Mike Holmans September 29, 2009

What's the point of the Champions Trophy?

It is we, the fans and supporters, who confer prestige on tournaments and series
28


As yet, at least, fans haven't decided that the Champions Trophy is a prestige tournament. © AFP
 

A lot of people took me to task after my last post, in which I suggested that it was a bit odd that most cricket fans don't rate the Champions Trophy very highly, many accusing me of English sour grapes. I was clearly underestimating Asian interest in the tournament, but Chris from Australia commented that there was zero interest in Australia, and when I checked the Sydney Morning Herald and Melbourne Age websites immediately afterwards, they still had the Ashes logo on their cricket pages - which still devoted far more attention to deconstructing Australia's Ashes loss than to prospects for the CT. And Australia are the holders.

Some people suggested that ICC needs to give the CT more prestige. I get the idea, but I'm not sure that prestige can be magically bestowed by the powers that be. ICC tried that with their idea of a Super Series of ODIs and a “Test” between the top-ranked country and the Rest of the World, at which the world's cricket public blew a resounding raspberry. Throwing oodles of cash into the prize pot doesn't do it either, as Allen Stanford found before he was arrested. The point is that prestige is not in the gift of the authorities: it is we, the fans and supporters, who confer prestige on tournaments and series. And as yet, at least, we haven't decided that the CT is a prestige tournament.

I think the problem is that we don't know what it's for. We have a 50-over World Cup already, and we're very happy to think that World Cup is a huge deal.

A World Cup happens every four years – as it does in many other sports, especially those involving inflated leather balls. Four years is a good interval because it basically ensures that there will be a different cast of characters even if the team names remain the same. Last time's Grand Old Men have retired, the then-established stars have moved into GOM-hood, some of the up-and-comers are now the leading players and there are some new faces just making their way. Each World Cup is a whole new adventure.

Contrast this with the CT going on three months after the World Twenty20; Tendulkar, Dravid and Strauss are playing in this after not being included in the Twenty20, but otherwise the differences between the teams which were in England and these ones have mostly come about through injuries (or, in the case of West Indies, total meltdown). Yes, it's a longer format and the results haven't always gone the same way, but it's felt awfully like the slo-mo replay taken to a whole-tournament level.

It's not that it hasn't been entertaining, or that we haven't learned anything. No-one had previously had any inkling that England had any idea how to play 50-over cricket, so their performance against South Africa was a discovery on a par with finding a new planet orbiting the sun. Nor, at a less mind-boggling level, had most of us realised that the final authority on run-out decisions is the fielding captain.

But was it really necessary to mount a whole tournament for the same old eight teams to make these additions to the sum of human knowledge?

In football, when England fail to win the World Cup, they can go off and fail to win the European Nations Cup, a tournament obviously smaller than and different to the World Cup but still big enough to garner its own level of prestige. India can finish out of the medals at the Olympic hockey and then make a mess of the Commonwealth Games, a lesser but still obviously significant event. But cricket's problem is that there aren't enough top teams to have a multiplicity of top-team tournaments without inducing terminal deja vu.

Perhaps what we need rather than the Champions Trophy are two quasi-regional tournaments. One would be for Asia-Pacific, involving India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Australia, New Zealand plus Afghanistan and UAE, while the Atlantic Cup could be for West Indies, England, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Ireland, Netherlands, Namibia and Kenya (or such other European, American and African countries as qualified).

Obviously the Asia-Pacific one would be far more prestigious and have a much larger audience, but the Atlantic Cup would give more of the emerging nations serious competition, which might make future World Cups even more interesting. Most of all, though, it would be fascinating to see how South Africa could contrive to get knocked out at an early stage.

Now, I really must get back to eating those sour grapes.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • nathan on October 28, 2009, 15:40 GMT

    australia is an inspired team if it loses an one day means its upsurd bcoz we know our indboys capacity

  • Daa on October 27, 2009, 11:04 GMT

    I understand Ireland's situation in England gaining two quality players in Ed Joyce and Eion Morgan. If Ireland were elevated to Test level say for a year, and played every Test nation, I doubt they would win. At home they have a 1000 to 1 chance of winning in the opposition's favour, away they have a million to one. Pakistan had an off day. Every team has an off day. I think that Ireland could only win if they had all their quality players with them. England's team is effectively an England and Wales team. I think every country should have it's own team. (I'm talking to the West Indies Cricket Board) I respect any team that plays international cricket. To get to that level at any age playing for any country is a big achievement. It'd be harder in countries like the Netherlands casue there are virtually no cricket clubs. Anyone who plays international cricket should be respected. Stop all of this arguing.

  • Rob Quin on October 15, 2009, 21:52 GMT

    Arsad, that is true our performance in Bangladesh was disappointing, but that was our first trip there and a great learning experience. Better will be expected next time we meet. I would have thought you would welcome Ireland to Test Cricket seeing as you may have some competition now the Windes dispute is over. Fact: Bangladesh Test Played 61 Test Won 3. (2 wins against Windies without contracted players) Fact: Sachin Tendulkar Average in tests v Bangladesh 139.00 Sachin Tendulkar Ave ODI v Bangladesh 44.25 Sachin Tendulkar Ave ODI v Ireland 4. That leaves one legitimate Test win v Zimbabwe ever in 58 Tests. Total Victories v Ireland in a Neutral Venue for Bangladesh 0. Total Excuses Plenty.

  • Arsad bin Saylav on October 15, 2009, 19:49 GMT

    @ Rob Quin, u guys defeated a 3rd string bangla team. What about the other 3 ODIs that Bangladesh & Ireland played. BANGLADESH HAMMERED IRELAND WITH THE HUGE MIRGINS OF 8 WICKETS(18 ovs to spare), 85 RUNS & 123 RUNS respectevely. So minnows cut the crap

  • Arsad bin Saylav on October 15, 2009, 19:35 GMT

    @Rob Quin, Bangladesh Bowlers have 2 take wickets of Ponting, Tendulkar & other legends. Not like Ireland bowlers taking wkts of Bermuda & other mediocre associate team batsmans. I think as a irish u dont know what is TESTcricket & where is IC cup cricket

  • Arsad bin Saylav on October 15, 2009, 19:17 GMT

    @Rob Quin, Bangladesh players score runs & take wickets against Australia, S Africa & other tough teams. Not like the Irish players who scores runs & take wkts against Bermuda or Zimbabwe A. Avereging 15 in Test cricket is equal with 45 in IC cup games

  • Rob Quin on October 14, 2009, 7:42 GMT

    Arsad you have ONE batsman who averages over thirty in tests, and only just and he is 36, and two bowlers with Test averages under thirty and one of those has only played two games !!!! Now England are trying to take Boyd Rankin. All you have are excuses we beat you twice and we'd beat you in test.

  • Arsad bin Saylav on October 9, 2009, 12:52 GMT

    @ Rob Quin, with that kind of bowling attack of IRELAND with slow medium pacers & low quality spinners. IRELAND will not be able 2 all out a Test team in full 5 days. IRELAND dont have the bowlers to take wkts @ TEST LEVEL. IC & TEST cricket isnt the same

  • Arsad bin Saylav on October 9, 2009, 12:48 GMT

    WTF Rob Quin, u think beating teams like BERMUDA & playing the test teams is same. TEST matches arent T20 circus where by luck u can beat a 3rd string Bangla team. Even 1st class teams of Bangladesh like Dhaka, Khulna will hammer Ireland in a 4 day match

  • vicky300787 on October 4, 2009, 17:28 GMT

    happened in Barbados in at the last WC, or is there an excuse for that pitch also ? To say Ireland could not win a Test match in 100, is just foolish, we have some quality under 19's virtually all of whom have been signed to English Counties. All we lack is experience and opportunity. FYI Arsad IRELAND have not lost a game in the Intercontinental in four years the highest level of 4 day comp available to us. Arsad, please Irish fans know a lot about Test Cricket, we are situated right next to England, all English Test games are broadcast in Ireland. Many of us have attended Tests involving other country's. Obviously you are scarred to face Ireland in a Test Match. You couldn't beat us on a neutral venue at the 07 WC and you couldn't beat us at the T20 WC despite us having little experience at T20. On what basis do you think you could beat us in a Test ?

  • nathan on October 28, 2009, 15:40 GMT

    australia is an inspired team if it loses an one day means its upsurd bcoz we know our indboys capacity

  • Daa on October 27, 2009, 11:04 GMT

    I understand Ireland's situation in England gaining two quality players in Ed Joyce and Eion Morgan. If Ireland were elevated to Test level say for a year, and played every Test nation, I doubt they would win. At home they have a 1000 to 1 chance of winning in the opposition's favour, away they have a million to one. Pakistan had an off day. Every team has an off day. I think that Ireland could only win if they had all their quality players with them. England's team is effectively an England and Wales team. I think every country should have it's own team. (I'm talking to the West Indies Cricket Board) I respect any team that plays international cricket. To get to that level at any age playing for any country is a big achievement. It'd be harder in countries like the Netherlands casue there are virtually no cricket clubs. Anyone who plays international cricket should be respected. Stop all of this arguing.

  • Rob Quin on October 15, 2009, 21:52 GMT

    Arsad, that is true our performance in Bangladesh was disappointing, but that was our first trip there and a great learning experience. Better will be expected next time we meet. I would have thought you would welcome Ireland to Test Cricket seeing as you may have some competition now the Windes dispute is over. Fact: Bangladesh Test Played 61 Test Won 3. (2 wins against Windies without contracted players) Fact: Sachin Tendulkar Average in tests v Bangladesh 139.00 Sachin Tendulkar Ave ODI v Bangladesh 44.25 Sachin Tendulkar Ave ODI v Ireland 4. That leaves one legitimate Test win v Zimbabwe ever in 58 Tests. Total Victories v Ireland in a Neutral Venue for Bangladesh 0. Total Excuses Plenty.

  • Arsad bin Saylav on October 15, 2009, 19:49 GMT

    @ Rob Quin, u guys defeated a 3rd string bangla team. What about the other 3 ODIs that Bangladesh & Ireland played. BANGLADESH HAMMERED IRELAND WITH THE HUGE MIRGINS OF 8 WICKETS(18 ovs to spare), 85 RUNS & 123 RUNS respectevely. So minnows cut the crap

  • Arsad bin Saylav on October 15, 2009, 19:35 GMT

    @Rob Quin, Bangladesh Bowlers have 2 take wickets of Ponting, Tendulkar & other legends. Not like Ireland bowlers taking wkts of Bermuda & other mediocre associate team batsmans. I think as a irish u dont know what is TESTcricket & where is IC cup cricket

  • Arsad bin Saylav on October 15, 2009, 19:17 GMT

    @Rob Quin, Bangladesh players score runs & take wickets against Australia, S Africa & other tough teams. Not like the Irish players who scores runs & take wkts against Bermuda or Zimbabwe A. Avereging 15 in Test cricket is equal with 45 in IC cup games

  • Rob Quin on October 14, 2009, 7:42 GMT

    Arsad you have ONE batsman who averages over thirty in tests, and only just and he is 36, and two bowlers with Test averages under thirty and one of those has only played two games !!!! Now England are trying to take Boyd Rankin. All you have are excuses we beat you twice and we'd beat you in test.

  • Arsad bin Saylav on October 9, 2009, 12:52 GMT

    @ Rob Quin, with that kind of bowling attack of IRELAND with slow medium pacers & low quality spinners. IRELAND will not be able 2 all out a Test team in full 5 days. IRELAND dont have the bowlers to take wkts @ TEST LEVEL. IC & TEST cricket isnt the same

  • Arsad bin Saylav on October 9, 2009, 12:48 GMT

    WTF Rob Quin, u think beating teams like BERMUDA & playing the test teams is same. TEST matches arent T20 circus where by luck u can beat a 3rd string Bangla team. Even 1st class teams of Bangladesh like Dhaka, Khulna will hammer Ireland in a 4 day match

  • vicky300787 on October 4, 2009, 17:28 GMT

    happened in Barbados in at the last WC, or is there an excuse for that pitch also ? To say Ireland could not win a Test match in 100, is just foolish, we have some quality under 19's virtually all of whom have been signed to English Counties. All we lack is experience and opportunity. FYI Arsad IRELAND have not lost a game in the Intercontinental in four years the highest level of 4 day comp available to us. Arsad, please Irish fans know a lot about Test Cricket, we are situated right next to England, all English Test games are broadcast in Ireland. Many of us have attended Tests involving other country's. Obviously you are scarred to face Ireland in a Test Match. You couldn't beat us on a neutral venue at the 07 WC and you couldn't beat us at the T20 WC despite us having little experience at T20. On what basis do you think you could beat us in a Test ?

  • Rob Quin on October 3, 2009, 2:13 GMT

    Waterbuffalo, Check your facts, it already happened, I am sure Arsad can tell you what happened in Barbados in at the last WC, or is there an excuse for that pitch also ? To say Ireland could not win a Test match in 100, is just foolish, we have some quality under 19's virtually all of whom have been signed to English Counties. All we lack is experience and opportunity. FYI Arsad IRELAND have not lost a game in the Intercontinental in four years the highest level of 4 day comp available to us. Arsad, please Irish fans know a lot about Test Cricket, we are situated right next to England, all English Test games are broadcast in Ireland. Many of us have attended Tests involving other country's. Obviously you are scarred to face Ireland in a Test Match. You couldn't beat us on a neutral venue at the 07 WC and you couldn't beat us at the T20 WC despite us having little experience at T20. On what basis do you think you could beat us in a Test ?

  • waterbuffalo on October 2, 2009, 8:22 GMT

    @ Rob Quin, stick to football. Ireland couldn't win a test match if they played 100. Chasing 130 does not make Ireland a legitimate contender. When you beat a Test country on a decent surface, let me know.

  • Arsad bin Saylav on October 2, 2009, 6:28 GMT

    Irish fans complants that England poached Morgan & Joyce. What about Bangldesh losing their 14 top players to ICL. In the ICC World T20 Bangladesh was virtually 3rd string. Ireland is best of the associates teams but not better than any of the test teams

  • Arsad bin Saylav on October 2, 2009, 6:19 GMT

    As most of the Irish fans they know nothing about test cricket. As Ireland is playing ODI cricket for last couple of years only. The matches against Pakistan and Bangladesh was accidents. A match earlier Bangldesh defeated South Africa.

  • Arsad bin Saylav on October 2, 2009, 6:08 GMT

    @ Rob Quin, test cricket is not like t20 circus. Ireland dont even have 2 day domestic cricket. U r thinking Ireland is better than some of the test teams. Even a Bangladesh 3rd string team will thrash Ireland in a 3 or 4 day match.

  • Rob Quin on October 1, 2009, 17:14 GMT

    Waterbuffalo "a disgraceful green pitch" may I remind you the pitch was the same for both sides, Pakistan were beaten by a better side on the day, Ireland qualified for the super eight by right Pakistan and India did not, Ireland qualified for the super 8 at the T20 WC Australia and Bangladesh did not. May I remind you this is without our best players who are poached by England. Irish team and its supporters brought more numbers colour and fun to these tournaments than most other nations. Go back to your watering hole. Not only do we deserve to play we deserve Test Status as we better than some Test Nations and bring more to the table in terms of support.

  • Arsad bin Sailav on October 1, 2009, 13:09 GMT

    Bangladesh deserves to play in the champions trophy. U cant compare Bangladesh with the likes of Zim,Ken & Irl. Bangladesh have huge fanbass, good infrustucture, cricket culture & treadition. Bangladesh have better future in cricket than WI, NZ,SL

  • Nandhu on October 1, 2009, 13:01 GMT

    What is the point of Test Cricket in India and Pakistan when the stadiums are empty even if the opponents are Australia and India? That should be the main concern. Obviously if the South Africans were intelligent enough to host the games in Cape Town, you'd see full houses for India and Pakistan why all the games are in JOburg I can't understand. And, teams like Kenya and Ireland don't deserve to be playing in the WC, a lot of games are devalued and the tournament itself is far too long. The Champions Trophy has a feel of a knock out tournament, and surely that is better than the rubbish of the last WC, when even the final ended in a downright farce. What is the point of Namibia and Holland playing in the WC? Will they ever become Test Nations? Do you think the press in Holland cares about cricket? I bet badminton is more popular over there. And by the way, Ireland beat Pakistan on a disgraceful green pitch, 99 times out out 100 Pakistan would have destroyed them by 200 runs.

  • waterbuffalo on October 1, 2009, 6:01 GMT

    What is the point of Test Cricket in India and Pakistan when the stadiums are empty even if the opponents are Australia and India? That should be the main concern. Obviously if the South Africans were intelligent enough to host the games in Cape Town, you'd see full houses for India and Pakistan why all the games are in JOburg I can't understand. And, teams like Kenya and Ireland don't deserve to be playing in the WC, a lot of games are devalued and the tournament itself is far too long. The Champions Trophy has a feel of a knock out tournament, and surely that is better than the rubbish of the last WC, when even the final ended in a downright farce. What is the point of Namibia and Holland playing in the WC? Will they ever become Test Nations? Do you think the press in Holland cares about cricket? I bet badminton is more popular over there. And by the way, Ireland beat Pakistan on a disgraceful green pitch, 99 times out out 100 Pakistan would have destroyed them by 200 runs.

  • Cuen Lucas on September 30, 2009, 22:29 GMT

    The idea of having regional qualifiers isn't a bad idea. Perhaps have tournaments to decide the champions of Europe, Asia, Africa, Pacific, and North America/Caribbean. Then the champions trophy will be a five team league, and will only consist of 10 games. The winners for all the regions (except Asia) will be quite predictable, but it'll be a true champion's trophy.

  • Arnav on September 30, 2009, 18:47 GMT

    One of the main reason why most of the Indian's don't like to watch test cricket is because BCCI is not putting effort to increase the interest. India is such a vast country but it has only 8 grounds where test matches are host. Until they don't start upgrading ground's in small cities they will never get to host test matches. Indian's love to watch there cricket stars live. If test matches can be hosted in small cities, people will come to watch there stars. This can help in increasing interest among people. In India small cities only host ODI's, so people don't prefer to watch test's because they haven't seen a test match live and don't know how exciting test matches are. Also even our domestic structure is not as strong as that of England, Australia or South Africa. Sometimes teams don't get even one home game during the whole season. Even if people can be attracted to watch first class games, it can help in increasing interest in test matches among Indian's.

  • sanjeev on September 30, 2009, 17:50 GMT

    fact of the matter is India's bowling and fielding were below par that is why they r out of the champion's trophy, but I agree with Rahul that rain should not play a spoilsport in cricket, spare day should be there, imagine if India and Pakistan's match ended in a tie then Pakistan would have 3 points and India would have qualified so ICC should look into this esp when a team plays 3 matches no chance to recover, also some of the pitches are poor.another point for ICC to consider

  • Bill Gates on September 30, 2009, 17:17 GMT

    Mike There is nothing wrong with the Champions Trophy. It's just that Asians tend to have more emphasis on the shorter forms of the game and others have more interest in Tests. It's a very odd situation, I know people from India who look forward to ODIS and T20 and ignore Tests. Likewise in Australia, England and South Africa more interest is paid to Tests and the colour clothing stuff is looked on as a hit and giggle affair. Having two tournaments won't change anything. What we need is to reduce the amount of ODIS on tours and make the emphasis Tournaments.

    I would like if we have a situation where there are 5 Tests, 3 ODIs and 1 T20 on every tour. Then we figure in a Champions Trophy(all members) every 2 years but with 5 matches in Preliminary rounds. Then a T20 World Cup(all members) every year and the ODI World Cup(full members only) every 5 years but the rankings for this is based on the Champions Trophy results. In Tests a fixed home and away 4 year cycle for all countries.

  • shali on September 30, 2009, 15:36 GMT

    dear Rahul Uppal rain didnt decide the fate of the team you are talking about...their bowling did...sour grapes indeed...

  • John Boon on September 30, 2009, 13:48 GMT

    What about this: 16 teams (i.e. current 8 + bangladesh zimbabwe ireland kenya scotland canada neth. afghanistan) 1st plays 16th 2nd plays 15 etc etc, straight knockout, over in ten days.

  • Richard S on September 30, 2009, 12:31 GMT

    I have an all together more revolutionary idea, one that I think both sorts out the Champions Trophy and the English domestic scene. I reckon England should go the way of SA and have a franchise competiton above the county championship. These could be The North, London, The South West, Midlands and maybe even a team each from Edinburgh and Dublin which would basically be their national sides. These sides would be selected from the counties within them and only contain England (except Dublin/E'burgh)eligable players i.e Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, Sussex and Essex would form London and Yorks, Lancs, Durham and Derbys The North. They could all play each other once a year at each format and have a final for each. The winners of the 50 Over final could go through to a Champions Trophy made up of the champions of the Test Nations. So you could have a CT with Cape Cobras, Deccan Chargers, Sialkot Stallions, Tasmanian Tigers, London Lions, Colombo, Harare Eagles, Dhaka, Barbados and Auckland.

  • Rahul Uppal on September 30, 2009, 12:15 GMT

    What is the point of organizing ICC event without reserve days when teams fate will be decided by rain gods, that too when rain is predicted.

  • Patrick on September 30, 2009, 8:42 GMT

    Quasi regional tournaments are a poor idea on a number of levels, the main one being that cricket (like all sport) needs to be played on a strength vs strength basis in order to generate any interest. A better idea would be to have 2 tournaments - an 'A' 8 and a 'B' 8 with the top 2 sides from the 'B' 8 being promoted and the bottom 2 sides from the 'A' 8 demoted. This would make matches more competitive and put a lot more pressure on teams to perform, thereby forcing countries like West Indies to play their best team.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Patrick on September 30, 2009, 8:42 GMT

    Quasi regional tournaments are a poor idea on a number of levels, the main one being that cricket (like all sport) needs to be played on a strength vs strength basis in order to generate any interest. A better idea would be to have 2 tournaments - an 'A' 8 and a 'B' 8 with the top 2 sides from the 'B' 8 being promoted and the bottom 2 sides from the 'A' 8 demoted. This would make matches more competitive and put a lot more pressure on teams to perform, thereby forcing countries like West Indies to play their best team.

  • Rahul Uppal on September 30, 2009, 12:15 GMT

    What is the point of organizing ICC event without reserve days when teams fate will be decided by rain gods, that too when rain is predicted.

  • Richard S on September 30, 2009, 12:31 GMT

    I have an all together more revolutionary idea, one that I think both sorts out the Champions Trophy and the English domestic scene. I reckon England should go the way of SA and have a franchise competiton above the county championship. These could be The North, London, The South West, Midlands and maybe even a team each from Edinburgh and Dublin which would basically be their national sides. These sides would be selected from the counties within them and only contain England (except Dublin/E'burgh)eligable players i.e Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, Sussex and Essex would form London and Yorks, Lancs, Durham and Derbys The North. They could all play each other once a year at each format and have a final for each. The winners of the 50 Over final could go through to a Champions Trophy made up of the champions of the Test Nations. So you could have a CT with Cape Cobras, Deccan Chargers, Sialkot Stallions, Tasmanian Tigers, London Lions, Colombo, Harare Eagles, Dhaka, Barbados and Auckland.

  • John Boon on September 30, 2009, 13:48 GMT

    What about this: 16 teams (i.e. current 8 + bangladesh zimbabwe ireland kenya scotland canada neth. afghanistan) 1st plays 16th 2nd plays 15 etc etc, straight knockout, over in ten days.

  • shali on September 30, 2009, 15:36 GMT

    dear Rahul Uppal rain didnt decide the fate of the team you are talking about...their bowling did...sour grapes indeed...

  • Bill Gates on September 30, 2009, 17:17 GMT

    Mike There is nothing wrong with the Champions Trophy. It's just that Asians tend to have more emphasis on the shorter forms of the game and others have more interest in Tests. It's a very odd situation, I know people from India who look forward to ODIS and T20 and ignore Tests. Likewise in Australia, England and South Africa more interest is paid to Tests and the colour clothing stuff is looked on as a hit and giggle affair. Having two tournaments won't change anything. What we need is to reduce the amount of ODIS on tours and make the emphasis Tournaments.

    I would like if we have a situation where there are 5 Tests, 3 ODIs and 1 T20 on every tour. Then we figure in a Champions Trophy(all members) every 2 years but with 5 matches in Preliminary rounds. Then a T20 World Cup(all members) every year and the ODI World Cup(full members only) every 5 years but the rankings for this is based on the Champions Trophy results. In Tests a fixed home and away 4 year cycle for all countries.

  • sanjeev on September 30, 2009, 17:50 GMT

    fact of the matter is India's bowling and fielding were below par that is why they r out of the champion's trophy, but I agree with Rahul that rain should not play a spoilsport in cricket, spare day should be there, imagine if India and Pakistan's match ended in a tie then Pakistan would have 3 points and India would have qualified so ICC should look into this esp when a team plays 3 matches no chance to recover, also some of the pitches are poor.another point for ICC to consider

  • Arnav on September 30, 2009, 18:47 GMT

    One of the main reason why most of the Indian's don't like to watch test cricket is because BCCI is not putting effort to increase the interest. India is such a vast country but it has only 8 grounds where test matches are host. Until they don't start upgrading ground's in small cities they will never get to host test matches. Indian's love to watch there cricket stars live. If test matches can be hosted in small cities, people will come to watch there stars. This can help in increasing interest among people. In India small cities only host ODI's, so people don't prefer to watch test's because they haven't seen a test match live and don't know how exciting test matches are. Also even our domestic structure is not as strong as that of England, Australia or South Africa. Sometimes teams don't get even one home game during the whole season. Even if people can be attracted to watch first class games, it can help in increasing interest in test matches among Indian's.

  • Cuen Lucas on September 30, 2009, 22:29 GMT

    The idea of having regional qualifiers isn't a bad idea. Perhaps have tournaments to decide the champions of Europe, Asia, Africa, Pacific, and North America/Caribbean. Then the champions trophy will be a five team league, and will only consist of 10 games. The winners for all the regions (except Asia) will be quite predictable, but it'll be a true champion's trophy.

  • waterbuffalo on October 1, 2009, 6:01 GMT

    What is the point of Test Cricket in India and Pakistan when the stadiums are empty even if the opponents are Australia and India? That should be the main concern. Obviously if the South Africans were intelligent enough to host the games in Cape Town, you'd see full houses for India and Pakistan why all the games are in JOburg I can't understand. And, teams like Kenya and Ireland don't deserve to be playing in the WC, a lot of games are devalued and the tournament itself is far too long. The Champions Trophy has a feel of a knock out tournament, and surely that is better than the rubbish of the last WC, when even the final ended in a downright farce. What is the point of Namibia and Holland playing in the WC? Will they ever become Test Nations? Do you think the press in Holland cares about cricket? I bet badminton is more popular over there. And by the way, Ireland beat Pakistan on a disgraceful green pitch, 99 times out out 100 Pakistan would have destroyed them by 200 runs.