Why I fell out of love with the World Cup

[Junaids]

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.

 

[jnaveen1980]

I am surprised. There are lot of tall bowlers in this world cup. jansen 6'8" Rabada 6'4" Cummins 6'4"

 

[Mockingbird]

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.

 

[Junaids]

I am surprised. There are lot of tall bowlers in this world cup. jansen 6'8" Rabada 6'4" Cummins 6'4"

This is a format where I'm not sure that anything can turn bowlers into a threat.

I know a lot of Pakistan fans think that Naseem Shah would have made a difference, but I'm totally unconvinced. The balls don't swing, they never age beyond 25 overs so they hardly spin, and there is no grass on the pitch to allow deviation off the seam.

At the end of each match I keep asking myself "why did I watch that?"

 

[Kianig89]

Excellent post please add the Maxwell show in it, because when a team from 0.3% chance of winning goes on to win without losing any more wicket then there is definitely something wrong.

 

[pratiktc]

Excellent post please add the Maxwell show in it, because when a team from 0.3% chance of winning goes on to win without losing any more wicket then there is definitely something wrong.

Maybe ICC should investigate
Same like SriLanka and South Africa collapses

 

[anikrc1]

This is a format where I'm not sure that anything can turn bowlers into a threat.

I know a lot of Pakistan fans think that Naseem Shah would have made a difference, but I'm totally unconvinced. The balls don't swing, they never age beyond 25 overs so they hardly spin, and there is no grass on the pitch to allow deviation off the seam.

At the end of each match I keep asking myself "why did I watch that?"

No swing? Didn't watch the match yesterday did you?

 

[Junaids]

Excellent post please add the Maxwell show in it, because when a team from 0.3% chance of winning goes on to win without losing any more wicket then there is definitely something wrong.

Well exactly.

Australia's plight - 200 behind, with only 3 wickets left - made it look as if the bowlers were on top.

But all that had happened was that multiple batsmen had got themselves out. Forget Maxwell's 201 not out, at the other end the Number 9 batsman serenely survived for 28.2 overs, which would not happen on a sporting wicket.

It means that Maxwell's 201 not out has the same value as Jason Gillespie's 201 not out v Bangladesh, or Matthew Hayden's 380 not out v Zimbabwe.

All three are huge numbers. Amassed by scoring runs in easy batting conditions.

 

[kingusama92]

Well exactly.

Australia's plight - 200 behind, with only 3 wickets left - made it look as if the bowlers were on top.

But all that had happened was that multiple batsmen had got themselves out. Forget Maxwell's 201 not out, at the other end the Number 9 batsman serenely survived for 28.2 overs, which would not happen on a sporting wicket.

It means that Maxwell's 201 not out has the same value as Jason Gillespie's 201 not out v Bangladesh, or Matthew Hayden's 380 not out v Zimbabwe.

All three are huge numbers. Amassed by scoring runs in easy batting conditions.

I'll play devil's advocate and say Kapil Dev (with Binny in Cummins role) had a similarly celebrated innings of 175 against Zimbabwe. This isn't something new.

The generation older than yours probably used to scoff at the idea of a World Cup. They likely thought the 79 or 83 World Cup were an abomination for the sport while you loved all of it as a kid.

It happens with all generations.

I bet there are a few kids out there who are saying the 2023 World Cup is awesome. Just as I often say the 99 World Cup was a lot of fun and my favourite.

I don't disagree with your points though. There are valid criticisms about how this World Cup has been hosted. ODI cricket is losing its charm for other reasons including the number of entertainment options out there (including T20s within the sport itself).

 

[Technics 1210]

I have watched every WC from 1983 and the following is not based on Pakistan's WC performances.

1983, 1987, 1992, 1996, 1999 - these World Cups were ironically speaking, next-gen level. The balance between bat and ball, the quality of matches, and of course the crowd atmosphere. Who doesn't like a good old fashion pitch invasion on the Final?

2003 and 2007 is where it started going all wrong. Rule changes, and the rise of Bharat Army. Indian fans were literally seat hogging every match, and while balance between bat and ball was diminishing, so too were the crowd distributions. Remember, Indians were snapping up all QF, SF, and Final tickets!

2011 - A totally pants and orchestrated affair where every man and his dog knew this WC was a final send off for Tendulkar. Couldn't stand the commentary either, every 3rd word was Tendulkar. My work place was infiltrated with Indian fans (not British born), and oh my days, it was unbearable hearing them talk about Tendulkar for weeks on end.

2015 - I don't even remember it, that's how rubbish it was.

2019 - My best WC experience since I got to watch many matches at my local grounds Oval and Lord's, inc the Semi Final. The TV commentary and programs were spot on. Pre analysis, match, post analysis etc. Awesome way to wind down during the evening. Though again, the crowds were amazing except for the matches with India playing.

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. This WC is 100% orchestrated not just for an Indian win, but for more RSS seats at Lok Sabha. Adding to this the crowd atmosphere is laughable, bon existent in non-Indian games, and the GoI denying visas for Pakistan fans just goes to show why this WC is organised by RSS, and not ICC.

The only positive points I would say in 2023 WC, have been the commentary, the format, Afghanistan losing to Australia, and the timing of the matches suit my working day. So herrendous has been 2023, even SKY have a stripped down version of the broadcast and this was well before England were out.

Until the balance between bat and ball is restored, and organisers limit the number of tickets to Indian fans, I am afraid every WC going forwards will be similar to what we have seen of late - Bharat Army Boundary Bhangra!

 

[saqib.rai]

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.

Very nice post.
I would also like to add that an ICC event happening every year is also diminishing the value of the ODI World Cup.
We have a t20 WC in 8 months and the CT 8 months after that.

You would see players from football crying with literal tears after their teams go out of the World Cup. They know World Cups takes place every 4 years and they might not get to play in another World Cup.

When we lost the final to England last year, I was sad but weirdly not that much. I told myself koi nahi, next year India mai World Cup hai, we will win that.

I understand the ICC needs to earn more money so that it can develop cricket in associate countries and for that plans an ICC tournament every year
BUT

This is just like when t20 came, people were saying there is no money in t20 cricket as you would get an add-break only 20 times as against 50 times in an ODI innings
But the VIEWERS increased so much that 20>>>50

Eventually, broadcasters would also realize SATURATION of ICC events has decreased interest and viewership and hopefully scrap the Champions Trophy and have the t20 WC take place every 4 years as well.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

This is a format where I'm not sure that anything can turn bowlers into a threat.

I know a lot of Pakistan fans think that Naseem Shah would have made a difference, but I'm totally unconvinced. The balls don't swing, they never age beyond 25 overs so they hardly spin, and there is no grass on the pitch to allow deviation off the seam.

At the end of each match I keep asking myself "why did I watch that?"

Utter nonsense. The ball has swung significantly under lights and there has been plenty of spin as well.

2023 has seen more white ball swing than any year since ball tracking data has been available

 

[mominsaigol]

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.

I respect your opinion, but I disagree. O enjoy the cups however I get your viewpoint. You and I are from a completly.different generation, so I am not privileged to be alive during the iconic moments you watched the cups.

I still enjoyed 2011, 2019 and 2023 cups.

I found 2015 wc boring however

 

[160KPH]

I may write a more thorough post another time, but there’s a few major issues with this World Cup that have ruined it for me:

1) The empty crowds. Even if you’re watching on TV, turning on a match and seeing the crowd completely empty with barely any cheering makes it feel more like the atmosphere of a random meaningless bilateral ODI series rather than a World Cup match.

2) The lack of close games. Literally every game is domination from one side or the other. Previous world cups have given us much closer matches. I’m not sure if this is just due to pitch conditions or something else, but the lack of close matches really damages the viewing experience.

3) Too many meaningless games. This is more of an issue with the format of the tournament but there’s too many games that have no effect on the results of the tournament. In fact, if Pakistan had lost to New Zealand almost all of the games after would have been complete dead rubbers.

Overall, certainly one of the worst World Cups. The ODI format is dying, and we may not get another one.

 

[Junaids]

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.

Please stay away from white ball if you don’t like it, nobody will mind it anyway!

Actually, there is much, much less of a role for spin bowling in these conditions than used to be the case.

Until 2 World Cups ago, balls aged up to 50 overs, and very significant amounts of spin were available. For Pakistan, think of Abdul Qadir in 1983 and 1987, Mushtaq Ahmed in 1992 and 1996 and Saqlain Mushtaq in 1999.

Now no ball ever ages beyond 25 overs. Spin bowlers are hardly taking a wicket with dip or spin, they are just buying wickets from slogging batsmen.

But it's a myth anyway that the subcontinent is the only place where spin rules supreme.

Bishan Bedi and Mushtaq Muhammad used to make hay for Northants at Wantage Road because it was a spinner's paradise. SCG Tests traditionally featured spinners taking lots of wickets too.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Pitches here are offering more for bowlers than in 2015 and 2019 WCs. Also this batch of balls is swinging under lights, good spinners are doing well, toss isn't a factor, dew isn't a factor.

 

[Mockingbird]

Actually, there is much, much less of a role for spin bowling in these conditions than used to be the case.

Until 2 World Cups ago, balls aged up to 50 overs, and very significant amounts of spin were available. For Pakistan, think of Abdul Qadir in 1983 and 1987, Mushtaq Ahmed in 1992 and 1996 and Saqlain Mushtaq in 1999.

Now no ball ever ages beyond 25 overs. Spin bowlers are hardly taking a wicket with dip or spin, they are just buying wickets from slogging batsmen.

But it's a myth anyway that the subcontinent is the only place where spin rules supreme.

Bishan Bedi and Mushtaq Muhammad used to make hay for Northants at Wantage Road because it was a spinner's paradise. SCG Tests traditionally featured spinners taking lots of wickets too.

You are mixing formats now and also sounding out your hypothesis basis only Pakistani team whose woes with spin are well known at this point. In the last few decades while Pakistan struggled with spin, India has prospered because of it. While I agree that the two new balls has eroded bowling skills in general, it depends on mgmt on how well they are utilizing their resources- it’s a shame that a subcontinental team like Pakistan is not investing in spin anymore.

Sorry about being flippant earlier, but I do get where I am coming from - I have not seen the old cricketing era, but I absolutely adore red ball cricket. But unlike you I do not constantly criticize or compare eras or formats - enjoy each match on its own merits. There is fun too in watching Maxwell score a double century after being 91/7. Cheers

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Actually, there is much, much less of a role for spin bowling in these conditions than used to be the case.

Until 2 World Cups ago, balls aged up to 50 overs, and very significant amounts of spin were available. For Pakistan, think of Abdul Qadir in 1983 and 1987, Mushtaq Ahmed in 1992 and 1996 and Saqlain Mushtaq in 1999.

Now no ball ever ages beyond 25 overs. Spin bowlers are hardly taking a wicket with dip or spin, they are just buying wickets from slogging batsmen.

But it's a myth anyway that the subcontinent is the only place where spin rules supreme.

Bishan Bedi and Mushtaq Muhammad used to make hay for Northants at Wantage Road because it was a spinner's paradise. SCG Tests traditionally featured spinners taking lots of wickets too.

I suppose that's why Indian spinners are averaging 20 and OZ/ SA spinners are averaging 27 in this World Cup.

 

[IndoorCricket]

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.

 

[vprasanna83]

This World cup has surely had many better bowling performances than 2019 - that one was played on English roads with hardly any seam, swing or even spin . Its quite obvious that anything hosted by India has to be crap though . And adding salt to your wound is the fact the Indian team is bulldozing everyone else .

So , how can that happen ? It is obviously all stage-managed . Indian team bowls with different balls , bats , DRS cameras ,et.al . Even the atmosphere and the pitch gets modified by the BCCI and RSS midway through the innings before India bowls .

And finally to the sport itself . Any sport dominated by India must surely have gone to the dogs . Its time to fall out of love with it ....

 

[SamNJ]

If there is nothing for bowlers, then how can Australia be at 91-7 ?
There was decent amount of swing up front.
Good help for spinners.

 

[Farabi]

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.

The definition of what constitutes a sport, such as cricket, is not set in stone, but rather it evolves over time. This evolution doesn't necessarily make the newer version inferior. When we observe a higher run rate and more boundaries in modern cricket, it doesn't mean it has become solely a batter's game. Instead, it signifies a shift in the barometer of what is considered effective or good batting. Likewise, the definition of a good bowler has also evolved.

In the past, a bowler might have been deemed good if they conceded fewer than 4 runs per over, but today, that benchmark might be 6. A good bowler from the past would be the equivalent of a bowler who maintains that standard today, consistently outperforming others. Take Bumrah, for instance; he still excels in comparison to his peers.

The skills required by bowlers have adapted and diversified. They now rely on a range of techniques, such as various types of slow balls, precision, and strategic planning, rather than solely depending on swing or reverse swing, which has become less prevalent from the use of two old balls. However, it also benefits the bowlers. The attacking intent of the batters means batters take more chances creating opportunities for bowlers clever enough to exploit them.

Batting techniques have also adapted to new challenges. A technique is essentially a process designed to achieve a specific outcome. These techniques haven't deteriorated; they've adjusted to the demands of maximizing run-scoring on wickets with reduced surface assistance. For instance, if we were to bring in a technically sound batsman like Sunil Gavaskar to face spinning pitches, he might not produce a 60-ball hundred like a contemporary batsman like Head. It's not that Head's technique is superior; it's simply different. Mohammed Haris, for instance, is emulating Warner or Head but he is not as consistent because his technique is weak in comparison to Warner in achieving the same desired outcome.

I enjoyed cricket in the 90s, 2000s, 2010s and 2020s. Different flavors.

 

[Swashbuckler]

In 2019 WC, not one spinner was among top 20 wicket takers of the tournament, best was Adil Rashid and even he averaged 40 with the ball.

In 2023 WC, Zampa, Jadeja, Santner, Kuldeep are among top 12 wicket takers. They all average in the low 20s. Just because Pak spinners have been utter trash whole tournament, doesn't mean spinners from other countries are bad, lol what is this logic? If OP thinks Shadab and Nawaz are similar in quality to Qadir, Saqlain, Mushtaq and just being neutered because of the pitches I don't know what to say.

And plenty of help for seam. Forget Indian quicks or Jansen, Rabada, Henry. Madushanka is the leading wicket taker of the tournament. Don't know if it is a case of sour grapes or just stupidity?

 

[Suleiman]

Best ODI WC since ‘96. (So far..)

 

[Bhaijaan]

First of all, welcome back @Junaids , one of the finest & well respected posters on this forum and popularly known as Junny bro among his close associates.

I totally respect your view point but this is qudrat ka nizam. You have the example of Timo Boll, who is devastating on favourable conditions for swing bowling but you have to take into account that on subcontinental pitches his lack of pace will be detrimental to his success and you have to also give respect to Fakhar The Fauji Zaman who is no big with the bat. He’s a destroyer of worlds / he is Darkseid in Cricket.

 

[Hitman]

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

 

[jnaveen1980]

This World cup has surely had many better bowling performances than 2019 - that one was played on English roads with hardly any seam, swing or even spin . Its quite obvious that anything hosted by India has to be crap though . And adding salt to your wound is the fact the Indian team is bulldozing everyone else .

So , how can that happen ? It is obviously all stage-managed . Indian team bowls with different balls , bats , DRS cameras ,et.al . Even the atmosphere and the pitch gets modified by the BCCI and RSS midway through the innings before India bowls .

And finally to the sport itself . Any sport dominated by India must surely have gone to the dogs . Its time to fall out of love with it ....

2019 world cup was a farce. When England was in a must win situation against India, they shortened one side boundary to 50 meter to negate spinners. They made sure pitch offerer hardly any bite or turn. Infact entire world cup was like that. Not like seamers had assistance.

 

[160KPH]

With all due respect, media personalities from all countries are criticizing this tournament and the ODI format at large. To simply say someone is criticizing a tournament because they’re Pakistani is a massive cop out and does nothing to address the concerns people from all over the world have. Listen to all online cricket commentators or even some legends of the game.

By the way, I’m not even saying the blame lies with Indian cricket or BCCI. I think a lot of the issues just have to do with the format and its decreasing popularity. What India is doing in this tournament is incredible and they deserve all the credit in the world for their dominant performances. And the fans should celebrate to the max if/when they win it.

But there’s way deeper issues which are causing the criticism.

@saqib.rai makes a great point about tournaments becoming too frequent.
In 2021, we had a T20 WC.
In 2022, we had another T20 WC.
In 2023, we have another ODI WC.
In 2024, we will have another T20 WC.
In 2025, we will have an ICC Champion’s Trophy.
In 2026, another T20 WC.
In 2027, another ODI WC.

7 ICC tournaments in 7 years is way too many and massively dilutes what it means to become a World Champion. Not to mention, it’s going to continue like this for a long while and don’t forget, in the background of this is the new ICC World Test Championship occurring. It’s obvious that World Cup’s meant much more when we had them once every 4 years rather than every single year.

We should scrap T20 WC or make them every 4 years as well and have them in between ODI WC’s. And then either make the ICC Champion’s Trophy like a flash tournament which goes straight to knockout rounds based on team rankings at the time or get rid of them. It would be cool to make it based on team rankings as in the 1st team plays the 8th ranked team, the 2nd team plays the 7th ranked team, etc. it would also make ICC Team Rankings matter again.

I’ll make another thread talking about this more thoroughly sometime.

 

[baggy blue]

enjoyed reading junaids post. i still dont mind watching a 50 over match. batsman still behave like it is cricket unlike t20 especially the premier leagues, horrible to sit through..

 

[nish_mate]

Yawn and yawn and yawn...

Surprise surpise Junaids doesnt like a WC in India, who would have thought.....

He's the chap who would have happily cheered for a WC in Doha and empty test grounds in UAE... and will jumping up and down and tripping over himself when 2025 CT is held in Pakistan.

As for his credentials, heres the guy who proposed back in 2014 India should be playing in smaller Ozzie test centres given their pathetic record during that phase, but has kept mum on Pakistans a tad more than pathetic record in Oz and not wondered once why PCB are playing in primary Ozzie test centres.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Apart from some shambolic hosting from the BCCI and a biohazard environment in Delhi the on field action hasn't been too bad.

Sure there haven't been to many close matches or even good match ups but there has been some good cricket.

I also do not like the fact that there are some matches with exceptionally high scores where there there is no contest betwern bat and ball but there is enough of a balance across matches to keep things enjoyable.

For example while Pakistan have broken multiple batting records ( highest world cup chase, first team to overcome a 400 score in a world cup) they have also struggled on other types of pitches.

There have been a couple of upsets and some lower scoring thrillers across all the matches.

I'd persobally like the ICC to revert back to one ball to keep things balanced but thats a long standing issue and nothing to do with the world cup.

 

[Cryin Out Loud]

OP - we are contemporaries. At a gut level I feel what you’re saying, but I disagree with you mostly.

A fallout of getting older is that everything changes. The world of cricket has changed from out youth. Doesn’t mean it’s worse.

The 50s and 60s generation would have looked down on cricket in the days when we were growing up.

2 or 3 decades from now today’s kids will look on this as a golden period and bemoan how things were better in their day.

 

[Swashbuckler]

With all due respect, media personalities from all countries are criticizing this tournament and the ODI format at large. To simply say someone is criticizing a tournament because they’re Pakistani is a massive cop out and does nothing to address the concerns people from all over the world have. Listen to all online cricket commentators or even some legends of the game.

Criticizing the organization, scheduling, crowd etc is fine. But claiming that there is no swing, seam, spin in this WC is blatant falsehood. Pitches were doctored heavily in favor of batsmen in 2015 and 2019, in 2019 spinners were completely kept out of the game in a manner never seen before or since then, obviously to help the host side. But in this WC we have seen quicks doing well, spinners doing well, batsmen scoring 100s. Just because Pakistani bowlers haven't done well that doesn't mean all bowlers have been neutered, maybe Pak bowlers weren't good enough. And if people think Shadab, Nawaz are of the quality of past legends like Saqlain, Qadir, Mushtaq etc and that they aren't getting success just because of pitches I don't know what to say. People are even free to believe that Shadab is better than Warne and Murali combined but they won't find takers among sane people. If a spinner can't even land the ball on the pitch, how is it going to help him?

 

[Mesozoic]

This WC is 100% orchestrated not just for an Indian win, but for more RSS seats at Lok Sabha

Yes yes. Pakistan collapsing for 36/8 like minnows on a flat Ahemdabad highway has also got to go with RSS and Lok Sabha.

This is what happens when your expectations don't match the quality of the team you support and when bitter hatred takes over logic & reasoning. Weren't you so sure before the tournament that Babar will roar like a "cornered tiger", "do Namaz infront of 130k Hindu Indians" and lift the trophy in Ahmedabad? No point moaning now about RSS, KFC and Mossad now lmao...

 

[Kriketer]

This sport has completely indianfied hence it is going down the drain every step of the way, everything is looked from commercial point of view of big following from one country so appease them and racism is wide apparent in this day and age....good point about RSS helding it instead of ICC. ICC/BCCI have destroyed cricket in many other nations. Tier system, flat pitches, big bats, small boundaries money money money. Fan following in many countries is diminishing and that's all on ICC, in countries like Zimbabwe and West Indies it's a graveyard sport and others are in the line. They have also miserably failed to spread the game.

Nothing beats world cup in England and swing and spin are offered in many other places on a much more consistent basis than subcontinent. Even games in India before used to be a lot more exciting than today's hence a farce long list of one sided contest in this world cup

 

[Mesozoic]

India seem to be very good at playing this strange version of cricket. They have found a formula which works on these doctored wickets

I thought this "dOctorEd wIcKeTs" cope was only reserved for Indian home Tests. I would really like to know how we doctored our wickets where we score 350 and then bowl our opponents for 80.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

This sport has completely indianfied hence it is going down the drain every step of the way, everything is looked from commercial point of view of big following from one country so appease them and racism is wide apparent in this day and age....good point about RSS helding it instead of ICC. ICC/BCCI have destroyed cricket in many other nations. Tier system, flat pitches, big bats, small boundaries money money money. Fan following in many countries is diminishing and that's all on ICC, in countries like Zimbabwe and West Indies it's a graveyard sport and others are in the line. They have also miserably failed to spread the game.

Nothing beats world cup in England and swing and spin are offered in many other places on a much more consistent basis than subcontinent. Even games in India before used to be a lot more exciting than today's hence a farce long list of one sided contest in this world cup

Swing and spin are the reasons for the one sided nature of the contests

 

[Mesozoic]

Most Indians (and I'm sure most Pakistanis too) call the 2007 World Cup in West Indies a complete "farce" and a "flopshow". They blame the crowds, one sided fixtures etc etc but the main reason behind their resentment for that tournament is that India and Pakistan performed abysmally and went home alongside Bermuda, Kenya and Canada in the first round itself.

In another timeline, India would have smashed Bangladesh with Sehwag scoring 150 while Pakistan demolished Ireland with a Umar Gul 6-fer and the whole tournament would be viewed through an entirely different lens.

In another timeline, India would have won the tosses against Pak and New Zealand in the 2021 WT20 and even that tournament would have been viewed differently by us , instead of the "farcical Toss 20 cup" references that are still used today.

Pakistan being out of the top 4 currently and India absolutely demolishing every team on it's way was always not going to go down well in these 'parts' so these threads aren't a big surprise to be honest.

 

[saqib.rai]

Most Indians (and I'm sure most Pakistanis too) call the 2007 World Cup in West Indies a complete "farce" and a "flopshow". They blame the crowds, one sided fixtures etc etc but the main reason behind their resentment for that tournament is that India and Pakistan performed abysmally and went home alongside Bermuda, Kenya and Canada in the first round itself.

In another timeline, India would have smashed Bangladesh with Sehwag scoring 150 while Pakistan demolished Ireland with a Umar Gul 6-fer and the whole tournament would be viewed through an entirely different lens.

In another timeline, India would have won the tosses against Pak and New Zealand in the 2021 WT20 and even that tournament would have been viewed differently by us , instead of the "farcical Toss 20 cup" references that are still used today.

Pakistan being out of the top 4 currently and India absolutely demolishing every team on it's way was always not going to go down well in these 'parts' so these threads aren't a big surprise to be honest.

It's not that
The 2007 ODI WC was unnecessarily long and the crowd turn out was pathetic

Pakistan were outplayed in 2003 as well but no Pakistani considers 2003 as a flop World Cup

In this World Cup, idk theres something about the aesthetics that is not right.

Maybe only England is capable of hosting an ODI World Cup. They have grounds of smaller capacity so even if many people don't turn up, it doesn't look aesthetically bad.

Also, this World Cup has seen the most one sided matches in recorded history. Only 3/40 matches could have been won by either side- that is not India's fault obviously but the shortcoming of the format.

Also now people aren't interested in long tournament after the previous 2 t20 WCs. Australia lost only 1 game in the last t20 World Cup and couldn't progress.

Majority matches should have relevance- something this format of the ODI World Cup lacks

 

[Cover Drive Six]

I don't find a single valid point in the OP analysis.

 

[BouncerGuy]

I don't find a single valid point in the OP analysis.

What are your points then?
May be the OP is missing something which you can add to.

 

[Cover Drive Six]

What are your points then?
May be the OP is missing something which you can add to.

Already, @Swashbuckler, @Nikhil_cric , @Mesozoic made some valid points with stats.
I'm waiting for the OP to back up his narratives with some stats.

 

[Energy]

Patiently waiting for the coconut cracking ceremony to be introduced by the ICC at the start of matches instead of the toss. Will provide additional excitement.

 

[Third Man]

Totally disagree. It's true that matches have been very one-sided and that might have something to do with not many ODIs being played and some of the teams not being able to adjust their game to ODIs from T20s. But you can't say that there isn't any swing, seam or movement for the batsmen. There's been plenty of that in at least half of the games. Yes, there is a little imbalance there because it swings a lot more under lights than during the day, but the swing has been there. Then there have been pitches like Bangalore with nothing to offer for the bowlers but that's fine because it gave us an exciting game too.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

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.

You were doing really well.

For a moment you even had me.

Then you started talking about doctored pitches and how Indian bowlers seem to somehow make it happen.

The prologue was going really well till you couldnt control yourself any longer.

The curtain had to fall at some point though.

 

[Vikram1989]

Patiently waiting for the coconut cracking ceremony to be introduced by the ICC at the start of matches instead of the toss. Will provide additional excitement.

May be it provides more entertainment than a specific team performance depending on luck for ever.

 

[Hitman]

You were doing really well.

For a moment you even had me.

Then you started talking about doctored pitches and how Indian bowlers seem to somehow make it happen.

The prologue was going really well till you couldnt control yourself any longer.

The curtain had to fall at some point though.

It's so bloody apparent to even a blind man

I've thoroughly enjoyed the WC so far.

 

[pakistani pride]

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

Of course we would.
Just enjoy it mate. Your team is playing good cricket. We can still hope for qudrat ka nizam.

 

[Hitman]

Of course we would.
Just enjoy it mate. Your team is playing good cricket. We can still hope for qudrat ka nizam.

It's not like I'm putting your team down. Most of us know the OP and his habits.

 

[nish_mate]

You were doing really well.

For a moment you even had me.

Then you started talking about doctored pitches and how Indian bowlers seem to somehow make it happen.

The prologue was going really well till you couldnt control yourself any longer.

The curtain had to fall at some point though.

Summer of 69's got a lot to answer...

 

[Kroll]

Yessss! Junaids is back! I'm just here for the patter.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Most Indians (and I'm sure most Pakistanis too) call the 2007 World Cup in West Indies a complete "farce" and a "flopshow". They blame the crowds, one sided fixtures etc etc but the main reason behind their resentment for that tournament is that India and Pakistan performed abysmally and went home alongside Bermuda, Kenya and Canada in the first round itself.

In another timeline, India would have smashed Bangladesh with Sehwag scoring 150 while Pakistan demolished Ireland with a Umar Gul 6-fer and the whole tournament would be viewed through an entirely different lens.

In another timeline, India would have won the tosses against Pak and New Zealand in the 2021 WT20 and even that tournament would have been viewed differently by us , instead of the "farcical Toss 20 cup" references that are still used today.

Pakistan being out of the top 4 currently and India absolutely demolishing every team on it's way was always not going to go down well in these 'parts' so these threads aren't a big surprise to be honest.

Disagree . I thoroughly enjoyed World T20 2021 and especially 2022 regardless of India's performances . The cricket was of a high standard .

2007 was a terrible World Cup and probably had the worst ending for a final as well . The quality of cricket on show was very sub standard and none of the matches except maybe SA vs SL was even memorable.

 

[Technics 1210]

Very nice post.
I would also like to add that an ICC event happening every year is also diminishing the value of the ODI World Cup.
We have a t20 WC in 8 months and the CT 8 months after that.

You would see players from football crying with literal tears after their teams go out of the World Cup. They know World Cups takes place every 4 years and they might not get to play in another World Cup.

When we lost the final to England last year, I was sad but weirdly not that much. I told myself koi nahi, next year India mai World Cup hai, we will win that.

I understand the ICC needs to earn more money so that it can develop cricket in associate countries and for that plans an ICC tournament every year
BUT

This is just like when t20 came, people were saying there is no money in t20 cricket as you would get an add-break only 20 times as against 50 times in an ODI innings
But the VIEWERS increased so much that 20>>>50

Eventually, broadcasters would also realize SATURATION of ICC events has decreased interest and viewership and hopefully scrap the Champions Trophy and have the t20 WC take place every 4 years as well.

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.

 

[MMHS]

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.

But, I don’t agree with the second part - these run feast ODI games are the out come of trying to sell cheap entertainment and more or less every venue (host country) are equally involved in the act. Across the globe everywhere we see similar pattern - match scores started to move from 400 to 450 to 500 to 575 to 625 ….. now it’s threatening 750!!!! At this rate, next WC on smaller SAF ground at higher altitude, we might see 450 being chased. I actually believe this WC has given more diverse playing conditions/surfaces than any other possible venues (even countries combines).

Wickets & playing conditions in England, South Africa & NZ are absolutely identical - apart from a little difference in weather/climate someone new in this sports won’t be able to distinguish between Auckland, Johannesburg or Leeds; Australian grounds are a little larger (but not the playing area any more - now they pull the rope in), but all 6 venues offer almost same (not similar) wicket these days; same for WIN as well on a smaller ground while PAK wickets are probably the most identical everywhere across the country and it’s as flat as it can be. In fact, these days most diverse wickets for ODI, outside India we can find probably is in Srilanka!!!

I think, this could have been an excellent write up to be sent to ICC, but the last half doesn’t make sense at all. Do I disagree with that - not much, it’s true and based on facts, but reality is it’s not a monopoly for India only, rather I would say opposite - it’s the better one among the worst. And, I’m afraid situations will be much vulgar in next WC at SAF - already at high altitude venues like J’burg or Centurion, they are comfortably chasing 350+ scores (or getting crashed by 150+ margin chasing ~375ish targets, or games finishing inside 75 overs…).

 

[SalimBhai]

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.

Great post. I agree 1000 percent

 

[PakFan2010]

Cricket World Cup should always be held in England.

It is the most diverse country and has fans from every single country.

 

[Saj]

Give me a more even battle between bat and ball, any day of the week.

Where batters have to earn every run.

Where bowlers are in the game.

 

[Farabi]

Give me a more even battle between bat and ball, any day of the week.

Where batters have to earn every run.

Where bowlers are in the game.

The definition of "even" continuously shifts. If cricket were to be invented today in its current form, there would be no basis for comparison with historical iterations. The competition remains vibrant, but the standards by which it is measured have evolved. In the past, batsmen had to struggle for every run, whereas today, the battle is focused on securing each boundary. The fight endures, albeit in a different form.

 

[MenInG]

Excellent stuff as always @Junaids

Your thoughts are now part of our Beyond the Boundary section:

Why I fell out of love with the World Cup

Online forum for Pakistani cricket

www.pakpassion.net

 

[JattMaula]

Excellent stuff as always @Junaids

Your thoughts are now part of our Beyond the Boundary section:

Why I fell out of love with the World Cup

Online forum for Pakistani cricket

www.pakpassion.net

Thats a high bar!

 

[Markhor]

I don't think this World Cup has lacked quality. There's valid arguments about lack of bat-ball balance and close matches which unfortunately is baked into modern ODI cricket. I feel the biggest problem with this World Cup is the format. There's too much filler.

Unless you're a cricket junkie, why watch any of the group stage matches until the final week when the semifinal places are finalised ?

This format also is too forgiving of failure. A World Cup defeat should be catastrophic. A shattering experience that remain with fans for generations. Here, a team can lose 4 matches and still not just qualify for the SFs but win the tournament.

 

[Savak]

I have enjoyed this WC. It has exposed the boys from men. Teams are themselves to be blamed for their lack of preperation i.e. Pakistan, England, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh. This tournament has seperated the T-20 players like Haris Rauf, Shadab Khan from men

 

[jnaveen1980]

England started this trend of stacking the side with batsmen or batsmen who can bowl at the expense of proper bowlers. They didn't exactly dominate 2019 world cup. Did just enough to sneak ithrough. But that strategy has holes. For some reason other teams ignored the holes in the strategy and started adopting simialr strategy. For instance in the very first match between NZ and England, NZ had just 3 specialist bowlers. They used average bowlers or part timers to finish 20 overs. Sure it gives an elongated look. But it affects your bowling. Teams came in with an intention to outbat opposition given that some of the grounds they play on are high scoring venues.

Here is the thing about high scoring venues. In high scoring venues you should bolster your bowling not batting. You don't need 8 batsmen to score big on those venues. Even 4 or 5 would be enough. NZ precisely did not do that in the match against pakistan. They went with grand total of 2 seamers. one of them just returned from injury. one undercooked spinner. one genuine spinners. Remaining managed by part timers. They were helplessly watching Fakar Zaman massacring them.

Trust me i was kinda envious of such sides when the world cup started. "Look how other teams have bowlers who can bat, batsmen who can bowl". Here we have a side that will go nowhere once you get 4 wickets. Surprisingly that proved to be the strength of India. They just went with 11 specialists. No bit part players.

Teams like Pakistan, NZ heavily invested in bit part players who are likely to provide cushion to top order and also play support role for bowlers. Turns out they were not successful in either of the department.

 

[jnaveen1980]

I have enjoyed this WC. It has exposed the boys from men. Teams are themselves to be blamed for their lack of preperation i.e. Pakistan, England, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh. This tournament has seperated the T-20 players like Haris Rauf, Shadab Khan from men

Very good point 4 overs vs 10 overs massive difference. You pick wickets in T20 for a totally different reason. batsman tries to go after you and lose their wickets. In 50 over game they don't have to. They can sit back and wait for your full toss or half tracker

 

[Dr_Bassim]

I don't think this World Cup has lacked quality. There's valid arguments about lack of bat-ball balance and close matches which unfortunately is baked into modern ODI cricket. I feel the biggest problem with this World Cup is the format. There's too much filler.

Unless you're a cricket junkie, why watch any of the group stage matches until the final week when the semifinal places are finalised ?

This format also is too forgiving of failure. A WC defeat should be catastrophic. A shattering experience that remain with fans for generations. Here, a team can lose 4 matches and still not just qualify for the SFs but win the tournament.

I suppose you are thinking about Pakistan?

But the truth is, if you can lose 4 matches and win 8 on the trot you deserve to win the World Cup.

I dont care how poor Pakistan has been.

If they can turn it around and win the semi and final, no one can say they didnt deserve to win the tournament.

And those who peddle this excuse are either scared of Pakistan actually winning the tournament or they have ulterior motives (about bringing their favorite players in the team).

I know you are not one of those people but just saying the format simply caters to the best team.

The best team cannot be best unless they win 6 matches on the trot which Pakistan needs to win the World Cup.

 

[nish_mate]

Problem with England and Oz in general is it can rain at any given time and you have to factor in rain in your calcs.

In 92 a certain SA was robbed of a victory by rain, in 2019 I can think of 2 matches that were impacted by rain.

This WC, then rain impacted match played in favour of Pakistan, else the OP would have had something more to rant about..

 

[MMHS]

I don't think this World Cup has lacked quality. There's valid arguments about lack of bat-ball balance and close matches which unfortunately is baked into modern ODI cricket. I feel the biggest problem with this World Cup is the format. There's too much filler.

Unless you're a cricket junkie, why watch any of the group stage matches until the final week when the semifinal places are finalised ?

This format also is too forgiving of failure. A World Cup defeat should be catastrophic. A shattering experience that remain with fans for generations. Here, a team can lose 4 matches and still not just qualify for the SFs but win the tournament.

I think, this format actually gives the best chance for the better teams. BD & Ireland (& Kenya, but for a different reason) made second round basically winning just one tight game against odds. In 1996, Sanath Jaya won MoS after doing absolutely nothing in SF/F and SRL got two byes at home to AUS & WIN, then went to QF as top team and took a hapless ENG in QF - just for the format.

Here, at the end you see the best three teams are already there and the next three are still in the race for 4th spot.

In this format also, one loss can be catastrophic- PAK might be eliminated for that one game against AFGs, AFGs blew their first game also… England’s WC defence was ruined by one loss against Afghanistan, otherwise they would have also in contention.

This format actually is less forgiving for the favourites - in a 6 teams group format, in 1999, Aussies lost first 3 games and still made it, won’t have been so easy if it was 12 teams group.

 

[MMHS]

Problem with England and Oz in general is it can rain at any given time and you have to factor in rain in your calcs.

In 92 a certain SA was robbed of a victory by rain, in 2019 I can think of 2 matches that were impacted by rain.

This WC, then rain impacted match played in favour of Pakistan, else the OP would have had something more to rant about..

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.

 

[Savak]

Very good point 4 overs vs 10 overs massive difference. You pick wickets in T20 for a totally different reason. batsman tries to go after you and lose their wickets. In 50 over game they don't have to. They can sit back and wait for your full toss or half tracker

As a spinner in T20 cricket, you can afford to dart the ball or get away with bowling defensively. However in ODI Cricket, you have to know the art of getting wickets in the middle overs even when the batsman is just looking to survive unlike T-20 cricket.

 

[Syed1]

While I like the concept of every team playing every other team so that the victor is truly the world champion, but then you have a team like Pakistan that may scrap their way to the semi and then fluke two wins and win the WC. Meanwhile India that has whipped everyone comprehensively could have an off day in the semi and crash out.

Something like the PSL eliminator needs to be incorporated. Where the top two teams are guaranteed a semi and the other two have to win some eliminator to get to the semi.

 

[jnaveen1980]

While I like the concept of every team playing every other team so that the victor is truly the world champion, but then you have a team like Pakistan that may scrap their way to the semi and then fluke two wins and win the WC. Meanwhile India that has whipped everyone comprehensively could have an off day in the semi and crash out.

Something like the PSL eliminator needs to be incorporated. Where the top two teams are guaranteed a semi and the other two have to win some eliminator to get to the semi.

One of the reason it is easy for Pakistan to get into semi finals is anti climactic performance of England. Imagine England beating teams consistently in this world cup. It would have been much harder for teams to sneak into semi final. Their below average performance reduced the competition dramatically. Basically competition was reduced to 5 teams.It is not that hard to be in last 4 out of 5.

 

[SportsWarrior]

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.

Very well said. I watched that match too and most people were very angry at SAF after first innings. Consensus was they gamed the system. So when they got owned by the same rain gods, it was difficult to feel sympathy for them

 

[Dr_Bassim]

While I like the concept of every team playing every other team so that the victor is truly the world champion, but then you have a team like Pakistan that may scrap their way to the semi and then fluke two wins and win the WC. Meanwhile India that has whipped everyone comprehensively could have an off day in the semi and crash out.

Something like the PSL eliminator needs to be incorporated. Where the top two teams are guaranteed a semi and the other two have to win some eliminator to get to the semi.

The best solution for this and to make every match important is to play like either the Bundesliga or Premier League with the top team winning the tournament without the final.

Or it could be like Champions League with Semi Finals being played over best of 2 games with total aggregate scores separating the two teams.

 

[Technics 1210]

Round Robin format is the best, a true test of championship vs the happy go lucky Super 6/Group formats.

However ICC need to address the imbalance between bat and ball.

Power Plays - these are 100% reasonable and were introduced in the 80s to encourage batsmen to score more runs (there were no specialist ODI players back then as every player was a Test player). The PP effect was clear, it shifted the near 200 winning target to 250 in the 90s. Then Jayasuriya came along and changed the face of ODI batting.

2 Balls in an ODI. This just swung the favour towards the batsmen. Even though the 1992 WC was played with 2 balls, World Cup matches in 80s and 90s would take a turn for the worse or better around the 35th over mark, and a skillful bowler would extract reverse swing making it more challenging for the batsmen. However now, the ball never gets older than 25 overs and is ripe for a spanking.

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.

High scores have barely nothing to do with the grounds, unless the boundary ropes are brought in, but all to do with bigger bats, and better conditioned balls (25 overs max). Give your Sharmas, Kohlis, etc a stroke making bat then lets see them score regular tons.

If batsmen can use bigger bats, then bowlers should be allowed to tamper with the ball - 2 balls or 1 - sounds crazy, but there is logic to this.

 

[Kroll]

While I like the concept of every team playing every other team so that the victor is truly the world champion, but then you have a team like Pakistan that may scrap their way to the semi and then fluke two wins and win the WC. Meanwhile India that has whipped everyone comprehensively could have an off day in the semi and crash out.

Something like the PSL eliminator needs to be incorporated. Where the top two teams are guaranteed a semi and the other two have to win some eliminator to get to the semi.

Nah man they’ve already brought in the two new ball rule and banned spinning chuckers to curb Pakistan’s strengths.

There’s something mystic about the way sometimes Pak comes back from the dead. No need to introduce further measures where it makes it more difficult for them.

 

[Savak]

Want to see reverse swing back in ODI Cricket. The ICC needs to do away with the 2 new balls so that batsmen in the middle are tested against reverse swing and spin. Maybe also introduce 3 bouncers in an over.

Sixes above 70 meters should quality for 10 runs. This will encourage players to really work on their power hitting.

 

[Sidilicious]

While I like the concept of every team playing every other team so that the victor is truly the world champion, but then you have a team like Pakistan that may scrap their way to the semi and then fluke two wins and win the WC. Meanwhile India that has whipped everyone comprehensively could have an off day in the semi and crash out.

Something like the PSL eliminator needs to be incorporated. Where the top two teams are guaranteed a semi and the other two have to win some eliminator to get to the semi.

I like the fact that the format allows for a team to have a bad start and come back. It makes mercurial teams like Pakistan shine and the World Cup more interesting. What was the point if India just won the World Cup.

However, I would say the best format ought to be 2 groups with 6/7 teams, with top 2 teams making it to the semis. This would be similar to this World Cup (9 matches per team for 4 spots vs 6 matches for 2 spots). Every Loss and win would be important, and instead of having the quarters where the top 4 teams went through, essentially meaning one only needed to beat minnows, this would mean that there could be fierce competition between 3-4 teams for 2 spots.

 

[JaDed]

While I like this format I thought 2015 1992 and 1996 formats were fun. Super 6 and super 8 were meh..

 

[JaDed]

Round Robin format is the best, a true test of championship vs the happy go lucky Super 6/Group formats.

However ICC need to address the imbalance between bat and ball.

Power Plays - these are 100% reasonable and were introduced in the 80s to encourage batsmen to score more runs (there were no specialist ODI players back then as every player was a Test player). The PP effect was clear, it shifted the near 200 winning target to 250 in the 90s. Then Jayasuriya came along and changed the face of ODI batting.

2 Balls in an ODI. This just swung the favour towards the batsmen. Even though the 1992 WC was played with 2 balls, World Cup matches in 80s and 90s would take a turn for the worse or better around the 35th over mark, and a skillful bowler would extract reverse swing making it more challenging for the batsmen. However now, the ball never gets older than 25 overs and is ripe for a spanking.

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.

High scores have barely nothing to do with the grounds, unless the boundary ropes are brought in, but all to do with bigger bats, and better conditioned balls (25 overs max). Give your Sharmas, Kohlis, etc a stroke making bat then lets see them score regular tons.

If batsmen can use bigger bats, then bowlers should be allowed to tamper with the ball - 2 balls or 1 - sounds crazy, but there is logic to this.

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.

 

[JaDed]

I like the fact that the format allows for a team to have a bad start and come back. It makes mercurial teams like Pakistan shine and the World Cup more interesting. What was the point if India just won the World Cup.

However, I would say the best format ought to be 2 groups with 6/7 teams, with top 2 teams making it to the semis. This would be similar to this World Cup (9 matches per team for 4 spots vs 6 matches for 2 spots). Every Loss and win would be important, and instead of having the quarters where the top 4 teams went through, essentially meaning one only needed to beat minnows, this would mean that there could be fierce competition between 3-4 teams for 2 spots.

2019 basically… or CT 2017 one