Number of teams in the World Cup
It's always going to be a talking point....the number of teams that get to play at the World Cup. I'd encourage you to scroll down to the comments on this article and read the exchange between the author and "Russ". I found it pretty interesting.....and I started to wonder if my view that 10 teams was the right number, but the bottom 2 or 4 should play in the qualifiers for the right to reach the final 10, was right for the future growth of the game.
What are your views?
2 comments:
My answer would be to have eight teams where everybody plays everybody else and then have the top two play off to decide the winners. The eight should be the best ranked in the world which gives the others something to aim for. It seems pointless to have a situation where the top eight are pretty obvious before the competition starts.
The format is less important to me than the idea of making the World Cup more diverse. It shouldn't be limited to the same select group of test-playing nations, even with one or two associate countries coming through qualifiers to bring the total up to 10 or 12. More the merrier in my opinion as that can only help the worldwide growth of the sport.
Ireland's performances were one of the highlights of the last competition and to hear of them being excluded from 2015 was pretty disgraceful, especially considering the reports that Australia and a few other nations voted for the reduced numbers as it suited their own interests to do so.
The oldest international cricket match took place between USA and Canada in 1844 (according to an episode of QI last night). Neither nation would probably feature in the next World Cup. I want to see more minnows next time, not less - Guyana, Scotland, Afghanistan e.g.
Post a Comment