Start the Car and Get Out of the World Cup
I’m not a cricket man. I mean, I look at the results every now and then, see how England are getting on.
But every single time the Cricket World Cup comes along, I can never really get myself up for it, in the same way I can for say Rugby Union, or for the Open events in Tennis. The World Cup in cricket though is flawed, in so many different ways, and it just sucks all positive energy as by the end of it you are just thankful its over rather than excited for the winner.
Is it unfair to write out a World Cup after just three days of action? Probably. But I will anyway, I will say why its all stupidly wrong, has a worse and more confusing structure than the Rugby League World Cup, why we should all just give up, go home, and watch Jeremy Kyle instead.
Lets put this into context, the World Cup for football in South Africa lasted exactly one month, the cricket version is two weeks longer. When you consider the two weeks preceding it are for Warm Up matches as well, that’s nigh on two months away in a foreign country. And if you consider an example like England, who prior to this spent two and a half months in Australia (presuming they were in both Test and ODI matches), that is approaching five months away from home, in a row. With maybe a week at maximum spent at home. That for me is far too long.
And this is easily solved. Look at the football World Cup as an example, that often has two or three matches on the same day during the group stages. Considering the amount of matches going on at the cricket World Cup group stages, it would make sense for there to be two games a day, which by my calculations, would take 21 days to complete. Much faster than the current system of a month. People have double the amount of cricket in a day, and the pace of the game means it is easy to watch both at the same time. Presuming one starts a few hours after the other, of course.
It’s a start.
But the more noticeable thing is the scores I’ve seen. I’m no expert, but scores of 171, 122 and 69, in the premier event of cricket, is that good for it, really? I’m all up for minnows being allowed to play, but what if they are no good at the sport at all. Its clear the likes of Canada and Kenya are not going to win, it isn’t like say Greece or Denmark at the European Championships, they have no chance, there is a reason why they don’t play in ODI series more often. They aren’t competitive, so why should they be allowed in?
Let them play against teams similar to them, maybe every now and then. The only ‘weaker’ team I feel can be deserved to play is Ireland, who got into the Super 6’s last time out. Then they deserve a chance. Then maybe let another weak team in, ten team tournament in that case, less pointless matches, teams will get to play teams more of their calibre, more competition, more excitement, more fans, more money.
I’m a genius.
So two groups, five teams each, lasting say, three weeks. Perfect World Cup then? I think so. There is no reason to make it difficult, no reason to have unnecessary teams. Do four weak, small, nations really bring in more money? No. Is the competition better for them, probably not.
The World Cup should be the pinnacle of that sport, and for me, I see England fans more interested in The Ashes and vice versa. Make it the best.