What's new

The absence of minnows in this World Cup

Cricket lover 27

Tape Ball Captain
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Runs
1,022
The ICC restricted this World Cup to a 10 team tournament effectively removing minnows out of the equation. The decision partly was about the revenue and to an extent to remove one sided games.

As a result of this do you agree the quality of Cricket improved in this World Cup?

The number of one sided games were reduced. The only extremely one sided game I can remember in this World Cup was Pakistan vs West Indies where the latter completely demolished the former.

Even the supposedly minnows like Afghanistan gave a run for their money to India and Pakistan.

So, I for one do agree that the quality of Cricket improved.

But, is it really the world in this World Cup if there are only 10 teams?

Discuss.
 
Afghanistan were actually minnows despite their close encounters with India and Pakistan. They were completely crushed almost every game. Look at how they fared against the other 7 teams.
Nonetheless, there should've been 12 teams in this WC imo with Zimbabwe and Ireland added to the WC.
 
Afghanistan were actually minnows despite their close encounters with India and Pakistan. They were completely crushed almost every game. Look at how they fared against the other 7 teams.
Nonetheless, there should've been 12 teams in this WC imo with Zimbabwe and Ireland added to the WC.

That’s what I am saying that they are minnows but they provided great entertainment henceforth other minnows can too if added.
 
Best format for the World Cup is 12 teams - 2 groups of 6 with the Top 4 proceeding from each group. QFs, SFs and then finals.
 
Bangladesh are not minnows any more.I was expecting WI to perform better than they did.Afghanistan were hyped too much .they don't have the experience to beat good teams.
 
Only Afghanistan is a minnow from this list. Else if the other three teams are Pakistan is too. We came into the World Cup with a 13 match losing streak.

Pak are miles ahead of Sri lanka and Bd.
It's blasphemy if you put these three teams in the same category.
 
12 teams, two groups of six with the top two qualifiying for the SFs would be my preferred option.
 
12 teams, two groups of six with the top two qualifiying for the SFs would be my preferred option.

Too bad there aren’t more teams taking cricket seriously. I would love it if there was a WC consisting of 16 teams, 4 groups with 4 teams each, and 2 from every group going through to the Quarter Finals.

This WC has a very short knockout stage with only 3 matches( 2 SF’s, 1 Final ).
 
Too bad there aren’t more teams taking cricket seriously. I would love it if there was a WC consisting of 16 teams, 4 groups with 4 teams each, and 2 from every group going through to the Quarter Finals.

This WC has a very short knockout stage with only 3 matches( 2 SF’s, 1 Final ).

The only way cricket can grow is if t20i becomes the primary format.
Odis and tests are too long for most people.
 
The only way cricket can grow is if t20i becomes the primary format.
Odis and tests are too long for most people.

It’s almost inevitable that T20I will become the primary format. Too bad for cricket enthusiasts like me who love Tests and ODIs but hate T20 cricket.
 
This was an excellent format, it was just too long by 2 weeks. All the games had no certainty in result, whereas when teams played Scot, Uae etc, it was a waste time watching
 
Back
Top