Bcoz new teams come and have lack of experience and other teams make world record against them. It should not be. Like more than 400 runs ,Match Hat-Trick,Most individual runs of batsmen.... etc. At least they should have experience of playing international tournaments like Tri-angular,Asia cup,sahara cup,sharja cup etc. then they should enter.
2007-03-25 12:00:52 · 8 answers · asked by imran_razzaq49 2 in Sports ➔ Cricket
Yes, they should and do have a World Cup of their own, called the ICC Champions Trophy, and up until this year, the top 3 teams only qualified for the World Cup proper. However, playing fellow "minnow" nations isn't going to help build popularity in their countries, nor will it help these nations improve enough to compete against top nations.
Take Sri Lanka for example, they used to be the former whipping boys of international cricket, but exposure, mainly through World Cups helped them improve, not only on field, but in their depth in talent in domestic cricket, and they also won the 1996 World Cup. Had they been left to compete only in the ICC, not only would they have not gained Test Match status, they certainly would not have won the '96 World Cup.
However, a better structure than the present World Cup needs to be introduced. Having 6 minnow nations, along with Zimbabwe in the competition has produced a few too many one sided games. They need to limit the ICC Associate Members participation to 3 or 4 at the very most.
It's a catch 22, because the ICC seems genuinely interested in developing the game outside of it's normal boundaries (even if it is to line their own pockets), however, having 6 smaller cricketing nations in the World Cup isn't the way to do it. It doesn't help that the bigger Test playing nations, such as Australia, England and co. don't want to play against these nations on tours, and the increased cricketing calender doesn't help.
Maybe a solution would be on tours, the touring team should play the minnow sides, and give them the experience of playing a "major team". For example; an Ashes tour where Australia plays teams like Holland, Scotland and Ireland will help those three teams improve. For tours to the West Indies, teams could play Bermuda, and perhaps even the United States. When teams tour South Africa, they could play Namibia and Kenya. The only team that would be difficult to help with improvement, would be Canada, given the distance between them and any major Test playing nation. The test playing nations could use these games as warm ups, while giving the smaller nations exposure against high quality opposition.
Another solution would be to have the A teams visit these countries. While it might not be exactly the same, Australia A, England A or whoever playing the likes of Kenya, Holland and co, would be beneficial to all parties, as it would give the up and coming players from the developed cricketing nations touring experience, while the minnows still get to play against high quality opponents.
2007-03-26 20:54:27 · answer #1 · answered by NamesdontMatter 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I disagree TOTALLY!
How do you suggest that the sport develop and improve?
I applaud the efforts of the ICC by including associate teams in CWC. In fact, I think they should encourage the top teams playing the associate teams outside of World Cup, especially in the One Day format of the game!
I agree that some teams got clobbered(e.g. Bermuda, The Netherlands) but on the other hand they were teams who sprung surprises (e.g. Ireland).
Kenya did the same thing in CWC 2003 when they made the semis....and they were considered a non-factor then!
Please people!....accept that the sport is growing and absolutely no team is entitled to free passes at major tournaments.
In Football World Cup, each country on this planet has an opportunity to make it on the big stage. Has that change the integrity of the sport?
C'mon...Get real!
2007-03-25 13:41:56 · answer #2 · answered by Brewmaster 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I do not agree.
Every one should now understand at great leisure that there are more countries than the Favorite Teams, which play the greatest game in the solar system. And that the richest cricket body doesn't necessarily have to produce the best cricket. World Cup is for everyone.. thats why it is called World cup...
2007-03-25 12:28:15 · answer #3 · answered by bipasha_ny 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, you are right, but actually I think they should play in the
World Cup, but they should all be in the same group together
to start with, and the team that progresses from their group,
then has a chance to play a better team.
If they only played against each other. they would not get a
chance to improve.
2007-03-25 14:16:24 · answer #4 · answered by \Magda 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Couple issues 1st. Mexico is greater corrupt extraordinarily while their own president bought the votes to win the election 2d. Why mexico? i think of it would be greater effectual in any united states of america that hasnt hosted it two times alredy third. Brazil undesirable? I dont think of so otherwise they wouldnt have gained the bid for 2014 4th. What makes you think of mexico will win wc at domicile in the event that they cant even beat jamaica at domicile for the time of a qualifier? And final. while did mexico win of a rest room (apart from adolescents communities) im especially particular that is on no account. No offense in basic terms cuz you thumb me down doesnt advise im incorrect its all real
2016-10-19 22:05:14 · answer #5 · answered by porix 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I fully agree with your views. Only the teams which perform well in international matches/tournaments should be included in the cricket world cup.
2007-03-25 14:23:13 · answer #6 · answered by vakayil k 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Hello there this is Ana just come across a site during the India-west indies and India srilanka although they have a small score card but there audio was fantastic and was really successfully enjoyed by me the site was http://www.action8cricket.com
if you all think i delivered best then enjoy.
2007-03-25 23:52:20 · answer #7 · answered by Ana 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes you are right. ICC has become hungry to earn more and more money. That is the reason that they have made cricket very bad.
2007-03-25 12:21:42 · answer #8 · answered by message_ofme4u 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋