There has been much criticism of the ICC and the way they ran the world cup. But is this fair? Everyone knew the schedule long ago, yet the criticisms only after thing did'nt go the way some teams had hoped. How do you rate them?

__________________

I gave them 9 out of ten for the following reasons:

Weather
Was generally excellent throughout the tournament. It was conducive to good cricket and was never a major factor deciding a game. Well done to the ICC for the canny timing of the tournament


Pitches and general ground conditions:

World class and something the West Indians should take pride in. The wickets once again were not a deciding factor in the result of the match, and this was proven by the quality teams. Unlike, say England (where if you lose the toss and are sent in on a seaming wicket, you lose) the wickets stayed true the entire game, ensuring a fair game. Many test countries could learn a lesson or two from the West Indians on how to prepare a proper ODI wicket. Well done to the ICC for facilitating the preparation of good wickets, and great outfields and stands



Crowds

Excellent behavior from the spectators, unlike some recent incidents in other parts of the world. Not only were they well behaved ( which allowed all to focus on what we are there for – watching the cricketers), but they also did’nt generate unnecessary noise. The obsession some have the superficial bubble and squeak of crowd antics astounds me. Cricketers don’t jump in to a middle of a mardi gras and pretend it’s a game of cricket, so it is only fair that a poorly organized rabble of horn blowers and drum beaters does’nt come to a cricket match and pretend it’s a mardi gras. Well done to the ICC on ensuring the spectacle was preserved for the true cricket lovers.



Tournament schedule:

Probably the best formula and faced absolutely no criticism…….until certain teams got knocked out early. Surely if you want to criticize something, you do it before and not after the event? It makes the criticism seem rather hollow otherwise. When television companies buy rights to the world cup, it is only fair they be allowed to maximize their returns by having only on match a day. Best get used to it too – it is here to stay. Had Pakistan and India made it through to the super 8’s, few here could disagree that the competition would have been awesome – every game a cracker. And we all love cricket – so what’s the rush? If I am given an option of watching cricket for 47 days straight 35 days straight – I’ll take the 47 every time. Well done to the ICC for providing a schedule that provided such potential. It’s not their fault that India and Pakistan were bundled out early, and that England played so tamely.



Carry over points.

Fair rule that received no criticism until after the event, and one agreed to by all teams prior to the comp. If you beat the team that comes through with you after the group stage, would it not result in an unnecessary extension of the tournament if they were forced to play again? Excellent foresight by the ICC to bring in that rule.



I myself can find little fault with the ICC over their handling of the tournament. In fact, I thoroughly enjoyed the entire competition. I suspect most Aus, NZ, SL, Bang and Ireland fans enjoyed the tournament too. Cricket lovers with no particular loyalties probably enjoyed it as well. I wonder if the rest that did not enjoy the tournament should blame their team rather than the ICC.

__________________

The ICC were woeful. For too many reasons to mention. When you've got your showpiece event that happens once every four years and only a couple hundred people are in the stands, its just a complete joke.

No, the ICC have been criticised for on a very narrow band of reasons - crowds, carry over points and length of the tournament. If the itinery ect was so bad, then why did every nation agree to it without complaint? Why? Because the itinery seemed perfectly fine until India and Pakistan bombed out. Hardly the ICC's fault.
It's the substance of the contest that is important and the fundementals were all there - good weather, good pitches, lovely outfields, great stands and facilities. If the ICC priced out a lot of the locals, as some have reported, then that would be their only mistake.

__________________

I cannot agree that the tournaments length was right, it went on too long. Perhaps for the next football World Cup each team should play each other so that we can make the tournament last three or four months? Even the Aussies said it was too long, and they won it!

The crowds were quiet and most un-Caribbean like. The atmosphere at many matches was missing. Ticket pricing was completely ridiculous, pricing many local cricket supporters out of the game. The ICC did things their way, completely ignoring the way things are done in the Caribbean. The "true cricket lovers" of the Caribbean didnt get there!

England's performance was to be expected and didn't spoil my enjoyment, in fact I thoroughly enjoyed watching South Africa anihilating England's bowling "attack". Too few games were competitive or close.

In all, a non too successful tournament. Let's hope the next one is better!

Excellent post Seamer. You are right - the format was actually very good - much fairer than the QFs approach of WC96, or the Super Sixes in WC99 and WC03. A Super Eights where every team played every other team was the best way of (a) finding the four best teams for the semi-finals, and (b) providing as many quality games for the global audience as possible. Objective (a) was achieved - unlike WC03, all the four semi-finalists in WC07 were undoubtedly the four best teams in the tournament. What's more, this format allowed the eventual champions to show how far ahead of everyone else they are. Objective (b) was often not achieved, but even its most rabid criticis won't pin that one on the ICC!

I don't see an issue with a long tournament - if the next one can be two months, or longer, I don't have a problem. After all, the 2005 Australian tour to England lasted almost four months (!) and no one complained about the length of that. It would seem that the only ones complaining about the tournament length are those whose preferred teams didn't play to potential.

Similarly, carrying over points into the Super Eights phase is completely logical - to not do so, and have a rematch, would be silly and repititive. The points carry-over system also adds to the importance and significance of each game in the initial round, thus ensuring no dead rubbers even in the first round - hence the interest and excitement before the Aus v SA game, or the Eng v NZL match.

The criticism over the poor crowds is also unwarranted and misplaced - as has been widely reported, the local West Indian organising committees set the ticket prices, not the ICC. Those are the people with the local knowledge, and should have known the optimal price for their respective geographies. It was scandalous that even West Indian games were not sold out - but for that, the blame lies with the organisers on the ground, and with those West Indian "fans" who couldn't be bothered to turn up to support their own team. Yes, the ICC should have pulled rank (and perhaps it did towards the later stages) but its not the primary culprit.

On the negative side, the ICC did enforce some rather draconian codes on the spectators in the initial matches - that detracted from the atmosphere. In addition, the ICC's employees (the five match officials) mishandled the final, and badly so. Hence, it only rates a good 7, and not an excellent 9.

__________________
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes
Mark Twain

The format was ok but the fact that the whole thing was at least 2 weeks too long made it a farce for me.If the super 8's had been played 2 games a day which would have been possible it would have been a fantastic world cup,as it is it was too long and had an anti climax as a final which surely should have been played over 2 days with each side facing 50 overs rather than a shortened game.

There was only one real positive in this tournament and that was the schedule of all-Day matches. I suppose one can add the provision of a second day to that, but in my book the D/L rule then should not have been applied on the regular day.

There were far too many negatives though. For a start, the format was way too long and the carry over of points and everyone-playing-everyone setup was not appropriate. The ticket prices at US$100 was excessive even for Western Countries and so would be considered prohibitive for the Carribbean locals. It undoubtedly contributed to lack of atmosphere in most matches. To be fair, some of the other negative points were out of ICC hands like the Woolmer tragedy and the final fiasco on the last day, but all those contributed to a failed tournament. For me, it has become forgettable less than 48 hours after the Final.

Unfair on the ICC i think.This was the format agreed apon by all participants long before the start of the tournament and attracted little if any critisism. The ICC should be applauded for being able to come up with a format so acceptable to all parties. This link is for the WAT thread when the format was announced.
Match schedule for the 2007 Cricket World Cup (ICC CWC 2007)
Thats right - ZERO replies - ZERO criticism. That's why one can be forgiven for feeling the crtitisms coming out now seem a little hollow and agenda driven.
Unfair criticism on the ICC again, because as Maranello kindly pointed out, the pricing was determined by local officials, not the ICC. The ICC should be applauded, for intervening when they did to address the issue.

Had results gone differently, i suspect you might have found the tournament quite memorable. I certainly won't forget it. But this thread is focused mainly on the ICC. Reading back through the thread, one would have no choice but to conclude the criticisms of the ICC in this case are baseless.

Between Flintoffs drunken man overboard episode, and Vaughan/Bell's retro 80's style of batting, i'm not suprised if you guys found the tournament a long and painful one. But forgive me for taking your comments on this subject with a grain of salt

This is all about politics and it's all starting to come out of the wash. India is using this as a pretext to overthrow the Speed regime.
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/c...ry/292875.html

Yes we all know what the other boards will say (outside Eng,Aus,NZ) once India pulls out the carrot and the stick.

I suspect the deal is done - goodbye Speed. As i said, the ICC is largely faultless in this - it's all politics. Either way, all's fair in love and politics. But rather than be duped by the propoganda coming out of certain sections of the media, it is sometimes better to stand back first and look at the big picture before drawing a conclusion. Never been a big fan of the ICC. But they actually did a good job for once, yet are being subject to a witch hunt and being made into scapegoats for the failings of certain teams

__________________

I suspect Mr. Seamer is indulging once again in one of his favourite pastimes, that of playing the Devil's Advocate.

Of course, some of what has been written in the media has been sensationalist claptrap, but Seamer's reposte has taken the opposite view of the same events (hopefully) with the intention of letting us see that the middle ground is the most apposite ground to occupy.

To celebrate the ICC on selecting the least rainy time in the West Indian calendar is hardly 'canny'. You don't have to be particularly astute to look at average rain fall per month in the last however many years to predict when would be a good time to hold the event. Equally, if the event had been savaged by rain, I would hardly be willing to blame the ICC for a stroke of what would be bad luck. No Kudos to the ICC here, but no negative points either.

However, where the ICC lose points is on their rigidity to complete rain interrupted games in one day. This seems fine in qualifiers and first round matches, but the grand showpiece of the final, and even the semi finals should be completed in such a manner as to ensure that both teams bat, or are able to bat for fifty overs. The real shame was that it happened to be the final which was ruined in this manner. This is hardly a new issue (just ask the 1992 South African team) and the ICC should have devised a suitable contingency plan to ensure an adequate final.

Hmm... Not sure what the ICC had to do with the pitches... I doubt Malcolm Speed was involving in the planning, maintenance and cultivation of any the pitches, instead leaving that to local groundstaff. Also, not all pitches were as great as you suggest. In the early rounds especially, there seemed to be a bit of an imbalance between bat and ball. It is a fact that cricket pitches usually need a few years to settle down before they can be 'read' by players and captains, as a result, it was no surprise that the Barbados pitch proved to be the most reliable.

Well, this is where you and I disagree. ODI is a 'party' game whereas Test cricket is the more reserved bastion for fans. Not allowing the locals to participate in providing a West Indian style atmosphere means that you might as well hold the event in Russia where it would be cheaper to get to and certainly have less rowdy locals involved. The ICC may not have been responsible for setting ticket prices, but the local associations live or die by the Edict of the ICC and its only the massive machinery of the ICC press office which is allowing them to fairly successfully absolve the ICC of any of the blame for the poor attendances in the early rounds. The fact of the matter is that if the ICC are able to restrict visitors from taking in water, then they can restrict local associations from setting exhorbitant ticket prices. It is to the ICC's shame that it took them half the tournament to do anything about it.

Well, I'm sure you are right with regards to some people enjoying the tournament. However, there were only a handful of really close games - the ones that everyone loves to see. Ironically, it fell to two of the poorer teams (England & Ireland) to provide these games (Eng vs SL, Eng vs WI, Ire vs Zim, Ire vs Pak). Unfortunately, the Semi Finals in particular were two dreadful games only made worth watching due to the skill of the Sri Lankans and Australians and to see some awfully brainless batting from the South Africans. If those games constitute cricketing entertainment though, I need to find another sport.

The final, whilst it remained in the vague realms of sanity was a pretty good game. The sadistic Duckworth/Lewis algorithm again confused the hell out of everyone (why do they let the game recommence before the revised Duckworth/Lewis target is shown on the scoreboard??).

The quality of the cricket though is probably not the ICC's fault and I certainly have little to argue about the format or length of the tournament. If the cricket quality had been higher and closer, then we would have all loved the fact the tournament was 2 months long.

4 out of 10 to the ICC for me.