There are two bids currently in consideration at the moment. The first one is the joint bid from the subcontinent countries (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangaladesh) and the second one from Australia and New Zealand. My vote goes to the Aussie/NZ partnership as it hasn't been held by these Countries since 1992 and feel they could do a top notch job.

Well, does anyone know how the winner of this competition is decided?

Its going to turn into a bit of a farce if its up to the committees of the test playing nations to decide. One bid incorporates 4 of them, the`other has only two. Also, with the power house of the ICC really being India, does the Aus/NZ partnership stand much of a chance?

Frankly, with the fact that there's so few countries available with the infrastructure to host the world cup, they should really do it on a cyclical basis and STICK to that.

(a) NZ/Aus
(b) Eng/Holland/Scotland/Denmark/Wales/Ireland
(c) WI/USA/Bermuda
(d) Saf/Namibia/Kenya/Zimbabwe
(e) Pakistan/Bangladesh
(f) India/Sri Lanka

Also, I think its really, really poor to try and hold such a tournament over 4 of the test playing nations. The distances travelled could make this really difficult to organise. I can just see this being a logistics nightmare. I know Perth is a long way from Auckland, for example. But if Perth only had 2 games, then the distances travelled would be much less than trying to hackney a large scale international competition across 4 countries, 2 of which are huge on their own!!

I'd also like to make sure that the little teams get to host games. If the World Cup comes to England, I would be seriously disappointed if Holland didn't get to host their own games. This is of PARAMOUNT importance as it should easily help to raise the profile of the game in these territories.

Hence, I would like Aus/NZ to win this competition to stick to the previously arranged cycle and also ensure that in the future, Pakistan and India do not have to joint host this competition for the logistics problems as I've previously stated.

However, I can just see that the current belligerent Indian board will corner the ICC into ceding the tournament to them.

I agree with your points Andy. Clearly a four way bid is daft in more than one sense. India could host the tournament themselves with the number of ODI standard stadiums they have. Also the time difference may be a problem for some players, if you go from one end of Asia to another.

I also like your idea if England host then teams such as Holland should get there games in Holland, not only would it be useful for their fans but also promote international cricket in the country and also I think it is good for teams to have the chance to play games in different countries other than Eng, Aus etc.

__________________
Watch this for a perfect about.
James May

Not sure, as these things keep changing. It used to be by a qualified voting system, where full (ie Test) members exercised two votes each and Associate members had one. May have changed now to completely exclude the Associates from the decision-making. In either case, a bid from India & Pakistan would start as favourite, and would win, unless there is some political arm-twisting which cannot be ruled out at some international fora. Good idea in theory but in practice, it means the WICB, which has one Test team, is also financially not very strong and does not have a whole raft of sponsors, hosts the tournament as often as India + Sri Lanka, which have two Test teams, and in India, have the sponsors who fund the international game, a large population which is cricket mad and a passion for ODI cricket in all its shapes and guises.

Hence, any cyclical formula will be subject to disruptions, and changes - one simply cannot predict 20 years in advance, which will be when the 6th leg of a 6-stage Cycical programme would take place! Even predicting two World Cups in advance is silly - each tournament should be awarded to the best bid, with the proviso that no region/country hosts two successive tournaments. This way, the sub-continent may end up hosting every other World Cup, but given that it is the true home of one-day cricket, that would not be too unfair on the others - they know where the financial rewards are!

Similarly, it is a travesty that a place like England, where ODIs and even the World Cup is seen as a poor relation to "boring and predictable" two horse contests such as the Ashes, has staged two more World Cups than India and Pakistan combined! Even in your suggested scheme Andy, England (pop: 60m; fav. sports: football and soccer) would stage as many tournaments as India (pop: 1,000m; Sport = Life = Cricket) - that is unfair in theory and unachievable in practice. Why is that any different to some of your suggestions, where tournaments will be organised over 4 or even 5 countries? The 2003 and 1996 World Cups were both staged in three different countries, it didn't make any difference to anything or anyone. Adding Bangladesh to the the three others of 1996 merely means that the Banglas would get to play two or three pool games at home, nothing more, and who could begrudge them that? This example actually works against your argument - in practice, Perth would never have only two games. It is one of Australia's premier cricket venues, so would have quite a few games, including possible a QF and maybe even a SF. The distances travelled are very large indeed.

On the other hand, Dhaka and Chittagong would not host more than three or four games between them - hence, if it is okay for teams to travel for two games to Perth, it should be much easier to take the very short flight from Calcutta (in West Bengal) to Dhaka (in former East Bengal!) for the same two games. And let's face it, unlike Perth, Dhaka is not going to host a QF or a SF anytime soon! Did anyone who observed or participated in the 1987 or 1996 tournaments talk of these "logistical problems"? By universal acclaim, both tournaments were a great success. So could Australia - but they did not in 1992, and do not plan to, in the new bid. umm..no! The time difference between all of India and all of Pakistan is 30 minutes. Add another 30 minutes for the token game or two in Bangladesh - so 1 hour maximum. Now compare that to the time difference between Perth and Auckland (4 hours!) or even Adelaide and Wellington (2.5 hours).

Also, this might be a minor point of geography, but the sub-continent does not constitute all of Asia so no one is going from "one end of Asia to the other" - there are many thousands of miles of Asia east of Bangladesh, north of India and west of Pakistan.

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

NZ and Australia should get the nod. We've got the infrastructure. And I don't agree with a certain other member who thinks it's unfair that a nation hosts two events in the same year!!!

They're bloody different! As I said, I couldn't care less if Australia hosted every sporting event including the Superbowl in the same year if we had the infrastructure.

What would be greedy would be if the Windies got it twice in a row, or any other nation did. Australia and New Zealand should get it.

Group A, featuring Australia, plays all it's matches in Australia. Group B, featuring NZ, plays its matches across there....

Edit: I forgot, no more pools...thy're goes that plan.

But tournament organisers, I have to say, are an efficient bunch of collective people...unless your Greek!

Just heard that should the Aussie/NZ bid be unsuccessful, they will also bid for the World Cup for 2015. Also bidding that year is England.

If its down to a vote amongst test-playing nations then obviously thats four votes to the subcontinent, NZ and Aus would vote for themselves, England i think would vote for Aus/NZ as would Saf, In the New Zealand Herald the other day Chanderpaul said he'd like NZ to host the tourney so that looks like Aus/Nz bid would be succesful, not sure if Zim would vote as they suspended their test status i think?

Although if it's like the rugby world cup process, the bidders cannot vote so NZ/Aus bif would have it on a plate.

Great post M. Just thought I should reply to some of your points.

Firstly, yes - there was a little bit of my post which could be described as hypocritical in that my plans would involve playing across more countries when that's what I was criticising in the first place. However, what I was really trying to say was that the distances involved are silly really. England sharing the competition with Holland, Denmark etc. would still involve tiny travelling distances, and splitting the sub-continent between Pakistan/Bangladesh and India/Sri Lanka would actually give the subcontinent 2 world cups in each cycle involving smaller distances rather than 1 in every cycle. Despite what you, and logic would say in that money is very important, the ICC could not allow the West Indies or New Zealand never to have the World Cup and bow to the sub continent at all times. And actually, I'd imagine that a lot of the players all around the world would love to be able to play the world cup final at Lords every now and then!

The 'plan' I outlined of 6 regions on a cycle would allow 2 out of these 6 to be hosted in the passionate centre of world cricket that is the subcontinent, but would also allow the rest of the test playing nations to host the premier competition. Also, allowing the subcontinent to be split in 2 would allow Bangladesh to host MORE games, as they really should. The Bangladeshis have shown in the past an ability to provide decent facilities and sold-out games with fantastic supporters. I'd like to see this recognised and Bangladesh given more games rather than 1 or 2 side shows!! The Associate Countries deserve what Bangladesh have received in the past, and the way I propose to do it would allow Namibia, Holland, Kenya, Bermuda, Denmark, Scotland and Ireland all to share in hosting the world cup. However, none of these countries could host the competition on their own - there simply are not enough stadiums, let alone international stadia! And why shouldn't Dhaka or Chittagong host a quarter final, even a semi final. I bet that the support there would be fabulous, regardless of who was playing!

The reason why England has hosted 2 more world cups that the Subcontinent combined is that the first 3 or 4 World Cups were hosted in England. That wasn't 'fair' but I think that the perception at the time was that the final had to be at Lords. Thankfully, we've moved on since then, but that doesn't mean we should regress to a similar sort of situation, but having the competition in the Subcontinent every time. I think we can all see that this is a worldwide game, and the sport shouldn't be dominated by any one party as it was dominated by England in the past - that would be counterproductive and I doubt that Australia and England would kowtow to the Subcontinent as England forced others to do to themselves in the past. I would imagine that England/Australia touring India brings in nearly as much cash as India/Pakistan games, so I cannot see that the new world cricket order would be as aggressive as to try and dominate the game at the risk of alienating England and Australia.

I think Newzeland and Australia would be great for the next world cup, even though the passion for the sports rests here in the subcontinent, the situation concering security as well as the state of the pitches is too unpredictable to hold the world cup in a stable secure manner. Plus it would be great to see shoaib and Bret bowling on fast green pitches toe to toe!!!!

__________________

I always find the quote "the passion for the game is in the subcontinent" quite amusing.

Surely if they were that passionate then the current game against England wouldn't be being played in front of huge amounts of empty seats?

It was the same in Pakistan also.