Mike Holmans September 21, 2009

Why don't we like the Champions Trophy?

The Champions Trophy is the World Cup without the boring bits
142



Over the next couple of weeks, I expect I shall watch at least some of the Champions Trophy coverage on TV. After all, I'm a cricket junkie and the English season finishes this week, so I've nothing else to watch until April. And, since you are enough of a cricket junkie to be reading a blog on a cricket website, it's pretty likely that you will also be tuning in at some point.

TV companies know that there are many people round the world like us who will watch any international cricket, almost whatever it is, and are therefore willing to part with money for the broadcast rights, and the ICC then spends that money on what it considers to be worthy causes. Slaking our appetite for the game provides money to help develop the game around the world (though why they pour money into salvaging Zimbabwe when West Indies are in danger of collapse passes my understanding), so it seems beneficial all round.

But nobody seems to care very much about who wins it.

This may simply be the perspective of an England fan who knows that his team don't stand an earthly chance and will be doing exceptionally well if they win any of their three games, but I don't detect any groundswell of anticipation amongst the fans of other teams I see on my travels round the net. A 50-over World Cup always stimulates a pre-tournament buzz, but the Champions Trophy generates a tidal wave of indifference.

Like a lot of people, I can tell you which country won any World Cup and where (though not necessarily which ground the final was at). But apart from West Indies winning in England in 2004 which I remember because I was giving daily bulletins to my father as he lay dying in hospital, I have no idea which team won any of the other editions of the Champions Trophy, or even when they were.

Which is odd, if you think about it.

It is a much more efficient way of determining the top team at 50-over tournament cricket than the World Cup with its Scotlands and Bermudas. Adding all the no-hope teams to the World Cup simply expands it without changing the destination of the winners' trophy but allows for the possibility of embarrassment in the early rounds. Just as it is (or would be) amusing if Manchester United exit the FA Cup by losing to a semi-pro team or Roger Federer gets beaten in the first round at Wimbledon by a British wild-card entrant currently ranked 793rd in the world, we can all have a good laugh when one of the major teams gets knocked out in the group stage of a cricket World Cup. If nothing else, it relieves the tedium of the early stages which seem to consist mostly of mismatches.

But the Champs Trophy is what the final stages of a World Cup would look like if none of the major teams tripped over the banana-skin in their qualifying group. It's the business end, the nitty gritty, the chase which is cut to when we start paying close attention to a World Cup instead of just checking that nothing out of the ordinary happened. It's the World Cup without the boring bits. If there were any justice, we'd take a lot more interest and give a lot more weight to the Champions Trophy, but there isn't and we don't.

Instead, we treat it more as an inconvenience, a distraction from whatever the real business of our teams is supposed to be at any given time, and we want it over and out of the way as soon as is practical. What a strange lot we cricket fans are.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Mansoor Ali on October 3, 2009, 11:42 GMT

    Champions trophy should be played in single league. That would add to the interest of the people plus teams who seem to be unlucky every time like India and South Africa can be tested evenly as they may find equal chance to prove their capability. I think 1992 world cup cricket's format was ideal

  • greyblazer on October 1, 2009, 3:46 GMT

    Chris,

    KP played 54 tests without a break and rarely ever failed. He also played in most of the onedayers before he got injured.

    So can you explain me the statement of him playing in one match and resting in 4???

  • Shahid Z on September 26, 2009, 22:37 GMT

    Well i live in UK and to be honest I am really disappointed over lack of interest here about cricket in media. Unlike to sub continent, here coverage is given to football ( m not against football) but everyday football this is really too much. We asians we love cricket,it is in our blood, we have always magicians like imran,wasim,waqar, gr8 batsmen,this list will goon in future too. In UK cricket is treated like step child or of no importance. How can u think that young generation would learn to love this sports? cricket future is grimm here in UK and very bright in PAK, IND,SL even in BAN..

  • Richard S on September 24, 2009, 12:43 GMT

    I love it how some people jump on anything to have a dig at England. I think the point of the article is that the Champions Trophy should be looked forward to more than the world cup but it isn't and becuase we already have a World Cup it doesn't really serve a purpose. This is all true and we should all agree. I dont agree that England don't take ODI's seriously, we do, or why else would we try so many different players. Its just that because of the time of year domestic one dayers are played in England we don't produce enough sloggers and therefore fall behind teams used to no swing and flat tracks. Having seen the amount of swing on offer in the Pakistan V WIndies game however, I quite fancy the chances of a team with Anderson and Onions opening the bowling.

    [Mike: I'm glad someone has understood the point of the post.]

  • Rehan Faruqi on September 24, 2009, 11:41 GMT

    Looking at the Champions Trophy fixtures one would think why it is called a Champions Trophy when all the top teams are not facing each other? To add some prestige to the Tournament I personally feel that only Top 6 ODI Teams should play round robin matches and then Top 2 Teams of the table should play best of three to decide who is the real champion.

  • dragqueen 1 on September 23, 2009, 16:43 GMT

    to answer the OP's. we hate the CT because it's no such thing. in a sport where only 8 nations matter holding a tournament with those 8 nations playing each & calling it a Champions Trophy is disingenuous at best. i don't have a problem with the concept as such but in a sport with so few major nations any more than 4 is to many.

  • MartinAmber on September 23, 2009, 16:11 GMT

    This is easy to answer: the antipathy towards the Champions Trophy surely has its origins in one-day overkill.

    The World Cup started in 1975: the very name "World Cup" demands attention and always will. The Champions Trophy, by contrast, is prefixed by "ICC" (which immediately demands a groan or thinly veiled contempt) and was once described by Wisden as "the unwanted stepchild of international cricket."

    At a time when T20 is flourishing, Test cricket needs a shot in the arm and the number of ODIs needs reducing, along comes the CT to prove that the ICC are woefully out of touch.

    It's a rotten, steaming dirt-heap of a tournament, and it depresses the hell out of me to think that we have a surfeit of World T20s and a regular World Cup, yet after 132 years we have no World Test Championship but have evolved the Great Cricketing White Elephant instead.

  • Sunilaiya on September 23, 2009, 15:20 GMT

    I do not know why everybody seems to be sucking up to the IPL (T20 with big cash rewards0 - Modi and the bandwagon have baited all the top cricketers with dollars to the point that champion English cricketers do not even want to play for their country but wud rather bungee jump - our captain (I am sri lankan) made a big fuss when Younis did not walk after edging the ball but kept his mouth shut when Youvraj did the same in Colombo - he even offered Tendulkar a runner just becos he was tired - this is classic sucking up to India becos of the cash offered - do not offend anyone who is attached to your bank account - I say, tell the IPL to play without international cricketers and then nobody will even cross the street to watch the matches and the cricketers from other countries will immediately get patriotic and play 50 over cricket for their countries - after all there will be no 'poor' cricketers even without the IPL - this is pure greed !!!!

  • Rajesh Kumar R on September 23, 2009, 13:47 GMT

    As I watch the West Indies Pakistan match and write this, Iam sure this is last thing ICC wanted to see. As they say Change is the only constant in life. It is an innate human tendency to appreciate good things in life. Once exposed to the good things, the things which we used to appreciate or enjoy earlier, no longer has its charm. This is what has happened to 50 over cricket- it was the best thing for cricket until 20 Over game arrived. The first nail on the ODI Coffin was when India won the T20 world cup in 2007. The second nail has been that of the cash rich IPL. One more blow and ODI will be long dead and gone.I have been a watching cricket since 1976. I must confess that I dont have it in me to watch a 100 over game. The world is constantly changing and so must we. Finally, if the West Indies board does not relent, the ICC must step in and relegate the WI team so that their presence in such tournaments like Champions Trophy does not end in a farce as we see it happening now.

  • miraheel on September 23, 2009, 12:34 GMT

    i am very much looking forward to the champions trophy and so is everyone i know. maybe the english are nt as they cant get over the ashes win recently. i think this is an excellent tournment and better than the 20/20 world cup, i personally am a big fan of 50 overs cricket! go pakistan!

  • Mansoor Ali on October 3, 2009, 11:42 GMT

    Champions trophy should be played in single league. That would add to the interest of the people plus teams who seem to be unlucky every time like India and South Africa can be tested evenly as they may find equal chance to prove their capability. I think 1992 world cup cricket's format was ideal

  • greyblazer on October 1, 2009, 3:46 GMT

    Chris,

    KP played 54 tests without a break and rarely ever failed. He also played in most of the onedayers before he got injured.

    So can you explain me the statement of him playing in one match and resting in 4???

  • Shahid Z on September 26, 2009, 22:37 GMT

    Well i live in UK and to be honest I am really disappointed over lack of interest here about cricket in media. Unlike to sub continent, here coverage is given to football ( m not against football) but everyday football this is really too much. We asians we love cricket,it is in our blood, we have always magicians like imran,wasim,waqar, gr8 batsmen,this list will goon in future too. In UK cricket is treated like step child or of no importance. How can u think that young generation would learn to love this sports? cricket future is grimm here in UK and very bright in PAK, IND,SL even in BAN..

  • Richard S on September 24, 2009, 12:43 GMT

    I love it how some people jump on anything to have a dig at England. I think the point of the article is that the Champions Trophy should be looked forward to more than the world cup but it isn't and becuase we already have a World Cup it doesn't really serve a purpose. This is all true and we should all agree. I dont agree that England don't take ODI's seriously, we do, or why else would we try so many different players. Its just that because of the time of year domestic one dayers are played in England we don't produce enough sloggers and therefore fall behind teams used to no swing and flat tracks. Having seen the amount of swing on offer in the Pakistan V WIndies game however, I quite fancy the chances of a team with Anderson and Onions opening the bowling.

    [Mike: I'm glad someone has understood the point of the post.]

  • Rehan Faruqi on September 24, 2009, 11:41 GMT

    Looking at the Champions Trophy fixtures one would think why it is called a Champions Trophy when all the top teams are not facing each other? To add some prestige to the Tournament I personally feel that only Top 6 ODI Teams should play round robin matches and then Top 2 Teams of the table should play best of three to decide who is the real champion.

  • dragqueen 1 on September 23, 2009, 16:43 GMT

    to answer the OP's. we hate the CT because it's no such thing. in a sport where only 8 nations matter holding a tournament with those 8 nations playing each & calling it a Champions Trophy is disingenuous at best. i don't have a problem with the concept as such but in a sport with so few major nations any more than 4 is to many.

  • MartinAmber on September 23, 2009, 16:11 GMT

    This is easy to answer: the antipathy towards the Champions Trophy surely has its origins in one-day overkill.

    The World Cup started in 1975: the very name "World Cup" demands attention and always will. The Champions Trophy, by contrast, is prefixed by "ICC" (which immediately demands a groan or thinly veiled contempt) and was once described by Wisden as "the unwanted stepchild of international cricket."

    At a time when T20 is flourishing, Test cricket needs a shot in the arm and the number of ODIs needs reducing, along comes the CT to prove that the ICC are woefully out of touch.

    It's a rotten, steaming dirt-heap of a tournament, and it depresses the hell out of me to think that we have a surfeit of World T20s and a regular World Cup, yet after 132 years we have no World Test Championship but have evolved the Great Cricketing White Elephant instead.

  • Sunilaiya on September 23, 2009, 15:20 GMT

    I do not know why everybody seems to be sucking up to the IPL (T20 with big cash rewards0 - Modi and the bandwagon have baited all the top cricketers with dollars to the point that champion English cricketers do not even want to play for their country but wud rather bungee jump - our captain (I am sri lankan) made a big fuss when Younis did not walk after edging the ball but kept his mouth shut when Youvraj did the same in Colombo - he even offered Tendulkar a runner just becos he was tired - this is classic sucking up to India becos of the cash offered - do not offend anyone who is attached to your bank account - I say, tell the IPL to play without international cricketers and then nobody will even cross the street to watch the matches and the cricketers from other countries will immediately get patriotic and play 50 over cricket for their countries - after all there will be no 'poor' cricketers even without the IPL - this is pure greed !!!!

  • Rajesh Kumar R on September 23, 2009, 13:47 GMT

    As I watch the West Indies Pakistan match and write this, Iam sure this is last thing ICC wanted to see. As they say Change is the only constant in life. It is an innate human tendency to appreciate good things in life. Once exposed to the good things, the things which we used to appreciate or enjoy earlier, no longer has its charm. This is what has happened to 50 over cricket- it was the best thing for cricket until 20 Over game arrived. The first nail on the ODI Coffin was when India won the T20 world cup in 2007. The second nail has been that of the cash rich IPL. One more blow and ODI will be long dead and gone.I have been a watching cricket since 1976. I must confess that I dont have it in me to watch a 100 over game. The world is constantly changing and so must we. Finally, if the West Indies board does not relent, the ICC must step in and relegate the WI team so that their presence in such tournaments like Champions Trophy does not end in a farce as we see it happening now.

  • miraheel on September 23, 2009, 12:34 GMT

    i am very much looking forward to the champions trophy and so is everyone i know. maybe the english are nt as they cant get over the ashes win recently. i think this is an excellent tournment and better than the 20/20 world cup, i personally am a big fan of 50 overs cricket! go pakistan!

  • Dr Nandakumar M on September 23, 2009, 12:07 GMT

    I personally feel 50 over cricket is too boring and all cricket matches must be made 20 over formats.Sachin Tendulakr was 100 percent right that 50-over matches be made to 2 innings of 20 overs with a break of 10 or 15 minutes and played like a test match with the other side alternating batting or bowling as per the current style after winning the toss. The winner is determined by the run aggregate or wickets lost or remaining,etc at the end of the two innings. Similarly all Test matches must be limited to plays on week ends with 50 or 30 overs each side and if possible this must be made law in all cricket playing countries so that precious time is not wasted watching soporific longer versions of cricket.Hope BCCI puts its foot down and prevents wastage or precious man or woman hours of so many thousands of hours every year and helps the country put in more effort and surge to super nation status soon preventing wastage of so many thousands of man hours every year after year.

  • Harin on September 23, 2009, 12:04 GMT

    Guys lets just enjoy the cricket. if our own countries play even 10 games at a stretch with a conpetitive team im sure we'll be all interested in watching it.

  • Rahul Kapoor on September 23, 2009, 11:52 GMT

    After the advent of 20-20, I think only 50-over world cup once every 4 years is enough, 50 over cricket is starting to become really really boring

  • Mohsin Butt on September 23, 2009, 10:57 GMT

    I have seen yesterday's match b/w south africa and sri lanka and got bored just because of T20 cricket matches. When you witness one day match and next day you watch T20 match so definitely you will enjoy T20 only. In my opinion ICC Champions trophy is a good one day tournament which keeps one day cricket alive. I think all three forms of cricket is enjoyable for cricket lovers.

  • Jonak on September 23, 2009, 10:38 GMT

    50 over game is nowadays an inbetween game i.e between teat match and 20-20 games. The player earliar thought to be suitable for test match are makingthier comeback in 50 over game. It has become to predictable and boring. Waiting for the 20-20 championship.

  • siddharth on September 23, 2009, 10:32 GMT

    eh?!?! who are you? what's wrong with you? seems you worry more about the pre and post match jazz than the matches itself...when was the last time you saw the 31st over in a match? have you ever played chess? i bet you eat instant food and start tapping the table impatiently if the food takes more than 10 minutes to arrive.. Dont mind, but i find your analysis thorughly useless and squinted.

  • Paddy Briggs on September 23, 2009, 10:20 GMT

    If only the Cricket World Cup was played to a similar format as the Champions Trophy. The CWC goes on interminably, has too many participants and the knockout stage starts far too late in the tournament. I would abandon the Champions Trophy and instead have the CWC every two years - but with the Champions Trophy format. The participants would be the top 6 One Day sides plus two others who would have emerged from a qualifying tournament. Then two groups of four - and straight into the Semi-Finals. Cricket could justify a world cup every two years along these lines. Why not?

  • laxman on September 23, 2009, 10:13 GMT

    Whatever the people including some of the players may be thinking, but I love ODI. Its really fun to watch 8 different colours vying for the supremacy, playing the matches over the day or D/N which can not be expected from 20-20s. But definitely overdosing is bad and it has killed the interest. I view that the 20-20 should be played only at club level and ODIs between the nations. And there should be only 8 stronger teams (not WI-A)in the world cup which should include 6 top ranking teams and 2 from a pool of next best 6 teams through a round robin qualifying round being hosted at WC venues, 6 to 8 weeks prior to the main tournament, so that it will have an WC impact. And C'TROPHY should be left for the champions, say the top 5 finishers in the WC should be vying for the trophy in a round robin tournament and to be held 10-12 weeks later after the WC. So the whole extravegenza should be a ONCE IN A FOUR YEAR affair which will give more credence to ICC hostings..

  • Tauseef Abbas Zaidi on September 23, 2009, 9:14 GMT

    First of all it seems that the game of cricket is more execting after the T20 version even the lower order can be the dengerous in 50 over match and can change the geme after playing some overs in the middle T20 is just a fun cricket and enjoyment but the real chalange is 50 overs cricket and it can't be change neighter 4 ninings or any other exprement all the best for Team Pakistn ...

  • ali on September 23, 2009, 9:09 GMT

    Champion tropy sukz

  • Sujan on September 23, 2009, 9:02 GMT

    Please do not use word of minnows. who are those? Bangladesh or Ireland or others. But remeber those teams have bought the life of the tournament. Just think when Bangladesh kicked out jiant India from world cup or strong West Indies in 2020 world cup. Those were the most interesting events of the cricket.

  • GreatFan on September 23, 2009, 9:02 GMT

    First of all ECB should try to revive cricket in England. I am an Indian. But still would not want cricket to die as Indians does'nt know any other sport to play frankly. England should revive Cricket in Home of Cricket. They can do it easily. But they are not willing to do that. Why is that? What is happening in English Board is not at all understandable? In 2009, Ashes was not watched my many millions as was the case in 2005. Why? Cricket should be broadcasted not only in satellite channels and should be available to all the viewers. They should promote the game and the money will follow them automatically. England has a good record in Cricket rather than the boring Football. But still people in England prefer Football. Why? ECB should get to know the reasons and work on that front to make Cricket the premium game in The HOME OF CRICKET

  • Paul Clarke on September 23, 2009, 8:45 GMT

    The problem really is 50 over cricket. We have seen test matches revitalised over the past 10 years, but 50 over cricket is now so formulised. Bash for 15 overs, settle, have a powerplay - bash again at the end.

    I hear they are thinking of scrapping the 50 over game. No bad thing. The ICC Champions trophy will not be missed. Lets have 40 overs that way games can be completed in 6 hours..one evening. the extra 10 overs a side means a start while you are still at work ..or a VERY late finish. 40 overs makes more sense.

  • Muhammad Ali on September 23, 2009, 8:21 GMT

    Speak for yourself mate! I know for a fact (from my personal experience) that pak and india fans are really into Champions Trophy. The reason why English fans "PRETEND" not to bother is because they know how their team would perform.

  • Robert on September 23, 2009, 8:15 GMT

    Whats the use of CT? Its sinmply giving India another chance to win a tournament. This self-advertising team India keep on claiming themselves as world's best while not winning any remarkable international tournament (not to mention WC). And why so called minnows are not here? Just because India always get kicked out of the big tournamnets by the minnows only.

  • Flyinghigh on September 23, 2009, 7:24 GMT

    The CT this time round is different in that 1) quite a few teams are vying for the TOP ICC ranking and 2) the format makes for a shorter tournament. A round robin format would have been better, but even with the current groupings, the tournament is really wide open with any team barring WI & Eng having a fair chance at it. The debate about ODI's is moot. The 50 over format has captured our imagination for a long long time - not for nothing. T20's have their place in widening the appeal of the game to the impatient generation who seek the slam bang variety of run scoring - with no semblance of balance between bat & ball. The questions around ODI's will disappear if 1) all bilateral series have no more than 3 ODI's and 2) an objective committee ensures sporting pitches OR ideas are explored to make the format less batsman friendly (perhaps allow bowling teams to choose a new ball/older ball (used in earlier games) half-way through the innings). This CT will sure be a big HIT!

  • Mark on September 23, 2009, 7:16 GMT

    Let me add my two cents worth on why this tournament hasn't grabbed the interest it would ave if it was played say in 1980s rather than the 2000s. First of all Australia and England, especially England prefer the Test variety especially the Ashes. So in an Ashes year post Ashes there is gonna be low interest in these types of Championship 50 over tournaments. There is certainly no interest in the west indies given the near collapse of their cricket. Also cricket fans today are missing out on exciting Calypso cricket which would have given more interest if there is a strong west indies side. The closest you get these days to how Calypso Cricket would have been is when Pakistan or Sri Lanka plays well. Like they did for most of the 20th century. So west indies are no longer entertainers like they once were. South Africa couldn't be bothered they have a Soccer world cup next year to think about, as well as their Rugby.In the subcontinent the 50 over format has lost its luster to the 20/20

  • JEFF on September 23, 2009, 6:20 GMT

    Maybe we need two different tournaments of eight (there are 16 nations with ODI status right now). Top team from second group can go up and bottom team from first group to be relegated. Stage 2 tournaments at different times, and allow Zimbabwe and Bangladesh to compete against Ireland, Canada etc. The current Windies squad MIGHT be competeative against Afghanistan!

  • Pradeep on September 23, 2009, 6:14 GMT

    I love cricket in all formats - ODI, Test, T20 - doesn't matter.

    Agree with Winsome, dono why the press, commentators or ex-players would say itz a dying breed. Who are they to decide :P

    -WE the FANS decide that!!!

    I don't agree with the author too, the minnows should be given a chance to play the world cup.

    They could win you know

    - 2003 Kenya reached semis (no fluke, other teams werent consistent enough)

    -1983 - India won the Cup (when everyone thought they had no chance)

    - 1996 Srilanka (at least i was surprised, but they won it outright)

    Soo many good ideas here abt making champions trophy interesting - agreed with RoundRobin method and some incentive for the winning team. Plus it should be conducted on a regular basis ...like every 2 or 4 years. If that pattern is followed for a while then it would get the fans respect.

    And what abt England not liking ODIs? Didn't they reach the WC finals thrice ;) I know... :)

  • Vasudev Naik on September 23, 2009, 5:33 GMT

    I think this edition of champions trophy will be far better than the previous editions because of the absence of the weaker teams and also the the lesser amount of matches thats going to be played in the tournament.

  • S M Arifuzzaman on September 23, 2009, 5:03 GMT

    I don't think that the so-called minnows reduce the attraction of a tournament. Bangladesh, Ireland, Holland are continually upsetting so-called big powers. Nobody thinks that West Indies, England are adding much attraction and thrill to the tournament. Actually the exclusion of some popular teams like Bangladesh and Ireland will backfire. Even already I have seen a lot of popular aversion for this tournament. ICC should be clear itself about the priority of various tournaments of different format. I seems that it is vaguely just maneuvering through different activities. WC should be prioritized most. CT can gain some life if it is formatted somehow else. Like, some intense competition between minnows and knockout phase for super powers.

  • Daniel on September 23, 2009, 4:30 GMT

    The title of the switch hit on this topic was "Can Trophy save one-dayers?". In my opinion, the Champions Trophy is the problem with one-dayers, not the salvation. For 40 years, one-dayers have been the cash cow of cricket and this is why we have meaningless tournaments like this one, that have no special interest of their own and merely serve to detract from the World Cup.

    Now that Twenty20 cricket seems to be considered by the world's most important boards as a better year-to-year means of obtaining cash, I expect we'll see increasing numbers of Twenty20 games, although mostly domestic fixtures between contrived franchises (clones of the IPL). Expect the number of one-dayers to decrease as more revenues are collected through these alternative channels, but I think we'll still see some one-day cricket, and certainly the World Cup will stay. And less, rather than more, is a good thing in my opinion. I won't be sad to see the Champions Trophy excised from the calendar.

  • attiq on September 23, 2009, 4:20 GMT

    i think most probably the reason for the failure of champion trophy is higher number of teams. instead of 8 test playing team it can be restricted to 5 or 6 best ranking team at a given period of time. it will automatically creat the excited and comparative envirnoment among the team before and after the competition.

  • raj on September 23, 2009, 4:09 GMT

    champions trophy should be scrapped and there should be tournament among top 4 teams in the ranking ..... this will generate more interest as teams will try to qualify for this as well.

  • Mc Ponting on September 23, 2009, 3:51 GMT

    Hm... tournament is very good... problem with cameramen & organizing. Coz cameramen don't know to cover a match. They just cover the game for the sake of their job. No Slow motion, not bother abt crowed... and the score card seems like 90's. Batsman The Great Dilshan scored 106 runs, but not shows even how many balls faced

  • Dave on September 23, 2009, 3:17 GMT

    the champions trophy is a great tournament! it may not have the spark of the world cup or the dazzle of 20 20 cricket but it is a chance for every cricketing nation to attain a form of world champ status. Im a kiwi and we won this tournament a few years back and it was amazing! sure we might not win a hell of alot but we won something. it is not a waste of time as i felt a huge sense of pride when we won. keep the champions trophy. if ur going to do anything cut the 20 20s. ODIs are fine bring one to hamilton new zealand and u will have urself a packed house in no time!

  • Weez on September 23, 2009, 2:56 GMT

    I have made up my mind after today's game - get rid of ODI's completely. I can't believe how long the game took - I had a bath, mowed the lawn, cooked dinner, fetched kids and cleaned the house and Sri Lanka was still batting...Test Cricket is the ultimate game and is supposed to take long - one-day cricket is only meant as light entertainment - let's stick to T20 and get rid of this rubbish.

  • Sabih on September 23, 2009, 2:45 GMT

    There is systematic propaganda against ODIs. It seems that corporate interest in T20s is trying to kill the game of cricket.

  • Chris on September 23, 2009, 1:33 GMT

    Sorry, there's a Champion's Trophy?

    You'd be forgiven for missing it altogether in Australia, since it has zero media coverage and even less public interest.

  • Paul on September 23, 2009, 1:25 GMT

    Personally I think the wrong tournament got truncated. The world cup is just that; and should be the premier event on the ICC calendar. I reckon the Champions Trophy should be used to identify the 8 tams that qualify for the world cup. CT could then be open to 16 or so teams; with the whole current WC qualifying migrating to the CT. This would give CT a point - especially to the minnows; and allow for a much more exciting WC. Of course, as A South African I want a world cup of only round-robin, with no finals matches - less chance of chocking.

  • lizzee on September 23, 2009, 1:16 GMT

    See how BBC covers cricket for example a& you can see why their team is so bad. The BBC cricket site talks endlessly about the Ashes & county cricket & stuff about india because of the massive fan base (money motivation) & completely ignores exciting teams like Sri Lanka (due to all kinds of prejudices). So, no wonder the state of the England team & the dwindling fan base. England's fans don't get a taste of exciting cricket & foot ball is wiping them out.

  • slowleftarm on September 23, 2009, 0:51 GMT

    No one cares because one day cricket is rubbish. The only think worse is 20/20. Test cricket is real cricket.

  • Winsome on September 22, 2009, 23:24 GMT

    It's obvious why an English fan wouldn't like it as so many other posters have already stated but I think it is a far better format than the tedious World Cup as each game really matters.

    I love one-day cricket, I don't really get why so many journos, commentators and ex-players are trying their best to kill it off by talking it down.

  • Nick on September 22, 2009, 23:22 GMT

    You have it the wrong way round. Champions trophy is the World Cup without the exciting bits. It is based on a system where the same tired old teams will always get in as the rankings system makes it very hard for new teams to break into the clique. Give Ireland for example the same number of games as England over a given period and they would probably rank higher. Because the top 8 would lose $ in the short term, this is never going to happen so we are stuck with a predictable and thus boring line up. Give me the WC any day where any team has the chance to qualify and go as far as their form takes them.

  • Farhan on September 22, 2009, 23:16 GMT

    ICC Champions Trophy is the second biggest tournament after the world cup in the 50/50 format of cricket.It carries immense importance in the world of cricket. Teams which lacks the caliber to win big tournaments like England are raising questions regarding its importance to cricket, the simple reason behind this action is that they cannot win it or in fact I will say that they even do not qualify to play in this tournament. I think England should focus on playing cricket rather than playing with formats of cricket.

  • Shyam on September 22, 2009, 21:56 GMT

    I love Cricket in all formats, every format is good in its own way, and if we discard England all other countries enjoy watching T20,50overs and Test. I don’t think T20 is killing 50ov or Test, because 50 over’s and test are for quality cricket and T20 is for fast entertainment. I think we should not think too much on that.

  • Vishal on September 22, 2009, 21:54 GMT

    I have just 3 words - Too. Much. Cricket.

  • Mohammed Azharuddin on September 22, 2009, 21:22 GMT

    too much is too bad,so is with cricket now

  • naveen on September 22, 2009, 20:45 GMT

    now a days with day night match coming into effect, most of the times one team has the advantage and toss is very important. this has made one day game very boring and predictable. it sounds stupid for day night games especially in south africa, sri lanka and few pitches in othere countries, except may be australia where there is not much chanes in the playing conditions. 50 overs cricket is such a bore these days. test and T20 are good because both teams play in near similar conditions. test matches between 2 good teams is the best.

  • Javed on September 22, 2009, 20:45 GMT

    All I can say that its a sorry affair for english cricket. All they live and die for is Ashes and anything they can win. We cant go to a distance to lose the CT to England to please them. CT is wide open and you are in an easy group. Earn it rather then moan about it.

  • faisal on September 22, 2009, 20:37 GMT

    the real charm of cricket lies in the 50 over and test cricket.. one can actually judge what players are made of.. rather than the bang bang t20 cricket which does not really show the true potential of a player.. ipl, icl, and now CL t20 just seems that its only india who is actually excited about this format, cheerleaders and making cricket more glamorous and shorter is not giving justice to players like tendulkar, dravid, lara,waqar and wasim who have devoted their lives to the best formats of cricket.. test and 50 over is what cricket is all about..

  • Dylan on September 22, 2009, 20:31 GMT

    What people are saying here about the English disliking ODIs is true and it is because they've never been very good nor exciting at ODIs. I love cricket and i'd hate to see the game without ODIs, its the perfect middle ground between t20s and tests. Without ODIs i envision a massive divide between t20 cashed up sloggers and genuine textbook test cricketers. ODIs allow players to pace centuries and bowlers to take 5 wicket bags which is the goal of players whilst allowing teams to battle for classic, thrilling victories. The CT has a history of 'best team winning on the day' if you look through the winners most of the top 8 have won it at least once and i think thats fair, balanced cricket because the big 8 teams can all beat one another on there day. The CT could swap for the World Cup. The CT has all teams and minnows playing off to qualify for 8 places a year the World Cup. The CT winner gets a semis spot. So,im a Kiwi and we're only good at ODIs so can it stay, please.

  • glenville hinds on September 22, 2009, 20:21 GMT

    The funny thing is that when the west indies are playing in the finals (semi or finals) we would all be washing.

  • yasir on September 22, 2009, 20:14 GMT

    keep in mind one thing that natural beauty of cricket is only in one-day and in test match format. where u can show your talent, skill.....

  • Romps on September 22, 2009, 18:59 GMT

    Guys, the fact that you are watching the matches or reading this blog is reason enough for the ICC to have this tournament and judge your interest levels. The format can change a bit may be. But I think we should have a tournament equivalent to the "World Championship of Cricket" in Australia in 1985. I think the Champions Trophy is on those lines. The purpose is to bring the top 8 teams together more often than 4 years in the 50 over format.

  • Sohail on September 22, 2009, 18:28 GMT

    Ideally all the teams shd hv played with each other, but I am watching and reading everything abt this tournament. This time I see the tournament being played competitively. Thanks everybody in the organisers.

  • aditya on September 22, 2009, 16:55 GMT

    I never thought I would say this but there is too much cricket being played these days. I am sure neither the spectators nor the players themselves can tell whether they are in Colombo or Centurion. It has become a bit of a bore and I couldn't care less if India beat Pakistan or not. Time we restricted teams to 15 ODIs per year.

  • achettup on September 22, 2009, 16:39 GMT

    A surprisingly interesting post. I did enjoy the first couple of editions, but after that I kind of lost track of the tournament. Perhaps the lack of build up, hype and the short life - not to mention knock-out effect - do tend to do a disservice to the tournament. That said, I only really remember it becoming unpopular after the 2006 debacle, while it was just 15 matches people didn't seem to mind it. Thanks to the recent ODI hate, this one was never going to be too popular.

  • Ahmed in the Cape on September 22, 2009, 15:02 GMT

    Surely the more cricket you get the better. More fun to watch ... No one complains that after the FIFA World Cup you get the spectacle of Euro 2008. All great stuff for a sports fan. Why moan about the Champions Trophy.

    As for 50 over ODI - it should now evolve and take its place between 20/20 and Tests. Don't wipe it out!!

  • Balaji Krishnamurthy on September 22, 2009, 14:56 GMT

    Just because England is a rubbish ODI team doesn't put the 50 over game in crisis.As for the Ashes,the 2009 one was a pretty up and down affair,with both teams playing brilliant and poor cricket.Believe me,the Poms are in for a hiding down under.To me, this whole article is a typical Brit sour grapes thing.

  • Nick on September 22, 2009, 14:46 GMT

    There used to be a Champions Trophy long time back in Sharjah, remember? That used to feature 4 teams. India, Pakistan and two others. Well, why not revert to a 4 team format? The top 4 teams in the ICC ODI rankings will participate. At least that makes the word "Champions" in Champions Trophy more relevant, because only the 4 teams who have any chance of winning will play. Field hockey does it well. 12 teams in the World Cup and 6 teams in their Champions Trophy.

  • paulyt on September 22, 2009, 14:34 GMT

    I personally have been looking forward to the Champions Trophy. I love ODIs way more than Twenty20s. I would like the Champions Trophy to become a Test Match tournament though. They way I see it you have 2 leagues, the Top 4 ranked teams and the bottom 4 (at the start of the first tourney). After that the loser from Pool A drops to Pool B and the winner rises to Pool A.

  • Abhik Banerjee on September 22, 2009, 14:24 GMT

    What a strange lot we cricket fans are, truly! Probably somewhere there lies the answer to the dilemma of what an incompetent lot all the administrators are.

  • Rich B on September 22, 2009, 14:09 GMT

    I don't think having 'minnows' makes tournaments more boring or too long at all. The reason the last World Cup was so long was all the reserve days and the ridiculous 'Super 8s' phase which seemed to go on forever.

    Having Champions Trophy every 4 years, alternating with the World Cup would make sense, perhaps only involving the top 6 nations, so it's an achievement rather than a right to be there.

    But lots of the minnows are getting far stonger than they used to be - there needs to be room for them at the World Cup, in increasing numbers as they continue to improve, but in a format where the first phase is over in a week to 10 days.

  • Aaron Ramesar on September 22, 2009, 13:44 GMT

    Honestly I am a West Indies fan and i still enjoy the champions trophy despite the hiccups in our cricket....one day cricket is still very exciting

  • Neel on September 22, 2009, 13:42 GMT

    Anyone think that we should have specialized outfits for batting and bowling/fielding? It does not matter whether its 20/20 or 50/50 cricket, the game will always be on if you have 11 specialized batsmen competing with 11 specialist bowlers or fielders. Put the best people out there and the game will never be decided in the powerplay period itself.

  • Guy on September 22, 2009, 13:39 GMT

    As far as England goes, the problem for popularity with all forms of the game is that it is not shown widely - only satellite TV subscribers can see any cricket at all nowadays - even the Ashes! Despite what those cricket lovers who pay to see it on TV might think the Ashes series was not very widely followed in England this year. The impact was nothing like that of 2005 when millions tuned in to watch it. As for the Champions Trophy I think that 99% of the population would have no idea it was on. If the ECB continue on their money-first path it will continue to shrink as a spectator sport.

    Regarding the CT, why not make it something teams have to qualify for like the football WC - have just 4 places in the finals which is a round robin tournament and have the qualification earned during ODI series over the preceeding couple of years. Then there would be some anticipation for the tournament rather than it just suddenly taking place.

  • JImDavis on September 22, 2009, 13:21 GMT

    Well this year it's in SA - lets hope for a few more 400+ v 400+ games. That will grab everyone's attention!

  • Aasif Ibrahim on September 22, 2009, 13:12 GMT

    I hate champions trophy....bcoz Bangladesh is not playing in it....it is ridiculous that West Indies which was crushed by the brilliant Bangladesis is playing here...so much disappointing!!! ICC is looking ahead for ODI future & they took this tournament as experiment...so how they ignor Bangladesh??? West Indies team will ruin the beauty of this tournament....ICC should consider Baangladesh for it...at least they can organize a qualifying match between Windies & Bangladesh before the tounament!!!! This is the proof that ICC is not being fair with Bangladesh.

  • Harminder Sethi on September 22, 2009, 13:01 GMT

    CHAMPIONS TROPHY- Now that is a cricket event we all don't crave for as much as we should being cricket lovers. I mean to restate it alongside the World Cup would be a giddy limit. I am enchanted & not surprised with Shahid's comments earlier in the post about giving credentials to the tournament, liking winning a game should give a team three times more points in ranking & 5 times more to the winner, even though I loved the idea of collecting the caps of the other teams but I think again that would be a little too prestigious to put at stake. Getting to host a major event like the forthcoming world cup after winning the CT could be debated. Non the less I am a very greedy cricket fan to see any & every bit cricket played by international teams specially when I can get to see my team India playing against our arch rivals Pakistan.

    Harminder Sethi , located in Bangkok

  • Hassan Farooqi on September 22, 2009, 12:55 GMT

    The days of ODI are numbered. Then there would be 5 day tests for the very old who have nothing else to do in life, and the T20 for the very young ones who just cant stand the traditional boredome of cricket.

    On top of that, it has to be champions trophy, an event where minnows are not allowed. Well, all the color comes from minnows. Zimbabwe defeated Australia in 3rd WC, Zimbabwe beating England in 5th WC. Kenya beating West Indies. Bangladesh beating South Africa. Ireland beating Pakistan.

    As for West Indies demise. It is their own dirty politics. The only way out is to break West Indies into individual countries. If Bermuda can stand alone, so can Barbados and T&T.

  • Ramiz on September 22, 2009, 12:54 GMT

    It's clear from the comments posted here that bar english, every other country's fans are looking forward to this tournament. ODI cricket still has a long long way to go. Why must the english cricketing fans impose their views on others? Please let this tournament play out as is.

  • Tariq Saeed on September 22, 2009, 11:42 GMT

    simply ICC Champions Trophy is still very popolular as are the ODIS. I was in Srilnka recently covering Pakistan Tour of Srilanka and in the all the 5ODis the crowd was excellent so plz stop propagating against ODI Cricket to accomoadate T20 leagues or saving teams like England from defeats.

  • Chis A on September 22, 2009, 11:27 GMT

    I am a sri lankan die hard and I love cricket, I am not a big fan of 20/20 or the thought of breaking the 50 over games in to 4 bats. The format that the CT has taken is the same format that should be used for the WC not 16 teams and super eights and all that crap. I also think when a team tours another country the tour should consist of 3 test 3 ODI's and 2 20/20 matches. Then we wont get these boring draw out series like in the recent ODI Aus-Eng 7 match series and we also get a taste of of all three formats of cricket whcih will hopefully keep people asking for more!!!

  • Matt C on September 22, 2009, 11:02 GMT

    As a New Zealander living in England I have found the English indifferent to ODI's. I believe this is down to the simple fact that England have performed so poorly in this sphere on the game. Once the Ashes is over England can't get up for anything else. The truth of the matter is that Australia is not once what it was and that for all the history of the Ashes this is just one competition amongst many to the wider cricketing world. With the direction the game is currently heading towards 'more exciting' limited overs games along with the transfer of power in the cricketing world to the money funded Indian 20 20 competitions this does nto bode well for England. Perhaps there might be an argument for England to start re-focusing all it's resources on getting England winning ODI's and 2020 matches. Despite all the historical nostalgia of test cricket and the ashes that's where the future lies right now.

  • ameel gardezi on September 22, 2009, 9:55 GMT

    Well I think introduction of big-bash T20 format and the charisma of IPL coupled with the largely one-sided one day affairs have led to the declining interest in 50 over cricket of late.Sure the game needs reinvention after having undergone all the jollity and merriment of some fantabulous encounters over the years.Passion might have dwindled down but the curiosity never extincts rather a slight tinkering but not the overall overhaul of game's dynamics might just be the much-needed embellishment.True gone are the days when an India-Pakistan 50 over match would have all and sundry come to a grinding halt partly due to the missing enigma of legend-like figures of Akrams,Waqar Younis and others.So much pleasure we drive from the incumbent father figures that have sorely been missed of late.Sure this format in paticular and the game in general needs renaissance of flair from deadened ashes and rising of such glittering pearls can sure silence rattling engines only to see it come alive.

  • illi on September 22, 2009, 9:42 GMT

    In my Opinion, champions trophy should be played every three or may be 4 years time, to make it more attractive, or if we see Champions trophy every 2 years then ODIs should be restricted to 2 major tournaments i.e World cup & Champions trophy

  • Craig, SA - JHB on September 22, 2009, 9:30 GMT

    This tournament still has minnows, England in the one group and West Indies in the other, ICC should have left out those 2 countries, and just had a super 6 Champions Trophy, each team plays the other once, top 2 play in final, tournament over in 2 weeks, and we have a world champion until the World Cup. It would make all Odi's exciting as teams would always wanna stay in top 6, to make the cut for CT every 2 years! And i can't wait for the tournament to begin.

  • Mac C on September 22, 2009, 9:24 GMT

    I'll bet if England should miraculously make it through the first round, the author will sing a different tune, if SA was going in this competition with the same form as the Poms, I too would not be interested in the Champions Trophy, I can't wait for that first ball to be bowled!!!!!!

    [Mike: Bet what you like. You'll be wrong.]

  • Ed on September 22, 2009, 9:07 GMT

    I am looking forward to this Tournament more than I ever have before. As a Kiwi fan this tournament has never really held much interest - even after we had won it back in 2000. But after the amount of 20/20 cricket there has been with the introduction of the IPL (which I enjoyed), I am looking forward to being reminded exactly what 50 over One Day Cricket is all about. And judging by the amount of comments on this page, so are alot of people!

    (ps: I only read about 5 of the comments above before posting this, so I didn't really get a feel for what the majority of people were thinking. But just the number of comments alone is enough to convince me that this Champions Trophy tournament will be well supported. Come on you New Zealand Black Caps / Young Guns!

  • TONY,CANADA on September 22, 2009, 8:43 GMT

    Man any cricket is good.Bereft of any club games it's always exciting to see country against country.Something that all other team sports seldom offer.I pull for the team with the most spinners!!!!!

  • Awais Tanveer on September 22, 2009, 8:39 GMT

    For God sake! There is not as much wrong with the ODI format as it is being exaggerated these days. ODIs were treat to watch in 90s and early 2000s. Its not ODI's fault that we dont have good and great bowlers like we had before and supporting wickets to have balance between bat and ball. It is not ODI's fault that they are being played at flat pitches even in Australia and lastly it is not ODIs fault that English ODI cricket team is.....yuks.

    ODIs provided some of the glorious days for cricket. Some thrilling contests. Bring back those good great bowlers and supporting enough wickets, you'll start liking ODIs soon.

    ODIs suck now because of giving an extra mile to batsmen. Some say they are boring between middle overs, then why do they change ball as soon as ball gets a bit of reverse swing. Give bowlers something to have balance, ODIs will flourish. Peace.

  • Arjun on September 22, 2009, 8:19 GMT

    There is no other major event where all that top ranked or atleast 8 teams are participating other than ICC World cup. In case of Football there are so many events of such kind Fifa WC, Afri..nations cup, latin American.., Euro etc etc....where the top ranked teams are participating regionwise or so. 50 over match shows the real talent, strength, patients, technique etcetc of an individual & a team where 20-20 is all about hit and run & where a baseball player can easily done the job. Also pls note it is entirely different from Football in which all 22 players are always active where in Cricket a bowler, 2 batsman, keeper & one or two fielders are active at a time others watching the game most of the day. So I think 50 over can make all of them involved in a game & can showcase their talents technically.

  • Luke Curtis on September 22, 2009, 8:15 GMT

    With respect the 50 over format in general it really has never sparked in the UK - yes you will get nearly full or sold out houses as we did for every 1 of the 7 ODI's against Aus but few people *really* care about it - perhaps it is the fact that we have never won a major ODI comp means that we have never really fell in love with it (rather like India prior to their T20 win, sniffy about it before, 100% in love after).

    The major factor in the England at least is the sub-continent has not had any serious cricket for months and months - the CT has been at the fag end of a long summer for us this year and 2004 or an unwelcome distraction before the Ashes in 2007 - IIRC many people were suggesting that we should not have entered to make sure we had adequate preparation for the Ashes which given the 0-5 result then I agree with.

    Even when England got to the final of the Champions Trophy final whenever it was the was barely a ripple of interest.

  • Rasmus on September 22, 2009, 7:51 GMT

    It was degraded the day they told that it is designed to generate money. Stupids dont know that you never declare money generating as a motto or reason to run a business, organisation or a tournament. It only makes it uninteresting. Then there are all other factors. As the media is a major player to make it or break it, they have been all the way breaking it. Just look the difference between journalistic hype at T20WC and now as I remember how articles were just pouring in hour after hour 5 days before T20WC and to compare with CT where its just kept on a semi low profile. After all this there you need to attach something to it and that has to be other than money. You need Ideas and when there are only square heads in administration of cricket you can only expect status quo

  • Vikram Maingi on September 22, 2009, 7:51 GMT

    I agree with Sleetviper. Champion's Trophy should be a six nation tournament and better if all the six teams play against each other in the round-robin league. Adding to what he has mentioned, there should be a plate championship being played parallely. This will be another 6 nation tourney with full members with ranking 7 to 10 and top 2 associate nations. The plate championship will be a good exposure for the 2 associates and Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

  • Blitz on September 22, 2009, 7:43 GMT

    Its a british prespective. As a Pakistani fan living in England, its all I hear, ODI's are useless, Champions trophy is useless, etc. Well when you watch 7 ODI's against the same team and lose 6 in a row, you would hate ODI's.

    I still love them and am looking forward to the Champions Trophy. For Pakistan to win a second world trophy? Back to back. It can finally cement our place as a top cricketing nation. I've been sick of the monopoly of India, South Africa, Australia, and to a lesser extent England and Sri Lanka, especially in test matches.

    This must be a massive trophy for India as well. Crashed out at WC '07. Crashed out at Champions trophy '07. Crashed out at T20 WC '09. They have a lot to make ammends for at the world stage.

    Lets not even begin on what it would do for South Africa.

    A win for West Indies could revive a brilliant cricketing nation.

    Finally and England win? At a world stage? Are you telling me if you win this, you would want the tournament scrapped?

  • Stu on September 22, 2009, 7:07 GMT

    I feel the CT will prosper in this format, with fewer games and most of the minnows out of the equation. The greater issue at stake is the future of 50 over cricket, and I for one would dearly love to see the format survive.

    Twenty20 is fun for the kids but there's precious little in it for the grown-ups; for every batter who can hit a six on cue we are subjected to another eight who get out trying to play awkward, unorthodox strokes, or run out cheaply. 20 overs a side is barely a match in my book.

    The reason 50 over cricket is in the spotlight, I feel, is that teams have forgotten how to play in the advent of T20. Confusion over how to best utilise the power plays has only exacerbated the problem. A back-to-basics approach is needed.

    I've witnessed a great many thrilling 50 over matches over the years and would hate to see the format slip from prominence.

    In the CT we can look forward to some high calibre, competitive cricket, and I hope it will be a resounding success

  • rohan on September 22, 2009, 6:53 GMT

    i think almost all ODI tournaments have the scope of being made far more interesting than what they really are by simply ensuring that there are no minnows involved. Presence of teams like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe take away the gloss of any competitive tournament. If ICC is hell bent on including minnows then perhaps the time has come to give chance to countries like Ireland, which has impressed everyone in the limited opportunities that it has got. Bangladesh has been playing test cricket, ODI cricket for 10-12 years now and yet they are just not good enough to compete with international teams.

  • Kumar Venkatraman on September 22, 2009, 6:25 GMT

    Forget all the discussion....what is ICC's take on 50 Over format...Y do we need to make statements that this tournament will decide the fate of 50 over cricket??50 Over Cricket is a balanced format to Test and 20-20....Don't we have 100M,200M and 400M in athletics...it is akin to that....though 100M is popular,the other formats have survived.What is required is a healthy revamp of ICC calendar and clear marketing strategies....yes,a little bit of tweaking is required as Sachin suggested(25 over,2 innings),however all 3 formats can survive if projected properly.For that to happen,let us 1st pull West Indies cricket out of the current mess.World Cricket needs W.Indies more than anything else.

  • Vineet Gupta on September 22, 2009, 6:14 GMT

    Hi,

    Sometime back, I was also of the opinion that Champions Trophy is useless and should be scrapped. It came into being because there was no cricketing trophy involving the major test playing nations of the world other than World Cup which happened after every 4 years. I thought that T20 WC filled that void well enough, and then there were IPL and Champions League.

    But looking at the debate now, it seems to point that Champions Trophy should be scrapped for lack of interest in public over ODI cricket. I am big fan of cricket and relish all forms the game. But I also getting the feeling that T20 is over-hyped and all those tournaments like CL are blowing it over the top. Any day, I would like to see India/Australia chasing 300+ score in ODI cricket rather then seeing one man running away with all the glory in T20 cricket.

    If T20 can have its T20 WC, CL, IPL almost every year, why can' ODI cricket have its Champions Trophy?

  • Crap on September 22, 2009, 6:04 GMT

    This is rubbish. Everybody around here are excited abt the tournament.. If u feel low tht england is losing u cant say others feel the same.. find some life bro..

  • Rohit Sharma on September 22, 2009, 5:56 GMT

    Oh come on ANDREW grow up ! who told you there are only couple of cricket stars in "IPL". Don't know where you from? or might be there is no cricketers from your country in the "IPL" , thats why you criticised "IPL". Not sure about you but i love T20 cricket & also "IPL"

  • Aby Mathew on September 22, 2009, 4:56 GMT

    I prefer ODI to 20-20. 20/20 is like watching highlights. 50-50 is better . people get to score centuries, more 5 wicket hauls , spinners , seamers have more chance rather than bowl 4 overs and get hit for 50 . i dont believe that if u win toss, u win the game. u still have to take 10 wkts and score the necessary runs. If you have politics and a business men running the game,. Its a perfect reciepe for chaos and thats perfect for those corrupt and moneyminded officals. Ask WI and pak boards on how to not run a board corrupt free. I dont understand who exactly are the "we" in the title of this section. I am 100% its not the masses but the beuracrats, sponsers and officals ( guess it has to do with their business down and are deseparate ).I prefer watching odi. Who can forget 2004 finals between eng& wi. Gayles onslaught against sa at 06. Ganguly against sa at 02.cairns at 2000 finals. I am sure this tournament will show y odi cricket will be alive &all critics keep mum after finals

  • Andrew on September 22, 2009, 4:41 GMT

    Oh come on, it's only 2 weeks. The interminably boring IPL will drag on for nearly 2 months, featuring a couple of star imports walloping club cricketers for a few overs, and some dancing girls. Meanwhile there will be little or no real cricket around the world. If they must shoot one of them, please put down IPL rather than the occasional CT.

  • Rohit Davidson on September 22, 2009, 4:09 GMT

    Probably the ICC can consider a tweak in the format; having a champion from each region - e.g. One each from Asia-Australia, Europe, Africa and America. That would prune the format and perhaps be more meaningful, except for the fact that cricket has not spread to many countries and this would mean some teams expectedly become regional champions everytime and all the time (e.g SA)

  • Said Chaudhry on September 22, 2009, 3:57 GMT

    Pakistan is anxiously waiting for this tournament to start. Don't really care for the over dose of cricket an English fan has had this summer. We're dying for cricket out here and CT is a the most perfect tournament as it voids any useless matches with minnows and gets straight down to the action between the top teams.

  • manoj_indian on September 22, 2009, 3:57 GMT

    I think the Ct has come at the right time.As far as England are concerned,Ashes is the only series they are interested in.I would be extremely surprised if they even take the worldd cup seriously,leave alone CT.Englan have never been good at 50 over matches,the fact that they have not one a single Wc proves that.They haven't even come close after 1992.So I don't blame an english fan.He has nothing to cheer about England's 50 over games.But in India,people are really looking forward to it and so are all the cricket fans across the world sans England of course

  • Sheheryar on September 22, 2009, 3:23 GMT

    You people are talking about this stuff while I'm anxious that I cannot find the next Champions Trophy schedule in FTP. ODI cricket is the beauty of cricket and just like one person mentioned, it is greatly adored in sub-continent.

  • Nathan on September 22, 2009, 3:16 GMT

    Hmmm, I know it's a long time ago but I remember the 1992 World Cup, and there seemed to be a lot of english fans of the one day format at that stage. I wonder what has changed ... oh yeah

  • Kaiser Mukhtar from Hong Kong on September 22, 2009, 2:32 GMT

    Apart from spending money on zimbabwe cricket or west indies , i think the time is right for the ICC to consider spending some of its extra money on the people suffering from dieases, and other natural catastrophes. Its enough of hearing about the the cricketers collecting billions from T20 leagues,and vice versa. I seriously think its high time that ICC comes with some concrete agenda for this cause after all we are living on earth where there are numerous problems for other humans who don't really have means to make both ends meet. Thank you. CT, WC, T20's will continue and earns money for many cricketers and organizers but humans sufferings also need attention.

  • Weez on September 22, 2009, 2:08 GMT

    I don't care much for the Champions Trophy yet I'm only too grateful for something decent on TV. Also it is a brilliant time to have one - so many good teams out there - the ICC rankings have never been this close, so it would be a good fight to see who gets on top - hopefully there will be no tragic choking involved and just good games.

  • Josh on September 22, 2009, 2:06 GMT

    I think the problem is that the Champions trophy is 2nd on the ICC's level of importance but no on any of the fans. If we had a world cup every 2 years it would be different as it might be looked at as more important. I think that the 50 over game should be cut to 40 overs. We could have 20/20 and 40/40. And to make ODI's more exciting there should be periods where all fielders on the on side/ off side for 2 overs each then all in front of square / behind square for 2 overs each and the for the last to overs (this is in overs 15-25) have all the fielders inside the ring. This plus the bowling powerplay which is normally taken at the 10 over and the batting powerplay taken near the end of the innings. There should be more short balls allowed and free hits for wides but more leeway for legside deliveries. Call me crazy but 20/20 is crazy and thats what most fans like these days

  • T (New Zealand) on September 22, 2009, 1:57 GMT

    The only reason people aren't too excited about this is that there are too many ODIs outside of this tournament. I mean that SEVEN MATCH series in England was just the other day (the MUST be some health and safety regulations against that). Then there was a triangular with India, SL and NZ (thankfully short!). It's too much and it numbs the brain.

    The CT is excellent, but you should have to qualify for it via the ranking system. Secondly as a rule there should only be 3 match bi-lateral series for everybody. Thirdly, let there be no full-member ODI cricket in the month before the CT, and the WC (The full members should ideally play against and 'coach' the minnows in that time to give the minnows experience in T20 or ODers).

  • xrayfella on September 22, 2009, 1:41 GMT

    The CT would have greater appeal if there wasn't already such a glut of meaningless cricket being played.. and I include Test Cricket in that. WI in England prior to The Ashes being a classic example. Here in Australia, there was very little interest in the 7 (!!) ODI's between Australia and England. 3 would have been appropriate as an appetite-whetter prior to the main event. England and India need to realise that the world public will eventually lose interest in the meaningless games and series, resulting in diminishing numbers of TV viewers and attendances at grounds.. leading to less money from TV rights as the value of the associated advertising decreases. They have to stop obstructing constructive change for their own selfish reasons. All Tests series should be of 5 rubbers, with T20 and ODI's prior. Home and away over a few years.. there's 3 World Championships immediately. Leaving time and space for the CT and World Cups in both T20 and ODI.

    There is too much cricket!

  • gb on September 22, 2009, 1:31 GMT

    Two options to make CT more of purpose: Option 1: Winner of CT is declared as a team in semi-finals of next WC? The winner will play aginst the team which has least point accured among the other three teams in semi-finals. The CT winner does not need to play other group games and can choose to play only the knock-out games as per their choice of teams (to be declared before the fixture of tournament is drafted). This will let them to play the games and dent the points of other teams while no need to worry about their own. The CT runner-up team can be exempted from the group games but they play the knockout games with the maximum points possible from the group matches.

    Option 2: Winner of CT is given 75% of maximum points a team can get in the tournament. Runner-up will start with 35% of such a maximum points allowed in the tournament. They play all knock out games. They loose points if their oppenent wins. This will make sure that they are not totally taking things as granted!!!

  • Aubs on September 22, 2009, 0:50 GMT

    This is the first Champions Trophy I have been looking forward to. They have axed the minnows, and streamlined the format where almost every game should have meaning and be hard to pick a winner. The only big shame is the West Indies squad, which will most likely make 3 games irrelevant. The ICC can't really be blamed for not forseeing that, although they probably should take a small piece of responsibility for the situation with the Windies.

  • Ravi on September 22, 2009, 0:41 GMT

    I think ODIs and test matches are the pillars on which the cricketing world can continue building other innovative formats. It adds up to the excitement but cannot steal the importance of ODI. CT is an important series like any other. When India plays it becomes more interesting. England fans are under estimating their team, as i still remember they played with a plan against India in T20 world cup this year and won convincingly. India is a great team no doubt but they lack consistency. Pakistan however is a less talked about team and it adds to their adbantage. They dont enter the tournament as favourites but end up winning it. To me favourites this year are India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Hahahaha subcontinent dominance on a game introduced to the world by English

  • da Punjabi on September 22, 2009, 0:36 GMT

    To shahid on incentive of winning the CT

    What could be the biggest incentive of winning CT, than giving the right to host the next CT to the winner! ICC should have absolute control of CT trophy, not the member boards... You want to host the CT......? well, win it, and host it... c'mon c'mon

  • Looch on September 22, 2009, 0:19 GMT

    Great posts from Vishu and Sleetviper, I agree with your sentiments. Long live Cricket!

  • Marcus on September 22, 2009, 0:08 GMT

    Maybe it shouldn't be a biennial event, but should come around every four years like the World Cup- so you'd have a WC in 2011, a CT in 2013, a WC in 2015, a CT in 2017 and so on- following the same sort of schedule as the Olympics and Commonwealth Games. If the Commonwealth Games were biennial, and coincided with an Olympic year, how much attention would be paid to it?

    As to whether it's too short. Hasn't anyone heard of "less is more?" Just have two pools, followed by a semifinal stage and a final, and you'll be left with a short, sharp tournament that would hopefully involve some really good cricket without having too much of it. And get rid of the "Super Stage" for every ODI tournament, for heavens' sakes. Who needs it?

  • Ramesh on September 21, 2009, 23:30 GMT

    While the author has a valid point about cash cow aspect of the champions trophy, I disagree vehemently with what is being said about the 'minnows'. If they lose, they shouldn't have been playing in the first place and if they win, they don't deserve to proceed to the higher rounds?? This is ridiculous. Why not just give the cup to the top seeded team without playing any games at all? The top teams do not have a holy right to proceed to the knockout rounds, they have to earn it just like the rest of us mere mortals. If the minnows beat them fair and square according to the rules of the tournament, the minnows deserve it. As an Indian, I was upset that India and even Pakistan got knocked out in the world cup but that's what they deserved from their play, full stop.

  • Rashid on September 21, 2009, 23:21 GMT

    I cant believe that we are discussing on CT as bad. I love this game and i am a pakistan fan and am waiting anxiously for this tournament.T20 cricket is good short and exciting, but ODI and Test are real format in my opinion from which you can judge Strengths and weakness, techniques of players, stamina everything. To win a ODI game teams have to work hard plan there innings, but in T20 20 overs 11 players common you know what i mean, even pakistan won the T20 world cup i am proud specially when they were underdogs, but CT and WC is the real deal in shorter version of the game. I hope everybody agrees.

  • Faz on September 21, 2009, 23:07 GMT

    Actually there are parallels in other sports too. Tennis has (had?) something called a ATP championship (I think they still have it) where the top 16 players used to duke it out at the end of the year. No one really cared about that either. It was all about the grand slams (still is). There's that saying that there is no such think as second place, there is only the first loser. Champions Trophy is the first loser. If the ICC decided to change it's name and call it the World Cup and called the World Cup something else, I guarantee people would start caring about it.

  • Bang_La on September 21, 2009, 23:06 GMT

    I totally agree with Sleetviper! England is a mismatch for the tournament, they will make it so dull, ugh!

  • Hemanth on September 21, 2009, 22:51 GMT

    Get rid of the new entrants from WC and it would still be as popular. Because its "World" cup. Make the top prize of champions trophy as No. 1 ranking in the world then see the difference.

  • Sleetviper on September 21, 2009, 22:47 GMT

    The best thing about champions trophy right now is that it is afterall, CRICKET. This is the game we all love and dont really care which form or format it comes in, as long as we get a good bite at it.

    Having said that, there are ways the profile of the CT could be improved. One suggestion is to bring it down to 6 top ranked teams in ODI cricket. It will give added spice to the competition and make the ODI ranking system more meaningful and especially one that every cricket lover would follow more closely.

    The 7th and 8th ranked sides would always want to break into the top 6 simply to be able to compete in the CT and thus make regular home series (aka the ridiculous WI vs Bangladesh series where WI went in with a second string side) and other ODI tournaments more attractive and competitive also.

    In short, the sense of competition to be able to qualify for the CT for every team would not only make cricket generally more competitive, it will make ODIs more fun for us fans also.

  • Vishu on September 21, 2009, 22:38 GMT

    I have been a regular reader of cricinfo for a while and I have seen different views of many cricket lovers. I love cricket as much as Sachin or Gilchrist do. But I never felt that the introduction of T20 marred the importance of 50 over format. It is just a new format of the game and every wants to get used to the format and fans want to see their country dominating that format. But somehow I feel that the news makers are unnecessarily stressing the point that 50 over format is dying when it isn't the case. It is a known fact that there can be only one winner in a tournament like this. The teams who think that they could have won the tournament will have to restore their pride by dominating future games in the same format. As long as the teams playing this format show their love and dedication towards the format the game will alive and will have followers just like the other formats.

  • aftab on September 21, 2009, 22:11 GMT

    There is nothing wrong with CT that is not wrong with other forms/events of Cricket - which is stupidity of promoters. Cricket is not so loved yet as ice cream - that you must pay a lot to see even uneventful matches. The day when Cricket promoters learn to make money by showing the game (as against selling), not only will the game spread but also will make more money. At this point in time - such is an unlikely happening.

  • Hassan Khan on September 21, 2009, 22:08 GMT

    I think it is very unfair to say that Champion's trophy is not popular any more. This is the only tournament in the cricketing world that is exclusive of the top teams. World cup is nowadays too much of a drag, with all the minnows, and T20,although very popular, lacks the authenticity of true cricketing finesse. Please do not get me wrong, I love T20 cricket but this form hardly tests true cricketing skills of the players and a lot of luck/bashing is involved. Bottom line is that if there is any thing that brings the best sides in the world, tries their skills against each other and is done in a short time frame it is the Champions Trophy. As far as saying that the days of 50 over cricket are numbered, some one much more cricket savvy than me once said that Test cricket is 80% skill & 20% luck; 50 ov. is 50% skill & 50% luck; and T20 is 20% skill & 80% luck.... no wonder it's called the Twenty-20.

  • Ollie on September 21, 2009, 21:54 GMT

    Who says that ODIs are boring or the worst form of the game? It is a matter of opinion - I love it because it not too long or too short. Just right! There is a lot of strategy, skill and expertize involved in a reasonable amount of time. Again, IMHO it has the best of the other formats... Now the Champions Trophy is another thing...it is not practical since all teams do not get to play each other. So, how can there be a true winner or champion. A round-robin format would be preferred, but then, what do I know?

  • Avi Singh on September 21, 2009, 21:51 GMT

    The problem is that the World Cup and the Champions Trophy should be swapped around: the World Cup should be the cream of the crop and have a league system as in the 1992 edition, while the Champions Trophy should be renamed and have minnows there to 'expand the game'. the world twenty20 can also have some minnows. in this way the world cup is the best of what cricket has to offer.

  • funky on September 21, 2009, 21:35 GMT

    It's too short

  • Sharaabi on September 21, 2009, 21:22 GMT

    The Champions Trophy happens too quick for 2 reasons - the absence of minnows, and the format of the tournament. As you said, the absence of minnows should, if anything, make it more exciting. But the problem here is the format of the game. Each team only plays 3 games before the knockout stage. 3 ODI games is a pretty standard bilateral series number of games, so it doesn't feel long enough. In a world cup, the SuperSix round is 15 games long and contains 6 teams which feels more like a major tournament. So I think if they had SuperSix in the Champions Trophy (or even possibly SuperFour competing for the top two spots for the finalists), there would be enough time to buildup suspense for the knockout.

  • Andrew on September 21, 2009, 21:17 GMT

    Please can we stop screwing cricket for all it's worth. The fact the Champions Trophy even exists is an outrage. Death knell are sounding for the 50 over game.

  • ali on September 21, 2009, 21:10 GMT

    What the CT needs is to be different than WC like some others pointed out. Make it only between top 5 or 6 teams, and make it more prestigious than the WC which it certainly is. like each team playes has to play more matches against each other or something like that. anyways the revival of some teams such as Pakistan, Sri Lanka and South Africa will make any ODI tournament more interesting now instead of seeing only Austrailia take over everybody.

  • Chris on September 21, 2009, 21:09 GMT

    For an England fan, any ODI is unimportant. So also T20. the only thing that matters is the Ashes, and haven't england won that? With this asinine attitude is it any wonder that England almost were whitewashed when the ODIs were playedand each of the powers that be from Captain onwards were scraping the bottom of the barrel to find excuses for their getting thrashed. Last time the same supercilious attitude towards the World Cup saw England lose in the World Cup, at what stage does not really matter and also lose the Ashes. I am sure the Aussies are waiting for England to come around Down Under so that they can thrash them in the Ashes Tests as well as the ODIs. England has been badly served by nothing players like Flintoff andPietersen who play one match and rest for four. As for the rest, with the honourable exception of Strauss, there is no commitment to Cricket.

  • Ravin on September 21, 2009, 21:08 GMT

    I don't think this is a neglected tournament and most of it is English propaganda. World beating teams take all forms of the game seriously and winning this tournament is important especially the 2009 edition because of its compactness. This blog post is hardly surprising coming from an English supporter who thinks winning test cricket is good enough which by the way is not England's strong point either. When Aus were number one, they were top notch in both Tests and ODIs. @ Luke Curtis It is T20 cricket that is a tremendous eye-sore with its crass showmanship and other sideshows in the name of entertainment. Get real, just because it is a format England don't stand a chance does not mean that it is meaningless.

  • Farooq Ahmad on September 21, 2009, 20:41 GMT

    Im a Pakistani fan and in Pakistan people are really looking for this tournament , they are more eager to see Pakistani team winning ODI than the T20 matches......

    But 1 Question to all of you.... IPL finishes in about 50 days then why chapions trophy --an international tournament just take less than 2 weeks ?? These TOP 8 should play one match with allother teams and then semifinal and final..a format that is best to judge who is the best.... a format similar to 1992 world cup of Australia.

  • Pradeep Ananth on September 21, 2009, 20:31 GMT

    I remember the Champions' Trophy having a knockout format when it started. I think I liked it better because it made sure the consistent ones won. And, of course, you eliminate dead rubbers!

  • Turlough Kelly on September 21, 2009, 20:06 GMT

    I think the disdain for the Champions Trophy relates directly to its original function as a means of generating funds for the Associate nations, something the more imperially-minded elements of the British cricketing establishment have never been able to forgive.

    This is amply demonstrated by the fact that a good percentage of this article consists of a tirade directed towards those Associate nations, despite its ostensible target being a competition in which they don't participate.

    Amidst the dross, there was one gem to be extracted, however: "But the Champs Trophy is what the final stages of a World Cup would look like if none of the major teams tripped over the banana-skin in their qualifying group."

    Quite. And a tournament which allowed England a bye to the final is what the final stage of a World Cup would look like if England didn't trip over the banana skins of Zimbabwe, the Netherlands, all the other full members, etc etc etc.

    [Mike: It wasn't England but India and Pakistan who got eliminated early at the 2007 World Cup. It wasn't England but Australia who exited at the first round of the Twenty20 and it was Pakistan who were in most danger of following them depending on how heavily they beat the Netherlands. Your point, such as it may be, is rather lost on me.]

  • Danish on September 21, 2009, 19:50 GMT

    I'm British-born. So I do support England whenever they're game is on, and obviously I want them to win. It's actually this kind of thinking (the one mentioned in the article)the British have that has made England a flop ODI side. I believe that every game one plays is important. I just don't understand when players say that it's an unimportant game or series. Take CT as a challenge to prove yourselves and to test your limits.

    I disagree with the author too that the series is unpopular. Here in Pakistan, everyone is looking fwd to it eagerly. I plan to see (or at least follow) every match! Until such a mindset comes through, there's no way teams like Eng are gonna improve there ODI strength.

  • Luke Curtis on September 21, 2009, 19:34 GMT

    I have to agree - I really could not care less about ODIs in general and the CT in particular. It is probably because as an England fan I know damn well that the competition will start on Friday and be over 3 days later but there is the fact there does not seem to be any point to it, it is not a regional torny, it is not a qualification it is just another world cup with a different name.

    The only good point about it is that it seems to be a very compact schedule, unlike the ludicrous previous WC which seemed to drag on forever.

    Test Cricket is *real* cricket, T20 thrill-a-minute smash it around fun and the 50 over game is the unwanted bastard lovechild of both, all the worst points and none of the best of the 2 superior forms of the game.

  • Marlo on September 21, 2009, 19:21 GMT

    Shahid; your raw thinking do speak every cricket fans mind. For sure money is no attraction for a fan but only for a cricket body. I agree that CT neads something to fight for. Regarding hostning right for the very next WC, it can be a problem as then it can result in a lot of WCs in subcontinent one after one , or else where..

  • Omar on September 21, 2009, 19:21 GMT

    After the joke that was the 2007 World Cup, I'm looking forward to this abbreviated tournament more than I ever have.

  • Shahid on September 21, 2009, 19:07 GMT

    Let me go on from the last mail........... so the winner of Champions Trophy gets substantial points in rankings, hosts the next World Cup and receives a Trophy which looks like 8 national color hats, gets a lot of money and gets an extra home series of 5 ODI against the no.1 (no. 2 if they self are no. 1) team on ranking before the tournament start. It like can sound like a joke but you rae the brain to refine it, but just give us something which is attached to it other then money.

  • Shahid on September 21, 2009, 18:59 GMT

    But when a world Cup winner is a world champion, then what are you if you are a champions Trophy winner. Its just a cup. Cant u see the point. There are only two ways to make it attractive to you and me, either it has to be a different ball game or it should have a prestige to it. Now it has nothing. You cant have a different ball game as then you have to change some rules and create a 4th version of cricket, so we are only left with the obtion of creating an extraordinary prestige to it. How do you do that; ofcourse not by offering a bigger winning purse as thats of no interest to us. So What Then? Come up with an idea and we will solve the problem. Is there any other "ashes urn" like thing in world of cricket, to fight for, What if wins in CT give 3 times more points in ranking and 5 times to a winer, What if a bizar thing like, the winer is entitled to collect hats of all captains of remaining teams, what if the winer is entitled to some special benifits as being host of WC ...

  • Abhishek on September 21, 2009, 18:50 GMT

    I dont fully agree with the statement that we dont care about CT. We certainly dont as much as we do about the WC, but we care. But then again, I am an Indian, and we care about all things cricket.

  • Rob K on September 21, 2009, 18:35 GMT

    Somewhat ironically, as well as forgetting the previous tournaments and winners, you are also forgetting they weren't this slimmed down version, they did feature Bangladesh and the like. In addition, they stretched the tournaments out, never having two matches per day. This time I think there is a little more expectation and excitement, precisely because these changes have been made. I think that really any of the top 6 teams have a decent chance of winning and you think that the sides might be taking the event slightly more seriously this time around, because of the lack of a clear world order at the moment.

  • da Punjabi on September 21, 2009, 18:35 GMT

    Total disregard of ODI by the English fan, and their media, has brought England into the league of Zimbawve. When it comes to champions trophy, therefore, English opinion is of no importance. Championship Trophy is the 2nd biggest event on the ICC calender, and anxiously awaited. This is the tounament which even Australia could not win for the Trophy cabinet until 2006. For relevance of CT, all England had to do was win it 2004 against WI, and there would've been a lot of love coming at CT. In subcontinent, any tournament of ODI is greatly love. ODI alone can survive becuase of Subcontinental love. English cricket just didn't evolved and stuck in stone age. It shows in the cricket ranking'

  • basher on September 21, 2009, 18:26 GMT

    are you sure you mean the WEST INDIES team (current squd) is the right choice for this so called high profile tournament? why not BANGLADESH or IERLAND ?

  • Will Stevens on September 21, 2009, 18:25 GMT

    I think the problem is that the Champions Trophy doesn't really offer anything the World Cup can't. (Other than a lack of minnows).

    The tournament is something of a cash cow and, in an already packed schedule, players and fans alike can see right through it. How can supporters be expected to get excited about something that the players seem to view as a commitment to be fulfilled, rather than a trophy to be won. The fact that tournament starts shows just how seriously they're taking it.

    There's certainly room for one international 50 over tournament, but the ICC needs to decide whether it wants smaller nations involved or not. A 20 over world cup and a 50 over world cup - yes please. But the Champions Trophy? I'd rather watch a county game in April...

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Will Stevens on September 21, 2009, 18:25 GMT

    I think the problem is that the Champions Trophy doesn't really offer anything the World Cup can't. (Other than a lack of minnows).

    The tournament is something of a cash cow and, in an already packed schedule, players and fans alike can see right through it. How can supporters be expected to get excited about something that the players seem to view as a commitment to be fulfilled, rather than a trophy to be won. The fact that tournament starts shows just how seriously they're taking it.

    There's certainly room for one international 50 over tournament, but the ICC needs to decide whether it wants smaller nations involved or not. A 20 over world cup and a 50 over world cup - yes please. But the Champions Trophy? I'd rather watch a county game in April...

  • basher on September 21, 2009, 18:26 GMT

    are you sure you mean the WEST INDIES team (current squd) is the right choice for this so called high profile tournament? why not BANGLADESH or IERLAND ?

  • da Punjabi on September 21, 2009, 18:35 GMT

    Total disregard of ODI by the English fan, and their media, has brought England into the league of Zimbawve. When it comes to champions trophy, therefore, English opinion is of no importance. Championship Trophy is the 2nd biggest event on the ICC calender, and anxiously awaited. This is the tounament which even Australia could not win for the Trophy cabinet until 2006. For relevance of CT, all England had to do was win it 2004 against WI, and there would've been a lot of love coming at CT. In subcontinent, any tournament of ODI is greatly love. ODI alone can survive becuase of Subcontinental love. English cricket just didn't evolved and stuck in stone age. It shows in the cricket ranking'

  • Rob K on September 21, 2009, 18:35 GMT

    Somewhat ironically, as well as forgetting the previous tournaments and winners, you are also forgetting they weren't this slimmed down version, they did feature Bangladesh and the like. In addition, they stretched the tournaments out, never having two matches per day. This time I think there is a little more expectation and excitement, precisely because these changes have been made. I think that really any of the top 6 teams have a decent chance of winning and you think that the sides might be taking the event slightly more seriously this time around, because of the lack of a clear world order at the moment.

  • Abhishek on September 21, 2009, 18:50 GMT

    I dont fully agree with the statement that we dont care about CT. We certainly dont as much as we do about the WC, but we care. But then again, I am an Indian, and we care about all things cricket.

  • Shahid on September 21, 2009, 18:59 GMT

    But when a world Cup winner is a world champion, then what are you if you are a champions Trophy winner. Its just a cup. Cant u see the point. There are only two ways to make it attractive to you and me, either it has to be a different ball game or it should have a prestige to it. Now it has nothing. You cant have a different ball game as then you have to change some rules and create a 4th version of cricket, so we are only left with the obtion of creating an extraordinary prestige to it. How do you do that; ofcourse not by offering a bigger winning purse as thats of no interest to us. So What Then? Come up with an idea and we will solve the problem. Is there any other "ashes urn" like thing in world of cricket, to fight for, What if wins in CT give 3 times more points in ranking and 5 times to a winer, What if a bizar thing like, the winer is entitled to collect hats of all captains of remaining teams, what if the winer is entitled to some special benifits as being host of WC ...

  • Shahid on September 21, 2009, 19:07 GMT

    Let me go on from the last mail........... so the winner of Champions Trophy gets substantial points in rankings, hosts the next World Cup and receives a Trophy which looks like 8 national color hats, gets a lot of money and gets an extra home series of 5 ODI against the no.1 (no. 2 if they self are no. 1) team on ranking before the tournament start. It like can sound like a joke but you rae the brain to refine it, but just give us something which is attached to it other then money.

  • Omar on September 21, 2009, 19:21 GMT

    After the joke that was the 2007 World Cup, I'm looking forward to this abbreviated tournament more than I ever have.

  • Marlo on September 21, 2009, 19:21 GMT

    Shahid; your raw thinking do speak every cricket fans mind. For sure money is no attraction for a fan but only for a cricket body. I agree that CT neads something to fight for. Regarding hostning right for the very next WC, it can be a problem as then it can result in a lot of WCs in subcontinent one after one , or else where..

  • Luke Curtis on September 21, 2009, 19:34 GMT

    I have to agree - I really could not care less about ODIs in general and the CT in particular. It is probably because as an England fan I know damn well that the competition will start on Friday and be over 3 days later but there is the fact there does not seem to be any point to it, it is not a regional torny, it is not a qualification it is just another world cup with a different name.

    The only good point about it is that it seems to be a very compact schedule, unlike the ludicrous previous WC which seemed to drag on forever.

    Test Cricket is *real* cricket, T20 thrill-a-minute smash it around fun and the 50 over game is the unwanted bastard lovechild of both, all the worst points and none of the best of the 2 superior forms of the game.