2027 & 2031 ODI WC expanded to 14 teams; T20 WC expanded to 20 teams

[corbies]

ICC expands men's world events: ODI WC to 14 teams, T20 WC to 20 teams

The changes come into effect in the 2024-31 cycle, with the Champions Trophy also poised to return

www.espncricinfo.com

Basically the ICC have gone back to the format used for the 2003 ODI world cup where we have 2 groups of 7 followed by a super 6 for the ODI WC.

The T20 WC from 2024 will have 20 teams split into 4 groups of 5 and then a Super 8s stage.

 

[Seedsfan]

Good it was a joke we cut teams from it to begin with

 

[magpiemaniac44]

Not sure what to think. I think it's good having more nations in the ODI World Cup, but it means there will be more dead rubbers. I liked the 2019 format because it was a fair draw and everyone played each other once, although bringing back the Super 6 stage is a good idea, to find out who really are the best 4 teams.

No opinion for the T20 World Cup, they'll be some beltings but that is how the ICC is gonna grow the game.

 

[Seedsfan]

Not sure what to think. I think it's good having more nations in the ODI World Cup, but it means there will be more dead rubbers. I liked the 2019 format because it was a fair draw and everyone played each other once, although bringing back the Super 6 stage is a good idea, to find out who really are the best 4 teams.

No opinion for the T20 World Cup, they'll be some beltings but that is how the ICC is gonna grow the game.

We need more teams it’s how we grow the game Sri Lanka case in point

 

[jle101]

Wonderful news. 10 teams was far too few for the ODI World Cup. Was heartbreaking keeping track of the WCQ tournament for the 2019 World Cup. So many quality sides unable to make it though they more than deserved it (Scotland, Zimbabwe etc.).

14 is the perfect number as it allows the proverbial minnows opportunities, but still means a spot in the tournament proper must be thoroughly earned.

 

[corbies]

Not sure what to think. I think it's good having more nations in the ODI World Cup, but it means there will be more dead rubbers. I liked the 2019 format because it was a fair draw and everyone played each other once, although bringing back the Super 6 stage is a good idea, to find out who really are the best 4 teams.

No opinion for the T20 World Cup, they'll be some beltings but that is how the ICC is gonna grow the game.

Will it mean more dead rubbers? Pak v Ban, WI v Afg, SL v WI, SL v SA, Ban v Afg were all dead rubbers at the back end of the 19 world cup and then there was another half a dozen where it was a dead rubber for 1 team.

Whereas at the 2003 world cup only Neth v Nam and maybe Ken v WI were dead rubbers and the latter only because Kenya had already qualified for the super 6s and WI were already out.

There's issues around the super 6s and how the points flow through from the group stage but I don't think this format means there will be more dead rubbers especially in comparison to the 19 world cup.

 

[magpiemaniac44]

Will it mean more dead rubbers? Pak v Ban, WI v Afg, SL v WI, SL v SA, Ban v Afg were all dead rubbers at the back end of the 19 world cup and then there was another half a dozen where it was a dead rubber for 1 team.

Whereas at the 2003 world cup only Neth v Nam and maybe Ken v WI were dead rubbers and the latter only because Kenya had already qualified for the super 6s and WI were already out.

There's issues around the super 6s and how the points flow through from the group stage but I don't think this format means there will be more dead rubbers especially in comparison to the 19 world cup.

An India vs UAE game might be good for expanding the game, but unless there was a stunning turn of events pretty much everyone will know the result

Personally I'd rather see the better sides playing other top sides to get a good representation of where teams are at, but that might just be me being stubborn as Australia have always have been near the top. I think that's why the Super 6s will be entertaining, the 6 best teams in the world battling it out.

 

[Cleavy]

Champions Trophy again?! T20 WC every 2 years is too much, but that's where the money lies.

 

[Santana]

Cool. I take it South Africa will be favourites to host the 2027 World Cup. I wonder who will end up hosting 2031. I feel there's a sneaky chance it will be Australia/New Zealand.

 

[jle101]

Cool. I take it South Africa will be favourites to host the 2027 World Cup. I wonder who will end up hosting 2031. I feel there's a sneaky chance it will be Australia/New Zealand.

Windies would be due to host another by then as well.

 

[cricketnut14]

will ODI cricket still be about by then ?


are there just too many tournaments ? why a 20/20 wc every 2 years - it becomes meaningless.

the test c'ship still has its flaws - every 2 years doesn't seem a long enough tournament for the teams to play a significant amount of matches and everyone evenly.

champions trophy on again/off again ?

i'm not sure why they forecast all these tournaments 10 years in advance - only to see this all changed at some point again.

either way, let's hope there is plenty of cricket.

 

[jle101]

Yeah, holding the T20 World Cup every two years is overkill. Diminishes the overall value of the tournament.

Personally feel that 50 over cricket is the premier version of white ball cricket. Much more skill required to topple a side in 50 overs than 20.

 

[Santana]

Windies would be due to host another by then as well.

In an ideal world yes, but the last edition there wasn't a huge success and the time difference with India isn't great.

I'm pretty sure ICC just got rid of the bidding system for hosting World Cups and now it's just up to their board so brace yourself.

 

[jle101]

In an ideal world yes, but the last edition there wasn't a huge success and the time difference with India isn't great.

I'm pretty sure ICC just got rid of the bidding system for hosting World Cups and now it's just up to their board so brace yourself.

Geez, had no idea about that. Considering that is the case the Saffers will be lucky to host another tournament anytime soon also.

 

[Santana]

Geez, had no idea about that. Considering that is the case the Saffers will be lucky to host another tournament anytime soon also.

I think South Africa will have a better chance getting hosting rights. Better infrastructure, kinder time difference, etc

Their governance issue right now is a problem though.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Not sure what to think. I think it's good having more nations in the ODI World Cup, but it means there will be more dead rubbers. I liked the 2019 format because it was a fair draw and everyone played each other once, although bringing back the Super 6 stage is a good idea, to find out who really are the best 4 teams.

No opinion for the T20 World Cup, they'll be some beltings but that is how the ICC is gonna grow the game.

The last WC was only saved by a great NZ-Ind semi and then a great final. Until one upset toward the end of the group phase, that was looking pretty lifeless.

I'm not a fan of groups of seven, but its no worse than 2019 and more importantly more teams have to be there. Every WC until 2019 had at least one Associate (at the time, even in 1992 Zimbabwe didn't become a Test nation until later that year). 2019 didn't even have all the Test nations, much less a chance for someone else to have a shot. The real shame is they aren't doing it for 2023 and modifying the qualifying to suit.

 

[magpiemaniac44]

The last WC was only saved by a great NZ-Ind semi and then a great final. Until one upset toward the end of the group phase, that was looking pretty lifeless.

I'm not a fan of groups of seven, but its no worse than 2019 and more importantly more teams have to be there. Every WC until 2019 had at least one Associate (at the time, even in 1992 Zimbabwe didn't become a Test nation until later that year). 2019 didn't even have all the Test nations, much less a chance for someone else to have a shot. The real shame is they aren't doing it for 2023 and modifying the qualifying to suit.

There are some aspects of the new format I like. Under the new format it is top 3 from each group rather than 4. In 2015, it was pretty clear who would go through, whereas in top 3 the best sides have to be on their game otherwise they'll miss out.

 

[corbies]

There are some aspects of the new format I like. Under the new format it is top 3 from each group rather than 4. In 2015, it was pretty clear who would go through, whereas in top 3 the best sides have to be on their game otherwise they'll miss out.

In fairness to 2015 too Bangladesh beat England in a reasonably big upset to qualify over them and West Indies only qualified over Ireland on NRR.

 

[magpiemaniac44]

In fairness to 2015 too Bangladesh beat England in a reasonably big upset to qualify over them and West Indies only qualified over Ireland on NRR.

Bangladesh over England was an upset, but it was expected WI would qualify

 

[corbies]

Bangladesh over England was an upset, but it was expected WI would qualify

The point re. WI was more it wasn't clear they'd qualify given they had to go through via NRR. Ireland beat them and then WI had to beat Pakistan to qualify.

I'd say every World Cup since 1999 where they've had an expanded World Cup bar 2011 has had a surprise qualifier from the group stage:

2015: Bangladesh over England
2007: Ireland and Bangladesh over India and Pakistan
2003: Kenya and Zimbabwe over England/Pakistan/SA/WI
1999: Zimbabwe over England and Sri Lanka

 

[big_e]

An India vs UAE game might be good for expanding the game, but unless there was a stunning turn of events pretty much everyone will know the result

Personally I'd rather see the better sides playing other top sides to get a good representation of where teams are at, but that might just be me being stubborn as Australia have always have been near the top. I think that's why the Super 6s will be entertaining, the 6 best teams in the world battling it out.

No different to the soccer World Cup, or pretty much every sport in the Olympics. A few lopsided results early doesn't diminish the pointy end of the comp, but can have a big benefit to those just outside the elite group.

 

[ioppolo]

People forget the thrillers that Ireland vs UAE and Scotland vs Afghanistan were in 2015. Yes it was associate vs associate but as a fan of cricket itself, the ending of those matches was edge of the seat stuff.

 

[Bwillow11]

Surely a Super 6 is too gimmicky for the premier international cricket tournament?

 

[jle101]

Surely a Super 6 is too gimmicky for the premier international cricket tournament?

Personally I'd prefer a knockout round to end the tournament, but super 6 = more matches, so I have no real problem with it. Also adds a bit more spice to the group stage.

 

[magpiemaniac44]

super 6 is better than having quarter finals. The groups aren't even so you might end up having 2 of the best teams in a knockout quarter final, whereas with super 6, you'll end up with the best 4 sides in the semis.