Cricket World Cup Finals ...

3 games not just one?

What do you think?


Yay or Nay ?

Yes...

Especially when you look at matches that have been or could be affected by rain etc.

More money to organisers....more pleasure for punters, and a better chance for players who fuck up the first time round

No.

One is more than enough. If they can't prove themselves in one game then they should go play netball.

What Michael said. As for a prediction: 2-1 for Australia v India

I think he's talking about the real CWC

Absolutely there should be three games

In fact the semi-finals should be best of 5 and the final best of nine

makes up for having to wait a whole 4 years untill the next world cup

The system used for rain affected games should be looked at too.

I remember the CWC in Aussie years ago. Semi Final between SA & England was affected by rain. SA were in a commanding position to win batting 2nd. Then ended up needing 27 runs off 11 balls blah blah...and ended up needing 27 runs off last ball.

The runs stayed the same but the number of balls decreased. That would gut any sportsman.

Those games should be replayed so that there is an even playing field

now THAT is how I like it !!

Argh the memories, the pain thinking back to that day when England stole our CWC final spot !!

you mean Pakistan in '92?

who went on to beat England in the Final

Sri Lanka I think

Nah its the Paki's the beat Engf in the final by 20 something runs - Eng beat SA by 19 runs in that semi's game grrrrrrrrr !!

Ahhhh when you said "our" I forgot you were a Kobus

A Kobus ... hmmmm now one likes a smart ass

ha what is it about that name Kobus?

I just to call te Yaya's that I worked with in London that (after the rugby prop) just cos I thought it was a funny sounding name..............and they used to get all dark about it

ofcourse they would

Best I've heard was at the immigration seminar in Cape Town. A "Kobus" stood up and asked what language they speak in NZ

Putz

Even worse would be a Jakobus

Its just your low class, no imagination people that would give their kids a name like Kobus these days !! Its sooooo imbarrasing !!

That was before the current rain system (Duckworth-Lewis). There were a few farce games in that WC (1992). Pakistan only made it to the semis because they got 1 point for a washout after being bolwed out for 70 something by England. The D-L system is pretty good. It's not as complicated as most people think, and it's usually pretty fair.

As for WC semis and finals, I agree. Teams can play a one dayer every other day, so best of 3 would only take 5 days max. Although if they do that, they may want to look at increasing the squad sizes for the WC.

Best of 3 would be a great idea for the final. Would be good to see the true best side winning. Could also do it for semis maybe.

Well spotted Mutant. Don't know what kinda system they had back then..it wasn't a good one.

For the WC they should replay any match that is rain affected.

JAH - best of 3 for semis and best of 5 for final sounds pretty reasonable

Y dont we have a best of 5 semi and best of 7 final, then we can call ourselves yanks!!!

Finals should be 1 game, best team will step up in a World Cup Final. By having more than 1 game, u lose the whole moment of a final and really doesnt make it worth waiting 4 years for!!

cos the Yanks only invite themselves, then proclaim to be the world champs.

Granted having a best of series might take away some of the moment. However, even in the VB-Series has a best of 3 final.

I, personally would like to see more games for the final. But I can't see it changing from how it is. It would take away the fact that it's a final if there were more than one game. It's about handling the pressure in that one most important game, and if you can't then you don't deserve to win.
Rain affected games suck....yes

Best of 3 is a bloody good idea for a world cup final.

When and where is the next cricket world cup?

2007 I think, dunno where. Last one was in SA last year

They do that in the NFL & MLB and to be fair who else in the world is going to beat them in either gridiron or baseball ?

baseball is best of 7 in the "world" series but gridiron is one game.

basketball and ice hockey are also best of 7 in the finals....

I guess revenue is the key tho guys!

Well, Baseball is feck all different from softball and we're world champs at that.

Softball is a girls game isn't it Baseball, no that's a sport!!!!!

Baseball is for pussies who can't PITCH a ball, hence they just chuck it!

best of 3 final would be better & would ensure the best team won

2007 in the West Indies

dude, you obviously have NO idea about the game of baseball!

softball is for idiots that cant catch or hit a small ball!

and add the fact that a baseball pitcher can pitch at the 90 MPH mark it makes hitting that little ball a bit harder, also the grounds in the states (pro's) are waaaay bigger than softball grounds.

why does the ball have to be so big anyway ?

Just being a smart arse dude...taking the mickey out of the stupid Americans and their "World Series" with only themselves involved! (Maybe Canada if you're lucky)

I thought that man.....

I wasnt tooooo sure how you would respond to that

Hee hee!

Be calm, count to 10!

It is called the world series as it used to be sponsored by the world newspaper and the name has stuck, not because they see it as the world championship or anything. Reality is though that nfl, nba, mlb and nhl all have the top players from around the world, with few exceptions.

Softball is generally the amateur version of baseball overseas and the best players all play baseball. Even our best young softballer a few years ago (Travis wilson) went and played it and isn't even good enough to have played a single game of mlb.

All of the major american league have best of 7 finals, except for nfl.

JAH - world series for baseball does come from the sponsor many, moons ago, however, the winning team in MLB, NBA, NHL, NFL and possibly more are all crowned as the world champions.

The difference between softball and baseball is HUGE. The skills needed are similar but a lot more refined in baseball.

Baseball is a game of statistics, and other sports seem to be cottoning on to this concept...and are a lot better off for it.

It is a pitty b/ball is not very big in NZ.

Thats not actually true. They rarely if ever refer to them as world champions, the US don't even rate world championships generally so wouldn't bother. Sure some individuals may but I've never heard the term world champion used by commentators or the teams themselves. Anyway, in most of those sports the winning team would beat the world champions anyway, basketball and baseball particularly and of course nfl.

Another point, as well as having the best players in the world in their comps, canada also has teams in all of those leagues as well.

JAH - I'm sure if you get your hands on the replay of last years MLB or NBA finals, you would see/hear them crowned as such.

granted they would probably beat any "world champ side" anyway

I have heard NBA teams referred to as world champions and ditto for baseball.

http://www.nba.com/spurs/

If you look at the top right corner it says "1999 & 2003 NBA champs"

however I do remember the t shirts a few years back when the bulls did the 3 peat saying "world champion Chicago Bulls"

I think its true they used to, not much any more though. The NYY refer to world champions on their page, few others do though.

Who fucken cares, stick to the topic !!

Thanks Please come again !!

Do u think the SuperBowl would be such a spectical if it was a best of Series??

Apprentently the lowest crime rate in the USA is during Superbowl!


I couldnt see myself being as amped for a Final if i knew its best of

Cricket,Soccer anything for that matter

Anyway..............the main reason I like the sound of best of 3 semi-finals and a best of 5 final is.............Im greedy for cricket

esp World Cup Finals cricket

I think the intensity would survive over more games as well, if not the players need a kick up the assl

I don't think cricket's the same as rugby, gridiron, soccer etc in terms of finals, mainly because a game is so much longer. The WC final (and semis) in those sports are an intense couple of hours... cricket is over 8 hours, so it's a different story...

you wouldn't necessarily lose the 'sudden death' aspect of it either... ie. the likes of inzamam's innings against NZ in '92.. if that had happened in the first game of the best of 3, it wouldn't have taken any gloss off it.. it would just mean NZ has to then play extra well for two games...

I'd definitely like to see it, but I doubt it'll be introduced at the next WC