The business with the bad light was a new kind of blooper, and we shouldn't make too much of it. It should prove to be a one-off, and it may even turn out to have done the game a perverse favour. It made sure that there was no last-minute redemption, no danger of the mishaps being wiped from the folk memory by the brilliance of Adam Gilchrist's hitting. It's tough on Gilchrist, but perhaps better for the game that the last taste in the mouth was a sour one. Something may even be done about it.

The more worrying blunders in this World Cup were the ones that had been committed before. Which, when you think about it, was most of them.

Remember the failings of the 2003 World Cup? It went on far too long. It had a surfeit of minnows. It had two group stages, with points carried over from one to the other, which made the second of them more complicated and less dramatic than it need have been. It was blighted by petty regulations caused by kowtowing to sponsors. It suffered from a lack of atmosphere at many of the games. It didn't feel as special as it should have, as all the major teams had gathered for the Champions Trophy five months earlier. And it was overshadowed by politics, because the South African government decided to stage some games in Zimbabwe, which, then as now, was being run as a vicious tyranny.

Malcolm Speed laps up the carnival atmosphere © Getty Images

This time, there was nothing like Zimbabwe, if you ignored the fact that they were again allowed to compete. Politics didn't overshadow the tournament. That role fell to the death of Bob Woolmer, for which, as far as we know, nobody but an unknown murderer can be blamed. But the rest of that catalogue of failings recurred. The ICC failed to learn from history, so they were doomed to repeat it.

They deserve credit for being prepared to hold the World Cup in the West Indies, which was a bold choice. But that boldness was not carried through. They were prepared to let the tournament be held in the Caribbean, but not - until they came under fire from the media - to let it have a strong Caribbean flavour. They imposed their own mentality: that of the fusspot, the control freak, the dead hand of the western corporate world. It was tantamount to colonialism, in an age that should know better. And it was wrong for sport, which is a different beast from business.

Like most World Cups, this one has been a watershed. It has marked the end of an era for most of the leading international coaches, some of the captains, and at least two great players - Glenn McGrath and Brian Lara. You could argue that it is now bigger as a watershed than it is as an event.

The game is losing many good people, and not losing some less good ones. The hope that they will consider their positions is probably a forlorn one. But they absolutely must rethink their approach.

Dear Sir

I am still baffled with the format of the World Cup. Why can't it revert back to the format of the 1992 World Cup in Australia? There the teams all played one another and the top four teams played the semi finals. Have the top eight rated teams in the world play in the World Cup together with two more teams that has to qualify. If the ten all play one another the winner and runner-up will still have played 11 games as was the case in this last World Cup. Then teams such as Pakistan or India can have one bad day against Ireland or Bangladesh and still have eight more games to qualify for the semi finals. Why complicate it all with super sixes and such. If everyone plays everyone, it would be a better measure overall of who is the best.

Tim de Lisle's comments are spot on. The World Cup 2007 has to be the most sterile, stupifyingly boring sporting tournament in living memory: strangled at birth by the ICC who seem adept at grovelling to sponsors but precious little else, this was the anti-climax to end all anti-climaxes.
As far an the on-field action was concerned this was also a bitter disappointment. In most cases the margins of victory were such, with games effectively decided in the first half-hour, that it was frequently difficult to stay awake! Overall therefore, an unmitigated disaster from every point of view.

Tim, wholeheartedly agree with all that you have written. Though being Indian, was dissappointed with India going out in the first round, I stayed awake watching most of the important matches. The coverage was terrible, not the commentators, but that the first and last ball of most of the overs were not shown because of the ads. Set Max was terrible and I wish ICC would only give these broadcasts to professionally run sports channels like ESPN/Star. But we the fans dont count in the ICC way of doing things. I wish we could make Malcolm Speed and Percy Sonn walk the plank, be hung on the yardarm or be tarred and feathered, or whatever. At the least they should be summarilly sacked, and not pay them any retirement benefits. We the fans are the ones paying their hefty salaries. All of us true cricket fans hated Speed's smarmy grin, while he says the ICC was wrong the way they conducted this world cup.

Personally, I feel the ICC would have to do a lot more to improve the structure of the World Cup. I think cricket is beginning to lose its appeal as an international sport as a result of this 2007 edition of the World Cup. What a travesty.

Here are some suggestions (by a lifelong cricket enthusiast):

a) Make the World Cup no longer in duration than 2 weeks. (The semi-finals & final could be held in the 3rd week). In today's world, nobody has any patience for 40-day stupidities.

b) It should never be made possible for test-playing nations to be knocked out of the World Cup by non-test-playing nations. This is a travesty. Nobody (other than the Irish perhaps) would likely be interested in watching Ireland eventually play Australia. They would be interested in seeing how India/Pakistan stack up to Australia. This means that minnows perhaps could have their own World Cup (which they already have, I believe). THE ICC WORLD CUP SHOULD BE RESERVED FOR TEST-PLAYING COUNTRIES ONLY. We need to see the best against the best - not just how good the minnows can play in a single one-off game OR HOW BAD A TEST-PLAYING NATION CAN PLAY WHEN NOT CONFRONTED BY A CHALLENGE.

c) A World Cup final should never be an abbreviated affair, rain or no rain, bad light or no bad light. If test matches can be held over 5 days, then a pyjama cricket final could be held over 2 days. It is way too important a fixture to be decided by a Duckworth-Lewis or any other stupid system. If after 2 days, no result could be obtained, then the two teams are declared joint winners (very unlikely to happen, unless there is a hurricane perhaps). This way, we have a conclusive and meaningful end to something as important as a World Cup final - over the full complement of overs of play.

d) Ensure that chief executives, both on and off the field, know the rules. Let cricket not be turned into international sports' laughing stock, courtesy the International Cricket Conference(sic).

e) Change the ICC's motto to "Cricket for the People, by the People". Make all sponsors RESPECT THAT MOTTO. If they cannot, then they are to be given no sponsorship opportunity. (We need a strong world cricket body. Not one made up of corporate wimps). There will always be (other) takers if the ICC can get it out of their heads to not attempt to scale things up to unmanageable levels. THE SPONTANEITY AND JOY OF A CRICKET SPECTACLE SHOULD NEVER BE SACRIFICED ON THE ALTAR OF (WHAT WILL TURN OUT TO BE) SHORT-TERM PROFITS.

Unless I see an improvement in the ICC's approach to these tournaments, I won't be interested in them in the future. I have a hunch that I am not alone in this sentiment.

DISGUSTED

Countless articles i have read whilst in work about the fiasco and the atmosphere of the west indies world cup blah blah blah blah blah

if you people hated the world cup so much why didnt you leave? Lucky for me i finnish work at 4pm every day so it gave me enough time to catch up with what was left of matches. i thoroughly enjoyed every single match, even where pakistan got dealt with by ireland. The folks that tend to write non senicle articles over the website for others to read clearly have nothing better to do then critisise. the quality of the matches screened over sky was perfect..commentary bar the english folks was perfect..even the light problems was perfect. Tim de lisle needs to sit back, shut his cakehole and have a good ol cup of english tea. oh by the way please dont stop writing articles over cricinfo -- best cricket site and many many hours over a week are spent over it whilst im meant to be doing work.

Mr de Lisle

Agree with everything you say. To the amusement of my work colleagues I took a lot of time off to watch the games on TV & I am now wondering whether it was worthwhile.

The tournament did lose a lot of it's appeal when India & Pakistan were eliminated. Yes, every competition needs shocks but to reward Ireland/Bangladesh for 1 freak win over the giants with a match against everyone else virtually guaranteed the two would finish bottom. It is not good for the game to see Bangladesh beaten by 10 wkts & 9 wkts. Nor is it good for the game if two of Ireland's matches ended before lunchtime.

Speed (or is his name Greed) should resign. Same goes for Sonn. His speech at the end was nothing short of embarrassing.

Tim,
Great piece! You've hit the nail right smack bang on the head. The ICC didn't learn anything from '03, despite bleating that it had. They are only interested in making money. They do not care about the game. They don't don't own the game. We do! And by 'we', I mean the fans, supporters, fanatics and tragics.
As an Australian, I'm disappointed that their unprecedented hat trick of wins has been cheapened by the shambolic dying moments of the final. It isn't fair to the players who have worked hard for this. It isn't their fault no-one else was up to scratch.
As an Australian, I am also embarrassed by the actions and words of Malcom Speed. He is everything that I was brought up to believe is un-Australian - petty, oficious and full of shit.

Well that's my rant and rave. So frustrating. But like you said, I'm relieved that it's all over. I hope that something can be done between now and 2011.

CHEERS
TONY

And so say all of us. Agree completely, Tim. A dreadfully misconceived, dreadfully organised, dreadfully disappointing missed opportunity. Vanity and greed should be the motto of the ICC. Next time, why not have the same group stage (seeded by ranking), top two in each group go through, qharter finals, semi finals, 3rd place play off, final - 32 games (2 group games per day), all done and dusted in max 32 days, every single game meaningful. And if Ireland beat Pakistan again, then they are straight into a knock-out, not seven worthless matches (with due apology to the players and supporters of the Emerald Isle). And why can't the ridiculously named champions trophy be every four years, like the world cup, but two years apart?

I think Sri Lanka was at the recieving end how can you play 76 overs after starting the match at 12.30 pm

I think Sri Lanka was at the recieving end as australia had the better of the curtailed match

Will the next Kerry Packer please step up !!

Just one observation:
I was so excited about the World Cup before it started that I was checking Cricinfo every minute during the first warm up matches.
By the end I didn't even stay up to watch the final!

I do not wish to get too personal, but with reference to Pasha Nadeem you appear to be more or less alone in your feelings over the "ICC Cricket World Cup West Indies 2007".

Why then was the single most important competition in the cricketing calendar so poorly attended by the fans in the venues? The World Cup is supposed to be the pinnacle of excitement in the game but we've all seen the photos of half empty stadia. We've all heard the stories of fans being told not to do this, not to do that, not to blow that trumpet, bang those drums or start a Mexican wave. Whilst the standard of cricket by teams such as Sri Lanka, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa have been of the highest quality the event has seemed lifeless and limp. There was no West Indian colour, no West Indian vibrancy. The affair was a sterile, an almost mechanical affair, without any flourish or flair. Couple that with the debacle in the final (since when were the officials less informed on the rules than the players?) and the pig headedness of anyone in the ICC Wonderland to admit anything was wrong and you end up with a world cup that has been profoundly damaging for the game.

Given that the rules mention acting in accordance with the spirit of the game, I find it worrying that the International *Cricket* Council seem preoccupied with bureaucracy and more concerned about chasing the almighty dollar than the game of cricket itself. How ironic and how deeply depressing.

I'm glad Tim included this line: "It was tantamount to colonialism..." - for too long, this has been the complaint about the ICC, that it reveals age-old hangovers in its dealings with its constituent members. These complaints have been given a skeptical audience by those who tend to dismiss them as paranoid wolf-crying. But its there, and the attitudes of the subcontinental bloc, and their pesky fans will be understood a little better when it is admitted that the ICC has a long history of this.

I too am surprised at Mr Nadeem's views on the World Cup. I watched all the matches from start to finish (bar the ones on interactive) & have a completely different view. Does he honestly think 5 decent matches out of 51 as satsifactory entertainment? Either he is mad or just ironic.

As a watcher of cricket for over 40 years I agree that this tournament was a shambles from start to finish.However moaning on line to you is fairly useless.
How can a true fan who pays a lot of money both to TV companies and by going to matches tell the ICC what they think?

It is obvious that the ICC take no notice of the press. So can we the long term supporters of cricket have a proper say in what goes on. Incidently as a resident of Scotland I have no axe to grind against the minnows, though perhaps the solution would be for the minnows who qualify and the 3 bottom teams in the main 50 over ratings should have a preliminary round knock out.

The telecast by Sony Max in India was a farce too. They robbed the viewer of any chance of getting into the atmosphere of a match by squeezing in an ad whenever they got an opportunity - when the bowler was setting a field, when the batsman was tying his laces or even when the umpire was talking to the captain. We had to pray that any exciting thing did not happen on the last ball of an over - a wicket or a boundary or a close run - because as soon as the 6th ball was bowled, Sony Max was more interested in showing an ad instead of replaying the action in slow mo. Oh how they killed an already dead world cup!

The schedule was farcical - the group matches were more interesting than the super-eights because there were 2 games going on at once!

I love cricket - but the big problem with this tournament is that it's based on a flawed product - one day cricket. The majority of one day games are over as realistic contests pretty early on so stretching out matches to have one a day means that you are highly likely to have a sequence of dull games.

It is difficult to find an ideal format (the football world cup is also overblown and too long)- but you need to ensure that there are 2 games going on at once, probably until the semis. TV can cope with that - it gives them more chance of showing something exciting!