- Jul 31, 2010
- 8,750
- 12,107
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- S'roos, New Jets, Cronulla
- Moderator
- #551
Both.
-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
2019 World Cup General Discussion
- Thread starter Kyptastic
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
I was thinking about this last night, and if they are going to persist with this format, they need to heavily front load the blockbusters. More or less the predicted top four should play their first three games against each other.
At least if you get a predictable run of results, the back half of the round robin will provide some interest in seeing if the heavyweight/s who struggled in the early blockbusters can grab enough wins to chase down a semi final spot.
Yes, they'd need to check with India first and see if it's okay with them.
- Feb 13, 2011
- 10,882
- 13,726
- AFL Club
- Richmond
South Africa had a front loaded draw like you are describing. It doesn't work if only 1 team has it though.
This format just doesn't punish teams for having an upset enough. 1 slip up from England against Pakistan isn't going to change all that much because Pakistan aren't consistent enough to beat the teams below them.
I think 4 teams is too restrictive, and 8 teams is too safe. I believe they should go back to the Super 6 format of 1999 or copy the NFL system of a final 6.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
It's interesting, because this format is the fairest format but there also needs to be some element of excitement and each game needs to have a high value placed on it and I think we've lost a lot of that in this cup. Unless something special happens from here (and it's not completely out of the question) this round robin section will meander to its end.
World Cup's in all sports run on the notion that one slip can be all it takes to knock a contender out of the cup.
In must be said the tournament has got a bit unlucky that the rupture in the table is happening between 4th and 5th. If there are four standouts coming into the competition and one doesn't turn up, then the race is on for the last semi final spot. Likewise if South Africa didn't have such a disastrous start, it would be very tight to see which of the five top teams would be squeezed out.
Like you, I would like to see it revert back to the 1999 format with 12 teams and a super sixes. The only change I would make is 1st in the super sixes automatically qualifies for the final, 2nd and 3rd play each other for the final spot.
But I'm fully expecting the ICC to persist with this format.
Why should it punish one upset? Why should any team’s entire tournament be held to ransom by the risk of one bad day - particularly in a sport where just one opponent can defeat you if he has a red hot day.
Shouldn’t any sporting competition be a test of not only skill but consistency?
That's not how cup tournaments work - although they are actually a test of consistency. How many FIFA World Cup winners aren't consistently winning during the tournament they win?
You want only consistency to matter to the point that shock defeats are smoothed out, make a league.
A fifa World Cup win involves 7 matches. A pool system with semi finals at the cricket could conceivably involve as few as 5 or 6 depending on whether it was two of five or four of four. Presumably in that latter case they would probably have quarters as well maybe but regardless, pre-knockout, a shock loss shouldn’t end a tournament
20 team WC would involve 7 matches with pure knockouts. 15 team would involve 9 with super sixes.
nobbyiscool
Cancelled
WWE Board
Goosed
Sweet F.A Sikh Volunteers Charity Match
Tasmanian Team
NFL Fantasy Comp Champion
Armchair Endzone Major Comp Champion
- Aug 11, 2006
- 21,110
- 23,512
What seems to have been forgotten in the creation of this WC format is that we don't actually care whether teams are ranked appropriately beyond number 3. We just need a system that ensures a modicum of brevity, that cuts down on the number of irrelevant matches, and that ensures that the best 2 teams make the final. We don't need a 10-team round robin to find this - all that does is rank all 10 teams neatly and accurately (while boring the s**t out of us in the process.)
Whether it's two groups of 6 (or 7) leading to a super 6 where results within your own group carry over, whether it's two groups of 6 leading to a 4-team round robin "semi-final" format, whether it's 4 groups of 4 leading to another set of 2x 4-team quarter final groups, I don't really care - there's a bunch of ways to do this that ensure the best teams still make it to the end, while also having the added bonus of giving teams like Ireland and Zimbabwe a shot at the big stage (cos that's the best way for them to grow the game in those countries.)
Coming into this tournament, the amount of cricket we were looking forward to was really exciting. Now? With the gap between the top 4 and the rest, does anyone give the slightest semblance of a s**t about the West Indies vs Bangladesh?
Whether it's two groups of 6 (or 7) leading to a super 6 where results within your own group carry over, whether it's two groups of 6 leading to a 4-team round robin "semi-final" format, whether it's 4 groups of 4 leading to another set of 2x 4-team quarter final groups, I don't really care - there's a bunch of ways to do this that ensure the best teams still make it to the end, while also having the added bonus of giving teams like Ireland and Zimbabwe a shot at the big stage (cos that's the best way for them to grow the game in those countries.)
Coming into this tournament, the amount of cricket we were looking forward to was really exciting. Now? With the gap between the top 4 and the rest, does anyone give the slightest semblance of a s**t about the West Indies vs Bangladesh?
How does not giving a s**t about West Indies v Bangladesh change if there is 2 groups? You still won’t give a s**t about the game anyway...
Groups of 4? So a team could only play 2 games for the entire tournament, yeah that seems worthwhile...
Nothing wrong with the format, just because it comes at a time where the top 3 are light years ahead of the rest doesn’t makes the format wrong. There are times when Pakistan, NZ, Windies and Sri Lanka have been good enough and that would have made for a great tournament. You don’t know how teams form will stack up when deciding on the format. 4 months ago, no one gives Australia a chance, now they’re the 3rd best team
You have 2 groups and it’s still a bore, you know England is topping one and India the other, where’s the excitement? At least here the top teams play each other a couple of times. Adds a bit of interest to their group game seeing how they play it and knowing that finishing first is a big bonus over 2nd
Groups of 4? So a team could only play 2 games for the entire tournament, yeah that seems worthwhile...
Nothing wrong with the format, just because it comes at a time where the top 3 are light years ahead of the rest doesn’t makes the format wrong. There are times when Pakistan, NZ, Windies and Sri Lanka have been good enough and that would have made for a great tournament. You don’t know how teams form will stack up when deciding on the format. 4 months ago, no one gives Australia a chance, now they’re the 3rd best team
You have 2 groups and it’s still a bore, you know England is topping one and India the other, where’s the excitement? At least here the top teams play each other a couple of times. Adds a bit of interest to their group game seeing how they play it and knowing that finishing first is a big bonus over 2nd
You really need to check your maths, and the concept of jeopardy.
Nothing wrong with my maths, I’m thinking of a poor team who plays one of their group games in Brisbane...
have you ever wondered why your post/like ratio is so low?
Not really...I didn’t realise life was about getting validation for your thoughts by collecting likes, you must be from the Facebook generation...
Mmm, that's not it.
- Feb 13, 2011
- 10,882
- 13,726
- AFL Club
- Richmond
If you want to know who is consistently the best ODI team check out the ODI team rankings. Its currently England.
Its a shame its almost a dead rubber. From what I have watched its looking like a great game between 2 fairly even teams.
Groups of 4 would have 3 games each. Though I wouldn't recommend a structure like that as a Rained out match has a huge impact.
The matches coming up between Australia/England/India and New Zealand are going to be unthrilling because all 4 teams will have qualified before then. All it will be deciding is whether Australia loses to India in the Semi Final or the Final.
I think there needs to be a balance between rewarding some consistency but still giving some hope to teams like Afghanistan or Bangladesh that if everything went right that they could still win/make the Semifinals.
If they’re good enough, they’ll make it,but if not, what possible structure gives the 9th/10th best teams a chance to finish top 4? Argument is they gain more playing 9 games and experience against all top nations than just a couple of games and going home.
England v India is big, they’ll definitely both prefer to play NZ in the semis
- Feb 13, 2011
- 10,882
- 13,726
- AFL Club
- Richmond
the 1999 format can do it. Zimbabwe beat India, SA and Kenya to make the super 6 stage and just missed out on a Semifinal by NRR.
The 1996 format was shorter but you only need 2 wins in the group stage to make the QF.
In fact every other format the ICC have used is more conducive to Giant Killing and exciting finishes to group stages.
Sides like Bangladesh or West Indies are good examples of teams that could thrive in a tournament structure with a smaller group stage but they're both going to struggle when asked to consistently win over 9 matches.
However The Tournament structure chosen for 2019 was deliberately chosen to minimise the risk of the big nations (India) being knocked out early, and to almost guarantee an India/England/Australia final.
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 77,300
- 151,808
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #571
- May 20, 2014
- 20,978
- 26,757
- AFL Club
- Geelong
If Bangladesh can beat us it opens the back end of the tournament up a bit.
RohitSharma
Club Legend
You guys aren't that bad
It was probably the most fun match of the tournament I've seen yet.
Did you watch it? Or were you too dismissive?
DEVO
Are We Not Men? We Are...
North Melbourne - 2024 Hugh Greenwood Player Sponsor
Veteran
North Melbourne - 2023 Ailish Considine and Bella Eddy Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - Bella Eddey and Vicki Wall Player Sponsor - Season 7
North Melbourne - 2023 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
10k Posts
Wordler
North Melbourne - 2022 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
- Sep 8, 2000
- 19,231
- 19,178
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Eels, Cumbrians, Staggies & Braves
I did, Bangladesh are building a really solid one day side with some genuine world class players and that this was one game they needed to win if they had any chance of competing for a place in the top 4. They showed positives signs in their win against South Africa, their loss against England was to be expected but with winnable games against Afghanistan and Pakistan to come they could sneak in with a bit of luck. Probably need to upset Australia or India to do it, but if Al Hasan puts in another performance like last night, and gets support from the likes of Das, Mahmudullah and others then anything its possible. If I was Australia I wouldn't be taking these guys lightly, on their day they could cause a huge upset.
Last edited:
Similar threads
