World Cup Format

[Ailsa Road Shrimper]

The tournament has been dragging on for a few weeks now! It seems an age since it begun yet it still hasn't come alive and will be something of a damp squib unless very entertaining semi finals and a good final can save it. Obviously England's lacklustre performances haven't helped to enthuse us but I can't think of many exciting games so far apart from Ireland V Pakistan and Sri Lanka V England. The stadiums have been pretty empty too apart from the West Indies matches so that makes the spectacle even worse.

Surely the format needs to be reviewed? I can't see the need (other than a financial one) for the super 8 stage, surely having Quarter Finals instead would be more interesting and shorten the tournament too. This format is used in Football/Rugby world cups. Knockout matches are more exciting and would also prevent the Ireland/Bangladesh scenarios where many dead games are played out due to each getting an extra 6 games in the super 8's.

Thoughts anyone?

 

[number11]

Agreed, they seem to have new format every year.

With 4 groups of 4 this year, it seemed ideal to have the top two go through to a quarter final and a straight knockout. However this would shorten the number of games played by about 30(??) and the backers and stadium builders etc would not stand for that. A balance between excitement and commercial interest really.

If the Super 8's had actually been split into 2 further groups of 4 though, that would have reduced the games played by maybe 20 odd, with each group putting 2 through to the semi, this would have less unimportant games.

The stupid thing about this format is that England have been woefully inept, yet 4 wins on the bounce now (possible with lucky coin tossing and one or two standout performances) and we could be world champions.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Agreed, they seem to have new format every year.

With 4 groups of 4 this year, it seemed ideal to have the top two go through to a quarter final and a straight knockout. However this would shorten the number of games played by about 30(??) and the backers and stadium builders etc would not stand for that. A balance between excitement and commercial interest really.

If the Super 8's had actually been split into 2 further groups of 4 though, that would have reduced the games played by maybe 20 odd, with each group putting 2 through to the semi, this would have less unimportant games.

The stupid thing about this format is that England have been woefully inept, yet 4 wins on the bounce now (possible with lucky coin tossing and one or two standout performances) and we could be world champions.

England could be world champions even if they lose to the Windies. A win against South Africa should be enough to make it through to the semis. A good toss to win and a couple of individual heroics later it could be arise Sir Michael Vaughan.

Switching to a straight knockout is only going to make matters worse. You could be at the mercy of the toss. Maybe the way to go is two groups of 4 or maybe even the semi-finals and finals should be best of 3?

I think the real problem is that Australia are head and shoulders above everyone else. Even given a correct toss in helpful conditions its difficult seeing how anyone could beat them, and that is giving an air of inevitability to the whole proceedings.

 

[Uncle Leo]

I thought the format for the 1992 World Cup was excellent. The eight Test playing nations (at the time) plus Zimbabwe. Everyone played each other, with semi final spots for the top four.

Of course, the disadvantage to this is the exclusion of the smaller teams, but if we used the ICC Champions Trophy as a qualifying tournament for the World Cup, then you could limit the number of entrants to, say, ten in total.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I thought the format for the 1992 World Cup was excellent. The eight Test playing nations (at the time) plus Zimbabwe. Everyone played each other, with semi final spots for the top four.

Of course, the disadvantage to this is the exclusion of the smaller teams, but if we used the ICC Champions Trophy as a qualifying tournament for the World Cup, then you could limit the number of entrants to, say, ten in total.

You've got to include the smaller nations. Last time out Kenya made it to the semi-finals, this time out Ireland knocked out Pakistan, and Bangladesh knocked out India.

Also having the minnows in the early rounds is useful warm-up practice. If you take away these games, you probably end up replacing them with more 13 a side (but only 11 bat/bowl) meaningless games.

 

[canveyshrimper]

I thought the format for the 1992 World Cup was excellent. The eight Test playing nations (at the time) plus Zimbabwe. Everyone played each other, with semi final spots for the top four.

Of course, the disadvantage to this is the exclusion of the smaller teams, but if we used the ICC Champions Trophy as a qualifying tournament for the World Cup, then you could limit the number of entrants to, say, ten in total.

I agree with you there James, but there was a downside to that. I was at Adelaide to watch England bowl Pakistan out for 71. Only for the heavens to open and the match was subsequently abandoned. Pakistan gained a point which put them in the top 4 and went on to beat England in the final. :mad: :mad:

The current World Cup has dragged on way to long in half filled stadiums and with inflated ticket prices that the locals cannot afford. One thing West Indians love is cricket, and it would make sense to reduce the ticket prices to at least fill the stands.

I thought this format looked good at the outset, which just shows how wrong I was. The whole thing needs to be shortened, my suggestion would be 4 groups of four, the top two in each group going forward to a knockout phase of quarter finals, semi finals and one final. I don't see the point of a best of three final, a final is after all a final.