Future of Cricket, suggestion to the ICC

[LA ICE-E]

Cricket is one of the best sports played in the world. It has various forms of the game but three of them are recognized by the ICC- Test Cricket, One-day International Cricket and last but not least Twenty20 International Cricket. Since the ICC doesn't want Twenty20 to take over ODI's but still be formal, the ICC should:
*Put a Twenty20 ranking system into affect for it.
*The mandatory minimum requirements of at least 1 Twenty20 International, home and away, against every other Full Member over a period, while still would schedule rest periods for their players.
*It should have a limit of 10 Twenty20 Internationals (instead of the confusing 3 home Twenty20 matches/year), just like 15 Tests and 30 One Day Internationals per calendar year per country averaged out through the 6 FTP year plan.
*Associate teams right now works hard to get ODI status then eventually Test status, what if ICC created Twenty20 status. This form of the game can be played competitively between any sides, be it a full member vs an associate. ICC should give Twenty20 status out to a broader number of nations who could compete in the Twenty20 level then try to gain ODI status then eventually Test status!
*The second Twenty20 World Championship should be a knockout tournament(the form being fast pacing so should it's tournament) consisting 32 teams making Cricket really a global sport; ten full members and the top 22 associates from the ranking systems. Even though this tournament would have more teams, it would not have more value than the World Cup, first of all because the World Cup is the most pure tournament with the best teams(currently 16) playing the more pure form of the sport ever to be played in a tournament for more than 30 years. Secondly, while the World Cup is played every four years, which is like sacred, the Twenty20 World Championship would be played every 2 years making it the junior tournament. Twenty20 is a junior compared to it's older brothers ODI's and Tests so it's tournament would also be a junior to the World Cup; sort of like a mini World Cup for the mini form of ODI. But the ICC still needs to take advantage of what they can, which is more teams can participate competitively in it. So the knockout tournament with 32 teams would have 29 matches played in 15-18 days and have its own values that would make it different from the World Cup.


Example:
Knockout Stages
1st Round____________2nd Round_____Quarter-finals_Semi-final_Final
[Day 1-8] ____________[Day 9-12]_____[Day 13-14]_[Day 15-16]_[Day 18]

1.Australia vs 32. Gibraltar
_________________________ vs
16.UAE vs 17. Denmark

_______________________________________VS

8.England vs 25. Afghanistan
_________________________ vs
9.Bangladesh vs 24. Cayman Islands

____________________________________________________VS

5.India vs 28. Papua New Guinea
_________________________ vs
12.Ireland vs 21. USA

_______________________________________VS

4.Pakistan vs 29. Tanzania
_________________________ vs
13.Scotland vs 20. Hong Kong

______________________________________________________________VS

3.New Zealand vs 30. Nepal
_________________________ vs
14.Bermuda vs 19. Canada

_______________________________________VS

6.Sri Lanka vs 27. Uganda
_________________________ vs
11.Kenya vs 22. Italy

____________________________________________________VS

7.West Indies vs 26. Jersey
_________________________ vs
10.Zimbabwe vs 23. Norway

_______________________________________VS

2.South Africa vs 31. Germany
_________________________ vs
15.Netherlands vs 18. Namibia




The ICC needs money for their Development Program to spread the sport. But the only events they get the financial help is from the ICC Cricket World Cup and ICC Champions Trophy. Unfortunately, the Champions Trophy is not really helping Cricket and does not have any value because it's very similar and only four months away from the biggest thing in Cricket- the World Cup. But the ICC needs the money; luckily they have another tournament to replace it- ICC Twenty20 World Championship. From 2012 the ICC Twenty20 Championship should be played every 2 years. The winner of the tournament would be referred as the World Twenty20 Champions and World Champions would be the winners of the World Cup as it is now. The ICC Cricket World Cup should be going forward as it is now because there really isnt any flaw with it. The tournament is expending as more teams have the quality play in it but there should be a limit at one point where it wont expand anymore; the current tournament is being played by 16 teams in 51 matches which takes 47 days, if it expands too much with too many teams it would take too long.

These should be only two ICC Events played at the highest international men level:
2007 -World Cup & Twenty20 Championship
2008 -
2009 -Twenty20 Championship
2010 -
2011 -World Cup
2012 -Twenty20 Championship
2013 -
2014 -Twenty20 Championship
2015 -World Cup
2016 -Twenty20 Championship
2017 -
2018 -Twenty20 Championship
2019 -World Cup
2020 -Twenty20 Championship
2021 -
2022 -Twenty20 Championship
2023 -World Cup
2024 -Twenty20 Championship
2025 -
2026 -Twenty20 Championship
2027 -World Cup
2028 -Twenty20 Championship
2029 -
2030 -Twenty20 Championship
2031 -World Cup
2032 -Twenty20 Championship
2033 -
2034 -Twenty20 Championship
2035 -World Cup
2036 -Twenty20 Championship
2037 -
2038 -Twenty20 Championship
2039 -World Cup
2040 -Twenty20 Championship


Though Test Cricket is too long for a tournament, the ICC has done a good job with LG ICC Test Championship. But don't you think crowning the best Test Cricket team deserves the same amount of value as handing over the World Cup. Well here's another idea why not hold the crowning of the best Test team every four years from 2013 then again in 2017 and so on (the blank years above). The team that was the number 1 team the most, meaning for the longest time combined in the last four years would win the Trophy for the LG ICC Test Championship. Crowning the best team in the world would be held at the ICC Awards every four years with the best team crowned and refereed as the Champions Champion.

The more you have something the less value it gets; so please for the sake of all the forms of the sport, don't overplay it and reduce its value. Even playing all three forms half of their limits would be enough to please the crowd. Nothing would really affect Cricket in a negative way in these changes- Champions trophy, which is in decaying position would be replaced with the exciting Twenty20 championship, more nations would play Cricket, more value to the best Test team and the World Cup would still be the most valued tournament in Cricket. Cricket truly is one of the best and global sports of the world. In most of the world the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd's are awarded, well it would be the same in Cricket- 1st. LG ICC Test Championship winners, the champions champion; 2nd. ICC World Cup winners, the world champions; 3rd. ICC Twenty20 World Championship winners, the World Twenty20 Champions! The ICC Cricket World Cup will always be the top event played and Twenty20 will help it spread the game!

 

[rickyp]

dude, use forum code not html, that doesnt make any sense!

ahhh better, mate its 20twenty, and i'd be bitterly dissapointed if it became a regular in cricket. 20twenty is a revenue raising idea for domestic cricket, leave it at that

 

[LA ICE-E]

dude, use forum code not html, that doesnt make any sense!

ahhh better, mate its 20twenty, and i'd be bitterly dissapointed if it became a regular in cricket. 20twenty is a revenue raising idea for domestic cricket, leave it at that

yes but the icc already gave it international status and there is already goin to be a championship next year of it...and it fits in right with every other sport...

 

[LA ICE-E]

what you guys thoughts?

 

[Left_Hander]

I'd hate it if it took over One Day Cricket. You lose a wicket in 20/20 you still slog. You lose a wicket in One Day Cricket you go on the defensive a bit.

20/20 Cricket is too much of the same for me.

 

[LA ICE-E]

I'd hate it if it took over One Day Cricket. You lose a wicket in 20/20 you still slog. You lose a wicket in One Day Cricket you go on the defensive a bit.

20/20 Cricket is too much of the same for me.

it's not going to take over 1day cricket but be there along side with 1day and test....like one day was along side with test cricket....20/20 isnt going to be the same because is the fast hard hittin form while 1day is the moderate form with bit of both stretegy and hitting and test is the stretegic form... but 20/20 is the only form that can compete with other sports time wise.....not sayin should take over 1day but played along side and be offically taken

 

[puddleduck]

I must admit I wouldn't be too dissapointed if 20-20 did replace Odi cricket. I do think Odi cricket, whilst it can produce some good matches, all too often produces 10-20 overs of the most boring cricket in the world. It becomes a stalemate as both sides go through the motions bowling non-specialist bowlers, the batsman pick up singles, and everything waits until the 40th over.

Having said many times that I much prefer Test cricket to any of the shorter forms of the game, the 20-20 format does at least provide what Odi cricket tried to provide. It's a direct contest between boundaries and wickets. It can be watched in a couple of hours, and provides the biggest possibility for upsets, so I do believe that it is the future of the shorter form of the game. The fact that in a tournament you could see up to 4 different teams in a day is another big positive, and all in all I do feel that given enough time it could well become the limited over game of choice. As long as they don't eat into the test matches on a tour like Odi cricket has done, I will be more than happy for it to become a big part of International Cricket.

This is coming from someone that has never really found Odi cricket particularly enjoyable, for me it is neither one nor the other, and half the time players look like they would rather be somewhere else.

 

[LA ICE-E]

I must admit I wouldn't be too dissapointed if 20-20 did replace Odi cricket.

I wouldn't want 20/20 to replace odi because than cricket world cup wouldn't be there.... ODI has bit of both forms-some hitting from 20/20 and some stretegy from test...for people with less time -20/20 ... people who wants bit of both-odi... for real cricket fans-test...all should be played along side and not replace each other.....

 

[puddleduck]

I did read your whole entry : And then gave my opinion. If you notice my first line is in response to the post two before mine.

You talk about crowning the best test team every 4 years, how is that possible if not every nation will necessarily have played each other in that time, or only play some nations either home or away whilst others could have played some nations twice?

I gave my opinion, and that is I couldn't care less if they massively descaled the amount of 50 over cricket played. If there were only 3 Odis on every tour, that would be more than enough for me, 5 and even more ridiculously 7, game tours are just too long for my liking, but that's just me and I believe a small minority these days. If they did that, then it would be far easier to fit a couple of 20-20 Internationals onto each tour, maybe even have a few triangulars which involve an emerging nation, all leading up to a 20-20 World Championship that could incorporate far more than just 10 or 16 teams that the current tournaments use in their final, money making, format.

Fair enough that removing Odi cricket entirely isn't going to happen, and many people find the World Cup to be the most enjoyable Cricketing Event, but certainly get rid of the Champions Trophy, or have it every 4 years, 2 years away from the World Cup at all times.

 

[LA ICE-E]

You talk about crowning the best test team every 4 years, how is that possible if not every nation will necessarily have played each other in that time, or only play some nations either home or away whilst others could have played some nations twice?

They already give a trophy every year to the top test team in the LG Test Championship ranking, so make it 4 years that they would give the trophy.

I gave my opinion, and that is I couldn't care less if they massively descaled the amount of 50 over cricket played. If there were only 3 Odis on every tour, that would be more than enough for me, 5 and even more ridiculously 7, game tours are just too long for my liking, but that's just me and I believe a small minority these days. If they did that, then it would be far easier to fit a couple of 20-20 Internationals onto each tour, maybe even have a few triangulars which involve an emerging nation, all leading up to a 20-20 World Championship that could incorporate far more than just 10 or 16 teams that the current tournaments use in their final, money making, format.

I agree..... 3 ODI's per tour is good for me,( 2 test for me is good too)...

Fair enough that removing Odi cricket entirely isn't going to happen, and many people find the World Cup to be the most enjoyable Cricketing Event, but certainly get rid of the Champions Trophy, or have it every 4 years, 2 years away from the World Cup at all times.

I agree again... you are reading my mind the champions trophy is rediculous and should be replaced by 20/20 championship...

post you thought on this or any other ideas to make the sport better on this thread...

 

[puddleduck]

I don't agree with 2 tests to a tour. I would happily have most tours with 5 tests, although that is fairly unrealistic in this day and age, so will have to settle for being happy with 3 as standard, and 4 or 5 for a big tour - England v Aus, SA v Aus, SA v Eng, Ind v Pak.

 

[rickyp]

is see 20twenty as sort of what one day cricket is to my parents. 20twenty is intruding on what I know as cricket, and most people of my age don't like that at all. Inevitably it will become a regular fixture, just like one day cricket has. Money = money, regardless of what it comes from, thats a fair summary of the ICC right there.

 

[puddleduck]

I can see what your saying Ricky, except I've always grown up with Odi cricket and I still feel the way I do. You only have to look at their desperate attempts to inject life into the Odi format to see that it isn't quite right. In trying to encorporate the drama of a Test Match into a day for me they fail to acheive either the theatre and emotions of a test match, or the fun and immediate entertainment of 20-20. I realise I am probably in the minority in how I feel about this, but I would least like to watch a Odi game out of the 3 forms of cricket (and not just because England are rubbish at it)

Everything about ODIs feels contrived to me, sometimes you get a good game, and it's worth watching, but more often than not they are a waste of time. With a Test Match a slow period is still enthralling to me, because both sides are playing for the match and anything can change with a couple of wickets. In a Odi if the games lost by the half-way stage, then it's lost, you get one side just trying not to get bowled out inside 50 overs, whilst the other side sticks to making sure they don't give away runs.

As I said, I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I would be a happy man if the Cricketing World moved away from Odi cricket and more towards Tests and 20-20 as their main mediums. Afterall, what better way to spend an evening than at your local ground, after work, watching some good players going hammer and tongs?

Edit - to add I would probably enjoy Odis a lot more if they played them on competitive pitches where anything around 200 was a good score. To see a condensed game in which the bowlers are attacking as much, if not more than, the batsman would be far more fun than the - 15-20 overs of going for it, 15-20 overs of taking singles, 10-15 overs of going for it.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Everything about ODIs feels contrived to me, sometimes you get a good game, and it's worth watching, but more often than not they are a waste of time. With a Test Match a slow period is still enthralling to me, because both sides are playing for the match and anything can change with a couple of wickets. In a Odi if the games lost by the half-way stage, then it's lost, you get one side just trying not to get bowled out inside 50 overs, whilst the other side sticks to making sure they don't give away runs.

As I said, I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I would be a happy man if the Cricketing World moved away from Odi cricket and more towards Tests and 20-20 as their main mediums.

Well then you wouldn have a world cup and its history and with the power plays it adds stretegy in odi and thing can change in odi too with a couple of wickets....the 20 over of singles comes in as they stretegy it doesn have to be that way but thats how they teams makes it....

 

[puddleduck]

What history? You sound like an American, there's only 20 odd years worth of that "history" that you mention. Powerplays.. strategy? Are you watching the same games I am? 10 overs are up, take your two powerplays as quickly as possible, there you go. And why do you need to know if people agree with you? What difference does it make? It's not like the ICC are listening