posted Apr 29, 2007

toe2toe (or something similar)
there is a 20:20 world cup already, its happening in SA next year i think. This could well become the main "World Cup" attraction if the debut goes well

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 29, 2007

if the west indies game was played over to days,
why not the final...
icc is corrupt, and the people that own the icc are the austrailians

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 29, 2007

What a Crap World Cup, i was really looking forward to maybe 4-5 teams that could win it but only Australia turned up

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 29, 2007

Coagulation to the Australian team .Even though I would have loved to see Sri Lanka lift the WC.
In my opinion they should try and play all the cup final a 50 over match .All major tournaments have a rest day reserved .In this case they should have played the match on Sunday and than if the bad weather had continued then start reducing the overs. I think the organizers and the ICC will perhaps loose a lot of revenue. But for the game
Of cricket this option would have been better. I hope they learn from there mistakes and rectify theses problems in the future.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 29, 2007

may have been messed up but no one can deny that the best team by far eventually won the trophy, WELL DONE AUSTRALIA, greatest cricket team ever

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 29, 2007

comment by oompah18
posted 2 Hours Ago

The cricket world cup was a total shame for me, because, like many others round the world, it was IMPOSSIBLE to watch it on Tv without paying for it! Why does SKY hold a monopoly on all the cricket? I can watch international football matches on terrestrial tv, but surely cricket will still be a sport for the elite unless it is a free to view sport. (However I did finally manage to watch a match or 2 on the internet, showing the sky coverage, free, by chance, through a bangladeshi channel)
how else can people without satellite watch the cricket world cup?

This is because the ICC chose the broadcasters for the feeds.
BSKYB were given all the games BECAUSE they would not have any interuptions and could show all the games!
BBC CANNOT SHOW ALL THE GAMES CAN THEY? SO they were given the Highlights.
How about you refer your comments to the ICC over the CWC matches and the ECB, who took the English Cricket off Channel 4 and gave them to BKSYB when another plan to share games between the both of them was viable

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 29, 2007

Congratulations are in order for both Captains for letting common sense prevail as the debacle unfolded at the end of the final.

While the officials lost their heads, the captains kept theirs. In the pressure of a WC final, it could easily have been otherwise. A lesser captain than Jayawardene might have had a tantrum, led his batters off, protested etc.

A lesser captain than Ponting might have panicked at the thought of 3 more overs, and put Tait on to bowl in the darkness.

But it seems that both understood the futility of the situation (which although obvious, could have been easily lost in a final). So instead, as if by mutual assent after realising that the officials had lost the plot, they played out the last three overs with dignity.

Well done to both.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 30, 2007

speedyakthar states if the west Indies game was played over to days,
why not the final... icc is corrupt, and the people that own the icc are the Australians

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not the most intelligent comments, and I wonder how much you know about Cricket.

Australia batted for 50 over’s and then the rain came down for the rest of the day.

If the west Indies had batted for 20 over’s then the rain came down, I assume it would have been decided by DL. There are the rules I am afraid, and in this case DL leave you feeling unsatisfactory whether you win or lose.

Aus vs Bangladesh was rain reduced match to 22 overs.

Aus vs SL
Australia batted first in a game that was likely be affected by rain, as Jarwardene pointed out batting second could be an advantage in a rain effected match. But with Gilchrist batting the way he did the match was lost.

In this case the game of 38 overs for both sides was fair, in any case I think you find the general consensus was that a rain reduced match would favour the SL.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 30, 2007

For me the ICC have always been a bit late coming to the party, they will sort out problems but after we have fiasco’s

The game could have been a complete farce had the game been a lot closer and sri lanka need say 27 of 17 balls, and the end result would have been a DL victory to either side.

A couple of obvious points.

If the game is to be played in the day, the officials should give themselves at least an hour’s grace in case the game goes over the schedule.

A final should be played at a ground that has sufficient floodlights that should be used if needed.

The same should apply for test matches and there should be no reason to go off for bad light if a ground has floodlights.

The final and semi final should be played over two days if required

Technology has to be introduced for both caught behind and LBW. Even though I support Australia I don’t like seeing the likes of Jawardene being adjudged LBW when he was clearly not out. More often than not the bad decision appear to go against the team that is on the backfoot.

As for the format, the super 8 is the fairest way of determining the best four teams.

However, there has to be a fair way of establishing the top eight teams, and the exclusion of Pakistan and India was disappointing for the tournament.

The top six automatically qualify. The teams ranked 7-12, play each once for the remaining two spots 6 months prior to the tournament. That way there would be no excuses for the likes of Pakistan or India not to qualify due to one bad result.

To make for more meaningful matches in the super 8’s, the sides that finish higher need some kind of advantage. This is to ensure the best and most consistent team is likely to win the tournament as semi final can be a bit of lottery. Obviously this year was an exception with Australia being clearly the best team but usually the semi finals can be a bit of lottery.

The side that finishes 1 qualifies for the final. (This will stop teams from resting players when they know they are in the top four).

The sides that finishes 2 and 3 play one semi final. The side that finishes second gets to chose whether to bat or ball, and maybe some other king of advantage.

The final is best of 3.

Any meaningless matches of the last super 8 game for any teams that are unable to make the top three as part of the super 8’s are cancelled.

One or two matches each day, tournament length 4-5 weeks. Each side plays every 3 to 4 days on average.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 30, 2007

Hi Everyone

As a prodigal cricket fan whose interest was re-ignited by catching 'Test Match Special' on the Internet, I feel aggrieved by this (rather too long) event. The ICC World Cup should have been a gift to the Caribbean islands who have give so much to the game - as well as a showcase.
Instead, the whole sorry mess became a byword for greed - the spirit of the game has been 'sold out'. (No mention of Mr Woolmer either)
I do agree with comments made by < oompah18 > regarding the lack of live cricket on TV. But what to do about it?
If, as reported, the TMS TV Highlights drew more than a million viewers, there is clearly a lot of love for cricket. Just don't tell the ECB/ICC 'suits', or they might start charging the BBC...
I respected Jonathan Agnew's rant (shown on the last TMS TV show) - but I don't like the term 'minnows'. ANY national team that has a love for cricket and can marshall a competent side should be able to play. If such a team beats one of the 'big guns' on the day, then so be it. Adds to the unpredictability of the contest.
Finally, will the BBC decide to show live (ie 'free-to-air') cricket again? I truly enjoyed the excellent coverage by the TMS Radio team. But I want to SEE matches - I can't always get to Lord's or the Oval.
Thanks...

add comment | complain about this comment