For the first four editions of the Cricket World Cup, there was a fairly simple formula in place: eight teams split into two groups, top two from each play in the knockouts. At least one of the teams playing would have qualified via winning the ICC Trophy for associate members.
Come 1992, the eight-team format hit a bump in the form of South Africa. Their readmittance meant that there were now eight Test playing nations, but the ICC wanted the winner of the ICC Trophy to be in the World Cup. This meant a new format would be created, a round robin format where every team played the other, and the the top four would go through to the knockouts. But this would be the only World Cup this format would be viable for, because Zimbabwe were the most recent winners of the ICC Trophy, and would become a Test playing nation later in the year.
So, to make sure the ICC Trophy still had relevance, the World Cup was expanded to twelve teams, divided again into two groups, thereby including three associates. But the group stages were made almost totally irrelevant by the knockout stages, which the top four teams in each group would qualify for - and those eight nations were pretty obviously not going to include the associates or the new kids, Zimbabwe. This meant that Kenya's shock win over the West Indies had absolutely no meaning for either team, as Kenya didn't make it past the group stages, and the West Indies defeated South Africa, who had finished top of their group, to make it to the semi-finals.
Realising that that was a bit silly, the 1999 World Cup featured the same amount of teams and the same qualification method, but instead of eight-team quarter finals, the top three in each groups would instead a second round robin, playing the teams they hadn't played already. Then the bottom two would be eliminated, and the knockout stage would take place. It's hard to tell if it was the format or the teams, but there were a lot of close matches, and surprising results - including the hosts being knocked out in the group stage, and though the extra matches meant it took a little longer than previous events, this wasn't noticeably so.
However, politics reared its head as a result of the tournament. Bangladesh were given full membership because of their win over Pakistan (which was really so that the subcontinent, an important voter bloc at the time, would have four votes) despite being thrashed in their other matches, and Kenya were given 'permanent' ODI status despite not winning a match (it wasn't permanent). Because this meant that only one ICC Trophy team would have room at a twelve team tournament, the 2003 World Cup was expanded to fourteen teams, but otherwise kept the same. But the ICC hadn't counted on England and New Zealand abandoning their matches against Zimbabwe and Kenya respectively for political reasons. This resulted in Zimbabwe taking England's spot in the Super Sixes, and Kenya making the semi-finals instead of New Zealand. The extra games also meant this was the first tournament that noticeably dragged on.
Nevertheless, Kenya reaching the semi-final confirmed to the ICC that they needed to continue bringing smaller nations into the World Cup, and so in 2007 there were six associate nations, five through the ICC Trophy and one that was continuing to use its 'permanent' ODI status. Sixteen teams into two groups is a bit unwieldy, so instead they were divided into four groups of four, much like the early years - but with the additions of the Super Eights, because of the success of the Sixes. The expectation was, of course, that the top eight nations would make it through to the group stage ala 1996, but instead Bangladesh knocked out India and Ireland knocked out Pakistan, robbing the ICC of precious revenue that would've come from the six extra matches each team would play in the Eights. The Eights became a long, drawn-out damp squib, taking nearly a month on its own.
After that disaster, the format was changed for 2011, all the way back to the one used in 1996 - which, if you recall, was a bit silly - but with two extra teams. This meant two less associates than at the 2007 World Cup, and also guaranteed at least three more games for India and Pakistan, while also significantly lowering the chances that they would be eliminated in the group stages. It worked all the same - the top eight nations went through to the knockout stages, just like they did in 1996, despite England losing to both Bangladesh and Ireland. Once again, South Africa finished top of their group and then lost to the fourth-placed team in the other group, but India won at home and got to play Pakistan in the semi-final, so everyone was happy, except for those wishing it wasn't so long. Therefore the same format was used in 2015, and the hosts also won. Ireland missed out on the quarter-finals only by NRR, and for the third World Cup in a row had beaten a Test playing nation. Bangladesh beat England again and did make the quarter-finals, but lost. It was once again criticised for taking too long.
But despite neither 2011 or 2015 being particularly memorable, they also weren't absolute disasters, so surely the ICC would attempt to keep something like them in place? Think again! The 2019 World Cup will be a return to the format of 1992, which you'll recall was abandoned because there were too many full members and they wanted associates to be participating. There are even more full members now - twelve compared to nine - so surely there'll be something to compensate for that? Nope! At best, there will be two full members missing out on the tournament, and not one associate nation will be competing, for the first time in the history of the World Cup. It will be a ten-team round robin with semi-finals. The justification for this has been that there are more teams at the World T20, but no-one cares about that and it's only a half-truth, as those extra teams get put in 'stage one' of the tournament, which is really just another qualifier.
So, what format do you think the World Cup should have? Options include:
Eight to ten teams, two groups, semi-finals (WC 1975, 1979, 1983, 1987; CT 2006, 2009, 2013, 2017)
Eight to ten teams, one group, semi-finals (1992, 2019)
Twelve to fourteen teams, two groups, semi-finals (1996, 2011, 2015)
Twelve to fourteen teams, two groups, super sixes (1999, 2003)
Twelve to sixteen teams, four groups, semi-finals (CT 2002, 2004)
Fifteen to eighteen teams, three groups, super sixes
Sixteen teams, four groups, super sixes (2007)
Twenty to twenty-four teams, four groups, semi-finals
The latter is my favoured one, can you come up with something better?. In any case, the ICC needs to think long and hard about what the purpose of the World Cup is. As you can see, the Champions Trophy fills the role of the old World Cup - is it necessary to have two tournaments that are exactly the same?
Come 1992, the eight-team format hit a bump in the form of South Africa. Their readmittance meant that there were now eight Test playing nations, but the ICC wanted the winner of the ICC Trophy to be in the World Cup. This meant a new format would be created, a round robin format where every team played the other, and the the top four would go through to the knockouts. But this would be the only World Cup this format would be viable for, because Zimbabwe were the most recent winners of the ICC Trophy, and would become a Test playing nation later in the year.
So, to make sure the ICC Trophy still had relevance, the World Cup was expanded to twelve teams, divided again into two groups, thereby including three associates. But the group stages were made almost totally irrelevant by the knockout stages, which the top four teams in each group would qualify for - and those eight nations were pretty obviously not going to include the associates or the new kids, Zimbabwe. This meant that Kenya's shock win over the West Indies had absolutely no meaning for either team, as Kenya didn't make it past the group stages, and the West Indies defeated South Africa, who had finished top of their group, to make it to the semi-finals.
Realising that that was a bit silly, the 1999 World Cup featured the same amount of teams and the same qualification method, but instead of eight-team quarter finals, the top three in each groups would instead a second round robin, playing the teams they hadn't played already. Then the bottom two would be eliminated, and the knockout stage would take place. It's hard to tell if it was the format or the teams, but there were a lot of close matches, and surprising results - including the hosts being knocked out in the group stage, and though the extra matches meant it took a little longer than previous events, this wasn't noticeably so.
However, politics reared its head as a result of the tournament. Bangladesh were given full membership because of their win over Pakistan (which was really so that the subcontinent, an important voter bloc at the time, would have four votes) despite being thrashed in their other matches, and Kenya were given 'permanent' ODI status despite not winning a match (it wasn't permanent). Because this meant that only one ICC Trophy team would have room at a twelve team tournament, the 2003 World Cup was expanded to fourteen teams, but otherwise kept the same. But the ICC hadn't counted on England and New Zealand abandoning their matches against Zimbabwe and Kenya respectively for political reasons. This resulted in Zimbabwe taking England's spot in the Super Sixes, and Kenya making the semi-finals instead of New Zealand. The extra games also meant this was the first tournament that noticeably dragged on.
Nevertheless, Kenya reaching the semi-final confirmed to the ICC that they needed to continue bringing smaller nations into the World Cup, and so in 2007 there were six associate nations, five through the ICC Trophy and one that was continuing to use its 'permanent' ODI status. Sixteen teams into two groups is a bit unwieldy, so instead they were divided into four groups of four, much like the early years - but with the additions of the Super Eights, because of the success of the Sixes. The expectation was, of course, that the top eight nations would make it through to the group stage ala 1996, but instead Bangladesh knocked out India and Ireland knocked out Pakistan, robbing the ICC of precious revenue that would've come from the six extra matches each team would play in the Eights. The Eights became a long, drawn-out damp squib, taking nearly a month on its own.
After that disaster, the format was changed for 2011, all the way back to the one used in 1996 - which, if you recall, was a bit silly - but with two extra teams. This meant two less associates than at the 2007 World Cup, and also guaranteed at least three more games for India and Pakistan, while also significantly lowering the chances that they would be eliminated in the group stages. It worked all the same - the top eight nations went through to the knockout stages, just like they did in 1996, despite England losing to both Bangladesh and Ireland. Once again, South Africa finished top of their group and then lost to the fourth-placed team in the other group, but India won at home and got to play Pakistan in the semi-final, so everyone was happy, except for those wishing it wasn't so long. Therefore the same format was used in 2015, and the hosts also won. Ireland missed out on the quarter-finals only by NRR, and for the third World Cup in a row had beaten a Test playing nation. Bangladesh beat England again and did make the quarter-finals, but lost. It was once again criticised for taking too long.
But despite neither 2011 or 2015 being particularly memorable, they also weren't absolute disasters, so surely the ICC would attempt to keep something like them in place? Think again! The 2019 World Cup will be a return to the format of 1992, which you'll recall was abandoned because there were too many full members and they wanted associates to be participating. There are even more full members now - twelve compared to nine - so surely there'll be something to compensate for that? Nope! At best, there will be two full members missing out on the tournament, and not one associate nation will be competing, for the first time in the history of the World Cup. It will be a ten-team round robin with semi-finals. The justification for this has been that there are more teams at the World T20, but no-one cares about that and it's only a half-truth, as those extra teams get put in 'stage one' of the tournament, which is really just another qualifier.
So, what format do you think the World Cup should have? Options include:
Eight to ten teams, two groups, semi-finals (WC 1975, 1979, 1983, 1987; CT 2006, 2009, 2013, 2017)
Eight to ten teams, one group, semi-finals (1992, 2019)
Twelve to fourteen teams, two groups, semi-finals (1996, 2011, 2015)
Twelve to fourteen teams, two groups, super sixes (1999, 2003)
Twelve to sixteen teams, four groups, semi-finals (CT 2002, 2004)
Fifteen to eighteen teams, three groups, super sixes
Sixteen teams, four groups, super sixes (2007)
Twenty to twenty-four teams, four groups, semi-finals
The latter is my favoured one, can you come up with something better?. In any case, the ICC needs to think long and hard about what the purpose of the World Cup is. As you can see, the Champions Trophy fills the role of the old World Cup - is it necessary to have two tournaments that are exactly the same?
Last edited:
