PDA

View Full Version : Pre-qualifier Proposal for WC2011 by India was Rejected!


Murad
March 14, 2008, 04:10 PM
Associates' World Cup plans scuppered
Martin Williamson
March 14, 2008

India were the driving force behind the initial proposal to cut the number of Associates at the tournament from six to four and a restructuring of the competition format, a move ostensibly to counter criticism that the 2007 event was too bloated. But this was strongly opposed by leading Associates who argued that it was against the ICC policy of spreading the game globally.

Seven alternative proposals were put forward and this was narrowed down to two - the publicised 14-team format and an alternative tabled by the Associates which was a 16-team format. The latter would have meant that the six leading associates plus Bangladesh and Zimbabwe would have played in a first-round qualifier before the tournament proper, with the top four progressing into a 12-team event. That would, so they argued, have led to a more meaningful cricket for the Associates as well as a shorter and more competitive World Cup.

The plan was well received by a few Full Members, but when it came to a vote the proposal was rejected. It is believed that the Indian representatives lobbied hard to have anything other than the 14-team plan put forward by the BCCI turned down.

It is now expected that the 14-team format will be rubber stamped when the ICC board meets in Dubai next weekend.


© Cricinfo (http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/342463.html)

Shalar BCCI trying every possible way to be in the Super8 in 2011 WC. Money []
Its good that ICC and the other Test playing nations rejected it. Otherwise ki je hoto..

BANFAN
March 14, 2008, 04:21 PM
Koyla dhuile moyla jaye na. Indian der character o kokhono poriboton hobe na. Power hate ashle fingering kora is the old habit of all this subcontinental people, ind and pak are at the top of it.

So long Aus/Eng/WI were powerful, they were not exerting it nakedly to their benefit, like india is trying to.
Whatever, no use talking about it, but thanks fo the good news. Hope we lift our game soon and can get out of this sorts of manipulative situations.

akabir77
March 14, 2008, 04:27 PM
I say Pass the proposal and
Rank by the last WC (just like in U19)
all problem solved...

Now see who plays the assos

Spitfire_x86
March 14, 2008, 05:22 PM
I don't know how does a 14 team tournament make sense, if the intention is to cut out the bloat. 2003 WC's format was even worse than 2007's format. Under that format, a team like Bermuda will get 6 games instead of 3.

sandpiper
March 14, 2008, 05:40 PM
But they are too arrogant to SEE that point. Their logic is simple

# We reached final in 2003, so that was a great format
# We got an early kick in 2007, there must be something wrong in the format and number of teams.

:D:D:D
I don't know how does a 14 team tournament makes sense, if the intention is to cut out the bloat. 2003 WC's format was even worse than 2007's format. Under that format, a team like Bermuda will get 6 games instead of 3.

DJ Sahastra
March 14, 2008, 07:31 PM
With due apologies to many a Bangla fans, i (and many cricket fans) firmly believe that more than 2 associate countries in the main round is one too many. Cricket cannot be propogated by seeing a country like a Bermuda being clobbered into record-breaking wins.

I would say 12 countries is actually way more than enough. The only change i would recommend is to have 10 + 2 (2 qualifiers from the preliminary round) instead of 8 + 4, which is not bad either.

Fazal
March 14, 2008, 07:35 PM
Instead of 8 + 4, which is not bad either.


DJ

Tomar mathaye Kathal bhangbo.

DJ Sahastra
March 14, 2008, 07:46 PM
DJ

Tomar mathaye Kathal bhangbo.

Fazal Mamu,

6+6 is also fine by me (First 6 qualify automatically and remaining 4 contest with other associate members in the preliminary round for the remaining 6 slots) and so is 4 + 8 (First 4 qualify automatically and remaining 6 contest with other associate members in the preliminary round for the remaining 8 slots).

My concern is - World Cup should not go so long as to become dull and dreary to the point that no one cares. Prelimnary round should get rid of teams that aren't upto the mark yet.

tanim3960
March 14, 2008, 08:37 PM
indian der lez base barse .........
kate fela dorkar

Spitfire_x86
March 14, 2008, 08:48 PM
DJ, why would there be "automatic qualification"? Doesn't the test teams already qualify automatically for World Cup?

To shorten the world cup, cricket should just follow the Football World Cup's format. Football World Cup gets finished within a month, even though 32 teams participate in the tournament.

98's champion France failed to get past 1st round in 2002 WC, but I don't think anybody wanted to change the format because of that.

The format of 2007 WC was fine, just replace the bloated super with knockout. France failed to qualify for 2nd round in 2002 because they didn't score a single goal in the 1st round. India won less number of matches than Srilanka (3) and Bangladesh (2) in 2007 WC, so they failed to qualify for super 8. BCCI should accept that gracefully and stop scheming for 100% guaranteed 2nd round qualification.

DJ Sahastra
March 14, 2008, 09:14 PM
Spitfire,

Football has a couple of dozen or more quality teams - so 32 teams playing is no big deal. How many times did you see teams win 20-0 or 30-0? How many matches during football world cup did you see stadium less than half full and public yawning to sleep?

The problem isn't as much about only number of games or the length of the tournament as the quality of matches between a Test team and an associate (discounting exceptions) member.

How beneficial do you think a single knockout match will be for an associate team? Ireland played throughtout the Super-6 - in what way did it promote the game in that country?

How would it be any less beneficial if associate countries get to play preliminary league (and many more games) than a single knockout match (in all probability). And wouldn't it be a better test of quality and character if they manage to qualify that way?

I think ICC is more worried by knockout matches than any particular board, cos World-Cup is ICC's revenye machine. Knockout matches are fine by me. The only reason they don't have knockout matches is to ensure that one bad games doesn't result in a quality team getting thrown off - and is especially important when you only have like 10 quality teams.

Murad
March 15, 2008, 12:26 AM
I wonder what will happen when Sharad Pawar takes up the HOT SEAT?

He will just ruin the cricket.

mshakir56
March 15, 2008, 12:56 AM
DJ Shastra,

We are talking about "World Cup", here ! We are not talking about Champions Trophy ! In champions Trophy you can have the top 10 teams, top 8 teams or the top 4 teams playing. Whichever suits your taste. In this years Champions Trophy Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are being left out ! Does that make you feel better !

Now Getting back to "World cup" ! I hope you understand what "World Cup" means ! World Cup doesn't mean test palying nations, nor elite nations, nor money making nations. World Cup stands Many nations, and not handful of nations. Now there are many associate cricket playing nations in the world, we are not asking all of them to play ! We are only asking the top 4 associate teams to play ! Now is that too much of a ask ?

World Cup is the only place where associate teams get a chance to play against stronger oppositions ! Now for the sake of Crickets global presence, we shouldn't deprive the Associates of world Cup matches.

mshakir56
March 15, 2008, 12:58 AM
I wonder what will happen when Sharad Pawar takes up the HOT SEAT?

He will just ruin the cricket.

If Sharad Pawar takes up the Hot Seat,
he would turn the ICC into = Indian Cricket Control ! :floor:

desirocker
March 15, 2008, 01:16 AM
Shalar aabal indian er dol, shalare ekhon vabe ora #1.... Hope BD kick their as$ again next time we face them... Oh Almighty Allah, Please Help Us.

Rabz
March 15, 2008, 02:04 AM
Shalar aabal indian er dol, shalare ekhon vabe ora #1.... Hope BD kick their as$ again next time we face them... Oh Almighty Allah, Please Help Us.

Mate, lets try saving our own a$s against Irish first, then talk about kicking somebody else's a$s.

It would be a sad day for cricket when mr.pawar gets the power to ruin everything.

billah
March 15, 2008, 02:11 AM
I don't even know why India is concerned about a "bloated" WC. India's last world cup was short. Actually, very, very,very, very short. So short, that it could only be called briefs, not shorts. We helped them a great deal to go home quickly.

For the next time, they can COUNT on us.

auntu
March 15, 2008, 02:15 AM
Shalar aabal indian er dol, shalare ekhon vabe ora #1.... Hope BD kick their as$ again next time we face them... Oh Almighty Allah, Please Help Us.

eta to oder matburir shuru...

r o ashtase. That power jokhon top seat e boshbe tokhon to chorki nachon dekha be...

Kamnew
March 15, 2008, 02:21 AM
mamu

kalpurush
March 15, 2008, 02:33 AM
mamu
আজ্ঞে মামীজান?!E-)

Tintin
March 15, 2008, 02:38 AM
World Cup is the only place where associate teams get a chance to play against stronger oppositions ! Now for the sake of Crickets global presence, we shouldn't deprive the Associates of world Cup matches.With the 16 team format, the 6 associate teams with play against each other and Zim and Bangladesh. Assuming that BD and Zim will qualify, two of the Associates will move to the next round and play five matches each against the ten major teams.

In the 14 team format used in 2003, *four* associate teams will play five matches each against the ten major teams.

Are you sure that there is more of a chance in the 16 team format for the associates to play against stronger oppositions than in the 14 ?

PS : The assumption is that in the 14 team format, they will be divided into groups of seven as in 2003 and in the 16 team format, 12 teams will be divided into two groups of six.

DJ Sahastra
March 15, 2008, 11:45 AM
DJ Shastra,

We are talking about "World Cup", here ! We are not talking about Champions Trophy ! In champions Trophy you can have the top 10 teams, top 8 teams or the top 4 teams playing. Whichever suits your taste. In this years Champions Trophy Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are being left out ! Does that make you feel better !

Now Getting back to "World cup" ! I hope you understand what "World Cup" means ! World Cup doesn't mean test palying nations, nor elite nations, nor money making nations. World Cup stands Many nations, and not handful of nations. Now there are many associate cricket playing nations in the world, we are not asking all of them to play ! We are only asking the top 4 associate teams to play ! Now is that too much of a ask ?

World Cup is the only place where associate teams get a chance to play against stronger oppositions ! Now for the sake of Crickets global presence, we shouldn't deprive the Associates of world Cup matches.

Shakir,

It is the other way round. I am all for ALL associate nations to play in the Champions trophy - with direct knockout matches in each round until the eventual winner.

Let Champions trophy be the chance for all associates to get to play in he big league and knock some big names off.

Asking for 4 associate ntions to play in the world cup - is not too much to ask. Asking for 20 matches (4 teams each play against 5 major nations) between associate members and major teams - Indeed too much to ask.

In that case, they might as well have direct knockout matches - which is more exciting but has more chances of a farce.

People keep talking about India being scared of knockout or the last WC loss to BD. BD is a major Test playing nation and is supposed to win matches against any other Test playing nation. These format changes have nothing to do with trying to preserve any team or favor any changes. It is purely logistical and common-sense based.

mshakir56
March 15, 2008, 12:27 PM
Shakir,

It is the other way round. I am all for ALL associate nations to play in the Champions trophy - with direct knockout matches in each round until the eventual winner.

Let Champions trophy be the chance for all associates to get to play in he big league and knock some big names off.
.

You are really funny Sahastra !:floor:

The reason I say this is because, you want the associate nations to participate in the Champions Trophy ! Well my Friend the reality is different ! In Champions Trophy, they are not even allowing Bangladesh and Zimbabwe to participate ! I hope you read the news about the fact that BCCI and PCB decided to drop Bangladesh and Zimbabwe out of this years Champions Trophy ! And this Trend is not likely to change in the near future!

You on the other hand want to give Associate side chances in the Champions trophy, where even Test Playing nations are being left out ! Do me a favor and remove Sharad Pawar from the helm of BCCI, and only then your dream will come true. Now instead of turning the Champions Trophy into a world Cup, we should concentrate on making the World Cup, feel and look like a world cup, and not like a Champions Trophy, where Elite nations should play !

thebest
March 15, 2008, 12:35 PM
I am all in favour of pre-qualifier. Lets those team play in pre-qualifier who did not qualify in the Super8 of WC or 20/20 i.e. All associates, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, India and West Indies. There would be less match if only 8 team play.

DJ Sahastra
March 15, 2008, 12:52 PM
I am all in favour of pre-qualifier. Lets those team play in pre-qualifier who did not qualify in the Super8 of WC or 20/20 i.e. All associates, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, India and West Indies. There would be less match if only 8 team play.

Only 8 teams in the main round is fine too - a good idea. They can take 6 automatically qualified based on the previous world-cup and the remaining 2 places to be filled through qualifiers.

IMO, it's fair enough.It will increase the interest in pre-qualifiers as there will be fierce competition for the two places at stake.

DJ Sahastra
March 15, 2008, 04:22 PM
Coming back t the original topic, "Pre-qualifier Proposal for WC2011 by India was Rejected! " the second reading suggests that:

1. What was rejected was the proposal NOT by the BCCI but by the associate members and involved having 6 associate members to compete with Zimbabwe and Bangladesh for a preliminary round of 8 teams with 4 to qualify.

2. BCCI's proposal was for a 14-member (4 associates instead of 6) and seems to be the one that will get passed at the ICC meeting.

3. BCCI lobbied hard to get the first proposal rejected - the one whose rejection is being rejoiced in this thread and BCCI criminalized.

I think the original poster as also those who jumped the bandwagon at criticising BCCI for the proposal and rejoicing it's rejection owe an apology to BCCI because it seems BCCI was the one that lobbied hard to get the proposal rejected. I hope they will not sheepily hide behind the walls.

sandpiper
March 15, 2008, 04:30 PM
What is the source of this information ? :rolleyes: :umm:

3. BCCI lobbied hard to get the first proposal rejected - the one whose rejection is being rejoiced in this thread and BCCI criminalized.

I think the original poster as also those who jumped the bandwagon at criticising BCCI for the proposal and rejoicing it's rejection owe an apology to BCCI because it seems BCCI was the one that lobbied hard to get the proposal rejected. I hope they will not sheepily hide behind the walls.

DJ Sahastra
March 15, 2008, 05:41 PM
What is the source of this information ? :rolleyes: :umm:

The thread starter article itself, specifically,

The plan was well received by a few Full Members, but when it came to a vote the proposal was rejected. It is believed that the Indian representatives lobbied hard to have anything other than the 14-team plan put forward by the BCCI turned down.

The plan here is the original 16-member pre-qualifier proposal (BD + Zimbabwe + 6 associates to fight in pre-qualifier) whose rejection the thread originator so gleefully rejoiced while cursing BCCI :)

Murad
March 15, 2008, 06:10 PM
The thread starter article itself, specifically,

The plan here is the original 16-member pre-qualifier proposal (BD + Zimbabwe + 6 associates to fight in pre-qualifier) whose rejection the thread originator so gleefully rejoiced while cursing BCCI :)

Who made the plan? And who rejected it? The article clearly states that.

BCCI made the plan. ANd it was rejected by other countires. Other countries liked it but rejected it cuz it won't be good for the cricket. But BCCI only thinks of money not cricket globalization.

So who is the culprit here? BCCI or the ones who rejected it?

For their own good they want to reduce us and the associates. They don't wanna leave early. If they were so brave then they wouldn't even talk about the format changes.


It is believed that the Indian representatives lobbied hard to have anything other than the 14-team plan

Read this sentence very carefully my friend. You will get the picture.

DJ Sahastra
March 15, 2008, 06:31 PM
MuradNYC,

"It is believed that the Indian representatives lobbied hard to have anything other than the 14-team plan put forward by the BCCI turned down."

Means
a) Indian representatives lobbied hard
b) to make sure that any proposal
c) other than the 14-member proposal that BCCI proposed
d) is rejected

is the exact opposite of

"It is believed that the Indian representatives lobbied hard to have anything other than the 14-team plan"

I am sure someone here will be able to tell you he difference cos the two statements mean the exact opposite of each other.

What you quoted partially means "BCCI wanted anything other than the 14-team plan".

What the actual and complete sentence i posted above means "BCCI wanted any proposal other than the 14-member proposal to be turned down". in essence, BCCI is doing what you want - 14 member proposal whereas the proposal that was turnd down was a 16-member proposal proposed by asociate members and supported by a few major members.

It is ironic in many ways. Cos if i undrstand you right (you wanting the 14-member proposal), then BCCI did exactly your bidding. And you end up cursing and abusing it :).

Who said the world was fair.

Btw, you can have other members validate my inference from your article, in case you still have confusion.

BANFAN
March 16, 2008, 05:58 AM
The last part of the sentence had to do a lot with the meaning of the sentense. That was probably a "Slip of Mouse" in copy/paste. Well, criticism of BCCI is not only on this issue, it includes many. However we can thank BCCI on this issue.

Thanks for the digging DJ.

Sovik
March 19, 2008, 12:51 PM
Quarter-finals return at 2011 World Cup (http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/343196.html)

al Furqaan
March 19, 2008, 01:41 PM
Shakir,

It is the other way round. I am all for ALL associate nations to play in the Champions trophy - with direct knockout matches in each round until the eventual winner.

Let Champions trophy be the chance for all associates to get to play in he big league and knock some big names off.

Asking for 4 associate ntions to play in the world cup - is not too much to ask. Asking for 20 matches (4 teams each play against 5 major nations) between associate members and major teams - Indeed too much to ask.

In that case, they might as well have direct knockout matches - which is more exciting but has more chances of a farce.

People keep talking about India being scared of knockout or the last WC loss to BD. BD is a major Test playing nation and is supposed to win matches against any other Test playing nation. These format changes have nothing to do with trying to preserve any team or favor any changes. It is purely logistical and common-sense based.

the champions trophy is such a short, uneventful, and meaningless tourney that including or leaving out associates is purely arbitrary, IMO.

however, the world cup should have at least 4 minnows. in this sense, i kinda support a 14 team tourney over a 16 team one. there is a large gulf between the top 8 sides and bangladesh. another large gulf between bangladesh and zimbabwe (whose batting/bowling woes respectively rather even things out) and the best of the associates like ireland/kenya/scotland. then there is a large gulf between the 15 and 16th ranked associates (bermuda and canada) and the best associates (ireland, et al.)

at the end of the day, 16 teams of 14, it doesn't matter so long as its the real top 16/14 teams in world at the world cup. at least 4 minnows deserve their spot at the WC - which they have to earn.

pre-qualifiers or not, BD will always get into the world cup as they are the 9th ranked side.

KnightBD
March 19, 2008, 02:03 PM
How about this format... Out of top 12 teams, 11 play round robin league and the group leader play with Bangladesh in Final :D

Tintin
March 20, 2008, 03:55 AM
Quarter-finals return at 2011 World Cup (http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/343196.html)

I don't like it. Each group has two associates plus Zimbabwe or Bangladesh. So we know with some certainty about six of the eight teams that will qualify for the quarter final. The contests will be only for one, or in exceptional circumstances two, spots in the groups.

The 2003 was more interesting.

Baundule
March 20, 2008, 04:09 AM
DJ Shastra,

We are talking about "World Cup", here ! We are not talking about Champions Trophy ! In champions Trophy you can have the top 10 teams, top 8 teams or the top 4 teams playing. Whichever suits your taste. In this years Champions Trophy Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are being left out ! Does that make you feel better !

Now Getting back to "World cup" ! I hope you understand what "World Cup" means ! World Cup doesn't mean test palying nations, nor elite nations, nor money making nations. World Cup stands Many nations, and not handful of nations. Now there are many associate cricket playing nations in the world, we are not asking all of them to play ! We are only asking the top 4 associate teams to play ! Now is that too much of a ask ?

World Cup is the only place where associate teams get a chance to play against stronger oppositions ! Now for the sake of Crickets global presence, we shouldn't deprive the Associates of world Cup matches.

well-said.

Kabir
March 20, 2008, 08:25 AM
To shorten the world cup, cricket should just follow the Football World Cup's format. Football World Cup gets finished within a month, even though 32 teams participate in the tournament.

Can't agree. It's really about the length of each match that causes the main pain for cricket. For football, that's not the case. 2/3 hours...max, and the game is over. For cricket, it goes b/w 9 to 10 hours.

zainab
March 20, 2008, 09:44 AM
If four associate teams have to compete to qualify, the likes of Bermuda, Canada, and Uganda do not stand a chance. Ireland, Scotland, Kenya and Namibia will be the four Associate teams going forward, cause I feel that they are the strongest four at the moment.