My proposed world cup format

[irish150]

Have 4 groups of 4

group winners qualify automatically for super 6

then a2 v b2 c2 v d2 the winners join super 6

in the super 6 you can have 1st and 2nd in the final


alternatively 1st qualifys automatic for final 2nd and 3rd play a one of semi

 

[sifter132]

So it's the same as 2007 where 8 teams get through to the next stage but you just eliminate 2 in a knockout straight away? I guess that might add some mid tournament excitement with those 2 knockout games, but otherwise I can't see how it's much of an improvement. You've still got the same problem as 2007, where one unexpected loss in a 4 team group basically ends your campaign as India and Pakistan found out. I'm not sure that's deserved. This time for example, England copped an unexpected loss but they've shown they can play by tieing with India and beating SA.

I still like the 1999 format - especially the first round. 12 teams is a good number - because it will make the Associates play harder to qualify than 14 or 16, and will get you better games. 5 group games each seems like a good amount - enough to get the most deserving teams through, and not long enough that everyone will be bored by the time it's finished. The first round of 1999 took 18 days. And I like the Super Sixes. It's a bit more elite than the super eights and gets you some good quality games late in the tournament.

 

[fifo]

I think '92 format is by far the best. 9 teams - round robin - top 4 in semis. No scope for one-day-wonders. And the best team will have the highest chance of winning.

 

[AngryPixel]

Yup we can have 10 teams and top 6 teams should be automatically qualify according to rankings and bottom 4 test teams and associates nations play in the qualifiers... That is the best way to keep everyone happy and give associates something to aim..

 

[IanG]

Since 2015 will be only 10 teams they will have that format like back in 1992
1992 had 39 matches. If you have the same format with one more team then there would be 48 matches

Also 1992 World Cup was over in the space of a month

 

[Owzat]

So it's the same as 2007 where 8 teams get through to the next stage but you just eliminate 2 in a knockout straight away? I guess that might add some mid tournament excitement with those 2 knockout games, but otherwise I can't see how it's much of an improvement. You've still got the same problem as 2007, where one unexpected loss in a 4 team group basically ends your campaign as India and Pakistan found out. I'm not sure that's deserved. This time for example, England copped an unexpected loss but they've shown they can play by tieing with India and beating SA.

There's no way they'll retry the 2007 format in a hurry, the problem was one upset meant the "big gun" head to head could knock a team out as you said. Too few group games to make sure the 'best' teams got through, and there were way too many "super" matches, I know for TV but it was a drag.

I wasn't so keen on 1999, in fact I dislike any of the competitions with "super" stages. This one's not too bad in it goes from groups to QFs, but perhaps there are too many group games (42) of which too many involve the minnows and Zimbabwe/Bangladesh (30) Fair enough there were a few humdingers, but out of 30 there weren't enough.

How about four groups of five, brings in extra teams and means 10 games per group so roughly the same number of group games. Top two play in the QFs, number of games involving minnows might be increased but proper scheduling could have them play two minnows games per day. Problem with four groups is there are only 8-11 decent sides so you're effectively (in any format) just scheduling a way to get the eight you want through and there will be more mismatches than decent games which is why the awful "super" groups were concocted.

Maybe if ICC exposed the rest to the best a bit more often they might improve, perhaps pump a bit more money into the associate members.