The World Cup format

[The Speaker]

In a number of threads the discussion keeps coming back to the format of the World Cup. It's too big, no it's too small, it's too long, they need more chances for the better teams, they need less chances for the better teams, etc.

So, how do you think it should look?

Two groups of four like the first WC?

12 teams and a super six stage like '99?

16 teams and a super eight stage like '07?

14 teams and quarter finals like this one?

Something else?

 

[Kram]

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.

 

[ioppolo]

Champion's Trophy is the best format. Speaker please realise the associates are pathetic and useless.

 

[footyfan1978]

This got brought up in conversation that evolved in Ireland win over Windies so copying over to here now where I posted my comments late last night on my idea which Kram81 seems to have noticed it too going by comments above.

I would rather have more nations. 4 groups by 4 teams with quarters, semis, final.

Unfortunately this leads it to being more likely that the big three will get knocked out in the group stages, hence chance of losing dollars.

I'm not a big fan of this format. There is a lot of games, spread over a long time frame to get through. Cricket is highly compromised by the big three, or even compromised by the big one to be honest. I'm not familiar with any other sports who share this same issue.

One of the great things of World Cup's is when "minnow" nations make a big of a run for it. Senegal in 2002 Soccer World Cup, Canada making QF's if 1991 Rugby World Cup and of course Kenya in the 2003 Cricket World Cup. I'm sure other sports which I don't follow have had similar runs.

Rugby is someone limited because teams can really only play one game a week, so the timespan of the tournament needs to be spread out a bit.

But cricket shouldn't be like that. The tournament can done and dusted quickly, much like the FIFA world cup.

First couple of World Cups were simply done over two weeks I think. It certainly adds to intensity of whole tournament to have it done in smaller time frame. It was way more cut throat which was exciting in a way. Now we have to wait for so many preliminary games to get to cut throat point of quarter finals. This really is no perfect format though. If you try to make it Super Six you run into problems there. If you make it too few teams you remove the chances of teams like Ireland, Canada and Kenya getting a real taste of elite time one day cricket and opportunity to get noticed. Even Zimbabwe beating Australia in 1983 was every bit as big an upset as Ireland beating West Indies today. They were considered a minnow nation then and certainly recall myself that Sri Lanka were not part of the main nations until well into the 1990's and then flourished at one day cricket. Bangladesh now is where Sri Lanka were in late 1980's in terms of profile in world cricket. Have to keep things in perspective though. It is not realistic in grand scheme of things to expect cricket to flourish in places like Canada and maybe even Scotland. For the most part our sport is a big sport in Australia, South Africa, India, New Zealand and 3 or 4 other nations. It is never going to be a sport where you have 16 nations all being world class.
12 nations in World Cup is probably where it should be with a couple of minnow nations getting a look in every 4 years at World Cup time.
UAE and Scotland is probably two nations too many at this World Cup.
If had two groups of six and top three make play off stage it would have been more to my liking and make it also more meaningful to finish top of your group and harder to finish top three of group of six than it is now of only needing to finish top four in group of seven.

In what I proposed top teams of group stages skips first play offs as reward and the sides that finished second and third in each group play off against each other and winner of that plays top side of other group at semi-final stage. Then final is simply winner of semi-finals.

If you think it through the preliminary matches would see each nation play 5 matches and if you want to finish top of your group and get good reward the idea of rotating players is less appealing. You would know every match means more. Also I think those 5 matches should be played over only 3 weeks so you are playing a game about every 3 or 4 days rather than one a week which seems the case this time. I think then play offs, semi-finals and final could be played over about a week which means the total time of whole World Cup could be condensed into 4 weeks which I think is easier on everyone as far as schedules go and would add a bit more intensity than what we will see this time. After the excitement of opening games this first weekend I think the next 4 weeks will be drawn out and not a lot of intensity as you know if you are a team like Australia or South Africa there is no real need to do anything but ensure you qualify for a top 4 spot in your group and being first means no more than finished 4th in group. You can afford to drop a game and still not worry. If it was 12 nations of two groups you would want to finish top of group and try to avoid dropping any games so more games mean something all the way through tournament. That can not be said for next couple of weeks we about to watch unfold. I expect teams like Australia, South Africa and New Zealand to not even feel pressure to pick best eleven until quarter finals which means rotating will play a part that really should not in such a big tournament.

Summary:

Preliminary Stages (3 week period)
2 groups of 6 teams where teams within each group play round robin for 5 matches.

Top three each group advance further.
Top team of each group straight though to semi finals whilst 2nd and 3rd of each group need to win a play off to reach semi-final stage.

qualifying finals (a week before final)
2nd and 3rd of each group play off to advance to semi-finals
2A v 3A
2B v 3B

semi-finals (3 days before final)
Top of table group A v winner of 2nd v 3rd play off from group B
Top of table group B v winner of 2nd v 3rd play off from group A

final winner of both semi-finals play off for World Cup title

 

[PTizzle]

2007 was my favourite format, but I understand it can be too bloated and would turn some off. But 10 teams is definitely too few for mine considering the CT exists.

 

[The Speaker]

20 teams?? As epic as it was that fat guy gloving *that* slips catch I don't think it does anyone any good having teams as crap as Bermuda in it. And you want 4 more than qualified for that tournament..

ICC cutting down to 10 is terrible move though, need some balance. Around 12 or 14 teams is probably about right for mine, gives them a chance to get a look in if they are good enough to get through qualifying without having too many it stinks up the tournament with absolute floggings.

If we had twenty teams at this cup, the extra teams would be HK, PNG (both of whom should be here anyway), Namibia, the Netherlands, Nepal and Kenya.

Four groups of five may look like this:

A - South Africa, West Indies, Afghanistan, Scotland, Kenya
B - Sri Lanka, England, Ireland, Hong Kong, Nepal
C - Australia, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Papua New Guinea, Namibia
D - India, New Zealand, Bangladesh, United Arab Emirates, Netherlands

I reckon you can guarantee that every team could win a match, and that there is the potential for a number of upsets, even from the lowest ranked four. Even one upset turns the tournament on its head, but the top eight teams can't complain about not getting enough matches.

Champion's Trophy is the best format. Speaker please realise the associates are pathetic and useless.

 

[The Passenger]

--LONG POST. Got a bit carried away--

One of my issues with the changing of the formats, is that it was so reactionary. The 2007 format was largely terrible because the Super 8 stage dragged on a lot. It should have just gone straight to QF's after the group stages. Or at a stretch have 2 groups of 4, then SF, F. The latter would mean playing 39 games. As it was with the 2007 format saw over 50 games, which was just too many. Even this current format is too many.

They tried to maximise revenue by getting the big teams to play as many games as possible, but then the biggest (India) got knocked out and it backfired when they played out the major portion of the tournament without them.

But as I said the changing of the format was so reactionary. If India had made the Super 8's in 2007, then the format probably would have been the same in 2011. And if they progressed out of the group stages in 2011, then we probably would have the same format now in 2015. And if India were knocked out in the group stages in 2015 it would have suddenly been "ooooo no this format is terrible and is the work of satan himself, we must change it" even though it was perfectly acceptable prior.

This is identical to India's viewpoint to the DRS where it was all hunky dory until it went against them one series.

--------------------------------------

Anyway with that out of the way, I think 14 is the ideal number in terms of teams but doesn't really lend itself to any easy format because 14 only fits into 2 groups of 7. I came up with a two-staged format below which I think is better, but it goes against my ideal that every team should enter a world cup equally. But I had to balance that against the need for a format which doesn't get strung out over 6 weeks and lends itself to a high amount of games which don't actually matter to a teams chances of progressing to the next stage.

At least in the formats below the majority of games are of importance to a teams survival. 1 loss won't knock you out, but will put you in a tough position. 2 losses in a group of 4 is the end of you unless other results go your way. 2 losses in a group of 5 or 6 will mean you can't qualify first so will have to play an extra knock out match. 3 losses in a group of 5 or 6 is the end of you unless results go your way.

Also in the below formats where there are groups of 5 or 6 not only is there importance about which teams make the top 3 in a group, there is also some importance in which teams finishes first because they get a bonus over finishing 2nd or 3rd.

In the current format, winning all your games, or sneaking through to the QF's with 2 wins 3 losses is exactly the same. So the only games of importance surrounds those teams which are going to be fighting for 4th. Australia and NZ will be a great match, so will South Africa and India and there is a slight bonus for winning and (hopefully) topping the group. But by and large they aren't matches of importance in determining who gets through to the next stage.

As I said in the other thread, the current format basically means you've got a "mini tri series" in group A between Sri Lanka, England and Bangladesh, with Afghanistan taking Bangladesh's spot if they beat them tomorrow. But in all likelihood an Afghan win just secures Sri Lanka and England's spot in the top four. In Group B you've got a "mini quad series" between Pakistan, West Indies, Ireland and Zimbabwe. So out of 42 group games, around 10 games will decide the make of the next stage which just isn't enough for me. Aus, NZ, SAF and India may not all finish 1-2 (although they probably will) but it would take a major drop off in form to see any of them getting close to knocked out in the group stages.

-----------------------

I would prefer 16 teams.

4 groups, 4 teams - QF's, SF's, Final. 31 games.

Done with about 4 weeks from first to last game.

Simple, easy.

If they want to maximise games ($$$) then rather than QF's, have 2 groups of 4 teams, then SF and F.

This would be 39 games, and would stretch the tournament out by probably a week.

----------------------

14 teams is probably the ideal amount, but the format becomes tricky because it doesn't fit into any groupings aside from 2x7 which ends up with this current strung out format.

With 14 teams I'd change it up into two Rounds, plus knock-outs.

So top 6 (according to ICC rankings three months out) qualify straight to Round 2 and the bottom 8 start in Round 1.

Round 1 is 2 groups of 4 teams, and the top 2 in each group qualify for Round 2.

Round 2 is 2 groups of 5 teams, and the top 3 in each group qualify for knock outs.

knock outs is

QF: a) 2nd Group A v 3rd Group B, b) 2nd Group B v 3rd Group A.
SF: c) 1st Group A v Winner QF b, d) 1st Group B v Winner QF a
F: Winner SF c v Winner SF d

37 games, played a bit over 4 weeks.

This actually works out similar-ish to the 2019 world cup, except the "qualifiers" are played directly preceding the world cup, and then you have 10 teams just like 2019 world cup. I also prefer having that 2v3 to play off v 1 rather than straight to SF and F.

The downside here is that you could end up minimal exposure for associates playing against the top test nations, which would be disappointing for them. There would also not be a whole lot of interest in the Round 1, but given at least 2 of the top 8 will be part of it, that will generate some interest. Round 1 could be done and dusted within a week. Start on Tuesday, finish Wednesday the week after, with Round 2 starting on the Friday.

The commercial downside is that the big teams could play as little as 4 games, and unless they drop out of the top six in the rankings won't play more than 7 games.

-------------------

12 teams is the minimum there should be in a world cup IMO. in this case 2 groups 6 teams, then same knock out format as the 14-team above. 2v3 to play off v 1 in a SF. Two SF winners meet in F.

35 games, once again played a bit over 4 weeks.

 

[The Passenger]

Today's almost upset from Scotland over NZ is a great example of what I'm talking about above. Lets just say for a moment NZ collapsed and lost, what are they repercussions:

Current format, Group of 7 with a flat QF structure: Repercussions are minimal. NZ are still very likely to get the two more wins required to take them to the QF's, whilst Scotland are still unlikely to get the two additional wins they need. Also even though it's great to knock off a top team, they didn't hurt the teams that they are battling for 4th spot with. NZ now unlikely to top group, but given there is no bonus for finishing first it's not a huge problem.

Other formats:

Group of 4. Massive. Means every match in this group is now of super importance.

Group of 5. Big. Scotland now only need one more win to secure a spot in the next stage. NZ are now fighting for their tournament, 2-2 potentially not enough to go through to the next stage and almost certainly lost the chance of getting the bonus of finishing 1st in the group.

Group of 6. Same as group of five, except Scotland need to two additional wins to secure a spot in the next stage.

Also in the group of 5 and 6 it would bring the expected top and bottom of the group closer together, which in turns means it highten's the importance of other games.

Groups of 5 and 6 are a good compromise where one upset loss can put a team on lifeline but isn't going to knock them out. In a group of 4, one upset loss can knock a team out. India v Bangladesh in 2007 an example. Also you can lead to 3 teams finishing on 2 wins, which means it comes down to NRR.

 

[Aussie_boy]

I like 2007's format, I think there has to be at least 14 teams at the World Cup. I think this tournament could have been done better, even if that meant that 2 extra teams needed to be included.

 

[GROTTO]

Champion's Trophy is the best format. Speaker please realise the associates are pathetic and useless.

+1

Good look convincing.

 

[The_Reaper]

3 groups of 5 with a super six then semi finals and final

Each associate still gets 4 games. Group games mean more because two of the top 8 will miss out + the group match against the other qualifier counts in super six.

Super Six gets the league format and matches between the top teams that everyone wants.

 

[footyfan1978]

Some of you guys seem clueless of issue with super six that makes it not a viable option

 

[Globular]

As others have already suggested.

If the ICC cared about promoting and showcasing cricket to the world and not just geting every last $$$ from India.

The simplest would be 16 teams 4 groups of 4 -> quarters -> semi's -> final. If you wanted more group games add another associate into each group and still have the top two progress.

Going off the current ODI rankings and throwing in some random associates the groups might look something like this.

Group A
Australia
New Zealand
Bangladesh
Scotland

Group B
India
England
Zimbabwe
PNG

Group C
South Africa
Pakistan
Ireland
Hong Kong

Group D
Sri Lanka
West Indies
Afghanistan
UAE

Tournaments are made richer for including more nations, take the Asian Cup it was great seeing a teams like Palestine or North Korea play a couple of games. Again however that would require the ICC and the big 3 to think about the growth of the game and not $$$.

 

[ep2018]

This got brought up in conversation that evolved in Ireland win over Windies so copying over to here now where I posted my comments late last night on my idea which Kram81 seems to have noticed it too going by comments above.


First couple of World Cups were simply done over two weeks I think. It certainly adds to intensity of whole tournament to have it done in smaller time frame. It was way more cut throat which was exciting in a way. Now we have to wait for so many preliminary games to get to cut throat point of quarter finals. This really is no perfect format though. If you try to make it Super Six you run into problems there. If you make it too few teams you remove the chances of teams like Ireland, Canada and Kenya getting a real taste of elite time one day cricket and opportunity to get noticed. Even Zimbabwe beating Australia in 1983 was every bit as big an upset as Ireland beating West Indies today. They were considered a minnow nation then and certainly recall myself that Sri Lanka were not part of the main nations until well into the 1990's and then flourished at one day cricket. Bangladesh now is where Sri Lanka were in late 1980's in terms of profile in world cricket. Have to keep things in perspective though. It is not realistic in grand scheme of things to expect cricket to flourish in places like Canada and maybe even Scotland. For the most part our sport is a big sport in Australia, South Africa, India, New Zealand and 3 or 4 other nations. It is never going to be a sport where you have 16 nations all being world class.
12 nations in World Cup is probably where it should be with a couple of minnow nations getting a look in every 4 years at World Cup time.
UAE and Scotland is probably two nations too many at this World Cup.
If had two groups of six and top three make play off stage it would have been more to my liking and make it also more meaningful to finish top of your group and harder to finish top three of group of six than it is now of only needing to finish top four in group of seven.

In what I proposed top teams of group stages skips first play offs as reward and the sides that finished second and third in each group play off against each other and winner of that plays top side of other group at semi-final stage. Then final is simply winner of semi-finals.

If you think it through the preliminary matches would see each nation play 5 matches and if you want to finish top of your group and get good reward the idea of rotating players is less appealing. You would know every match means more. Also I think those 5 matches should be played over only 3 weeks so you are playing a game about every 3 or 4 days rather than one a week which seems the case this time. I think then play offs, semi-finals and final could be played over about a week which means the total time of whole World Cup could be condensed into 4 weeks which I think is easier on everyone as far as schedules go and would add a bit more intensity than what we will see this time. After the excitement of opening games this first weekend I think the next 4 weeks will be drawn out and not a lot of intensity as you know if you are a team like Australia or South Africa there is no real need to do anything but ensure you qualify for a top 4 spot in your group and being first means no more than finished 4th in group. You can afford to drop a game and still not worry. If it was 12 nations of two groups you would want to finish top of group and try to avoid dropping any games so more games mean something all the way through tournament. That can not be said for next couple of weeks we about to watch unfold. I expect teams like Australia, South Africa and New Zealand to not even feel pressure to pick best eleven until quarter finals which means rotating will play a part that really should not in such a big tournament.

Summary:

Preliminary Stages (3 week period)
2 groups of 6 teams where teams within each group play round robin for 5 matches.

Top three each group advance further.
Top team of each group straight though to semi finals whilst 2nd and 3rd of each group need to win a play off to reach semi-final stage.

qualifying finals (a week before final)
2nd and 3rd of each group play off to advance to semi-finals
2A v 3A
2B v 3B

semi-finals (3 days before final)
Top of table group A v winner of 2nd v 3rd play off from group B
Top of table group B v winner of 2nd v 3rd play off from group A

final winner of both semi-finals play off for World Cup title

I like this. Gives good reward for teams finishing first in the round robin phase.

 

[Mateyman]

Best format for me:
4 groups of 4
Then Super Eights playing each of the other top 8 Nations once
Semis
Final
Simple

 

[Kram]

Best format for me:
4 groups of 4
Then Super Eights playing each of the other top 8 Nations once
Semis
Final
Simple

Will never happen again after India and Pakistan choked in 2007. $$$. Plus it opens the opportunity for teams to get lucky when points are split if games are washed out in the group stage.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

12 teams at the very most for mine. Have a mini World Cup before the tournament for the minnows where the top 2 get direct entry.

 

[Scotland]

16 teams, 4 per group
Top 2 from each group go through to quarters
4 QF winners go through to semis
2 SF winners go through to final
2 SF losers go through to 3rd place playoff

Super 6s and 7s and 8s can GTFO.

Group A - ODI 1, ODI 8, ODI 12, ODI 16
Group B - ODI 4, ODI 5, ODI 9, ODI 13

Group C - ODI 2, ODI 7, ODI 11, ODI 15
Group D - ODI 3, ODI 6, ODI 10, ODI 14

Bolded teams the full members who most people will recognise as cricket playing nations. Not too phased how the 6 Associate ODI nations are allocated per group.

 

[footyfan1978]

16 teams, 4 per group
Top 2 from each group go through to quarters
4 QF winners go through to semis
2 SF winners go through to final
2 SF losers go through to 3rd place playoff

Super 6s and 7s and 8s can GTFO.

Group A - ODI 1, ODI 8, ODI 12, ODI 16
Group B - ODI 4, ODI 5, ODI 9, ODI 13

Group C - ODI 2, ODI 7, ODI 11, ODI 15
Group D - ODI 3, ODI 6, ODI 10, ODI 14

Bolded teams the full members who most people will recognise as cricket playing nations. Not too phased how the 6 Associate ODI nations are allocated per group.

I don't mind it , in the sense it condenses it down to not much longer than about two weeks in total to actually play.
Essentially most groups of 4 would have 2 established cricket nations and 2 minnows. That 1st round robin stage could be done and dusted in 7 or 8 days essentially. Then get into the cut throat games after that. Probably a 3 week tournament is ideal time frame. Gives minnow nations a taste of elite level and means if an established nation drops a game they immediately under the pump just to qualify from their group which is not the case this World Cup we are seeing now. Good alternative to the one I posted earlier with 12 teams in it. I think I prefer your one a bit more because more condensed overall and less preliminary games. If there is an obvious flaw in it, I have missed it but gets big thumbs up from me.

 

[Scotland]

4 groups of 4 going to QF, SF, F is the simplest way to do it when you have 16 teams to work with.

The Asian Cup going to 24 teams is a mistake.

 

[footyfan1978]

4 groups of 4 going to QF, SF, F is the simplest way to do it when you have 16 teams to work with.

The Asian Cup going to 24 teams is a mistake.

Did not even follow that. Is that the soccer tournament for minnow soccer nations recently or Hong Kong and Singapore type teams as minnow cricket regions ?

 

[Scotland]

Did not even follow that. Is that the soccer tournament for minnow soccer nations recently or Hong Kong and Singapore type teams as minnow cricket regions ?

The soccer tournament recently held in and won by Australia.

Was a 16 team tournament with 4 groups of 4 progressing to QF/SF/F. Next installment will have an extra 8 teams worse than Palestine and Kuwait. Good-o.

 

[footyfan1978]

The soccer tournament recently held in and won by Australia.

Was a 16 team tournament with 4 groups of 4 progressing to QF/SF/F. Next installment will have an extra 8 teams worse than Palestine and Kuwait. Good-o.

ok, cool , thanks for explaining. Did not see any of it but heard Australian side won that soccer tournament. 16 or 12 teams seems to lean towards best possible formats so far. 14 is a dogs breakfast we have at moment. Going to be a long 5 weeks to quarter finals knowing Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India will feel no pressure to name their best eleven until then. What you proposed or I proposed both means sides much more likely to play at full strength as often as possible. The next 5 weeks will not be the case.

 

[Scotland]

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

 

[Oaktree]

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.