What should be the format of the World Cup?

[The Speaker]

The reason they don't show the qualifiers is because the good teams don't play in them.

They don't show tennis players qualifying for the last few spots in a major either.

You've said top 20 teams there. That's perfect and all it needs to be.

Four groups of five teams. Play everyone in your group once home and away. Top two from each group qualify.

Glad you agree on twenty teams, but they should be the teams at the tournament, not stuck in qualifiers that never get shown. The Qualifier I'm talking about them not showing on TV (bar a select few matches) is the one happening next month which will include four full member nations. WCL division two featured Nepal, a cricket mad nation that would've paid for the stream all by itself, and then some.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

I like the idea of "Pools" to get closer to the top, and more games between the lower Test teams and associates. In that mind:

Final (2)
Semi Final (4)
2 x 4 team groups (8) in round robin quarter finals leg (3 matches each, top 2 go through)
4 x 4 team groups (16) in round robin "Group Stage" (3 matches each, top 2 go through). Top 8 ranked ODI sides plus 8 qualifiers
4 x 4 team groups in qualifying final (16) in round robin "Qualifying Stage" (3 matches each, top goes through)

Top 8 go straight to "Group" stage. 9-12 are seeded into the qualifying stage, playing against the teams ranked 13-24.

So the team ranked 24, gets at least 3 games - including one against a ODI side.
The bottom ODI sides get 3 games against minnows (should qualify easily), then 3 games against top 8 ODI sides.
The top ODI sides get 3 games against bottom ODI and best minnows (should qualify), then 3 games against other top sides.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Glad you agree on twenty teams, but they should be the teams at the tournament, not stuck in qualifiers that never get shown. The Qualifier I'm talking about them not showing on TV (bar a select few matches) is the one happening next month which will include four full member nations. WCL division two featured Nepal, a cricket mad nation that would've paid for the stream all by itself, and then some.

Who are the four member nations? Any drawcards?

World Cups as they are drag on too long and are boring. Too many lopsided games that have no bearing.

Fair enough if there are cricket mad fans who love seeing the talent coming through the Bermuda pathway but the vast, vast majority of cricket fans in the world don't care and the presence of these teams devalues the product.

If the drawcards are in the qualifiers then they will be televised. Not to mention that these minnow nations would actually get to host matches against some of the big guns, something not afforded to them now.

 

[The Speaker]

Who were the four member nations? Any drawcards?

West Indies, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Ireland.

World Cups as they are drag on too long and are boring. Too many lopsided games that have no bearing.

The length is a scheduling issue. As long as they play two games on most days, it will be over in a month, but they insist on dragging it out.

Fair enough if there are cricket mad fans who love seeing the talent coming through the Bermuda pathway

The Bermuda path? One fluky World Cup qualification and then drop to Division Four of the WCL?

Or do you mean the Afghanistan path, where they go up the divisions all the way to being a Test nation in a decade?

but the vast, vast majority of cricket fans in the world don't care and the presence of these teams devalues the product.

The best two matches in the group stage in 2015 were Afghanistan vs Scotland and Ireland vs UAE. Ireland also delivered up thrillers against the Windies and Zimbabwe. This is why I said earlier that

Now, would I expect the lowest ranked team to beat the top team? Not at all. But I could see the second team beating the first. And the third team beating the second and the first. And the fourth team beating the third and the second. And the fifth team beating the fourth and the third. It's no guarantee, but at least one of those groups would throw up something unexpected.

The most valuable thing at a World Cup is good matches. Guess what? Most of the top nations don't deliver thrilling matches. In fact, a lot of them are one-sided snorefests. By throwing in more teams that are fairly even with each other, and having two matches each day, you are increasing the value of the product.

If the drawcards are in the qualifiers then they will be televised. Not to mention that these minnow nations would actually get to host matches against some of the big guns, sonething not afforded to them now.

You severly underestimate this sport if you think people are only interested in the top few nations.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

West Indies, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Ireland.

There you go.

The length is a scheduling issue. As long as they play two games on most days, it will be over in a month, but they insist on dragging it out.

The Bermuda path? One fluky World Cup qualification and then drop to Division Four of the WCL?

Or do you mean the Afghanistan path, where they go up the divisions all the way to being a Test nation in a decade?

With countries like Bermuda, Kenya, UAE, Namibia, Scotland, Netherlands, Canada they fall somewhere between novelty, expats and tokenism. Afghanistan didn't even play in a World Cup until 2015. They were well on the way regardless. Good on them. They'd give qualification a shake.

The best two matches in the group stage in 2015 were Afghanistan vs Scotland and Ireland vs UAE. Ireland also delivered up thrillers against the Windies and Zimbabwe. This is why I said earlier that

The most valuable thing at a World Cup is good matches. Guess what? Most of the top nations don't deliver thrilling matches. In fact, a lot of them are one-sided snorefests. By throwing in more teams that are fairly even with each other, and having two matches each day, you are increasing the value of the product.

No you aren't! India, Australia, England, Pakistan playing each other increases the value. Oman and Namibia could have a cracking game and no one would notice. Mildura and Renmark 4th XIs could have a close game too if they entered.

You severly underestimate this sport if you think people are only interested in the top few nations.

More nations should get a chance to be part of the show. Doesn't need to be on the final stage though.

 

[The Speaker]

There you go.

Rashid Khan not a draw? The two fastest WC centurions don't matter? Please.

With countries like Bermuda, Kenya, UAE, Namibia, Scotland, Netherlands, Canada they fall somewhere between novelty, expats and tokenism. Afghanistan didn't even play in a World Cup until 2015. They were well on the way regardless. Good on them. They'd give qualification a shake.

Neither Bermuda nor Kenya would feature in a twenty team 2019 WC, and you're relying far too much on past WCs for your evidently limited knowledge of cricket beyond the big six.

No you aren't! India, Australia, England, Pakistan playing each other increases the value. Oman and Namibia could have a cracking game and no one would notice. Mildura and Renmark 4th XIs could have a close game too if they entered.

Oh, so you don't actually mean the value of the World Cup as a contest, you just mean the value of it in monetary terms? Cool. How about we just play the Champions Trophy every year? Why does FIFA bother to have a 32 team World Cup when only eight teams have ever won?

More nations should get a chance to be part of the show. Doesn't need to be on the final stage though.

The final stage should be obvious. They're called the finals, and they occur after the group stages.

Do you believe World Rugby is wrong to use a 20 team format for their World Cups, given they are in exactly the same position in their sport with regard to the quality of teams?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

16 teams at the absolute most, and the tournament to be no more than 4 weeks ideally 3 weeks

 

[corbies]

If you only want the world cup to go for 3 weeks I really do question whether you enjoy cricket. When the best thing you can say about a tournament is that it is short, are you really the audience it should be catering towards?

I'll never understand how people could want the BBL extended beyond 2 months/year but a 5/6 week tournament with the best nations in the world played once every 4 years is too long.

 

[Kram]

When there are 9 teams far stronger than anyone else and we have quarter finals it makes the round robin stage a bit dull. For the best teams like Australia that are 100% going through in a way it almost reduces them to practice/warm up games. Although it is a bit of an advantage finishing high as you are more likely to get a weak opponent in the quarters.

 

[The Speaker]

When there are 9 teams far stronger than anyone else and we have quarter finals it makes the round robin stage a bit dull. For the best teams like Australia that are 100% going through in a way it almost reduces them to practice/warm up games. Although it is a bit of an advantage finishing high as you are more likely to get a weak opponent in the quarters.

Are there nine teams 'far stronger than anyone else'? I'd say there's four or five, but not nine.

 

[The Passenger]

16 teams. 4 groups of 4. Top 2 progress.
8 teams, but AFL finals system instead of straight knock out. Top teams in each group effectively take spots 1 to 4. Second teams in each groups take spots 5 to 8. Reward the top teams with a second chance (which effectively is given to the second place teams in the group stages). Also gives them a bit of additional recovery time (though not such a huge deal in cricket as contact sports).

24 groups matches. 9 finals. Should be done in about 25 days.

The competition has always dragged on to long with too many meaningless games. For whatever reason the cricket world cup has never really managed to keep the context of the earlier games as the competition progresses.

 

[The Speaker]

16 teams. 4 groups of 4. Top 2 progress.
8 teams, but AFL finals system instead of straight knock out. Top teams in each group effectively take spots 1 to 4. Second teams in each groups take spots 5 to 8. Reward the top teams with a second chance (which effectively is given to the second place teams in the group stages). Also gives them a bit of additional recovery time (though not such a huge deal in cricket as contact sports).

24 groups matches. 9 finals. Should be done in about 25 days.

The competition has always dragged on to long with too many meaningless games. For whatever reason the cricket world cup has never really managed to keep the context of the earlier games as the competition progresses.

That's a good idea actually, though I don't think there will ever be groups of four again.

 

[The Passenger]

That's a good idea actually, though I don't think there will ever be groups of four again.

Yes unfortunately I think you are correct.

The game is so beholden to the big three that any possibility of missing the final eight has to be minimised.

Even the thought of one of them missing the final four sends the icc into near apoplexy.

 

[The Passenger]

The ICC preferred world cup.

India, England, Australia in one group. Play each other endlessly in round robin matches. Top three make it through to semi finals.

Who gives a * about the other group. Do whatever format you plebs want. Just send us the winner. They proceed to the semi finals but have a 100-run handicap against their semi final opponent.

 

[t_94]

If you only want the world cup to go for 3 weeks I really do question whether you enjoy cricket. When the best thing you can say about a tournament is that it is short, are you really the audience it should be catering towards?

I'll never understand how people could want the BBL extended beyond 2 months/year but a 5/6 week tournament with the best nations in the world played once every 4 years is too long.

The sort of people who wear KFC bucket hats and think bat wraps look good

 

[Kyptastic]

The ICC preferred world cup.

India, England, Australia in one group. Play each other endlessly in round robin matches. Top three make it through to semi finals.

Who gives a **** about the other group. Do whatever format you plebs want. Just send us the winner. They proceed to the semi finals but have a 100-run handicap against their semi final opponent.

#1 priority for the ICC is to manufacture an India v Pakistan game - that's where the money is. IIRC didn't they change the last Under 19 world Cup semifinals so that India would play Pakistan? Or am I misremembering.

 

[The Speaker]

Yes unfortunately I think you are correct.

The game is so beholden to the big three that any possibility of missing the final eight has to be minimised.

Even the thought of one of them missing the final four sends the icc into near apoplexy.

I would actually say it's now beholden to the Big One.

The Big Three deal from a few years ago was really just a bit of clever work from the ECB, backed up by CA (who only look out for their own interests), to latch onto the BCCI and use their combined weight to overthrow the existing system.

Once the Indian Supreme Court came in and turned the BCCI upside down, that all ended. Clarke and Edwards were both out at their respective boards by then too, and the new head of the ICC was Manohar rather than Srinivasan...but the BCCI still managed to wrangle a deal that saw them get a way larger slice of the pie than everyone else, at the expense of (of course) anyone who isn't a full member.

 

[Rob]

Yes unfortunately I think you are correct.

The game is so beholden to the big three that any possibility of missing the final eight has to be minimised.

Even the thought of one of them missing the final four sends the icc into near apoplexy.

Yep, it's happened too often. But it's by far the best format because all games matter.

4 groups of 4, top 2 go through and all knockout from there.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

India is the warlord and everyone else, vassals.

 

[eth-dog]

I think 4 groups would be good, with 16 countries. Using the current rankings:

Group A: England, Australia, Zimbabwe, Nepal
Group B: India, Sri Lanka, Ireland, UAE
Group C: New Zealand, Bangladesh, West Indies, Netherlands
Group D: South Africa, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Scotland

That has good coverage. Head straight into QF's after.

 

[ioppolo]

The Rugby world cup has 20-24 teams in it's competition doesn't it? They only have about the same amount of global popularity cricket does. It'd a shame that Cricket appears to be the only sport where the powers to be actively try to reduce growth of the game. Pathetic really.

 

[The Speaker]

The Rugby world cup has 20-24 teams in it's competition doesn't it? They only have about the same amount of global popularity cricket does. It'd a shame that Cricket appears to be the only sport where the powers to be actively try to reduce growth of the game. Pathetic really.

Yes, and I don't see why cricket couldn't do likewise.

 

[big_e]

The Rugby world cup has 20-24 teams in it's competition doesn't it? They only have about the same amount of global popularity cricket does. It'd a shame that Cricket appears to be the only sport where the powers to be actively try to reduce growth of the game. Pathetic really.

This was mostly written earlier today, before I saw the ICCs latest announcement.

Out of interest, the qualification for the Rugby World Cup is:
1. Top three teams in each pool at the previous RWC automatically qualify for the next one.
2. The remaining places are filled by regional qualifiers with a certain number of places per region (much the same as FIFA World Cup)
3. Inter-regional repecharge tournament for the final spots.

Essentially every country in the world gets a fair shot at qualifying - the European qualifiers, for instance, had Romania (world ranking 16) down to Finland (97) and even Cyprus and Estonia (not ranked).

I like this system. It means that the major nations will most likely qualify automatically (the top eight in 2015 CWC were NZ, WI, SL, RSA, Pak, Aus, Ind and Ban), and those that don't will probably get through the regional qualifiers. To get to 20 teams

Europe 3 spots (most likely out of Eng, Ire, Sco, Neth)
Africa 2 spots (Zim, Ken, Nam)
Central and South Asia 2 spots (UAE, Afg, Oman)
East Asia and Pacific 2 spots (PNG, HK, Nepal)
The Americas 2 spot (Bermuda, USA, Canada)
Best of the rest 1 spot

And then I see the ICC have announced pretty much this for the 2020 T20WC.

 

[The Speaker]

This was mostly written earlier today, before I saw the ICCs latest announcement.

Out of interest, the qualification for the Rugby World Cup is:
1. Top three teams in each pool at the previous RWC automatically qualify for the next one.
2. The remaining places are filled by regional qualifiers with a certain number of places per region (much the same as FIFA World Cup)
3. Inter-regional repecharge tournament for the final spots.

Essentially every country in the world gets a fair shot at qualifying - the European qualifiers, for instance, had Romania (world ranking 16) down to Finland (97) and even Cyprus and Estonia (not ranked).

I like this system. It means that the major nations will most likely qualify automatically (the top eight in 2015 CWC were NZ, WI, SL, RSA, Pak, Aus, Ind and Ban), and those that don't will probably get through the regional qualifiers. To get to 20 teams

Europe 3 spots (most likely out of Eng, Ire, Sco, Neth)
Africa 2 spots (Zim, Ken, Nam)
Central and South Asia 2 spots (UAE, Afg, Oman)
East Asia and Pacific 2 spots (PNG, HK, Nepal)
The Americas 2 spot (Bermuda, USA, Canada)
Best of the rest 1 spot

And then I see the ICC have announced pretty much this for the 2020 T20WC.

Except that they then divide the World T20 itself into two stages, so the 'real' tournament still only has ten teams.

 

[Marklar_33]

18 teams, 3 groups, Super Six, Semis, Final

If you get to the final, you will have played 11 matches. It’s a long tournament but that’s what I like and I’m as selfish as the BCCI

Anyway, 3 weeks to cover the 45 group matches. 2 weeks to cover the 15 Super Six matches and a week for finals

6 weeks. That’s my kind of tourney