Why I fell out of love with the World Cup

[TheSultan]

The last great World Cup was 1999 for atmosphere. You had to be at the games to experience it.

Low totals, bowlers always in it. Fantastic battle.

2003, not bad, but pitches started to get flatter and flatter.

2007 was ridiculously poor

2011 was a lot of political agreements

2015 - for a World Cup in Australia, surprisingly poor.

2019, good World Cup overall, but the atmosphere wasn’t there. I went to a couple of matches, decent but not like 1999z

 

[Technics 1210]

Kohli would score tons then too, Many Pakistani batsmen (and Indian Too) wouldnt.

Kohli is known to find gaps , if anything that would amplify his stature if that had happened in his playing days.

The point I am making is that with stroke playing bats, the batsman would need exquisite timing, and near perfection technique. Hence why ODI centuries from 80s and 90s are valued more (plus when you factor 1 ODI ball). Sixes in the 80s/90s were a rare treat for this reason.

Today, an ODI century has become common place and does not hold the same value as it did in the 80s/90s, hence why we are seeing more valuable double centuries in ODIs of late. 6s are now common, and Strike Rate has superseded ODI averages - all thanks to heavier/bigger bats.

 

[topspin]

The point I am making is that with stroke playing bats, the batsman would need exquisite timing, and near perfection technique. Hence why ODI centuries from 80s and 90s are valued more (plus when you factor 1 ODI ball). Sixes in the 80s/90s were a rare treat for this reason.

Today, an ODI century has become common place and does not hold the same value as it did in the 80s/90s, hence why we are seeing more valuable double centuries in ODIs of late. 6s are now common, and Strike Rate has superseded ODI averages - all thanks to heavier/bigger bats.

Sorry but in which ODI era did averages exceed strike rates?

 

[Firebat]

Sorry but in which ODI era did averages exceed strike rates?

"Supersede" ≠ "exceed"

 

[saqib.rai]

Not sure I agree.

Football WC is just unique given it is the most popular sport in the world, and over 100 teams have to qualify for the WC, so makes sense to hold it every 4 years given the sheer logistics, and the crammed schedule of regional and continental tournament, including the Euros, so even with Football there is a major event every 2 years at least, not forgetting the UCL which is held every year.

Tennis has its 4 grand slams every year too, along with Snooker World championship every year.

Year on year sports like Tennis, Football, and Snooker garner the same level of interest compared to previous years, if not more, but these sports do not have the pyjama equivalent of cricket, franchise cricket.

The problem is not ICC events each year, the problem is the over exposure of franchise cricket.

I think there should be a major ICC tournament every year, for one, Cricket is unique in that we have 3 different formats; two, regardless of what one thinks of franchise cricket, ICC tournaments hold more weight.

ICC have nailed the 4 year calendar cycle IMO - ODI WC, T20 WC, Champions Trophy, ODI/T20 WC.

Personally I prefer ICC events with Bilaterals cycle over an over exposed and saturated annual Franchise Cricket cycle.

Point taken.
However, think of the whole scenario as someone who lives in Banglore and is Indian.

For him, RCB winning is just as important as India winning. Because IPL has created a great sense of competition UNLIKE us who have said, Whoever wins doesn't matter, all are PAKISTANI teams. (Something that has greatly hampered PSL revenue potential)

I support Islamabad as I was born and raised there but many of my Islamabad friends support other teams. And so that support wouldn't be as strong as when you have some association with the team.

Then India has realistic chance of reaching the WTC final every year UNLIKE us who had an unfair advantage last time with the most easiest schedule (playing the 3 weak team away and the 3 strong teams at home) but still managed to finish only above West Indies and Bangladesh.

So an Indian fan would be on the edge of his seat during the test matches India play.

ICC event every year, around 9 test matches every year, IPL for 2 months. Isn't this a bit too much cricket for anyone to follow throughout?

And then we are complaining why Indian crowds don't show up to matches.

So now what's the solution?
You can't realistically ban franchise cricket with so much finances involved, WTC gives relevance to test cricket so should be there.

The solution is to cut down on ICC events from 4 to 2 in every four year cycle. So that people watch ICC events with all the interest in the world. Even if it has one-sided matches like this time around.

 

[iRfaN_LA]

there needs to be balance between bat and ball, which is missing on these indian pitches. 400 runs are a joke here.

 

[jnaveen1980]

there needs to be balance between bat and ball, which is missing on these indian pitches. 400 runs are a joke here.

how about 83, 90, 55, 195, 199, 168 all out.

 

[kron]

Why ?? Bowlers especially quicks have been brilliant. To be a great bowler in Asia is much harder compared to sena. I for one enjoyed watching top bowlers perform. And no boult outside opening spell where it swings is useless usually. Kind of like our shaheen

 

[Suleiman]

Good WC. Atmosphere batmosphere are all just minor details.

An entertaining WC is competitive. This WC was. India was the only team ahead of everyone but Australia, SA, Pak, SL, Eng, NZ, Afg all had to grind hard to earn their place. Pak, SL, Eng were underwhelming but the former 2 still had some interesting games.

Eng being weaker than everyone made for good viewing too as they always had looked shaky the last 2 years despite having this aura of LOI mastery.

Only BD had the most uninspiring performance, even Netherlands upset SA.

Even now the last spot is up for grabs…

 

[kron]

It's so bloody apparent to eva blind man

I've thoroughly enjoyed the WC so far.

Me too. I am loving it. Ideally if we make top 4it would be great.

Bowling has been phenomenal. Only top skilful bowlers have performed.

Loom at SA. Rabada has been a monster. India with shami bumrah. Coetze has been good.
Cummins is picking up form.
Henry has been good.

Only one dimensional bowlers have struggled.

 

[pratiktc]

There's really just a lot of nostalgia peddling going around here. Remember back in the day when all the bowlers were 5x better and the batters had moustaches and 10x the technique and hit sixes on 120m boundaries with toothpick bats.

What people see in their youth automatically tends to influence their tastes, but reality is cricket has only evolved to be better with time. In 80s and 90s ODI teams would regularly go in with 4 bowlers and back part timers to get through 10 overs. Overall fielding levels were average and rarely were captains put under pressure by batting tactics.

If anything cricket is at its most competitive today. The qualifier to world cup was among most hotly contested tournaments ever with Zim, Scot, Ned all showing their class. Ned vs WI is one of the chases for the ages.

We have seen in this WC, Afg has not upset but tactically out thought and executed their plans brilliantly vs multiple teams. Ned has put teams under pressure.

The only thing that should change is ICC stupid 10 team format which drags tournament out too long. World cups should be like football WC including as many teams as possible and teams should not be allowed to lose 4+ matches and still be in the race. It is sad that in 1975 we had 8 team WC and 48 yrs later we have just 10 teams.

Ideally there should be 20 teams in world cup similiar like WT20 2024. Make 4 groups of 5 teams each. The #1 team of each group qualifies for quarterfinals directly and across groups #2 vs #3 cross group matches to determine balance 4 players. Subsequently a quarterfinal knockout with 8 teams to determine winner.
Unfortunately ICC is obsessed with maximizing Ind, Aus, Eng match time and will not jeopardize this

 

[iRfaN_LA]

how about 83, 90, 55, 195, 199, 168 all out.

how is this a balance between ball and bat? it's either a very high score or a very low score. There is NO balance.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Nothing wrong with the pitches.

Having said that, I still disagree with the concept of one bad day and you lose in semi or final after winning every single match of the tournament.

Every match in World Cup is a pressure match, no just semi or finals (especially if you need to perform to qualify).

The top team wins the Bundesliga, Premier League, La Liga, Ligue 1, Serie A, Jupiler Pro, Eliteserien etc by playing 30-40 matches home and away to determine who is the best. (there is not even a final match to decide, its predetermined who ever has played best will top the league).

There is no element of bad day, luck or skill that can make a difference to eventual champions in those tournaments.

Even if you consider the Champions League, you get group matches, quarter finals, semi finals home and away to determine who ends up playing the final.

Cricket is the only game where you can perform shockingly poor, lose 4-5 games, sneak through, win the semi and win the final and be crowned World Champions. (not saying if Australia or Pakistan win it, they won't deserve it).

Something needs to be done to make sure that the team who wins the World Cup is the best team and most consistent team in EVERY edition and is not just having a bad day at the office.

At least for me, that is something I would value more than bat sizes, grounds and lack of spectators.

 

[Sunzi]

I've enjoyed it TBH.

If the problem is that India is just better than everyone else, that's everyone else's problem to improve.

I agree about the crowds however. The grounds are either empty because they can't even give the tickets away for free, or they're jam-packed... with 98% Indians. It's in India, that's fine, I expected strong, majority Indian crowds, but not 98% Indian. Its an ICC, international event, not an Indian bi-lateral seriea no matter how nice the fans have been at various venues. This is disappointing but also a massive advantage and disadvantage for foreign teams. Big turn off. Agreed.

In terms of batting, the game has evolved. India's bowling is going at barely 5 RPO in the tournament so the other teams need to improve their skill to bowl miserly overs and counter murderous batting, as India has proved that it can be done.

Lack of close games is down to lack of quality in most teams.

 

[uppercut]

Lots of good points in the first part of the post & I completely agree with the theme of it - by destroying the balance between bat & ball, ICC (& it’s associated boards), have ruined the game. There is hardly any close game, hardly any drama (most of the games are decided within first innings), hardly any quality cricket to be honest. And every year/WC batting records are getting re-written.

Really ?

here is the raw data

Most lop sided matches in WC

1. in terms of balls remaining:

Aggregate/overall records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

2. In terms of Runs:

Aggregate/overall records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Tell me why 2023 WC is inferior compared to the first 3-4 worldcups which is essentially the point of reference for @Junaids ( Infact he may even draw a line in sand circa 1989 Nov 15 ... a day after which Cricket was never the same game with the in-explicable exception for 1992 ... lol )

FWIW: Maxwell's unbelievable innings is still less than 48 hrs old as I type this.

 

[saqib.rai]

There's really just a lot of nostalgia peddling going around here. Remember back in the day when all the bowlers were 5x better and the batters had moustaches and 10x the technique and hit sixes on 120m boundaries with toothpick bats.

What people see in their youth automatically tends to influence their tastes, but reality is cricket has only evolved to be better with time. In 80s and 90s ODI teams would regularly go in with 4 bowlers and back part timers to get through 10 overs. Overall fielding levels were average and rarely were captains put under pressure by batting tactics.

If anything cricket is at its most competitive today. The qualifier to world cup was among most hotly contested tournaments ever with Zim, Scot, Ned all showing their class. Ned vs WI is one of the chases for the ages.

We have seen in this WC, Afg has not upset but tactically out thought and executed their plans brilliantly vs multiple teams. Ned has put teams under pressure.

The only thing that should change is ICC stupid 10 team format which drags tournament out too long. World cups should be like football WC including as many teams as possible and teams should not be allowed to lose 4+ matches and still be in the race. It is sad that in 1975 we had 8 team WC and 48 yrs later we have just 10 teams.

Ideally there should be 20 teams in world cup similiar like WT20 2024. Make 4 groups of 5 teams each. The #1 team of each group qualifies for quarterfinals directly and across groups #2 vs #3 cross group matches to determine balance 4 players. Subsequently a quarterfinal knockout with 8 teams to determine winner.
Unfortunately ICC is obsessed with maximizing Ind, Aus, Eng match time and will not jeopardize this

The first world tournament I saw was the 2004 Champions Trophy

And the cricketing idol for everyone at that time Ponting rightly said after beating USA that either associates need to improve or NOT compete in World events

The suggestion you give has a top team like Australia or India playing 4 meaningless ODI matches against third tier teams

Can be done in t20 where the game is short and skill level can be accounted for by less overs but cannot be implemented in ODI cricket

 

[saqib.rai]

Nothing wrong with the pitches.

Having said that, I still disagree with the concept of one bad day and you lose in semi or final after winning every single match of the tournament.

Every match in World Cup is a pressure match, no just semi or finals (especially if you need to perform to qualify).

The top team wins the Bundesliga, Premier League, La Liga, Ligue 1, Serie A, Jupiler Pro, Eliteserien etc by playing 30-40 matches home and away to determine who is the best. (there is not even a final match to decide, its predetermined who ever has played best will top the league).

There is no element of bad day, luck or skill that can make a difference to eventual champions in those tournaments.

Even if you consider the Champions League, you get group matches, quarter finals, semi finals home and away to determine who ends up playing the final.

Cricket is the only game where you can perform shockingly poor, lose 4-5 games, sneak through, win the semi and win the final and be crowned World Champions. (not saying if Australia or Pakistan win it, they won't deserve it).

Something needs to be done to make sure that the team who wins the World Cup is the best team and most consistent team in EVERY edition and is not just having a bad day at the office.

At least for me, that is something I would value more than bat sizes, grounds and lack of spectators.

In Champions league you can get an easy draw and reach the semifinals/final. Has happened many times and then get hammered when you are up against a top team

In this World Cup, Don't look at 4 losses, look at it as 5 wins

And then if you able to handle pressure better and beat a top team in semifinal and final, you rightly deserve to win

 

[DeadlyVenom]

It's all speculative of course but in the hypothetical scenario that Pakistan qualify and indeed win then they would have won 3 group games that were essentially knockouts before moving into the later stages.

Thats a lot of big pressure moments and high impact matches.

It's just the usual attempt by the usual suspects to diminish any achievement ( in this case hypothetical) of Pakistan.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Two teams did not come to party. England massive disappointment. Bangladesh for a subcontinent team should have slayed atleast one bigger team. Instead they lost to Netherlands. Netherlands did their bit by beating SA. If these two have showed up table would have been a lot more interesting.

 

[Sidilicious]

2019 basically… or CT 2017 one

Not really. I prefer 2011 or 2015 group stage with the top 2 going into semis. No quarter finals. So, each match counts.

 

[ravisurya]

The rain disruption point is accepted - but I have absolutely no sympathy for SAF. I had seen that game ball by ball and that day what SAF did, deserved a major punishment.

They bowled 35 overs inside 2:30 hours and Poms were like 3 down for 180, threatening 300+ at SCG. Then, SAF started the tricks - bowled 10 overs in last hour and Ppms finished like 252/5 (or 6) in 45. Those days, there was no punishment for slow over rates in terms of the game (there might be financial penalties) & SAF took full advantage of that - proof, they bowled out Donald’s 10 overs inside 45!!!!


A Duckworth/Lewis calculation under the rules in 2006 would have first set South Africa a target of 273 in 45 overs, and then reduced this to 257 from 43 overs - therefore, SAF got what they deserved.

Thanks for the insight. People like me who had not watched the game always believed from the short clips that South Africa were wronged but looks like they got what they deserved.

 

[ravisurya]

Sounds like a sour grapes and grumpy old man talking bad about current generation. This WC has everything in it. High scores, low scores, swing, seam, spin. One man heroics. Afghan also did well and top 4 is not decided yet.

There is prodigious swing and seam under lights and spinners are also in the game. You just need a reason to bash this one.

Well it's not surprising. The usual suspects bashing the World cup trying to hide their gripe which is India hosting the world cup. All I can say to such people is.....keep crying.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

In Champions league you can get an easy draw and reach the semifinals/final. Has happened many times and then get hammered when you are up against a top team

In this World Cup, Don't look at 4 losses, look at it as 5 wins

And then if you able to handle pressure better and beat a top team in semifinal and final, you rightly deserve to win

I have yet to see Fc Basel or Shakhtar Donetsk win the Champions League because even if they can sneak some draws, they cant win the entire thing.

A poor team cant win the Champions League.

Similarly, a poor team cant win the World Cup aka Netherlands or Bangladesh.

My point still stands.

Why should a team bother to win 8 matches if 5 are enough to qualify and then wait for semis?

There is an inherent flaw in the system.

I think Pakistan is an average team and its unlikely they will win the whole thing despite people getting excited.

I am just wondering why have so many useless matches if everything decides on last 3 games of the tournament plus a semi or final.

 

[saqib.rai]

I have yet to see Fc Basel or Shakhtar Donetsk win the Champions League because even if they can sneak some draws, they cant win the entire thing.

A poor team cant win the Champions League.

Similarly, a poor team cant win the World Cup aka Netherlands or Bangladesh.

My point still stands.

Why should a team bother to win 8 matches if 5 are enough to qualify and then wait for semis?

There is an inherent flaw in the system.

I think Pakistan is an average team and its unlikely they will win the whole thing despite people getting excited.

I am just wondering why have so many useless matches if everything decides on last 3 games of the tournament plus a semi or final.

You can win the Champions league even after losing 7 matches
Yes 7 matches

One team wins all group matches

the other 3 teams win 2 matches each and the one that has a better goal difference goes through

So you have lost 4 matches already and are now in the Round of 16

Then lose one leg of Round of 16, one leg of Quarter Final, one leg of Semi-final so 3 more matches lost

In total you can lose 7 matches and still win the Champions League.

So if I apply your argument, what's the point of taking all matches seriously when you can lose 7 and still win the whole thing? Lol

in the current format of the ODI World Cup, you can even be eliminated on NRR by losing only 2 matches and winning 7. Create scenarios in your head and you will get it

Pakistan won 5 last time but did we go through??

So you CANNOT win only 5 and expect to go through to the semis- this is Like the Champions League example that I gave

Even if you lose 7 in the Champions League, you can win the whole thing but its HIGHLY UNLIKELY.
same way, if you win only 5 in ODI World Cup group stage, you can go through but its its HIGHLY UNLIKELY

 

[MP2011]

how is this a balance between ball and bat? it's either a very high score or a very low score. There is NO balance.

lol, check what score we made in those ODIs.

 

[IndoorCricket]

People saying world cups should be held only in England are.. cringe.

The crowd might be sportive for most part (Dont forget barmy army) but the weather is bad and depressing. I personally like WC happening in different kinds of conditions. Teams have to plan and train for such events. Team with most preparation would have very good chances to win.

 

[Swashbuckler]

However, the rule changes above don't hold a candle to the next one, the size of bats. It is simple physics - f=mv - the greater the mass the greater the force, which is why even today we see miss hits going for 6s, because the mass of the bat has increased but the mass of the ball has remained the same. Long gone are the days of using stroke play bats where a miss hit would end up being caught in slips or mid-on/off.

What I have heard is that bats are thicker (the edges), bigger now but with more power compressed in less weight. Maybe some mechanics guy can enlighten us about modern bat technology but that's the catch. Till 20 years back some players used bigger bats but they were much heavier and there was a downside in terms of reduced bat speed and being susceptible to yorkers, bouncers etc. Also the risk of back injury, that's what caused Sachin chronic back issues even by his mid 20s, later in the 2001 test series Hayden tried out Sachin's bat and remarked about its weight. Have heard something similar about Afridi as well in the 90s, power packed but his team mates didn't use it because it was tough for them to swing it at high speed.

Barry Richards has a famous photo with two bats, one was Warner's bat I think and the other being one of his bats which he used to score a famous 300 in FC. And he said Warner's bat was lighter despite being so much bigger.

 

[MMHS]

Really ?

here is the raw data

Most lop sided matches in WC

1. in terms of balls remaining:

Aggregate/overall records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

2. In terms of Runs:

Aggregate/overall records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Tell me why 2023 WC is inferior compared to the first 3-4 worldcups which is essentially the point of reference for @Junaids ( Infact he may even draw a line in sand circa 1989 Nov 15 ... a day after which Cricket was never the same game with the in-explicable exception for 1992 ... lol )

FWIW: Maxwell's unbelievable innings is still less than 48 hrs old as I type this.

I’m also surprised a bit looking at the data. I think, first few WCs were with less teams and fewer games - there were one sided games indeed but games between major teams were quite close - that’s probably missing here.

For example, in 1975 there were 8 teams, 15 games and to be honest WIN, AUS, PAK, ENG & NZ were better teams - games between them were probably much closer. Also, sometimes just the margin of balls don’t tell how close the game was…. Take 1975 SF - ENG was all-out for like 91 or so, then Aussies chased it inside 30 overs of a 60 over game with 3 (or 4 wickets at hand); but at times they were 42/6 (or 39/6..).

I think, what we are missing here is defence of low scores - teams batting first defending scores like 200, 225… only one game IND defended 229; but rest are lopsided.

 

[MenInG]

So @Junaids you feel happy now with Sri Lanka batters struggling?

 

[Romali_rotti]

This is what Junaids is trying to say:

It sucks Indians looking invincible,

If my home country Pakistan was doing well I would have been over the moon,

I will keep making excuses cause I cant stand the Indians winning.

Now

If Indians lose, Junaids has put himself in a tricky situation as he supposedly is not interested in this WC so he wont be able to show his excitement to its full capacity in public because of this dramatic thread.

 

[nish_mate]

So @Junaids you feel happy now with Sri Lanka batters struggling?

Brutal

 

[nish_mate]

This is what Junaids is trying to say:

It sucks Indians looking invincible,

If my home country Pakistan was doing well I would have been over the moon,

I will keep making excuses cause I cant stand the Indians winning.

Now

If Indians lose, Junaids has put himself in a tricky situation as he supposedly is not interested in this WC so he wont be able to show his excitement to its full capacity in public because of this dramatic thread.

If Indian wins, OP will put an * against it

Never mind he didnt put an * against 2015 or 2019 he supposedly went to...

 

[happydavy]

Firstly, let me display my credentials here.

I was born in 1969, but I was too young to enjoy the 1975 World Cup. But I loved the 1979 and 1983 editions in England, and the 1987 and 1996 ones in the subcontinent, and 1992 in Australia. And I loved, as a kid growing up in England, watching the domestic 55 and 60 over Cups and the 40 over Sunday League.

As an adult I actually bought tickets to the 2015 World Cup Final and both the 2019 World Cup semi-finals.

I consider myself a lover of the World Cup.

But something was already going wrong in 2015. Massive bats meant that mishits which used to be caught now generally went for 6. Two new balls and fielding restrictions effectively neutered the bowlers, as did the wide rule. Flawed batsmen like Martin Guptill were turned into Viv Richards.

Already by 2015 the balance between bat and ball was lost. Some of the later games were still quite exciting, as the pressure of the occasion combined with scoreboard pressure to ensure that batsmen at least got themselves out (eg McCullum in the Final).

Fast forward eight years, and we have had one close finish in fifty matches so far. The matches are deeply boring because they are not even competitive. The records are completely meaningless because the bowlers are not in the game at all.

Yes, there was a certain excitement to watching Fakhar Zaman tee off against New Zealand. But, like with Glenn Maxwell, it was that guilty excitement caused by the knowledge that if there was any grass on the pitch or a seam on the ball he would have been caught behind inside ten deliveries. And to be honest, the rain delay was more exciting than the slogging.

When Fakhar Zaman and Abdullah Shafique reduce Trent Boult to figures of 4-0-43-0 you know that you are watching a pantomime, a carefully stage-managed sport of the sort which would tie both of Mohammad Ali's hands and together and put his legs into concrete so that your grandmother could knock him out.

There was a champion cricketer out there. But he was deliberately handicapped so that a mediocre hacker could thrash him to all points of the ground.

Is that sport? Kind of.

The problem, of course, is that unlike the last World Cup in England there is no proper atmosphere in the grounds anyway. 95% of the fans are Indian, and even inveterate sports tourists like myself gave up on trying to attend when the ICC, which in this case is visibly just the BCCI in disguise, didn't bother to release the schedule until it was too late for foreigners to come.

India seem to be very good at playing this strange version of cricket. They have found a formula which works on these doctored wickets against neutered bowling attacks. They alone deserve to win this competition.

But it's like watching a FIFA World Cup played on grassless pitches with gigantic goalposts so that every game finishes with a 43-35 result.

I don't really see how anyone can love this. The best bowlers are reduced to mediocrity, while weird rules and huge bats make gormless sloggers into champion batsmen.

For a guy who doesn't love the world cup anymore, you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time discussing it. As they say, pick another hobby and stay busy! Life is too short to spend time discussing what you don't like and then asking for others to comment on it.

 

[gani999]

I'm pretty sure you would have loved this WC if India and Pakistan exchanged places in the points table.

Exactly.
All the whining is by India hating Pak fans who cannot stomach the fact that their precious team has been reduced to almost minnow level. Can't bat, bowl or even field properly in subcontinental conditions.
One of the usual suspects even brought the RSS into this.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Dear Junny bro,

Salaam,
I hope aap khairiyat se haen, Maen bhi khairiyat se hoon. Today you shouod be happy to see your hero Tim Boult winning the man of the match. Cricket in this World Cup maybe isn’t all that unfair after all.

 

[Savak]

Even though Pakistan is out, i enjoyed this WC. I totally support this format, this format challenges teams to be their best and rewards the most consistent teams. The ICC should follow this format in the T20 WC as well.

 

[Cryin Out Loud]

Even though Pakistan is out, i enjoyed this WC. I totally support this format, this format challenges teams to be their best and rewards the most consistent teams. The ICC should follow this format in the T20 WC as well.

Agreed - it’s long but since every team plays every other, that’s the way to go.

 

[Savak]

Agreed - it’s long but since every team plays every other, that’s the way to go.

To reduce the amount of time, the ICC needs to hold double headers on Saturdays and Sundays. They can cut down the length of the WC to 5-6 weeks instead of 2 months.

 

[RexRex]

Even though Pakistan is out, i enjoyed this WC. I totally support this format, this format challenges teams to be their best and rewards the most consistent teams. The ICC should follow this format in the T20 WC as well.

I enjoy this all play all format too. But this format is the opposite of rewarding the most consistent teams. A team that has lost 5 games out of 9 can get into the semifinal.

 

[nish_mate]

Agreed - it’s long but since every team plays every other, that’s the way to go.

Double headers atleast on weekends and when we go into final league games...

 

[Hitman]

2023 - Easily one of the worst WCs. I am only watching this WC because Pakistan are still in the hunt for a SF place, otherwise, once Pakistan are out or by some miracle win the WC, I will stop watching.

Goodbye! Hope Pakistan reaches the semis of the next World Cup! By the way, do you think 'King' Babar will end up as the highest scorer in this World Cup just like you predicted?

 

[Bilal Ahmad15]

I enjoy this all play all format too. But this format is the opposite of rewarding the most consistent teams. A team that has lost 5 games out of 9 can get into the semifinal.

Wait what? Its the format that suits the most consistent teams more than any other format.

Simply because everyone plays everyone.

 

[ezhil]

Super six is a flawed format and quarterfinals format is a rubbish too...makes a joke of the league matches...
Only this format is the best ...
May be to award consistency for the first 2best teams ,ipl style qualifier can be done to avoid the best team knocked out in a single knockout like saf in 1996

 

[OMB]

To the OP
I started watching cricket from 1980’s onwards.
I understand where you are coming from and no one deny that the batting has become favored over the years and this we need to accept as changes of time. No amount of misgivings will bring those days back. Nothing is constant and we will see bowlers like Starc getting carted around by new bats.

However, todays performance by Shami (Ind vs NZ in semis WC23) makes it clear that bowlers need to adapt and be even more skillful, just pace will not get you wicket anymore (said by Starc himself today during interview).

About Indian fans dominating the stands, stadiums here are big. More people watching in stands than ever before but stands look empty unless it is an India game.

Regarding your post about lack of interest in todays style of cricket. There is a fair bit of history.

Remember the old days when Indian and Pakistani hockey teams complained about Europe / Australia forcing Astro turf instead of natural grass fields, Astroturfs were expensive for subcontinent to implement at grassroots level and thereby killed the game eventually. Hockey used to be India’s National games. Not anymore, maybe same exists for Pakistan.

Much of the same was happening in Cricket around the same time. Cricket schedule was heavily tilted towards Ashes series and others used to get leftover slots. West Indians were cricketing powerhouse but had no control over the cricket administration. India and Park were no pushovers but had no power over the scheduling or cricket rules. Cricket was a dying sport in ICC’s hands and revenues were dwindling steadily.

With the advent of corporates funding into Indian cricket, BCCI recognized its opportunity and infused money into the game by using its financial acumen. In return it negated influence of western nations (mainly England and Australia) and has popularized money in cricket like never before.
The game veered away to become a popular sport and as inevitably happens with popularity, traditions are overruled by popular choice of spectators.
So if they like T20, so be it. If they like massive sixes, give them that.
If they like DRS, or less ODI, so be it. It brings more revenue.
Larger bats and 2 new balls and impact player subsittuon or many such innovations will occur.

Players are not complaining and many youth dream to land a central contract with their respective boards or a lucrative T20 contract like IPL, big bash etc. ECB in fact experimenting with the Hundreds. There is more engagement with cricket at all levels wherever the administration is adept and agile.

Your POV about this WC not being to your liking, I can relate to it.
Personally I would not mind to go back to the old game of 60 overs of ODI where 6 or 7 bowlers had to handle the workload and all rounders who could multitask were in demand, and were usually the most elite cricketers of the team.
We know this wont happen now so best to embrace the game as it develops. If I lose interest in cricket on this account, it makes no difference to anyone except me. At the end of all this, it is still cricket.
This is just my own view.

 

[Vikram1989]

To the OP
I started watching cricket from 1980’s onwards.
I understand where you are coming from and no one deny that the batting has become favored over the years and this we need to accept as changes of time. No amount of misgivings will bring those days back. Nothing is constant and we will see bowlers like Starc getting carted around by new bats.

However, todays performance by Shami (Ind vs NZ in semis WC23) makes it clear that bowlers need to adapt and be even more skillful, just pace will not get you wicket anymore (said by Starc himself today during interview).

About Indian fans dominating the stands, stadiums here are big. More people watching in stands than ever before but stands look empty unless it is an India game.

Regarding your post about lack of interest in todays style of cricket. There is a fair bit of history.

Remember the old days when Indian and Pakistani hockey teams complained about Europe / Australia forcing Astro turf instead of natural grass fields, Astroturfs were expensive for subcontinent to implement at grassroots level and thereby killed the game eventually. Hockey used to be India’s National games. Not anymore, maybe same exists for Pakistan.

Much of the same was happening in Cricket around the same time. Cricket schedule was heavily tilted towards Ashes series and others used to get leftover slots. West Indians were cricketing powerhouse but had no control over the cricket administration. India and Park were no pushovers but had no power over the scheduling or cricket rules. Cricket was a dying sport in ICC’s hands and revenues were dwindling steadily.

With the advent of corporates funding into Indian cricket, BCCI recognized its opportunity and infused money into the game by using its financial acumen. In return it negated influence of western nations (mainly England and Australia) and has popularized money in cricket like never before.
The game veered away to become a popular sport and as inevitably happens with popularity, traditions are overruled by popular choice of spectators.
So if they like T20, so be it. If they like massive sixes, give them that.
If they like DRS, or less ODI, so be it. It brings more revenue.
Larger bats and 2 new balls and impact player subsittuon or many such innovations will occur.

Players are not complaining and many youth dream to land a central contract with their respective boards or a lucrative T20 contract like IPL, big bash etc. ECB in fact experimenting with the Hundreds. There is more engagement with cricket at all levels wherever the administration is adept and agile.

Your POV about this WC not being to your liking, I can relate to it.
Personally I would not mind to go back to the old game of 60 overs of ODI where 6 or 7 bowlers had to handle the workload and all rounders who could multitask were in demand, and were usually the most elite cricketers of the team.
We know this wont happen now so best to embrace the game as it develops. If I lose interest in cricket on this account, it makes no difference to anyone except me. At the end of all this, it is still cricket.
This is just my own view.

Bro u r such a genuine fan and posted great points .As u said, as clock ticks game has to evolve other wise our favourite game will become a dinosaur .People may say mickey mouse leagues and other stuff about t20,but Olympics was possible due to them.Cricket is like our family, we will bear it even at worst case. But if outsiders/financial parties /Consumers won't care,it will be its downfall.

 

[Chip32]

Don't think this WC was that bad. It was off to a slow start, especially the crowds for the neutral games but it picked up later in the tournament. In terms of the flat pitches, the previous 2 editions have been high scoring as well, so I think that's an unfair criticism.

I think ODI cricket in general is losing its appeal though. I can personally say I haven't watched any of the games live apart from the first 20 overs of the Pakistan India game despite time zones being favourable.

 

[brokenrecord]

What’s doctored about the wickets? There is swing, bounce, spin all on offer - it’s on the bowling teams if they can’t exploit it. I like wc in subcontinents as they offer spin challenge to the mix - obviously you can’t just be world champions if you play in grassy forests or trampoline bounce.d

Different balls at both ends. Almost negate any bowler advantages. Reverse swing comes in too late. Greats like Tendulkar and Waqar have advocated for a return to a one ball inning if possible. Even good pitches end up meaning little depending on who bats first and second.