Should the Champions Trophy be scrapped?

[m_vaughan]

Should the Champions Trophy be scrapped?

First Adam Gilchirst and now Ian Botham have called for resting all the main players of their respective sides for the Champions Trophy. Do you agree with this? Do you think the Champions Trophy is an unnecessary tournament in the ICC fixture list?

Personally I think it should definately be scrapped. The cricketers are already complaining about too much cricket, and to have them play in this meaningless competition, just a few months before the World Cup, makes absolutely no sense. I think if at all, the Champions trophy can be reduced to a 20-20 World Cup and held once in four years, exactly mid-way between the 50 Over World Cups.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/4950620.stm: Ian Botham hits out at the Champions Trophy - BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/4941142.stm: Adam Gilchrist warns of player burnout - BBC

 

[ZexyZahid]

I don't mind seeing a joint competition once in two years, since World Cup normally takes place in a four years. And I don't mind some other series delayed cause of this competition. In other words players should get enough rest.

Gilchrist and Botham are actually worried, since after this Champions Trophy the Ashes starts.

Don't understand why Gilchrist is complaining, since they will have a five month rest before this Champions Trophy. If somebody has to complain it should be English players, who play against Sri Lanka, Pakistan before the Champions Trophy. And then the Ashes.

 

[Ramz]

I think it shouldnt be scrapped...

 

[Klaus5000]

I think it should be scrapped on its current basis, but every few years and in a better timing for other series then yes.

 

[BigCrickNan]

I think it shouldnt be scrapped...

Any reasoning for that? Imo there shouldn't even be a no option in the poll . It's a waste of time just so the ICC/BCCI/Whoever can get more money and it fills up the schedule even more, and to go with the fact I don't think many teams care about winning.

 

[Punk_Sk8r]

i personally enjoy it but it shud be after every 2 years or is it after 2 years?

 

[andrew_nixon]

I still don't know why it wasn't replaced with the Twenty20 World Cup.

Looking at the schedule for this years event, three question need to be asked:

1. Why is the preliminary round a 6 match round robin group? Why not just have two quick knock out matches to get it over with quickly?
2. Why on earth are the defending champions having to play in the preliminary round?
3. Why not play 2 matches a day, thus getting the whole thing over with in less than 2 weeks instead of a ridiculously long tournament lasting a month?

 

[BigCrickNan]

I still don't know why it wasn't replaced with the Twenty20 World Cup.

Looking at the schedule for this years event, three question need to be asked:

1. Why is the preliminary round a 6 match round robin group? Why not just have two quick knock out matches to get it over with quickly?
2. Why on earth are the defending champions having to play in the preliminary round?
3. Why not play 2 matches a day, thus getting the whole thing over with in less than 2 weeks instead of a ridiculously long tournament lasting a month?

1. More games, more money for the ICC/Others
2. More games, more money for the ICC/Others
3. So that more people can go to more games rather than having to choose 1, which means: more money for the ICC/Others

 

[andrew_nixon]

1. More games, more money for the ICC/Others
2. More games, more money for the ICC/Others
3. So that more people can go to more games rather than having to choose 1, which means: more money for the ICC/Others

1. Agreed.
2. Surely the amount of money/games is not affected by which teams are in the preliminary round? Why should the defending champions have to qualify?
3. If the two games are in different cities, then exactly the same amount of people can go to them as could if they were on different days.

 

[BigCrickNan]

2. Surely the amount of money/games is not affected by which teams are in the preliminary round? Why should the defending champions have to qualify?
.

Oh right, I thought you meant WI not playing in the first game so there was less game.

 

[nightprowler10]

I would like see it scrapped and be replaced by a T20 world championship. I'd say the ICC would be making just as much money, and the players won't have to play as much cricket. And the T20 version of the game will get more popularity. Its a win-win situation.

 

[SaiSrini]

If they are to do away with the ICC Champions Trophy, then I wouldnt mind a 20-20 World Cup even though I am not too interested in this format of the game! This way, the players have less playing time out there in the middle with the tournaments getting done quite early. We can have at least 2 games in a day with 20-20. So it would work out better for players who get some time to rest and dont have to slug it out on the field!

 

[WG.]

Completely agree, it should be scrapped for a 20 - 20 competition.

 

[irottev]

Scrapped all together - no

Replaced - possibly.

I think its important to have another ODI competition other then the World Cup.

 

[usy]

I don't personally think their should be a 20-20 World Cup, there is no point in watching cricket of just 40 overs, I think, We should stick to the Champions trophy.


Klaus5000 - Your signature is abit too big the rules are 300x100 (60KB).