SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
820 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Inevitably and, I feel, appropriately. The sub-continent is the heartland of the one-day game. Australia/New Zealand will probably get it next time.

Beats Australia and New Zealand by ten votes to three

Asia to host 2011 World Cup

Cricinfo staff

April 30, 2006


Asia have won the bid to host the 2011 World Cup by beating a joint bid by Australia and New Zealand by ten votes to three. The International Cricket Council's executive committee met in Dubai on Sunday, and Asia were represented by Inderjit Singh Bindra, the former president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). While the news did the rounds and reactions poured in an official announcement from the ICC was awaited.

"We did a great job, the four countries put together an impressive presentation and we got 10 out of 13 votes," Lalit Modi, BCCI vice-president told the Press Trust of India. "We are looking forward to it. A lot of work has to go in. The four countries will jointly sit down along with ICC to chalk out plans for hosting the 2011 World Cup. A lot of infrastructure needs to be put in place. We are mentally geared up for it. We will do the task at hand."

"It will bring joy to millions and millions of Asians," Raj Singh Dungarpur, former BCCI president said soon after the news was announced. "Ehsan Mani made the announcement in the meeting. It has been also decided that Australia will get to host the World Cup in 2015 and the next edition will go to England unopposed. The whole decision process was cordial and that's how the noble game of cricket should be played on and off the field."


The result is a boost for the Asian group whose bid had been weakened by a late submission. India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh had made a bid and were allowed an extension until April 21 to set out their proposal after they had difficulty hitting the first deadline in March. They were up against a joint Australia-New Zealand bid for the tournament.

Top notch facilities and experience at hosting big events were in Australia and New Zealand's favour. Australia and New Zealand jointly organised the World Cup in 1992 and feel they have the right by rotation to host the tournament in 2011. James Sutherland, chief executive of Cricket Australia, spoke of the factors that could help them clinch it. "In very recent history Australia has hosted the Olympics, hosted the Rugby World Cup and with the Commonwealth Games there's a proven track record of performance that stands us in good stead," he said. "The facilities, the track record of putting on these large sporting events, and also the resources that we have, the human resources we have in our country and New Zealand, are really strong factors in our favour."

Meanwhile the Asian group had all along believed they had a strong case. They claimed that Asia deserved to host every third edition of the World Cup. "Our claim is a rightful one," said Sharad Pawar, the chief of the Indian board. "The South Asian region has four of the ten Test-playing nations and a large part of the money earned from cricket comes from here, so there is good reason that every third World Cup be held here. Our proposal is not about India alone. To see matches being held in more countries would mean more crowd participation."

In the end, when it came down to voting, the Asian group came through with a big majority.

© Cricinfo
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/245789.html
 

·
Here Since 2002
Joined
·
7,261 Posts
I'd rather have the trophy than the event. That little urn too, but that's unrelated;)

With the political power the Indian board had the Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, and the Banglas were just insurance for the votes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,542 Posts
No loss to Australia. We still have the annual World Series Cup.

Maybe by 2011 the one-dayers will be so predictable nobody, even in Asia would bother showing up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
hopefully cricket fucks off by then and talented players play a faster & better game.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
481 Posts
I wish we would get back to the world cricket cup, and all other world cups for that matter, being hosted by one country. I like the idea of a world cup being hosted by one country, as opposed to a region or several countries.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
How is that fair? Smaller countries like Bangladesh & Sri Lanka need the tourism and have to wait ages if they don´t get picked.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
481 Posts
vishalt said:
How is that fair? Smaller countries like Bangladesh & Sri Lanka need the tourism and have to wait ages if they don´t get picked.
No different to Australia trying to bid for a soccer world cup and having to not only prove itself, but wait its turn.

So what are you suggesting? That sporting authorities award sporting events based on charity and goodwill rather than merit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
Who said they didn´t have enough merit to hold it?

You´d have an outcry from the sub-continent if this wasn´t split, its an absoloute dream for entire populations of these countries to have the world cup as it is their national past-time, and the peoples of these countries idolise cricketers, moreso than countries like Aus/NZ/England/Africa.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
481 Posts
vishalt said:
Who said Bangladesh & Sri Lanka didn´t have merit to host it?
Not me.

If they have merit to host one, all good. Like I said, I like the idea of a country, one country, hosting a world cup. If it is Bangladesh or Sri Landa, all well and good. One or the other, but not both. Just my preference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
Amaruu said:
Not me.

If they have merit to host one, all good. Like I said, I like the idea of a country, one country, hosting a world cup. If it is Bangladesh or Sri Landa, all well and good. One or the other, but not both. Just my preference.
Well rofl, you simply lack understanding. I suggest going down to the subcontinent when you can sometime and watching how much cricket means to almost 2 billion or so people in the region.

And I don´t understand why wouldn´t you split it up within a region: its a big boost for the sub-continent tourism in general coz of cross country flights and promoting business across borders.

And its not like soccer, its not a game that every country plays, so everyone is already in!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
Oh and can I also add that the Asian region is very suspicious of each other: if say India itself simply hosted the world cup, you´d get violent protests and conspiracy theories across the whole region, even bombings.

Wouldn´t want that would we :D?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
481 Posts
vishalt said:
Well rofl, you simply lack understanding. I suggest going down to the subcontinent when you can sometime and watching how much cricket means to almost 2 billion or so people in the region.

And I don´t understand why wouldn´t you split it up within a region: its a big boost for the sub-continent tourism in general coz of cross country flights and promoting business across borders.

And its not like soccer, its not a game that every country plays, so everyone is already in!
How the hell is lacking understanding got to do with anything?

If it means that much to people, then their country should be bidding to become host. Sheesh if you are trying to suggest that some countries alone wouldnt be able to bid for a world cup, and needs to ride on the back of others, then maybe they should not be entitled to be a host or co-host.

Heck if it gets to the point where continents and not countries host the world cup, then we will only ever have 5 hosts and the world cup will go through each host every 5 world cups. We are supposed to raise the bar, not lower it so everyone gets to have a turn.

I told you, it is my preference that one country gets it. Just my preference.

Imagine Bangladesh was awarded the world cup on its own. It would have something to work and strive for, something to look forward to. And then, if it pulled off a memorable world cup, it would be on a high for sometime and have the memories to look back on.

IMO, that is way better than Bangladesh being the poorer cousin in this event, and hosting games that no-one will give a shit about such as Canada v Holland.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
Amaruu said:
How the hell is lacking understanding got to do with anything?
Because its why they split the games..
I suggest going down to the subcontinent when you can sometime and watching how much cricket means to almost 2 billion or so people in the region.
Amaruu said:
If it means that much to people, then their country should be bidding to become host. Sheesh if you are trying to suggest that some countries alone wouldnt be able to bid for a world cup, and needs to ride on the back of others, then maybe they should not be entitled to be a host or co-host.
India would win all the time because of its economic strength and capacity then? But it means too much for the region as a whole, and like i´ve said, you can´t have 1 host in Asia, there´ll be chaos everywhere.


Amaruu said:
Heck if it gets to the point where continents and not countries host the world cup, then we will only ever have 5 hosts and the world cup will go through each host every 5 world cups. We are supposed to raise the bar, not lower it so everyone gets to have a turn.
How the **** does that lower the bar? Cricket is NOT popular enough where 1 country can simply host it, if its held in North America it needs to be split right down from Mexico up to Canada to PROMOTE as many people into the game as possible.

If it is held in Africa/South America it NEEDS to be split into countries to promote itself. Cricket is NOT Soccer.

Amaruu said:
Imagine Bangladesh was awarded the world cup on its own. It would have something to work and strive for, something to look forward to. And then, if it pulled off a memorable world cup, it would be on a high for sometime and have the memories to look back on.
Work on what? Holding off enough media pressure, violent demonstrations from other Asian countries because a country of 144 million people gets to host ALL the games, more than India´s what 1.2 billion? Pakistan and Sri Lanka have huge populations if I can recall, and it IS their national passtime.

Amaruu said:
IMO, that is way better than Bangladesh being the poorer cousin in this event, and hosting games that no-one will give a shit about such as Canada v Holland.
lol that won´t happen in Bangladesh
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
481 Posts
vishalt said:
India would win all the time because of its economic strength and capacity then? But it means too much for the region as a whole, and like i´ve said, you can´t have 1 host in Asia, there´ll be chaos everywhere.
Easy. Make it an unwritten rule that a country can't host a world cup more than x number of times in a certain period.

Mate your whole response smacks of some kind of conspiracy, corruption and terrorist threat all rolled into one.


All I see is that if country A doesnt get it, the shit will hit the fan. "There will be chaos everywhere."

If that's the case, **** em off. **** em all. You wanna start chaos, **** you, you aint ever gonna get a world cup. That's the attitude the ICC or any other authority should take. If that doesnt quiten them down, then so be it...they miss out. But to award a world cup to a country or certain countries just because of the threat of violence, potential or otherwise, is ludicrous. You wanna give into them in other words.

Mate, it should be sporting bodies which dictate which country gets a world cup, not trouble makers.


You said:
How the **** does that lower the bar? Cricket is NOT popular enough where 1 country can simply host it, if its held in North America it needs to be split right down from Mexico up to Canada to PROMOTE as many people into the game as possible.

Mate, sometimes we have to be realistic. The cricket world cup is supposed to be the pinnacle event in the one day cricket code. Awarding the pinnacle event to North America would be a disaster. You would be relying on 3 countries with absolute minimal interest in the sport to host a pinnacle event. So lets be realistic, North America would be the least preferred option of any of the regions and I doubt we will ever see it in North Amercia.

And awarding world cups to regions whereby the world cup would come around more often does lower the bar. Because gone would be the days where you would put in a excellent bid to be host...you would just wait for it to be your turn to host again.

Cricket is not soccer, no shit. But as you say, alot of countries play and watch it. There is enough countries who would be able to host it.

England
India
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
Australia
NZ
West Indies
Bangladesh
South Africa

I'm sure all of those countries would be able to host a world cup in its own right.

If we split them by continent, we would have:

England
India/Pakistan/Sri Lanka/Bangladesh
South Africa
Australia/NZ
WI

Suddenly, the cricket world would only have 5 hosts bidding for the world cup. Take out the most recent host to be realistic, and suddenly you would get to a stage where there are only 4 bidders for the world cup every four years. So we would see the same hosts every 2nd or 3rd world cup. With individual countries however, you would see more competition to get the rights to the world cup, which would make countries pull their socks up, and as a result, the bar would be raised.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
820 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Here is the list of events the ICC have decided on:

ICC events

2007 Twenty20 World Championships - South Africa
2008 Champions Trophy - Pakistan
2009 Twenty20 World Championships - England
2009 Women's World Cup - Australia
2010 Champions Trophy - West Indies
2011 World Cup - Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka
2012 Twenty20 World Championships or Champions Trophy - Sri Lanka
2013 Women's World Cup - Australia
2014 Twenty20 World Championships or Chamions Trophy - Bangladesh
2015 World Cup - Australia and New Zealand
2019 World Cup - England
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
481 Posts
The ICC having a world cup for Twenty20 cricket is another gripe of mine, but I won't go there.
 

·
Here Since 2002
Joined
·
7,261 Posts
At least lesser teams have a chance to win the 20/20, there's less actual cricketing skill invovled like line and length, building an innings. Anyone can biff 20 off 8 balls.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
533 Posts
Gee, by 2015 (home world cup) most of the current aussie players will have retired by then. :bash: Im not sure about watching Tait, Dorey, Johnson attack :runaway:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
Amaruu said:
Easy. Make it an unwritten rule that a country can't host a world cup more than x number of times in a certain period.
lol.. its been a while since Asia hosted anything really.

Amaruu said:
Mate your whole response smacks of some kind of conspiracy, corruption and terrorist threat all rolled into one.
Yeah i´m right, god said so! I´ve already stated what would happen if only 1 Asian country got to host this.

Amaruu said:
All I see is that if country A doesnt get it, the shit will hit the fan. "There will be chaos everywhere."
Yeah the few 100 million or whatever people that don´t get to watch their idols or rivals in their own country will be furious, cricket is a dream to this region. Besides, its good for the countries economy, its good for the people of the region, its better for BUSINESS, and thus better for cricket as a whole.

Amaruu said:
If that's the case, **** em off. **** em all. You wanna start chaos, **** you, you aint ever gonna get a world cup. That's the attitude the ICC or any other authority should take. If that doesnt quiten them down, then so be it...they miss out. But to award a world cup to a country or certain countries just because of the threat of violence, potential or otherwise, is ludicrous. You wanna give into them in other words.
HEY GUYTHS U CANT HOST DA WORLD CUP DAT OUGHT TO SETTLE THE PETAL, lollllllllll, you still don´t get how much Cricket means to this region. And it´s better for business that it is split across countries anyway, way more product promotions.

Amaruu said:
Mate, it should be sporting bodies which dictate which country gets a world cup, not trouble makers.
No trouble as long as the region gets it.. its the same thing as Victoria hosting all the games, the other states wouldn´t be very happy now would they?

Amaruu said:
And awarding world cups to regions whereby the world cup would come around more often does lower the bar. Because gone would be the days where you would put in a excellent bid to be host...you would just wait for it to be your turn to host again.
It´d be better of Australia/NZ host it together rather than having the either wait for a century for their chance if it was done by countries again!

Amaruu said:
Cricket is not soccer, no shit. But as you say, alot of countries play and watch it. There is enough countries who would be able to host it.

England
India
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
Australia
NZ
West Indies
Bangladesh
South Africa

I'm sure all of those countries would be able to host a world cup in its own right.
Wouldn´t be very good for the game then, cricket is hardly popular out of Asia and if we´re going to get other countries (and more locals) playing it more seriously it needs to be split into countries for them & their crowds to have a go.. you´ve heard it from the likes of Ponting, Cricket is ¨stangnant¨ and lacks appeal.

Amaruu said:
Suddenly, the cricket world would only have 5 hosts bidding for the world cup. Take out the most recent host to be realistic, and suddenly you would get to a stage where there are only 4 bidders for the world cup every four years. So we would see the same hosts every 2nd or 3rd world cup. With individual countries however, you would see more competition to get the rights to the world cup, which would make countries pull their socks up, and as a result, the bar would be raised.
Well cricket isn´t popular enough to have simply have 1 country supporting it. Maybe when it gets to the stage where half of Europe & Africa join in with decent skill, then maybe we can think about it!
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top