The World Cup format

[The Passenger]

I'm happy with the current format. Only thing I would change is the quarter final stage.

1st in each group goes straight to the semi finals.

2nd in Group A vs 3rd in Group B and vice versa.

In this format, I also think this is better.

It adds importance to who finishes 1st, and then obviously the race to 2nd and 3rd.

At the moment there's no real advantage to topping a group.

If they wanted to ensure 4th placed makes the knock outs, they could have a knock out format like:

a) A4 v B3
b) A3 v B4

c) Winner a v A2
d) Winner b v B2

e) Winner c v B1
f) Winner d v A1

g) Final: Winner e v Winner f

That is quite a significant advantage for topping the group.

I still think that is too many games though with 42 in the group stages, and 7 in the knock outs. But at least in a KO structure like that it adds importance to a lot of group games because it's much easier to win 2 knock outs than it is to win 3, and in turn easier than it is to win 4. Not only does this mean now NZ v Australia game is going to be good to watch, it could also have a significant impact on the KO stages of the tournament. It would likely be the difference between 1st and 2nd, and if the table gets congested enough could even be the difference between 1st and 3rd.

 

[SterlingArcher]

Current format is too long. You could add 2 extra teams and have it over sooner.

The group stage just defies all logic. You play 6 teams, half of whom are full members and the other half are the best of the rest, it goes for a month, and at the end of it you knock less than half out. Yep, you can be in the bottom half of the tournament and still go through...jst not logical.

It's different when you have seasons or a league, but if you're going to have a tournament you need to knock out half the teams at each stage.

For that reason I'd accept a 16 team comp (16-8-4-2-1) and have it done in a month,

 

[Kram]

12 teams sucks. May as well just have two groups of 4 with two semis and a final.

What would be wrong with 2 groups of 6 and then semis?

 

[kickazz]

I would have probably keep it the same except the top team from each group is rewarded by going straight through to the semi and the 2nd and 3rd placed teams play off the make the semi against the top teams.

With only 3 teams advancing makes the group stage way more interesting being more cut throat and a significant reward to go out and try and finish top.

A really good suggestion. The current format has 42 games that are almost pointless really, its all about getting your act together for the quarters.

I like the reward for the top spot, and the fact that fourth misses out makes many more meaningful games for the middle-of the road sides like Sri Lanka, England, Pakistan, India, maybe even WI.


The problem with the current system is you can win every game in the pool stage, and the only benefit is a perceived easier game in the quarters. But with not a huge incentive to finish high, who is to say that the 4th placed team is actually the fourth best? They may well be a lot better and just needing to manage injuries / time their run.

 

[kickazz]

What are people's thoughts about the Final being one game as opposed to perhaps a best of three?

It goes against tradition somewhat (then again, it is standard in most American sports) but it would be fairer. What if a Final is played in conditions where the toss is a significant advantage for example?

Happy enough with the single game, it is more about the moment I guess - and lends itself more to upsets, making it exciting. But has anyone (ICC or others) considered a best of three?

$urely they have, from one perspective at least, it is not $uch a $tupid idea.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

What I'd change, and I can see why TV would hate it, is play 2 group games every day.

 

[Scotland]

What would be wrong with 2 groups of 6 and then semis?

I prefer head to heads and knockouts than loads of dull matches. I'm not a huge fan of scenarios where England beat India but India beat Sri Lanka and they all end up on the same number of points but England flogged Bangladesh on a road scoring 400 and Sri Lanka played them on a greentop and didn't win by as much etc. This is what groups of 6/7/8 being whittled down to a couple ends up like, IMO. Plus I really don't need to see Scotland, Afghanistan etc. play 6 or 7 times.

I prefer groups of 4 where each team plays each other team once and after 3 games it becomes a knockout. 16 teams is ideal because it allows for quarters, semis and a final. 32 gives you a round of 16 but we don't have 32 teams that would make it worthwhile, 8 just gives you semis.

 

[1892]

Like a lot have suggested I'd go 4 groups of 4, however I'd like to see only the top team from each group being guaranteed a place in the quarter finals, with the 2nd and 3rd teams playing off for that position, basically adding a qualifying final.

Group stage 4x 4 teams
Qualifying final - 2nd v 3rd of their group
Quarter final - 1st group v winner of 2/3 of another group
Semi Finals - winners of 1/4 final
Final

A soccer style draw to form the initial groups could also be an option, placing teams in 4 pools based on rankings, ie 1-4 ranked in one pool, 5-8 in another etc, with 1 team from each pool used to form the group.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Like a lot have suggested I'd go 4 groups of 4, however I'd like to see only the top team from each group being guaranteed a place in the quarter finals, with the 2nd and 3rd teams playing off for that position, basically adding a qualifying final.

16 teams...jeez how long do you want the WC going? Too many minnows! I like your format though in theory.

 

[1892]

16 teams...jeez how long do you want the WC going? Too many minnows! I like your format though in theory.

I don't reckon the problem is too many teams, rather the tournament running too many days. An easy way to shorten the WC is playing multiple matches on the same day, you could have a day game and a day night game on the same day. While there'll be arvo clashes in other WCs, timezones would minimise any clash with the current WC, Perth and NZ are 5 hours apart.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I don't reckon the problem is too many teams, rather the tournament running too many days. An easy way to shorten the WC is playing multiple matches on the same day, you could have a day game and a day night game on the same day. While there'll be arvo clashes in other WCs, timezones would minimise any clash with the current WC, Perth and NZ are 5 hours apart.

This should have happened this World Cup! This 1 match a day is rubbish...oh the thrill of watching the might of Zimbabwe, UAE, or Afghanistan! Hold me back I tell you, I can't wait...NOT! I'd still rather 12 teams, and over in 2 and a half weeks give and take, maybe 3 weeks at the most.

 

[GROTTO]

2 minnows is plenty, when do the QT finals start.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

2 minnows is plenty, when do the QT finals start.

Hopefully soon! It seems these group stages are going to go for a month!

 

[1892]

This should have happened this World Cup! This 1 match a day is rubbish...oh the thrill of watching the might of Zimbabwe, UAE, or Afghanistan! Hold me back I tell you, I can't wait...NOT! I'd still rather 12 teams, and over in 2 and a half weeks give and take, maybe 3 weeks at the most.

While I see the logic in having less teams, and by extension making the WC more prestigious reducing the tournament to 12 sides would hardly help. I care as much for Zimbabwe vs Bangladesh as I do 2 associate nations playing each other. I'm not a big soccer fan, but their WC is an example of something cricket should strive for, where good sides miss out. Unfortunately with cricket to have something on par you'd be looking at just 6-8 teams, which is counter productive, as so few teams wouldn't really be a showcase event.

I reckon as an elite best of the best WC isn't really feasible cricket needs to instead take a longer term view with the WC, one of development. Development structures and competitions are are a key to longer term success of these nations, and giving sides ODI status helps somewhat, however I think that there needs to be some sort of reward to encourage the continued development and investment in cricket in these countries. In my opinion giving a greater number of sides an opportunity to play in cricket's showcase tournament and associated publicity every 4 years can only benefit cricket in the longer term.

 

[The Speaker]

This should have happened this World Cup! This 1 match a day is rubbish...oh the thrill of watching the might of Zimbabwe, UAE, or Afghanistan! Hold me back I tell you, I can't wait...NOT! I'd still rather 12 teams, and over in 2 and a half weeks give and take, maybe 3 weeks at the most.

You do realise that having 12 teams would make them even more likely to play one match a day, right? So it wouldn't be over any quicker.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

You do realise that having 12 teams would make them even more likely to play one match a day, right? So it wouldn't be over any quicker.

At least those 12 teams would be better quality than a few of these sides!

 

[The Speaker]

At least those 12 teams would be better quality than a few of these sides!

A 12 team competition would more than likely have two of the three teams you were complaining about.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

A 12 team competition would more than likely have two of the three teams you were complaining about.

At least it wouldn't have 4 of them. Thats half as many average games that very little people care about.

 

[The Speaker]

At least it wouldn't have 4 of them. Thats half as many average games that very little people care about.

You cannot claim to speak for everyone, no matter how much you would like to.

Funnily enough, a World Cup isn't meant to have people in one country care about every match. Will an Argentine care about Russia vs South Korea?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

You cannot claim to speak for everyone, no matter how much you would like to.

Funnily enough, a World Cup isn't meant to have people in one country care about every match. Will an Argentine care about Russia vs South Korea?

The crowds speak for themselves. England have thankfully listened! Can't wait for 2019!

 

[The Speaker]

The crowds speak for themselves. England have thankfully listened! Can't wait for 2019!

You mean like how Manuka Oval was full yesterday?

 

[Kram]

I like the idea of 12 teams, leaves the door open for smaller nations without diluting the quality of the tournament, maybe 14 again at an absolute stretch.

Cutting down to 10 is completely stupid though, ICC clearly putting money ahead of the good and growth of the game.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I like the idea of 12 teams, leaves the door open for smaller nations without diluting the quality of the tournament, maybe 14 again at an absolute stretch.

Cutting down to 10 is completely stupid though, ICC clearly putting money ahead of the good and growth of the game.

Or they want a very competitive tournament with the best of the best. Start with 10, then hopefully you have 12 by 2023, and then expand to 14 maybe 2 World cups down the track after that.

Use T20's for the 16 team tournaments with minnows. These are less likely to be beltings.

 

[The Speaker]

Or they want a very competitive tournament with the best of the best. Start with 10, then hopefully you have 12 by 2023, and then expand to 14 maybe 2 World cups down the track after that.

Do you know how many sports in the world make their World Cup an elitist competition like that?

One. One sport.

 

[GROTTO]

Do you know how many sports in the world make their World Cup an elitist competition like that?

One. One sport.

Why not have a world cup for AFL ?

Its played all around the world ????

There are leagues in Europe and NZ.