LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
So what? I'd rather not have half the World cup seeing X thrash some minnow. the pool games already drag on! We don't need more!
-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
The World Cup format
- Thread starter The Speaker
- Start date
- Tagged users None
So what? I'd rather not have half the World cup seeing X thrash some minnow. the pool games already drag on! We don't need more!
- Thread starter
- #52
Thankfully most people within the ICC, who care about cricket, are not as closed-minded as you are.
It's just the big three who control the game who have no interest in growing the sport. And T20 is not a good way to promote cricket skills, something you know full well.
The pool games wouldn't drag on if they were playing two a day, every day.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
T20 is a decent place to start, it isn't ideal but thats where you start. I'm more than happy to have a 16-18 team T20 World Cup. Thats where the minnows can start.
England have done the right thing next World cup. 9 test teams plus Ireland. Bang. Easy.
10 teams isn't far off just effectively shutting the door on them..
GROTTO
TheBrownDog
- Jul 5, 2013
- 66,734
- 89,522
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Let's have the World Cup of the AFL?
- Thread starter
- #56
It is shutting the door on them.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Didn't you hear...it is all about 'growing' the game
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Which is why 12 is the number and I have said that all along!
- Thread starter
- #59
You were complaining about Zimbabwe and Afghanistan a page ago. Both of whom would more than likely be at a 12 team WC.
There is an Aussie Rules WC, only Australia don't play in it. It's basically used to for development of the game in other countries. In 2014 it consisted of 18 nations and 45 games, plus a women's WC featuring 7 teams and 17 matches. Numerous games were played on the same day, often back to back at the same venue.
GROTTO
TheBrownDog
- Jul 5, 2013
- 66,734
- 89,522
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
If they make up the 12 thats okay...but we don't need UAE and Scotland as well. Plus that means 1 minnow per group, thats fine. It would make NRR less critical which is a good thing.
- Thread starter
- #63
Actually, that increase the importance of NRR, because if one team has a great day against Afghanistan, and one team limps over the line, that will decide the who promotes.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
They do have one. For obvious reasons Australia doesn't play.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
No team should 'limp' over the line against Afghanistan! Two minnow matches increases the chance of NRR playing a role. Ideally we get to a situation where there is no such thing as a minnow BUT we aren't there yet. Lets start at 10 or 12, work from there.
If they were actually fair dinkum about considering what number is best for the tournament and the game, they would have at least waited until after the WC to asses the performance of the smaller nations. Then decide.
- Thread starter
- #67
The easier way to get rid of status issues is to get rid of status.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
We've already started at 10 and 12. We went to 16, even though that was probably too premature, and the format terrible.
We were at 12 in the 2003, the natural progression from that is 14 teams, which is where we are at now.
We were at 9, 23 years ago.
03 was actually 14 teams, 1999 had 12.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
Yep yep you are correct indeed.
Well not that it matters much, your point still stands.
The current T20 rankings support that T20 certainly should have a greater number of sides (I'd go 16 or even 20 nations across 4 groups), however despite the last couple of T20 WC claiming 16 nations, it really was in name only. The format was basically the same as the 2019 WC, with the top 8 ranked full nations given automatic entry to a Super 10, and the other 2 full nations plus 6 associates playing off in a group stage for the other 2 places in the super 10. The only difference is that the qualifying stage formed part of the tournament.
http://www.icc-cricket.com/team-rankings/t20i
Current rankings:
9- Ireland, 10 - Bangladesh, 11 - Netherlands, 12- Afghanistan, 13 - Zimbabwe. Nepal also have more points than Zimbabwe, but are excluded as they haven't played enough games to qualify.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
I suggested that format earlier in the thread and quite like it. I would have only the top six automatically qualify for the second phase, and eight teams start in the first phase with four advancing to the second phase. I think it's important that the "qualifiers" are part of the tournament itself. If people don't want to watch them play then they can just tune in a week later once they are whittled down to 10 teams.
It could be a reasonable compromise, but as you suggested 8 automatic qualifiers is too many. More often than not Bangladesh and Zimbabwe would be the 2 full nations not given automatic qualification, reducing this to 6 would mix things up quite a bit. We still could have seen Ireland defeat the West Indies, which I think is good for cricket.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
I reckon a format like that, India would say something like "We always want to be an automatic qualifier for the second phase" and if I was running the show I would just roll my eyes and say "fine, whatever, we'll do it that way". If you are 1) not confident of always being in the top six ODI teams in the world and 2) if you were ranked out of the top six (I doubt India have ever fallen out of the top six in ODI rankings) and not confident of qualifying top two in a group four which is likely to include one of Bangaldesh and Zimbabwe, and two associate teams, then that says a lot about how insecure you guys are.
As you say, I think it's a good compromise. I like 14 teams but I don't like this format.
