are the non-test playing nations necessary for the world cup????
By kernel
@kernel (192)
India
February 21, 2007 7:15am CST
the icc has included six nations who have not played test matches and who havent even played a lot of odis...what is gained by a team playing in a world cup and getting absolutely hammered?it doesnt make sense to me...this also results in a lot of one sided games and a disappointment to the spectators and viewers....when i saw the world cup schedule it was written in the super eight stage that "as expexted "and then the line up of matches between the eight top teams who we know are surely capable of reaching that stage...i mean why pick up those teams if you know they are nowhere in the competition ....i believe that the world cup need not be staged for as long as two months by including a lot of teams .....it would be better if those inexperienced teams play among themselves...what do you think???post your replies
1 person likes this
5 responses
@satyaranjan1980 (43)
• India
21 Feb 07
I personally feel the biggest event for cricket shoulsd not include the non test playing nations.They just serve the purpose of increasing the number of partcipants and serve as practice matches to other teams.They become the whipping boys of the stronger teams and always feature in some dubious record or the other.
@coolsanth (112)
• India
21 Feb 07
in my the non-test playing nations should be included in world cup squad.. since then only they will know the competition and they will try to work hard... if we won't include all other nations... then what is the difference between the champions trophy and world cup.... there should be some difference... in last world cup kenya came up to semi finals... is that a test playing counter???
@banta78 (4326)
• India
22 Feb 07
Well there are non test playing teams like kenya who reached semifinals in last world cup beating fancied opponents. Morever these teams have qualified for world cup after playing in challenger tournament where teams form around the world participated. Besides it will give them exposure and chnce to beat top sides and also help crciekt beocme a truly global sport.
But i agree that games shouldn't be onesided or boring. So these teams should be given enough exposure, training, coaching that will surely help.
@a_manick (879)
• India
22 Feb 07
A team can move up only when they face stiff competition. So, its right to include the smaller teams in the competition. But, how many teams is a question. Do we need 8 tiny nations, including Bangladesh and Zimbabwe?
We should also have regular tournaments involving these teams and the bigger teams.
1 person likes this
@hiveenu (521)
• India
22 Feb 07
Hi, having 8 minnows for the world cup is too much. I mean, see the football world cup. Almost all nations in the world play football and have their national teams. But only a selected few are chosen after conducting preliminary matches regionwise. These teams then compete with each other by a fresh draw making the world cup interesting from the first kick to the last one.
Similarly, the minnows of world cricket should be made to play preliminary matches among themselves and the first two or at the most 4 teams should be chosen to compete in the world cup against the juggernauts.
Exposure cannot come at the expense of dwindling audience in cricket. If they want exposure, a series can always be arranged, not a world cup come on. Also, even if one of the minnows score an occassional win over a formidable test playing nation, naturally the betting scandal wakes up. That some kenyan player was indicted in betting scandal some time ago is ample proof regarding this. Thanks.
1 person likes this
