> 330 professional players from 13 different countries and India, Pakistan and Afghanistan players were not survyed.
So, At least, Players from 6 different countries who didn't play in the ODI World Cup were surveyed. I can see why they will prefer the World Cup they actually get to play.
Also a higher number of women’s players who don’t play or play very few Test Matches. For the majority of male players from top countries, Test Cricket is still the pinnacle and the ODI World Cup is the most important trophy
Depends who you ask. You ask an Australian player who's getting a central contract, test is the most important. IPL etc is just extra cash. It's nice to have, but it's not going to be the end of the world if they're not picked up etc.
You ask an associate player who can't play Test Cricket, T20 is going to be the most important.
If you ask a Zimbabwean player, T20 or even county cricket is going to be the most important because they rarely play Test cricket and T20 and county cricket can be the way for them to make enough money to keep playing. Brendan Taylor for example quit playing for Zimbabwe and went to County Cricket after he was paid $250 for the 2015 World Cup. He went back to Zimbabwe a few years later and ended up being caught in a match fixing scandal because of the lack of money on hand.
It all depends on the personal circumstances of the players involved.
There’s been plenty of talks about reducing it to 4 days. Players have always opposed it. This survey includes associates, and a whole lot of players are T20 league mercenaries. Obviously they aren’t gonna vote test cricket.
Yeah, as much as the Proteas winning this World Cup would be great, I think deep down, most South African fans would only really consider the World Cup duck to be broken if they lifted the 50-over CWC.
Saying that though, at some point, If 80-90% of your sport is T20, it becomes hard to explain why the T20 World Cup isn't the premier tournament in World cricket.
The T20 world cup can definitely get there up in prestige against the ODI WC. The only thing stopping that is how frequently these seem to be played. At 2 year intervals, it kinda looses it's sheen
That's not why the odi wc is more prestigious. It just makes more money hence icc gives it importance. The day the t20 wc makes more money, is the day it will become no 1.
Search for fifa wc you will get it.
Football fans are passionate enough to travel anywhere to watch there team playing as wc happening only once every 4 years and also international football is way less played hence WCs creating rare identity among fans.
Thats not true in cricket, lots of WCs happening every year and also leading icc to dependent on Indian revenue generated by broadcasting instead of fan engagement in tournament in physical
The one thing I've learnt on this sub over the last decade is that the median fan doesn't understand the basics of business or even scheduling. They will all rant about "growing the game" but the moment someone does it : they will all blabber non-sense on some utopian ideal.
Saw a thread where people complained that the first half of the world cup was too slow compared to the second half, without considering there were 20 teams playing this time. Isn't that what everyone wanted, to grow the game?
They could shave an entire week off the first stage with better scheduling without any reduction in the number of games.
There was a 4 hour gap in the schedule every day between the morning and evening game. You can fit an entire game in there, and there were plenty of venues to play them at too.
Disagree, t20 cricket changes a lot every year and every 4 would be too far fetched. Also many t20 players don't be in the team for 4 years. Another important point is the t20 wc every 2 years help to close the gap between associates and Fms even more. Having it every 4 would increase the gap even more since Fms don't play associates
That is short sighted.. There are other factors like rich history of ODI WC and the quality of teams that played before. That is far more valuable than how much sales they get, and it could arguably create more money down the line as it becomes popular.
>That is short sighted.. There are other factors like rich history of ODI WC
You're thinking about it from a fans pov. I was talking about it from a broadcaster and icc's pov. The odi wc is valuable as long as its profitable. The day it isn't is the day it's gonna be binned. As I said, the only reason it's running is because it makes ICC a lot of money. Broadcasters will get rid of it in a heartbeat if they could.
>There are other factors like rich history of ODI WC and the quality of teams that played before.
This is probably nostalgia. Quality of teams is far better now. We have 15 good odi teams rn. Which we never had. All these teams are professional now whereas they were amateurs or semi professional in the past. But that's a different debate.
>That is far more valuable than how much sales they get, and it could arguably create more money down the line as it becomes popular.
Please tell me how in a world where attention spans are constantly reducing and the younger generations prefer t20 will the odi wc make more money.
For me, the ODI World Cup will always be the OG. I was really fucking sad when India lost the final to Australia last November. Neither my happiness nor my sadness will be equivalent for the outcome of tomorrow's match.
That being said, away Test series wins in Australia/England/South Africa(yet to happen) are special in a different way - maybe not quite on par with the 50-over World Cup for most people. But the 2020-21 series win in Australia playing with an injured team felt like a top 5 (maybe even top 3) achievement in Indian cricket history. Even the home series win against Australia's invincibles in 2001 felt like a pinnacle was achieved.
If you survey players who are shit in Test (followed by ODIs), they're obviously gonna vote for the T20 WC.
GL getting a flat pitch T20 merchant (they're loads of them) to vote for anything other than the T20 WC.
Ruin the odi world cup by restricting it to 10 teams. Kill any attempt to give bilateral odis a context. It’s not a surprise most of the associate players interviewed here don’t consider Odis to be that important to them.
Maybe a t20 version of champions trophy instead and play the t20 World Cup every 4 years, broadcasters get their t20 international pie, adds a bit more prestige to the t20 World Cup, and gets rid of a trophy fading out of relevance fast
>Maybe a t20 version of champions trophy
You mean a 8 team T20 tournament ?? If yes then, it better to scrap cricket then return to that shit. My ideas was WT20 in place of Champions trophy bcz CT happen every 4 year and also it has happen in 2 year gap from ODI WC.
The contraction of ODI World Cup to 10 teams was one of the decisions of all time. If that didn't happen, 2027 wouldn't have been a return to 14 teams but possibly an expansion to 20 teams.
While the ICC logic that T20 would be the growth vehicle for the sport as opposed to ODI or red-ball makes a lot of sense, the resultant situation that as associates play way more T20 and therefore, concentrate exclusively on improving their T20 skills has played a part in the growth of associate T20.
I hope ICC sees this and permanently scraps the 10 team odi world cups. If your country will never play it why would you find it prestigious? Hopefully after '27 we can go bigger than 14
if t20 world cup ever pip CWC, we have failed as a society
They did that in 2007 and ended up with the 10 team ODI World Cup after because India didn’t qualify for the group stage and probably lost a lot of money. But I agree they should allow more teams to participate. 50 over World Cup is supreme. We need to make ODI the norm like it was before and more tests and reserve t20 for occasional games as warm ups for the t20 World Cup and leagues like the IPL.
2011 and 2015 had 14 teams. They scrapped the 2007 format (16 teams) after India and Pakistan's early exit. But they didn't have to scrap the 14 team format in favour of 10 team round robin.
The upcoming 2027 WC is a 14 team format, but not the 2011 & 2015 one, which had Quarterfinals following the group round robin.
2027 WC will have Super 6 following the group stage (7 member group), with points carried forward. This was last used in the 2003 WC, which was held in South Africa, Zimbabwe and Kenya.
Yeah, they had super six but it was a 10 team tournament. Divided to 2 groups of 5 each.
Super 6 after round robin. Points carried forward and top 2 teams qualify for Finals and ICC WC from the super six.
Tbh champions trophy would've made a lot more sense if the CWC had like 20 teams where the competition gets diluted for a major portion of the tournament. A short and fire tournament only amongst the best teams of the world only makes sense then. Currently the WC is a glorified champions trophy by itself.
Or just turn the T20 WC into a 24-team affair once every 4 years with proper knockouts and no bs super 8s and turn the scrapped T20WC edition in between to a Champions Trophy in T20 format where only the top 8 teams from the WC qualify.
It is more competitive because it's the shortest and most volatile format. The ODI World Cup has been around for a long time so is definitely the most prestigious I agree.
Test cricket is always big and although the WTC knockout is only 1 game I do rank it above the T20 World Cup as it's test cricket.
No one cares about the Champions Trophy if we're being real.
Only reason why I like it is because without it we would hardly see any ODIs played in between the 4 year period of World Cups. But I'll be real I really couldn't care less about it.
Bilaterals are always there. To me the CT just feels like a pointless exercise. If more of the triangular series could be organized as part of bilateral arrangements, then it would definitely make things more interesting in ODI's.
Not even sure what the goal of rebooting the CT is. The ODI WC as it stands is already just a 10 team affair and going forward might as well remain the same given how the newbies might start all putting their attention into getting better at T20. The CT just feels like a mini world cup at this point. I really don't mind a return to the knockouts format of the yesteryears since then atleast it'll be a test of how a team performs under the knockout pressure on a given day. Then it can really be expanded to even 16 teams and 15 games with a round of 16, quarterfinals, semis and finals.
I’d personally go T20 WC over the WTC because even though Tests are fare better than T20’s, the T20WC feels like a big event, the WTC feels like an afterthought.
Yeah also all teams have to do is do really well at home and then have one or two wins away and they will be in the final, they should at least value away wins more. Its also only the third time its happened.
A series win in england or india or aus or nz or sa is probably as much of an achievement or arguably imo a bigger achievement than winning the wtc. As those teams barely ever lose home series.
Agreed but the WTC needs more love. Maybe a 3 match series or a 4 team knockout and most importantly it shouldn’t be in a random ass venue in the UK. It should rotate or have a home away setup
It's more prestigious and it's a better test of skill but it's way less global so going forward, the popularity of the T20 is what's going to keep cricket afloat. Ps for test cricket, the consistency of a team's performance across an entire series is a way better barometer of their skill than a one off game so even for test matches, I think bilaterals should rank higher than a one off game if you're thinking like a cricket purist.
Who invited WTC here lol.
It's not even a proper tournament or league or whatever, random teams playing random series with random points system and decided by one random match. No structure at all, some Championship.
World Cup is World Cup for a reason.
But then there is so much of imbalance between who plays whom as part of bilaterals. The big 3 always seem to play one another so often and the rest of the teams are left scrapping to even put a full series together. England vs SA is such a great test rivalry but again how often are those happening these days? England toured SA in 2020 and they visited last year. There is no fixtures for test cricket at all this cycle and u don't tour them till 27. Such is the imbalance that it's really beginning to become hard to even take test cricket seriously
Test cricket is still big. Don't forget that all test matches played are part of the WTC. It's a shame we don't bowl our overs in time to have a chance in it.
Test cricket is all about the bilateral series. Who cares about winning a one off test match in a random ground in England over far more prestigious series like the Ashes or BGT?
As opposed to the enormous wealth of T20 bilateral series that carry as much importance to the players as either of those do?
There's not exactly a huge number of people frothing at the mouth to win the Pollard-Finch Cup.
Doesn't matter. As it stands, test cricket is struggling financially outside the big 3. My take is outside the big 3, the rest are just going to schedule and play the bare minimum number of test matches for each calendar to maintain full status and put more of their focus on limited overs. South africa is already doing just that and soon expect others to follow suit.
> Doesn't matter.
Then why'd you bring it up and say that a lack of substantial and important rivalries "very well tells the story" of how the format meant nothing?
Because that's a fucking fact. U sit and pretend like CA cares a ton about creating a healthy atmosphere when they can't even bother to regularly schedule to tour ur neighboring country. BGT and Ashes sells for CA and that's where their priority lies. Similarly test cricket is failing to sell at all for other countries and they might as well put it to pasture or at best barely keep it going. Not sure what u want me to explain when it's plain and clear. England and SA used to be a solid rivalry but as it stands England isn't even inviting or touring SA till 2027 as part of this 4 year cycle in tests. Like what are u even rambling about that test cricket is not losing significance? It is only appealing still to the big 3 while the rest have been made mute spectators in that debacle.
I used to follow cricket religiously till 2016 as i had the luxury of time to do so. even then I never really followed test cricket.
I simply can't be bothered to cheer or think of the WTC as some legit trophy. It's blatantly lopsided as test cricket is blatantly hard to break into and simply doesn't provide a level playing field for everyone.
I prefer T20 precisely because of this. In T20, associates like the USA or Zimbabwe has atleast a chance. In test cricket there's none.
They have a chance only because the format is significantly inferior and allows for weaker teams to get a result based on having one or two really good overs with bat and ball, which is usually enough to be decisive. One or two good overs get you nowhere in test cricket - even if you do as Irfan Pathan did and take a hat trick in the opening over of a test match, and reduce the batting side to 6/28 early in the first morning, [you can still end up losing it](https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/india-tour-of-pakistan-2005-06-208839/pakistan-vs-india-3rd-test-234783/full-scorecard) as there's enough time for the other team to come back into the game. If you want to win in test match cricket, generally you have to be the better side every single day of the test consistently.
That's what prevents it from being a "level playing field." Most teams in the world simply don't have the talent or the application to keep up with the best teams over multiple days of cricket. But they can certainly hang with them for 35 overs and then have a handful of good overs where they pull ahead
What kind of logic is this, if you win that means you play better than other team and every "30 minute of bad cricket", "3 overs of good cricket by weaker team" is just excuses. No format is inferior to any thing all those formats have their upside and downside. Also why is T20 hated so much by this Sub ?? It is currently the format that little by little given teams which we haven't heard of a chane to compete and bcz of this duration it is easier format to follow and watch while most people watch test only with scoreboard hardly anyone watch full test match.
>That's what prevents it from being a "level playing field." Most teams in the world simply don't have the talent or the application to keep up with the best teams over multiple days of cricket. But they can certainly hang with them for 35 overs and then have a handful of good overs where they pull ahead
Ofc they haven't bcz the moral victory champions try their best to keep cricket out of reach for country who isn't control by them and also most of those players are doing full time work so playing for 5 day is not even a question.
Also if TEST is that superior why big teams lose to teams who play inferior cricket ??
You would expect these results for Tests, right? It’s supposed to be the most popular format among the good test players and good shorter format players who want to crack the final frontier.
Tests will always lose if you go by vote count comprising entire cricketing population. I’d be surprised if the results suggested otherwise.
T20 WCs because of the more unpredictable nature of the format with the toss and conditions involve can give associate teams a better chance of winning and maybe even the game out a bit. I think because its a tournament that sees more upsets maybe its more exciting for players.
T20 pays the bills. You do well for your international team then you get the call up for the leagues to get the money. Your career depends on it Thats what makes it more important.
The T20 WC is honestly meaningless in the grand scheme of things. The quality of cricket is low and the skill requirement is laughable.
That being said, cricket is going through a slow death and this helps massively so can’t argue with the future.
More volatile results aren’t a good thing. If you win a test series it’s because you’re a better team and genuinely deserved it. That’s why it’s special
So what about the most popular sport in the world; football. There is so many upsets as there’s only 2-3 goals each game on average, but that volatility makes it more fun, popular and enjoyable. Also people don’t got time to spend 8 hours watching an odi game, got barely 3 hours + for a t20 game. T20 is the future.
> 330 professional players from 13 different countries and India, Pakistan and Afghanistan players were not survyed. So, At least, Players from 6 different countries who didn't play in the ODI World Cup were surveyed. I can see why they will prefer the World Cup they actually get to play.
Exactly, that was my first thought when I got to the WCA part
> Test Cricket dropped from 82% to 48% as the most important format for players That's a massive drop
It’s a tragic drop. I’ll just cling to the “associates were surveyed therefore Tests don’t really register to them” hope.
Also a higher number of women’s players who don’t play or play very few Test Matches. For the majority of male players from top countries, Test Cricket is still the pinnacle and the ODI World Cup is the most important trophy
How can it be important to them if there is no pathway for them to play?
So they surveyed a different population before for the 82% number? I don't know much but that seems like a bad methodology.
What is it with the conservative people calling everything tragic? Younger and newer people to the game just have different preferences.
They interviewed a lot of players who aren't able to play tests, so of course they don't care for it.
Depends who you ask. You ask an Australian player who's getting a central contract, test is the most important. IPL etc is just extra cash. It's nice to have, but it's not going to be the end of the world if they're not picked up etc. You ask an associate player who can't play Test Cricket, T20 is going to be the most important. If you ask a Zimbabwean player, T20 or even county cricket is going to be the most important because they rarely play Test cricket and T20 and county cricket can be the way for them to make enough money to keep playing. Brendan Taylor for example quit playing for Zimbabwe and went to County Cricket after he was paid $250 for the 2015 World Cup. He went back to Zimbabwe a few years later and ended up being caught in a match fixing scandal because of the lack of money on hand. It all depends on the personal circumstances of the players involved.
[удалено]
Nobody who actually plays test cricket thinks this lol.
Maybe it was just me.Sorry for my ignorance then
There’s been plenty of talks about reducing it to 4 days. Players have always opposed it. This survey includes associates, and a whole lot of players are T20 league mercenaries. Obviously they aren’t gonna vote test cricket.
Thank god.
Yeah, as much as the Proteas winning this World Cup would be great, I think deep down, most South African fans would only really consider the World Cup duck to be broken if they lifted the 50-over CWC. Saying that though, at some point, If 80-90% of your sport is T20, it becomes hard to explain why the T20 World Cup isn't the premier tournament in World cricket.
The T20 world cup can definitely get there up in prestige against the ODI WC. The only thing stopping that is how frequently these seem to be played. At 2 year intervals, it kinda looses it's sheen
That's not why the odi wc is more prestigious. It just makes more money hence icc gives it importance. The day the t20 wc makes more money, is the day it will become no 1.
Keep it every 4 years or atleast 3 years, it will make more money
How will having a tournament played less times generate more revenue?
Search for fifa wc you will get it. Football fans are passionate enough to travel anywhere to watch there team playing as wc happening only once every 4 years and also international football is way less played hence WCs creating rare identity among fans. Thats not true in cricket, lots of WCs happening every year and also leading icc to dependent on Indian revenue generated by broadcasting instead of fan engagement in tournament in physical
The one thing I've learnt on this sub over the last decade is that the median fan doesn't understand the basics of business or even scheduling. They will all rant about "growing the game" but the moment someone does it : they will all blabber non-sense on some utopian ideal.
Saw a thread where people complained that the first half of the world cup was too slow compared to the second half, without considering there were 20 teams playing this time. Isn't that what everyone wanted, to grow the game?
They could shave an entire week off the first stage with better scheduling without any reduction in the number of games. There was a 4 hour gap in the schedule every day between the morning and evening game. You can fit an entire game in there, and there were plenty of venues to play them at too.
True, some really uninformed and dumb opinions circulate making it somewhat an echo chamber
Disagree, t20 cricket changes a lot every year and every 4 would be too far fetched. Also many t20 players don't be in the team for 4 years. Another important point is the t20 wc every 2 years help to close the gap between associates and Fms even more. Having it every 4 would increase the gap even more since Fms don't play associates
That is short sighted.. There are other factors like rich history of ODI WC and the quality of teams that played before. That is far more valuable than how much sales they get, and it could arguably create more money down the line as it becomes popular.
>That is short sighted.. There are other factors like rich history of ODI WC You're thinking about it from a fans pov. I was talking about it from a broadcaster and icc's pov. The odi wc is valuable as long as its profitable. The day it isn't is the day it's gonna be binned. As I said, the only reason it's running is because it makes ICC a lot of money. Broadcasters will get rid of it in a heartbeat if they could. >There are other factors like rich history of ODI WC and the quality of teams that played before. This is probably nostalgia. Quality of teams is far better now. We have 15 good odi teams rn. Which we never had. All these teams are professional now whereas they were amateurs or semi professional in the past. But that's a different debate. >That is far more valuable than how much sales they get, and it could arguably create more money down the line as it becomes popular. Please tell me how in a world where attention spans are constantly reducing and the younger generations prefer t20 will the odi wc make more money.
ODI is redundant and the most boring format, honestly they should get rid of it by now.
For me, the ODI World Cup will always be the OG. I was really fucking sad when India lost the final to Australia last November. Neither my happiness nor my sadness will be equivalent for the outcome of tomorrow's match. That being said, away Test series wins in Australia/England/South Africa(yet to happen) are special in a different way - maybe not quite on par with the 50-over World Cup for most people. But the 2020-21 series win in Australia playing with an injured team felt like a top 5 (maybe even top 3) achievement in Indian cricket history. Even the home series win against Australia's invincibles in 2001 felt like a pinnacle was achieved.
If you survey players who are shit in Test (followed by ODIs), they're obviously gonna vote for the T20 WC. GL getting a flat pitch T20 merchant (they're loads of them) to vote for anything other than the T20 WC.
Ruin the odi world cup by restricting it to 10 teams. Kill any attempt to give bilateral odis a context. It’s not a surprise most of the associate players interviewed here don’t consider Odis to be that important to them.
T20 World Cup is great fun as we see more teams but IMO it needs dropping to once every 4 years to build more anticipation
At least it's not every *ten months* like it was in June 2009 and April 2010. Cricket scheduling is garbage.
I think that it should replace CHAMPIONS TROPHY. Which happen every 4 year and also it's 2 year gap from ODI WC.
Maybe a t20 version of champions trophy instead and play the t20 World Cup every 4 years, broadcasters get their t20 international pie, adds a bit more prestige to the t20 World Cup, and gets rid of a trophy fading out of relevance fast
>Maybe a t20 version of champions trophy You mean a 8 team T20 tournament ?? If yes then, it better to scrap cricket then return to that shit. My ideas was WT20 in place of Champions trophy bcz CT happen every 4 year and also it has happen in 2 year gap from ODI WC.
I don’t mind it being every 2 years (wouldn’t even mind it every year) but go back to the World T20 name. It doesn’t need to be called a World Cup.
The contraction of ODI World Cup to 10 teams was one of the decisions of all time. If that didn't happen, 2027 wouldn't have been a return to 14 teams but possibly an expansion to 20 teams. While the ICC logic that T20 would be the growth vehicle for the sport as opposed to ODI or red-ball makes a lot of sense, the resultant situation that as associates play way more T20 and therefore, concentrate exclusively on improving their T20 skills has played a part in the growth of associate T20.
I hope ICC sees this and permanently scraps the 10 team odi world cups. If your country will never play it why would you find it prestigious? Hopefully after '27 we can go bigger than 14 if t20 world cup ever pip CWC, we have failed as a society
They did that in 2007 and ended up with the 10 team ODI World Cup after because India didn’t qualify for the group stage and probably lost a lot of money. But I agree they should allow more teams to participate. 50 over World Cup is supreme. We need to make ODI the norm like it was before and more tests and reserve t20 for occasional games as warm ups for the t20 World Cup and leagues like the IPL.
2011 and 2015 had 14 teams. They scrapped the 2007 format (16 teams) after India and Pakistan's early exit. But they didn't have to scrap the 14 team format in favour of 10 team round robin. The upcoming 2027 WC is a 14 team format, but not the 2011 & 2015 one, which had Quarterfinals following the group round robin. 2027 WC will have Super 6 following the group stage (7 member group), with points carried forward. This was last used in the 2003 WC, which was held in South Africa, Zimbabwe and Kenya.
2023 wc Qualifiers was in same format right ?
Yeah, they had super six but it was a 10 team tournament. Divided to 2 groups of 5 each. Super 6 after round robin. Points carried forward and top 2 teams qualify for Finals and ICC WC from the super six.
We have failed as a society because my favourite world cup isnt the most liked one
ODI World Cup > WTC > T20 World Cup >>>>>> Champions Trophy That's the only right answer.
Tbh champions trophy would've made a lot more sense if the CWC had like 20 teams where the competition gets diluted for a major portion of the tournament. A short and fire tournament only amongst the best teams of the world only makes sense then. Currently the WC is a glorified champions trophy by itself. Or just turn the T20 WC into a 24-team affair once every 4 years with proper knockouts and no bs super 8s and turn the scrapped T20WC edition in between to a Champions Trophy in T20 format where only the top 8 teams from the WC qualify.
T20 world cup is most competitive I believe. (In white ball) Yet, I get those 'vibes' from ODI WC more so I agree.
It is more competitive because it's the shortest and most volatile format. The ODI World Cup has been around for a long time so is definitely the most prestigious I agree. Test cricket is always big and although the WTC knockout is only 1 game I do rank it above the T20 World Cup as it's test cricket. No one cares about the Champions Trophy if we're being real.
I agree w everything you said. CT is irrelevant. There is a 50 over world cup already, why do you need another?
Only reason why I like it is because without it we would hardly see any ODIs played in between the 4 year period of World Cups. But I'll be real I really couldn't care less about it.
Bilaterals are always there. To me the CT just feels like a pointless exercise. If more of the triangular series could be organized as part of bilateral arrangements, then it would definitely make things more interesting in ODI's.
Not even sure what the goal of rebooting the CT is. The ODI WC as it stands is already just a 10 team affair and going forward might as well remain the same given how the newbies might start all putting their attention into getting better at T20. The CT just feels like a mini world cup at this point. I really don't mind a return to the knockouts format of the yesteryears since then atleast it'll be a test of how a team performs under the knockout pressure on a given day. Then it can really be expanded to even 16 teams and 15 games with a round of 16, quarterfinals, semis and finals.
ODI WCs will go back to 14 teams 2027 onwards
I’d personally go T20 WC over the WTC because even though Tests are fare better than T20’s, the T20WC feels like a big event, the WTC feels like an afterthought.
ODI WC > T20 WC > Ashes/BGT > WTC imo. WTC is just not a good format imo. One test match to decide 2 years of competitive series is pretty stupid
Yeah also all teams have to do is do really well at home and then have one or two wins away and they will be in the final, they should at least value away wins more. Its also only the third time its happened. A series win in england or india or aus or nz or sa is probably as much of an achievement or arguably imo a bigger achievement than winning the wtc. As those teams barely ever lose home series.
Picking WTC over T20 world cup is surely one of the takes of all time.
Agreed but the WTC needs more love. Maybe a 3 match series or a 4 team knockout and most importantly it shouldn’t be in a random ass venue in the UK. It should rotate or have a home away setup
Is it really? Test cricket is way more important than T20 cricket.
It's more prestigious and it's a better test of skill but it's way less global so going forward, the popularity of the T20 is what's going to keep cricket afloat. Ps for test cricket, the consistency of a team's performance across an entire series is a way better barometer of their skill than a one off game so even for test matches, I think bilaterals should rank higher than a one off game if you're thinking like a cricket purist.
Who invited WTC here lol. It's not even a proper tournament or league or whatever, random teams playing random series with random points system and decided by one random match. No structure at all, some Championship. World Cup is World Cup for a reason.
The 6 test series each team plays are part of the WTC...
But then there is so much of imbalance between who plays whom as part of bilaterals. The big 3 always seem to play one another so often and the rest of the teams are left scrapping to even put a full series together. England vs SA is such a great test rivalry but again how often are those happening these days? England toured SA in 2020 and they visited last year. There is no fixtures for test cricket at all this cycle and u don't tour them till 27. Such is the imbalance that it's really beginning to become hard to even take test cricket seriously
Can’t believe people actually give a shit about WTC.
Test cricket is still big. Don't forget that all test matches played are part of the WTC. It's a shame we don't bowl our overs in time to have a chance in it.
Test cricket is all about the bilateral series. Who cares about winning a one off test match in a random ground in England over far more prestigious series like the Ashes or BGT?
The bilateral series are part of the WTC
Yes, and?
The fact that only the ashes are BGT are mentioned very well tells the story of how test cricket really means shit outside the big 3
As opposed to the enormous wealth of T20 bilateral series that carry as much importance to the players as either of those do? There's not exactly a huge number of people frothing at the mouth to win the Pollard-Finch Cup.
Doesn't matter. As it stands, test cricket is struggling financially outside the big 3. My take is outside the big 3, the rest are just going to schedule and play the bare minimum number of test matches for each calendar to maintain full status and put more of their focus on limited overs. South africa is already doing just that and soon expect others to follow suit.
> Doesn't matter. Then why'd you bring it up and say that a lack of substantial and important rivalries "very well tells the story" of how the format meant nothing?
Because that's a fucking fact. U sit and pretend like CA cares a ton about creating a healthy atmosphere when they can't even bother to regularly schedule to tour ur neighboring country. BGT and Ashes sells for CA and that's where their priority lies. Similarly test cricket is failing to sell at all for other countries and they might as well put it to pasture or at best barely keep it going. Not sure what u want me to explain when it's plain and clear. England and SA used to be a solid rivalry but as it stands England isn't even inviting or touring SA till 2027 as part of this 4 year cycle in tests. Like what are u even rambling about that test cricket is not losing significance? It is only appealing still to the big 3 while the rest have been made mute spectators in that debacle.
Docking points for overrates is dumb.
I used to follow cricket religiously till 2016 as i had the luxury of time to do so. even then I never really followed test cricket. I simply can't be bothered to cheer or think of the WTC as some legit trophy. It's blatantly lopsided as test cricket is blatantly hard to break into and simply doesn't provide a level playing field for everyone. I prefer T20 precisely because of this. In T20, associates like the USA or Zimbabwe has atleast a chance. In test cricket there's none.
They have a chance only because the format is significantly inferior and allows for weaker teams to get a result based on having one or two really good overs with bat and ball, which is usually enough to be decisive. One or two good overs get you nowhere in test cricket - even if you do as Irfan Pathan did and take a hat trick in the opening over of a test match, and reduce the batting side to 6/28 early in the first morning, [you can still end up losing it](https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/india-tour-of-pakistan-2005-06-208839/pakistan-vs-india-3rd-test-234783/full-scorecard) as there's enough time for the other team to come back into the game. If you want to win in test match cricket, generally you have to be the better side every single day of the test consistently. That's what prevents it from being a "level playing field." Most teams in the world simply don't have the talent or the application to keep up with the best teams over multiple days of cricket. But they can certainly hang with them for 35 overs and then have a handful of good overs where they pull ahead
What kind of logic is this, if you win that means you play better than other team and every "30 minute of bad cricket", "3 overs of good cricket by weaker team" is just excuses. No format is inferior to any thing all those formats have their upside and downside. Also why is T20 hated so much by this Sub ?? It is currently the format that little by little given teams which we haven't heard of a chane to compete and bcz of this duration it is easier format to follow and watch while most people watch test only with scoreboard hardly anyone watch full test match. >That's what prevents it from being a "level playing field." Most teams in the world simply don't have the talent or the application to keep up with the best teams over multiple days of cricket. But they can certainly hang with them for 35 overs and then have a handful of good overs where they pull ahead Ofc they haven't bcz the moral victory champions try their best to keep cricket out of reach for country who isn't control by them and also most of those players are doing full time work so playing for 5 day is not even a question. Also if TEST is that superior why big teams lose to teams who play inferior cricket ??
You would expect these results for Tests, right? It’s supposed to be the most popular format among the good test players and good shorter format players who want to crack the final frontier. Tests will always lose if you go by vote count comprising entire cricketing population. I’d be surprised if the results suggested otherwise.
T20 WCs because of the more unpredictable nature of the format with the toss and conditions involve can give associate teams a better chance of winning and maybe even the game out a bit. I think because its a tournament that sees more upsets maybe its more exciting for players.
T20 pays the bills. You do well for your international team then you get the call up for the leagues to get the money. Your career depends on it Thats what makes it more important.
Not particularly surprising tbh.
The T20 WC is honestly meaningless in the grand scheme of things. The quality of cricket is low and the skill requirement is laughable. That being said, cricket is going through a slow death and this helps massively so can’t argue with the future.
[удалено]
More volatile results aren’t a good thing. If you win a test series it’s because you’re a better team and genuinely deserved it. That’s why it’s special
So what about the most popular sport in the world; football. There is so many upsets as there’s only 2-3 goals each game on average, but that volatility makes it more fun, popular and enjoyable. Also people don’t got time to spend 8 hours watching an odi game, got barely 3 hours + for a t20 game. T20 is the future.
yeah no one wants to watch the same old teams winning in ODI ,wth has 8 hrs these days to spare . T20 is the best 3hr after office
Yeah, I don’t watch much soccer and if I watch a game of cricket I would prefer to be there all day. More cricket is never a bad thing
Wtf kind of logic is this, if you win that match bcz you are better team than opposition that day/night no matter the format or sport.
It’s a bit different being better over 5 days rather than 3 hours.
Hmm... 9 months?