which brought down the quality a notch. Why they have all these teams in the Wold Cup is beyond me. Why not make a tournament before the world cup in whcih all the lesser teams play and the best two teams go throught to the World Cup.

Also i would like to see the top four teams of each group then compete in a super 8 group in which they all play each other. the top four teams then progress to the quater finals. That way the length of the World Cup would still be the same but the quality would be much higher.

I thought the way Australia went about its cricket was very dissapointing. Ponting showed just why he was no longer fit to be captain. I'm interested in seeing how Clarke goes as Captain.

Congratulations to India in winning the World Cup, i felt they were the best team throught the tournament, and Tendulkar finally has that elusive World cup.

What did everyone else think of the World Cup?

I thought it was brilliant, so many teams bringing out their spin bowlers and the chance to see spinners in action. It's good to see some of the more obscure teams with spinners, the big Canadian bloke was a revelation and he's now consigned to obscurity because of the new ideas around less of the 'Minnow teams'. How much more will we see of Ray Price and Graeme Cremer - will Zimbabwe be in the next world cup? It was a definite treat for afficianados of spin.

 

[someblokecalleddave]

Agreed. Not helped by playing one game a day on most days. at least a week could have been shave with decent scheduling \




Well said. I think that there should be a qualifying tournament too. Some of the test sides got resoundingly thrashed in their games and some of the associate sides were clearly not good enough while Ireland were unlucky not to win 3 games and Holland in patches showed they have potential to raise their game.



The problem with that is that it drags the tournament out for ever. I think they have the format close to right but need to have multiple games per day so that it goes quicker

I think the best team won in the end but it is safe to say there was no standout side in the tournament which made it a lot more interesting as a result.

Maybe you should go back to watching T20 cricket, you'll probably find that more edifying? In fact you'll have a treat in a few years time if you believe the things that Bob Woolmer predicted in his last book. Smaller boundaries, shorter pitches and a 10 over format maybe? Far more exciting - fast and furious?

 

[Richard the Third]

Agreed. Not helped by playing one game a day on most days. at least a week could have been shave with decent scheduling

The problem being that television companies want to be able to show the maximum number of games for the maximum amount of time.

 

[Gideon's Hay]

I'm energised about 50 over cricket, it's blackjack. But the drawn out process... agony. Just as Australian's started caring, game over!

 

[Shamrock]

Maybe you should go back to watching T20 cricket, you'll probably find that more edifying? In fact you'll have a treat in a few years time if you believe the things that Bob Woolmer predicted in his last book. Smaller boundaries, shorter pitches and a 10 over format maybe? Far more exciting - fast and furious?

Eh what? Clearly you either didn't read or couldn't understand my post. I never had a go at the 50 over format. How about you get your eyesight checked or learn to read properly....

The problem with the world cup was the number of days it took to play, not the lenght of the games. I clearly said that the problem was playing one game a day and nowhere did I even suggest that the sh!ts and giggles that is T20 is a more worthwhile pursuit. Although thanks to the wonderful WORLD governing body that's all I am left with now as an Irish fan....

 

[Boris]

I loved this World Cup. A lot of it probably came from my low expectations from it.

The subcontinent pitches and grounds usually end up with boring very loud (too much atmosphere) and one sided affairs, but that didn't happen as it usually does. It was great seeing the minnows out there again. I don't care that they were flogged most of the time, it's good just seeing some of the players they have that would be classed as much better if they were born in another country. Ryan ten Doeschates for example. It is a WORLD Cup (second largest sporting event the world currently has, even bigger than the Olympics) and without the minnows it really does make it a glorified Champions Trophy.

As for the length, there's really no other way to do it than cut down the teams. The ICC is doing that for the next World Cup in Australasia so I would expect there to be a couple of weeks cut off that one.

You can't play multiple games closer together for the pure reason of the players themselves. 50 over cricket isn't like any other sport. Players suffer from cramps and other types of exhaustion more and more nowadays because they push themselves so very hard over the space of 50 overs. In Test matches you can sit back a bit, hang out in the slips or in the outfield, or spend an entire day in the dressing room. In T20s you can go full out the whole time and not have any worry because you've only got to play a maximum of 40 overs. With ODIs there is 100 overs of cricket and due to the speed and ferocity that today's game is played at, with 300 being a completely acceptable score now and fielding far beyond anybody's expectation, you have to push yourself for that whole period. Just playing club games myself I can say it is harder to play 40 over cricket than two day cricket.

Players need that time to recover because without it they would be dropping like flies. The body simply cannot recover from a battering like that within a couple of days. What if somebody plays a game like Watson did in the first ODI against England last summer? He faced first and last ball of the entire 50 overs, ran about 60 runs physically, bowled 8 overs and fielded for the rest of it.

The only downside to it was that it was an entirely one sided affair as far as regions go. It was played on the sub-continent and expectadly the strongest teams were India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. It was really only luck that got England where they were, they didn't have a good competition at all.

 

[Ljp86]

I thought it was okay. Still too long though, there should have been a few more sides and smaller groups so the first stage of the tournament can get through a lot quicker.