As I've said in another thread, not happy about the fact this and the 2023 World Cups are only going to be 10 teams.
This was purely a case of the ICC bowing down to Star Sports demand for a 10 team World Cup, thus ensuring India got a guaranteed 9 games and hence more ad revenue. The 2015 World Cup was initially going to be reduced from 14 to 10 teams, but luckily enough outcry from the associate nations kept it at 14. TV networks trying to dick around with the schedule, sounds familiar to what NRL fans have endured from Channel 9. There has been chopping and changing of the tournament format ever since India and Pakistan got eliminated during the group stage of the 2007 World Cup. Have to wait until 2027 when the current 2015-23 tv rights deal is finished.
Anyways to the draw:
- 7 day/night matches
A joke that the ICC made grounds such as Headingley install floodlights so they could be eligible to host day/night matches for the tournament, and they don't get any in the end. Should've just had all games as day matches as it can get chilly during June, especially in the north of England.
- With a full round-robin tournament, semi finals should've been scrapped with the top 2 making the final at Lord's.
- Unless the ICC uses the white Dukes ball or pitches have a bit of grass put on them, bowlers will be on a hiding to nothing and team batting first will score 300+ more than 50% of the time.
- Based on their current form, Australia will have a challenge on their hands to make the finals (for the first time since the 1992 World Cup, which was also a round-robin format)
Hey Undertaker, I'm Antilag and I'm not the most popular guy on this forum. And chances are I am about to add you to the list of people not fond of me.
But stuff it.
Star Sport India to blame? Oh c'mon. Get your facts straight. Every world cup match involving India is broadcast on free to air tv in India by Government order. As to are the finals I think. With or without India. So the only interest Star Sport India has to limit the number of teams is to increase the number of quality games not involving India to attract a wider audience. This is the same goal of every broadcaster in the business. Because, surprise oh surprise, it is what most viewers, like me, or Indian Star Sport subscribers want. Demand and supply. I don't want to watch Ireland and Scotland get repeatedly thrashed. I don't care if Kenya managed a few surprise wins in the past neither. Where are they now? I really do not want to watch UAE play Ireland. And I do not care how many balls Glen Maxwell scored his double hundred in playing against either. And while Irelands wins over England were amusing, they were never in contention to win a World Cup.
Star Sports India is controlled by Uncle Rupert. An Australian. Yes - he is the one making the most money out of the typical Indian obsession with cricket. He got in early, being the highly intelligent man that he is, so really it is an Australian individual, or family, that you should be upset with.
All broadcasters want is people watching. Watching ads or paying subscription fees. By limiting the teams, they have cut the slack. Who missed out who is any good? Zimbabwe. That is it. And they hosted the series that saw WI and Afghanistan qualify. Lets face it, they had a damn good chance at it.
So blame Uncle Rupert, blame the global viewers, but do not make out like if there wasn't a buck more to be made for the ICC to give to the poor non Big 3 (NZ, SA, WI, Afg, SL, Pak, Ban, Ire, Zim) and anyone outside Aus, Eng and Ind, that it wouldn't have taken it. This is solely a decision about what brings in the most revenue, and speaking as a Non Big 3 fan in NZ, we need the funds. All non big 3 countries desperately need the funds.
Blaming the Indian Pay tv audience viewing habits is a challenge on market economics. I hope you realise this for your future arguments.
The BCCI has many faults. But lets not blame pay Indian tv subscribers who do the most ultimately to fund funding cricket globally. Including nations not at the World Cup. NZ, SA, WI, SL, anyone not Australian, English or Indian, we need that ICC cheque and we need India to tour for that Star Sports India rupee.
Now unless you want CA to make up the shortfall, why complain? The primary purpose of ICC events is to fund cricket globally.
It is a revenue generating exercise. And in NZ, SA, SL WI, ZIM, IRE, AFG, Ban, et al - we need the funds to try and compete with the Big 3 better.
Call me selfish. Call me Anti-Celtic. But I will not spend my money on Pay tv, which is the only way to watch cricket in NZ, to watch Scotland play Ireland. I'd rather pay for Wrestlemania. And I much prefer cricket. And my name is like John Smith in Glasgow.
Blaming Star Sports India is myopic. Rupert wants money. He will give the Indian subscribers what they want. And to insult them for paying for games they don't want? That's like insulting someone for not giving to charity. Which is what these cricket boards were ultimately set up as.
So what is the greater good? And is the lesser good that ultimately prevailed worth jeering at? And is it national issue, when all Australian Pay TV subscribers had to do was bid more to have 14 teams?
It is high time the Anglo world worked with the Indian pay tv audience, and got used to the market. Instead of blaming it for everything wrong with cricket today. Pakinstan cricket fans, well that is a different kettle of fish to be resolved.
The BCCI is not without fault in World Cricket issues. But the Indian Pay TV subscriber, how on earth can you blame them? They still earn less than the average Pay TV subscirber in Australia. And Rupert has more control than any one of them.
Star Sports India rant over.
7 day/night games only? Doesn't that favour tv audiences in Austrlalia? Isn't the first half of a day game pretty good for you tv audience in the evening? Or would you prefer sneaking on to cricinfo at start of work the next day to find out the winner not having seen a single ball bowled unless you turned on the tv briefly while you ate your Wheet Bix?
Again -this is for for the global tv audience.
England has used the white kookaburra for some time, and Australian bowlers are hardling swinging the Duke like Anderson, Boult and Philander or Rabada. It favours Australian the pace bowlers. And certainly favours Australian batsmen who have not conqured Duke ball swing in England since the 2001 Ashes. Lest we forget.
Every World Cup has had semi finals - why change now? NZ would love a do over and play England in the 1992 WC final at Melbourne. But Pakistan beat us fairly and Inzaman Ul Haq squarely in the semi final in 1992.
And finally - a higher quality round round helps ensures that the best four teams from pool play make the semi finals. And not Kenya. The 92 Australian side underperformed. They lost 4 from 8. That is hardly a reason to hate the format. Try winning more pool games, in which every contestant faces the same opposition, instead of an easy pool wherein a difficult pool England misses out due to losing one game to Ireland.
If NZ isn't in the top 4 after playing all other 9 teams once. So be it. Win five games or perish. A side only has to beat Ban, Afg, and WI plus 2 of the rest to qualify. With SL, India, and Pak in the rest, even if losing to Eng, Aus and SA, those seem like good odds. it is 40% of the contenders! You can be damn sure there will be intense scrutiny over runs rates for the fourth position. And those are always fun to add a dynamic to games within games.
5 out of 9 to qualify? If Australia only win 4 out of 9 and miss qualifying cos too many Asian teams beat them in England - are you really upset with the format? Or your team?
I think the format is great. And I still ain't that interested in watching SL Afg (batting anyway) WI or Ban play all the neutrals. Unexpected upsets excluded. So really, it is a 4/6 shootout as regards the bookies.
NZ, SA, Aus, Eng, Pak, Ind are the favourites to make the semis.
Surely as an Australian fan, you feel confident beating at least 2 of those teams in 5 games? And if not, does your team deserve to make the finals?