Question re World Cup format

[stmookeyj]

I would do the following....have a 8 team tournament for the next WC. The top 6 in the rankings at the end of September 2014 automatically qualify. The next 8 teams in the rankings (considering Associate nations are ranked in ODI's) play in a qualification league in Dubai in October 2014 with the Finalists progressing to the WC.

Then it's an 8 team league where everyone plays each other once before Semis and a Final, all over in 31 games. Too simple for the ICC BUT it does make some ODI's more meaningful than others.

 

[OzBomber]

Should really be playing 3 games a day. You would cut out 2 weeks from the tournament easily.

 

[Cotchin 9]

Should really be playing 3 games a day. You would cut out 2 weeks from the tournament easily.

Exactly right, although I'm not sure how it would work out with TV?

 

[OzBomber]

Exactly right, although I'm not sure how it would work out with TV?

India have about 200 cricket channels, I'm sure they could work it out. Overseas they would show the best games or use viewers choice. Obviously you're not gonna put 3 blockbuster matches on one day.

 

[AJ_2000]

I would do the following....have a 8 team tournament for the next WC. The top 6 in the rankings at the end of September 2014 automatically qualify. The next 8 teams in the rankings (considering Associate nations are ranked in ODI's) play in a qualification league in Dubai in October 2014 with the Finalists progressing to the WC.

Then it's an 8 team league where everyone plays each other once before Semis and a Final, all over in 31 games. Too simple for the ICC BUT it does make some ODI's more meaningful than others.

I like it, basically the same format as 1992. I would be happy with 10 teams and 2 games per day.

Should really be playing 3 games a day. You would cut out 2 weeks from the tournament easily.

When you consider there is only about 6 blockbuster games in the group phase scheduling shouldn't be an issue at all.

 

[belfast_bomber]

Ok how about this for a idea with the Associate nations.

The Associate nations can pick a maximum of 3 players from any of the test playing nations, who are on the fringe on their nations respective squads, or from the first class set ups.

For example Australia, India, South Africa, England, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh will proved 3 players that the Associate nations think will suit their squad/teams.

These players can play for the Associate nations in the world cup, Champions Trophy etc, 20/20 World Cup.

I don't know if this can work but I think we need to keep the Associate nations playing cricket if we want to truly make cricket a global brand.

Feel free to criticize or add your ideas.

South Africa and Ireland have already done this for England

 

[XFactor1979]

I think Net Run Rate or 'Position on the ladder' should be a better way to decide Quarter/ Semi and Final ties. Its up to the team lower on the ladder to take the game up to the team that finished ahead of them on the ladder

 

[1980GFVideo]

With 8 teams going into the quarter finals does anyone see anything that might upset the predictablity of teams going through.

Are Zimbabwe capable of getting in ahead of New Zealand

Are Bangladesh capable of getting in ahead of West Indies.

 

[stmookeyj]

Bangladesh can get in ahead of the Windies if they get their batting sorted out, can't see Zimbabwe beating NZ in a 50 over game yet though.

 

[belfast_bomber]

Would love it, LOVE it if the paddies can beat the poms!

 

[Public Enemy No1]

Would love it, LOVE it if the paddies can beat the poms!

If u believe u shall recieve

 

[damochandler]

i think it's a joke, that australia are playing only their 3rd game on saturday and it's been 8 days between games ffs. england had a game only 3 days after their last and another 4 till their next. when is australias next game after saturday. monday 2 weeks time

 

[belfast_bomber]

That's more about the scheduling than the format as such, but it is pretty bizarre.

These early stages for me are all about Ireland. With all respect Australia missing out on qualifying is pretty well impossible, the way the groups panned out.

How was it decided which teams went in which groups, because Bangers would wallop Zimbos, and Netherlands and Ireland would make mincemeat out of the utterly dreadful Canada and Kenya. The groups are very uneven.

 

[big_e]

I would do the following....have a 8 team tournament for the next WC. The top 6 in the rankings at the end of September 2014 automatically qualify. The next 8 teams in the rankings (considering Associate nations are ranked in ODI's) play in a qualification league in Dubai in October 2014 with the Finalists progressing to the WC.

Then it's an 8 team league where everyone plays each other once before Semis and a Final, all over in 31 games. Too simple for the ICC BUT it does make some ODI's more meaningful than others.

The only problem is that everyone would probably want all of the teams locked in way ahead of that. Push the qualifying back to twelve months out - so Feb/March 2014 - and you're on a winner.

 

[whats_at_stake]

Interesting:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc_cricket_worldcup2011/content/current/story/504195.html

So teams ranked 1-7 could gain automatic entry. The other 3 all up for grabs.

Personally I still am in favour of top 10 + 2 top associates with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe also playing in the tournament to determine the final 2 positions.

 

[apollo_creed]

Interesting:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc_cricket_worldcup2011/content/current/story/504195.html

So teams ranked 1-7 could gain automatic entry. The other 3 all up for grabs.

Personally I still am in favour of top 10 + 2 top associates with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe also playing in the tournament to determine the final 2 positions.

Why would New Zealand get automatic entry then?

 

[themightybloods]

that article does bring relatively good news for associate countries, as it seems like there definitely will be a qualifying tournament of some kind.

However in regards to the ODI League, this quote worries me

The purpose of this "cut-off" is to make both the new league, which will begin after the World Cup, and the ICC's ODI rankings meaningful.

I presume this means that only the countries who directly qualify for the World Cup, are going to be part of the ODI League. But if that happens then does that mean, say West Indies (who are currently 9th in the rankings) will miss out on the ODI league and then not play any ODI cricket for 3/4 years. Surely, that cannot be the case

This quote from Haroon Lorgat also worries me

"We can't ignore the fact that there are only 365 days of the year. There are some series that are bigger than others, we cannot forgo the fact that members determine bilaterally how much competition they have with each other." In the ODI league, he said, "India can choose to go and play Bangladesh in Bangladesh, if they happen to lose, that's the result, but that choice is up to the members."

So does this mean that the individual countries themselves are making the fixture list. How the hell is that fair. With uneven matches against opposition, how is a winner going to be determined. This new league sounds exactly the same as the current championship rankings

 

[XFactor1979]

Was listening to the TMS coverage last night, and Agnew was right in terms of the scheduling of the tournament:

1. games between the associate nations should be played as a day game as opposed to the main event for the day, ie 2 other insignificant matches between the associate nations should be played during the day whereas the main event, or the day/ night match should be between india and england etc. Its just a blight on the standard of the spectacle, because of greed for advertising money by the ICC/ BCCI

2. Colombo has a tendency to rain come 6pm in the evening, and they hold two more important matches in the tournament with a Quarter final and a Semi Final there, BOTH Day/night games, both have a high risk factor of it being a washout

All valid points!

Meanwhile this guy is blind, deaf, greedy and incontinent:->