Cricket Part II


Reckon a few poms had money on the scots


Only when they start doing it consistently. The first round of the world cup was irrelevant when the minows were involved


Completely disagree. The early rounds were super important for making sure you didn’t trip up against the so called minnows. Look at back at the performances by Zimbabwe in 1999, Kenya (and also Zimbabwe) in 2003 and Bangladesh/Ireland in 2007. You could also throw Bangladesh’s qualification for the knockout stages over in England in the last World Cup as one of the highlights of that tournament.


Yes those are great to see but for every 1 of those there is 4 one sided beltings

Kenya and zimbabwe in 2003 great. How about Namibia? Losses of 86 runs to zimbabwe (in a shortened 25 over match), 171 runs to pakistan, 256 runs to australia and a credible 55 runs to england. Canada got bowled out for 36 in that cup, plus netherlands and Bangladesh were complete pushovers

The problem the cricket world cup had it was too long with too many irrelevant games they had to lower the number of teams (though 12 would have been a better number)


It’s not just about the results. Canada whilst not competitive provided one of the all time great World Cup highlights - Jon Davison’s 100 against the West Indies in 2003. There are also numerous one sided games between the so called established nations.

I will argue that a single pool of 10 matches will provide far more less interesting and more irrelevant games than we had in the last World Cup given every game basically meant something. Now there may be many matches played in the back half of the tournament that have no bearing on who makes the semi finals. Hence just playing for the sake of playing.

My biggest issue is that the 2019 World Cup still basically has the same number of matches and goes for just as many days yet we have 4 fewer teams. The 2007 World Cup where both Pakistan and India failed to get to the super 8s have caused this. Unfortunately it’s all about tv dollars and the 10 team format ensure India get at least 9 matches.


Shower thoughts:
What if Australia, England and South Africa only gave India two game Test series until they stopped acting like jerks?


I’m not suggesting the new format is better, just that there should be less minnows (which i think we’ll agree to disagree on).

I don’t think they add anything but fluff big team averages more often than not. Didn’t even mention Bermuda, what a disaster they were but I’ll never forget this


See my argument is that moments like that make the World Cup. Try remembering a match involving Australia vs India or any other big nation at the group stage from any World Cup. They have meant little in the past and now will probably mean even less. Whereas a game against Bermuda or whoever else was a banana skin you had to avoid. These individual highlights create memories that are needed.


India would just say we don’t care. If you don’t want to play us we will just play more IPL and even fewer tests. Unfortunately they have too much power and Australia and England have taken the view they are far better off joining up with India than fighting against them. The gravy train is huge but go against India and all of a sudden the revenues might dry up.


Not going to happen because each country makes most of their money when they play India


Personally, I think the ideal World Cup format should be:

  • 12 teams
  • 2 pools of 6 and everyone plays the other 5 teams in their own pool in the first stage. 30 matches
  • super 6 stage with the top 3 from each pool playing the teams from the other pool. 9 matches
  • semis with 1st v 4th and 2nd v 3rd
  • final

Less games overall than this team 10 team format with everyone playing everyone else.
2 more minnows get a go.

The minnows are getting more competitive in ODI cricket because of the introduction of T20 imo. If that trend continues the value of including the minnows will continue to increase. So you could easily keep the above format but slower increase from 14 teams then 16.
I can’t see a need for more than 16 teams anytime in about the next 20 or 30 years


There’s no way that’s true for England and Australia.
Unless CA get Indian telecast revenue?


We definitely do. So we make shitloads when we play India.


Spot on, @redbull. Instead of a Pakistan v India Super 8 match we had Ireland and Bangladesh. This effectively signalled the end of the minnows given more representation at the WC. A victim of their own success to some degree and also a victim of the ICC’s greed and lack of foresight.


My understanding is that CA only makes money from internationals when India tours Australia. Even in an Ashes year they only break even. This is because gate revenues and sponsorships make up a such a tiny part of overall revenue in comparsion to tv rights. One of the issues with making money from the Ashes is the horrible timing for Australian matches in the UK.

But to your point, if we pull out of tests in India they will just refuse to come here. Then the only way CA will make money is from the Big Bash which would hardly compensate what they make from an Indian series.

Revenue from India tv is the same reason why ODIs will live on, they make good money for host nations even when hosting India in a nothing series. This is because cricket is perfect for advertising and the length of matches allows you to sell ads over a huge period time.


AUSTRALIAN coach Justin Langer has spoken of his devastation at Australia’s involvement in ball-tampering earlier this year, a scandal that led to his appointment as head coach following the resignation of Darren Lehmann.

In an exclusive interview with Sky Sports Cricket Langer and newly-appointed captain Tim Paine talk candidly about their roles in overseeing a culture change in the Australian team.

Speaking to Nasser Hussain, Langer said: “There were too many whispers in the last 12 months or so about the abuse on the field, or dare I say, the side playing like spoilt brats.

“When that moment [the ball-tampering] happened, as a past player and lover of Australia, I nearly died. And when I saw it was Cameron Bancroft, my heart nearly came out of my chest, I couldn’t believe it.”

Despite that, Langer has stated his Australia will continue to sledge opposition teams as they look to play hard, but fair, cricket, starting with their five-match ODI series against England.

Langer also shared a candid assessment of Steve Smith’s captaincy in the 12 months prior to his downfall as Australian skipper during the tour of South Africa.

Nasser Hussain: [To Langer] As a coach, at Western Australia, did you see anything from a distance about the culture of the Australian side that made you think ‘that’s not right’?

Justin Langer: The whispers were there, weren’t they Nass? Once upon a time, the opposition didn’t like us because we played really good, hard cricket — we were very skilful and we won a lot of games. It’s easy to dislike the opposition if they’re good, but there have been too many whispers in the last 12 months or so about the abuse on the field, or dare I say, the side playing like spoilt brats.

Justin Langer, left, and captain Tim Paine are starting from scratch.
Justin Langer, left, and captain Tim Paine are starting from scratch.Source:AP

When that moment [the ball-tampering] happened, as a past player and lover of Australia, I nearly died. And when I saw it was Cameron Bancroft, my heart nearly came out of my chest, I couldn’t believe it. So you’ve got to wonder why it gets to that point? But it has happened now and we’ve got to make sure we learn from it and get better from it because we can’t shy away either.

NH: They were some very dark days in South Africa: tell us how a cricket team gets into that situation?

Tim Paine: I don’t think it goes back to any one individual, but not living by our behaviours over a sustained period of time — not one year, two years, but probably even longer than that. It meant that something like Cape Town was probably going to happen, due to brushing over little things. But, the little things can turn into big things when you take your eye off the ball. It was a really difficult time.

NH: [To Langer] The side of your era played it hard — you had some mongrels; you weren’t the most liked side. What was the difference between your side and Steve Smith’s?

JL: I think Steve Smith maybe just wasn’t strong enough in his leadership. But, he loves the game of cricket — he practices harder than anyone I’ve ever met — and he is a very, very nice young lad. There’s no doubt about that.

Australia’s cultural problems ran unchallenged for two years.
Australia’s cultural problems ran unchallenged for two years.Source:AFP

David, he has got that — you used the word, mongrel — bit of bite in him. And if you look back at the team of my era, some of our guys had that too. Matty Hayden played really hard cricket, Andrew Symonds at times played really hard, Steve Waugh. He didn’t have to say much, he’d just have to look at you and you’d be nervous. The question I’d ask with David is how he got so angry? They are the things that interest me as a coach, how do you get to a point where you almost explode?

NH: Warner has been a serial offender: can a leopard like him ever change his spots? Would you welcome him back in this Australian team?

TP: Yes, absolutely. David is someone that personally when I’ve played with him, I’ve loved playing with him. He brings a real energy, a real passion, certainly some aggression at times but I think that’s when he’s at his best. But yes, if we can have David back, understanding the way we want to play our cricket going forward, then there is no reason that he won’t be back and be really successful.

Same with Steve. I’ve been in regular contact with Steve since this has happened. He’s been really supportive, I bounce things off him most days. Yes, I can’t wait to have him back playing, as a batsman in particular but he’s also got a fantastic cricket brain, he loves the game and sets a really high standard for everyone else to follow.

Justin Langer was shocked.
Justin Langer was shocked.Source:AP

NH: You’ve said that you’re going to carry on sledging, that there’s a difference between banter and abuse. But, in the laws of the game, there is no room for sledging — so why should an Australian cricket team take it upon themselves to say it’s fine?

JL: It depends how you define sledging. In Australia, it’s almost a term of endearment. If I play cards with my 12-year-old daughter Gracie, then we sledge each other, or call it banter or call it chat, whatever you want. I’ll play golf with my Mum and Dad and go, “nice sledge, nice sledge!” But we don’t abuse each other, there is no room for abuse anywhere. I don’t think it is a trait anyone would be proud of, abusing someone.

But, in the laws of the game does it say it has to be silent on the cricket field? As a person who has been in the game for a long time, like you, I would hate to see the game of cricket played in complete silence and no words were spoken — you’d lose a lot of the atmosphere and what it’s all about. You can do it with a smile on your face, you can do it by staring but there has got to be some talk on the cricket field surely?


Super 6 or 8 rounds are just another rort designed to ensure the likes of India and Australia aren’t eliminated too early


is the odi being televised on tv tonight?


9Gem 9.30pm


thanks for that. have tried checking channels. i can now sit back and enjoy he night until we collapse or something