View Full Version : is the world cup too long?
dr nick
13 Mar 2003, 16:15
a lot of people have been critisising the length of the current world cup. is this critisism justified?
wagstaff
13 Mar 2003, 16:20
Originally posted by nicko18
a lot of people have been critisising the length of the current world cup. is this critisism justified?
No. The problem is that there is one team so far ahead of the rest that it has killed off much of the potential interest there would've been in this tournament.
TheSheik
13 Mar 2003, 17:46
I still don't understand why they have the Super Sixes to be honest.
Best thing about it is the Aussies will go through the tournament undefeated.
red+black
13 Mar 2003, 19:40
Originally posted by wagstaff
No. The problem is that there is one team so far ahead of the rest that it has killed off much of the potential interest there would've been in this tournament.
geez that's a big call mate, Kenya win a couple matches and you think they're world-beaters :rolleyes:
:)
Definitely not. The structure and points systems might be rooted, but it's about the right length.
In reality, it's the only cricket tournament in the world that genuinely means something other than pride. Winners have the right to call themselves world champions for 4 years. Why not make it last longer than a week or 2?
Originally posted by TheSheik
I still don't understand why they have the Super Sixes to be honest.
I agree - doesn't make much sense to me, to add two weeks to a tournament just to eliminate two teams, especially when the teams don't start the super sixes stage on an even footing.
The overall length is OK, as Rob said it's the only worthwhile ODI tournament so it might as well be done properly... but I don't think farting about for two weeks to eliminate two teams (who are behind the pack from the start of the sixes) is "doing it properly".
Originally posted by Darky
I agree - doesn't make much sense to me, to add two weeks to a tournament just to eliminate two teams, especially when the teams don't start the super sixes stage on an even footing.
I agree whats the overall point of the super sixes?
And whats the point of the Aust Vs Kenya match this weekend when they face each other in the semis anyway?
The soccer world is simple..why not use that system? :confused:
red+black
13 Mar 2003, 23:51
Originally posted by Frosties_Flank
And whats the point of the Aust Vs Kenya match this weekend when they face each other in the semis anyway?
Australia does not play Kenya in the semi-finals
Kenny_01
14 Mar 2003, 01:27
I reckon it is good the way it is.
St-KriS
14 Mar 2003, 09:47
I wouldnt mind it going longer actually cause Im sure gunna miss it when it's gone.
ScouseCat
14 Mar 2003, 10:37
Originally posted by Kenny_01
I reckon it is good the way it is.
I agree with Kenny, the World Cup is good in it's current format. You have to play a reasonable number of matches to determine the winner in my opinion, otherwise it wouldn't be a true indication of who is the best team.
The Super Sixes is a good idea, they just need to adjust the rules slightly to enable teams to carry forward all their points from the pool games.
Unwritten_Law
14 Mar 2003, 10:55
Originally posted by ScouseCat
The Super Sixes is a good idea, they just need to adjust the rules slightly to enable teams to carry forward all their points from the pool games.
They do already don't they. I thought it was changed this time around or am I going crazy.
edit: Reading your post again, I read it the wrong way. Still, I think that wins over other teams in the super six should still count for more than wins over Namibia, Holland etc.
Kenny_01
14 Mar 2003, 12:50
Originally posted by ScouseCat
The Super Sixes is a good idea, they just need to adjust the rules slightly to enable teams to carry forward all their points from the pool games.
I don't know if that would work. For example this WC, pool A only really had 2 minnows while Pool B had 3, so pool A could see this as a disadvantage.
I reckon the format of the 99 world cup was best in regards to carrying points, even if Aus did use a 'go slow' tactic against the Windies. If the same situation occured this WC, Aus would probably still 'go slow' because 4 points are better than 1... so nothing has really been improved.
The super sixes hasnt worked so well this time round due to the lopsidedness of the teams involved. I guess the idea is a)skimming the cream from the crud for a few great games and b) evening up any problems with the first round pool (ie one pool stronger than the other)
red+black
14 Mar 2003, 16:00
Originally posted by Kenny_01
pool A only really had 2 minnows
Huh? Namibia. Holland. England. I count 3.
Kenny_01
14 Mar 2003, 16:30
Originally posted by red+black
Huh? Namibia. Holland. England. I count 3.
Yeah I guess so but they came pretty bloody close to beating us! :D
red+black
14 Mar 2003, 16:36
yeah, i guess you're right, holland were rather competitive :)
catattack
14 Mar 2003, 20:39
Originally posted by nicko18
a lot of people have been critisising the length of the current world cup. is this critisism justified?
The length of the World Cup's pretty good. Leave as is IMO.