LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
The natural progression was to leave it at 12, as it is that was pushing it!
-
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
The natural progression was to leave it at 12, as it is that was pushing it!
Yep, you've summed it up well, basically too much power in the hands of to few, with every nation with clout putting themselves ahead of the greater development of cricket. Zimbabwe and Bangladesh obviously lack that clout.
sick of the long waits for some teams
I have a slightly different 16 team format in mind, with two group phases.
Four initial pools of four, with the top two qualifying for the next phase. (Optional : Results from the game aginst the other second qualifiers in the pool could carry into the second round.)
That phase would be two groups of four, with two firsts and two second in each group.
From there something close to a footy top four.
Advantages:
- more teams, allowing more nations to share the stage
- fewer games across the tournament
- finishing on top at the end of the group stage gives an advantage over finishing second
Disadvantages:
- only three games for most smaller nations is barely giving them a stage
- first round pools will (for the foreeable future) be fairy predictable in terms of who qualifies, but we have that now in a much longer first round
As an example:
Pool A........Pool B.......Pool C.......Pool D
South Africa..Australia....New Zealand..England
West Indies...Sri Lanka....Pakistan.....India
Bangladeh.....Zimbabwe.....Ireland......Afghanistan
Nepal.........Netherlands..U.A.E........Scotland
Group 1.......................Group 2
1st A, 1st C, 2nd B, 2nd D....1st B, 1st D, 2nd A, 2nd C
South AFrica..................West Indies
Sri Lanka.....................Australia
New Zealand...................Pakistan
India England
1st Group 1 v 1st Group 2 [winner stright to Final]
South Africa v Australia
2nd Group 1 v 2nd Group 2 [loser eliminated]
New Zealand v Pakistan
Loste of 1sts v Winner of 2nds (preliminary final equivalent)
Australia v New Zealand
FINAL
South Africa v Australia
Last edited:
Whatever it is (and I'm fine having the minnows - this tournament is showing they can put up a fight), they need to shave about 15 days off the schedule. The glacial pace just completely destroys any sense of excitement and momentum the tournament has.
The fact that it's being hosted in two countries where the time zone differences make it perfectly reasonable to have two games per day without any major overlap, and they still didn't do it it just farcical.
The fact that it's being hosted in two countries where the time zone differences make it perfectly reasonable to have two games per day without any major overlap, and they still didn't do it it just farcical.
The length of the tournament is a problem. Clearly they don't want overlap due to splitting the audience, but going on this long risks decreasing the audience.
Maybe they also do not want too many games at one venue in a hurry. People might be more willing to go to one match every ten days spread over five weeks, than three game in two weeks.
It is too long, but shortening it must not come at the expense of the (in some cases, only) exposure the second tier teams get competing in the biggest global tournament in the game.
Maybe they also do not want too many games at one venue in a hurry. People might be more willing to go to one match every ten days spread over five weeks, than three game in two weeks.
It is too long, but shortening it must not come at the expense of the (in some cases, only) exposure the second tier teams get competing in the biggest global tournament in the game.
Surely they could have got it over in even just 3 weeks or something, a whole month just to cut it down to 8 teams is ridiculous.
The main problem I have with the format is that the co-hosts are in the same pool. How incredibly stupid is it to have a country host a major event and still have to travel to another country to play a match
I know its based on rankings when the fixture was created (Dec 2012 rankings where England was #1 and NZ was lower than Bangladesh), but its not hard to keep it fair and end up with Australia and NZ on opposite sides.
They went with
Pool A: 1 4 5 8 9 12 13
Pool B: 2 3 6 7 10 11 14
Where Australia was 4 and NZ 9
Had the simply gone with the equally fair odds and evens (used in 2011), both countries play every possible match at home
I know its based on rankings when the fixture was created (Dec 2012 rankings where England was #1 and NZ was lower than Bangladesh), but its not hard to keep it fair and end up with Australia and NZ on opposite sides.
They went with
Pool A: 1 4 5 8 9 12 13
Pool B: 2 3 6 7 10 11 14
Where Australia was 4 and NZ 9
Had the simply gone with the equally fair odds and evens (used in 2011), both countries play every possible match at home
Scheduling is terrible. Newzealand have played 3 games now. Most of the top nations have played 1 or 2
If we're going to continue to give the WC preeminent status for ODI's, then it stands to reason that it should feature only the best sides. There is a current opinion (forgotten the guy's name, but he's an Australian administrator) calling for ODI's to be renamed "WC Cricket", with a four year cycle based around WC qualification and a tightening up of events, making them all count...
I think they've got the Champions Trophy and the WC the wrong way around. The CT should be the one with shitloads of teams - why not a straight knockout round of sixteen, played over a fortnight? You could have a ton of prequalifiers, spread around the world, and let the associates slug it out FA cup style before the big boys enter. As they do for the WCL events, there's also no reason they couldn't have playoffs for fifth, ninth, etc. Play the event in a developing country or a few places simultaneously...
The WC should be the one with arduous qualification and an elite feel to it - four years of qualifying events, and then a round robin eight team tournament. If India don't make it, which is pretty unlikely, then big deal - it won't happen twice in a row, and when both India and Pakistan exited early in 2007, it didn't hurt the comp in 2011...and the 2007 WC sucked for many other reasons besides missing the subcontinent superpowers - a well run tournament would survive the shock...
I think they've got the Champions Trophy and the WC the wrong way around. The CT should be the one with shitloads of teams - why not a straight knockout round of sixteen, played over a fortnight? You could have a ton of prequalifiers, spread around the world, and let the associates slug it out FA cup style before the big boys enter. As they do for the WCL events, there's also no reason they couldn't have playoffs for fifth, ninth, etc. Play the event in a developing country or a few places simultaneously...
The WC should be the one with arduous qualification and an elite feel to it - four years of qualifying events, and then a round robin eight team tournament. If India don't make it, which is pretty unlikely, then big deal - it won't happen twice in a row, and when both India and Pakistan exited early in 2007, it didn't hurt the comp in 2011...and the 2007 WC sucked for many other reasons besides missing the subcontinent superpowers - a well run tournament would survive the shock...
Cleavy
Hall of Famer
no reserve days for quarter finals, semi finals and the final...
- Thread starter
- #89
Wally Edwards.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-cricket-world-cup-2015/content/story/833877.html
No other sport has their World Cup as an elite only tournament. It doesn't make sense.
ALL world cups are elite tournaments when they get to the business end, which is the main comp. The soccer WC is a finals series with a very contrived path based upon revenue, and the RL cup struggles to justify the inclusion of other teams outside the big three at all. Basketball revolves around the USA, even writing the draw one year with the Dream Team cemented into their progression matchups v blank...
Currently, your qualification for the cricket WC involves being either a test nation getting a default placing or a First Division WCL country who makes the cut. If you're a test side, you're going to the big dance no matter what happens, so you can't argue that elitism isn't already happening anyway. The big argument, though, is in the format - which is why this thread exists, and why the WC never sticks to a format. It should be easy, but it's not, and there's the proof...
At the end of the day, associates have qualified for the WC without playing test sides beforehand, and there's a strong undercurrent at the top level of world cricket that simply doesn't want them there, never mind tv who just wants India. We love them, but the debate rages. I say there should be no debate - whether you're Afghanistan or Australia, you should be there because you went through a qualifying process. We all know Australia would make it barring catastrophe, and Afghanistan would have virtually no chance if pitted against test sides - but seeing as they would be up against the good teams by necessity to make it, isn't this a good thing? Ireland only get games v test sides through geography, whereas new ODI status holders PNG won't be playing anyone anytime soon...
Expand the qualifiers to give associates the chance to qualify by necessarily playing against the big teams, and if they can earn it from an equal standing start then in they go. If they don't, they've still played games they currently aren't getting, and the competition isn't compromised. Ireland qualified by finishing highly in a Mickey Mouse qualifying comp - who would bet against them as at least capable of a low placing in a WC pre-qualifier that pitted them against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, and few of their associate mates, and test big guns? If they earned their top eight spot, noone could deny their right to contest - which was not the case amidst the howls of protest in 2007 when they managed their Super 8 spot on the back of a single win against Pakistan on the day. Most likely they wouldn't make it, but they would have jumped through some big hoops regardless, which is what they want and need...
Currently, your qualification for the cricket WC involves being either a test nation getting a default placing or a First Division WCL country who makes the cut. If you're a test side, you're going to the big dance no matter what happens, so you can't argue that elitism isn't already happening anyway. The big argument, though, is in the format - which is why this thread exists, and why the WC never sticks to a format. It should be easy, but it's not, and there's the proof...
At the end of the day, associates have qualified for the WC without playing test sides beforehand, and there's a strong undercurrent at the top level of world cricket that simply doesn't want them there, never mind tv who just wants India. We love them, but the debate rages. I say there should be no debate - whether you're Afghanistan or Australia, you should be there because you went through a qualifying process. We all know Australia would make it barring catastrophe, and Afghanistan would have virtually no chance if pitted against test sides - but seeing as they would be up against the good teams by necessity to make it, isn't this a good thing? Ireland only get games v test sides through geography, whereas new ODI status holders PNG won't be playing anyone anytime soon...
Expand the qualifiers to give associates the chance to qualify by necessarily playing against the big teams, and if they can earn it from an equal standing start then in they go. If they don't, they've still played games they currently aren't getting, and the competition isn't compromised. Ireland qualified by finishing highly in a Mickey Mouse qualifying comp - who would bet against them as at least capable of a low placing in a WC pre-qualifier that pitted them against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, and few of their associate mates, and test big guns? If they earned their top eight spot, noone could deny their right to contest - which was not the case amidst the howls of protest in 2007 when they managed their Super 8 spot on the back of a single win against Pakistan on the day. Most likely they wouldn't make it, but they would have jumped through some big hoops regardless, which is what they want and need...
- Thread starter
- #91
Soccer has expanded from 13 to 32.
Rugby Union began with 16, despite originally having the same worldwide reach as cricket, and is now at 20.
Hockey started at 12 and wants to get up to 24.
Why have we gone from 8 to 16 back to 10? It's incredible.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
When there are 14 or 16 good sides we can go back to that number. 10-12 teams is fine.
- Thread starter
- #93
The 14th-16th sides are better now than they were eight years ago.
They certainly aren't going to become any better by locking them out of tournaments which give them exposure to the best teams.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Use the t20's or the Champions Trophy for the minnows. Are they better now, possibly. Are they beating a top 4 side, nope
- Thread starter
- #95
The Champions Trophy is designed for the top ranked teams. It's in the name
T20's are no good for development.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
So is the World Cup. Meant to be the top sides fighting it out it is that simple. We don't need more than 2-4 minnows
- Thread starter
- #97
It isn't. I have already pointed out numerous times that the very idea of a World Cup is that it isn't a 'best of the best' competition, designed to be elitist. It is meant to be relatively open. Other sports have, quite rightly, opened at up despite the small amount of winners for their tournaments.
How did Sri Lanka develop?
If beating a top 4 side this world cup was the criteria- we should kick out Pakistan, West Indies, Sri Lanka, England, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe
The World Cup for cricket was started in England. The first three tournaments all had only 8 teams of which only 25% of teams were essentially minnow status at time. Each tournament went for just over two weeks.
The 1987 World Cup was 4th World Cup and first outside of England. It still had 8 teams only but the two groups of 4 teams played each other twice before knockout finals started at semi-final stage. This was first World Cup that had the 50 over standard we are used to now. Still all teams wore traditional cricket whites. There was only a red ball used and all games were day games.
You had to play a total of 8 games to win World cup but the length of tournament doubled to 32 days length.
This tournament had reserve days for games so if game was washed out you played the next day.
1992 was the first real massive change to World Cup format. No longer was it just 8 teams in two groups of 4.
It was first World cup with coloured clothing and first with day/night matches and a white ball used.
The format was to be the 8 teams all meet each other once and top four through to semi-final.
However what happened was in late 1991 South Africa gained ICC full status after two decades in wilderness so they got included in the World cup as a ninth team. Essentially this was a World Cup with no minnow nations in it due to Sri Lanka had been playing Test cricket since 1983 and Zimbabwe were also about to play their first Test this very year.
So 9 nations took part. It took less than 5 weeks to complete. All nations meet once and the top 4 on ladder went through to semi-finals.
Australia and West Indies both on 4 wins missed out on qualifying for semi-finals.
The 1996 World Cup went to 12 teams with 3 minnow nations or 25% like first World Cup in percentage of number of teams involved.
It was first time quarter final stage was used. The problem with it was top 4 of two groups of 6 teams meant lots of preliminary games were not that meaningful so you only removed 4 teams after every team played 5 preliminary games.
1999 World Cup removed quarter final stage and replaced with super six. The problem with that was it required more games overall and super six whilst good in theory has issues with carry over points means teams can manipulate circumstances towards end of first phase to favour what carry over points go forward for them and we saw that when Australia were required in last game of group stage slow down their batting against West Indies in order to try to take West Indies with them in the next stage. This super six format should never be used again. I remember Steve Waugh and Bevan blocking on purpose so we did not win too easily over West Indies and it was a farce the format dictated they should do exactly that at the time.
All the World Cups since have been too long and lacked the intensity at stages because of the drawn out longer tournament length and teams resting players in order to rest up for knockout stage is not a great thing for what is supposed to be the best one day cricket you can see every four years.
I think it either needs to be 16 teams with 4 groups of 4 and then top two go through to quarter finals or it needs to be 12 teams of two groups of six and the top three advance to knock out stages with top teams of each group advancing straight to semi-finals.
Any other format has too many issues. If you want more minnow nations you go for 16 teams but the drawback on that is less chance of seeing main nations play each other in World Cup. Example. India and Pakistan may not play each other which ICC probably prefer to have occur.
With 12 teams the draw back is you have less minnow nations involved but you have more of main nations playing each other and you get many more games where there is really meaning in preliminary game stages. I favour this format because of that very reason and stops teams playing at less than full strength as you will be highly motivated to top your group if you can. (check page one where I outlined it in full)
Both those formats would also reduce the length of tournament which really is needed. 6 or 7 weeks for full tournament is just too long. I for one can barely remember much of the 2007 and 2011 World Cups as they seem to drag on forever and at times I lost my interest as too long waiting for the meaningful part to start.
Last edited:
