Well after two matches against the Associate nations we have seen two thrashing. If we are going to have 12 teams then we have to go back to the old format. It is up to the top sides to avoid the upsets and make it to the Super 8. This current format is starting to be a fail and we have still yet to see India, Australia and SA play against them.
The Dead-Rubber WC?
- Thread starter Papa_Smurf
- Start date
sami ullah khan
Panel of Selectors
I must admit I have been bored to death by the matches that have taken place so far. I am with ICC with regards to their axing of Associates from next World cup. As observed by Ponting, "Associates will not learn anything from the thrashing they will get".
Varun
ICC Board Member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2009
- Location
- Delhi, India
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
The tournament is so lengthy. We could easily have two to three matches today, but we have the Australia-thrashing-Zimbabwe only. 
sami ullah khan
Panel of Selectors
Yes two matches per day would cut down the wait to the real thing i.e. QFs.
Not sure having a "Super 8" which involves 24 games is not boring, there must be quicker ways to get to the best teams to an "exciting finale". For me the last World Cup had too many games, perhaps by intention as TV love more games.
Not sure of the absolute 'best' format. This one doesn't seem to bad, enough scope for a possible upset while not making it too likely. Last World Cup was a bad design as the 'upsets' were terminal and led to a lot of mismatches/not so interesting matches in the "Super 8"s.
I gather the next World Cup will only have 10 teams (?) and so minnows will be gone I guess. It's getting the balance right and the fewer group matches the more likely an upset. "Super" stages are always one unncessary round in my opinion, the organisers KNOW who they want to reach the latter stages so the format is designed to match this.
Papa_Smurf
International Cricketer
I liked the group stage of the last WC. But instead of a super 8 group, just go straight to knock-outs.
sohum
Executive member
2003 was the ideal format, in my opinion. You had the group stages where there were the chances for a few upsets that contributed to your points carried forward in the Super 6s.
The Super 6s pitted the best teams against each other. And then the semis and finals.
If this amount of teams is to be retained for World Cups then they should go back to that system. If they're cutting it down to just the top tier teams then they should be looking at something similar to or short-circuiting straight to semis after the round robin.
As for the 2007 world cup, I'll obviously be biased because I'm an Indian fan, but what you basically saw is one upset (Bang beating India, Ireland beating Pakistan) resulting in a lot of redundant games in the Super 8's. The current format at least lets us see every team for a decent number of games (6) before elimination. It is also good for the associate teams since they get to play each other and see how they match up on a world stage.
The Super 6s pitted the best teams against each other. And then the semis and finals.
If this amount of teams is to be retained for World Cups then they should go back to that system. If they're cutting it down to just the top tier teams then they should be looking at something similar to or short-circuiting straight to semis after the round robin.
As for the 2007 world cup, I'll obviously be biased because I'm an Indian fan, but what you basically saw is one upset (Bang beating India, Ireland beating Pakistan) resulting in a lot of redundant games in the Super 8's. The current format at least lets us see every team for a decent number of games (6) before elimination. It is also good for the associate teams since they get to play each other and see how they match up on a world stage.
Papa_Smurf
International Cricketer
Another thing to blame is the scheduling. Should not have so many mis-matches this early on. It ruins the confidence of the Associates as well. A team like Zimbabwe could've gained momentum and confidence by playing Canada and Kenya before going against Australia. Would've given them a better a chance.
----------
The real draw-back to this format is that the real action, that everyone keeps harping on about, only lasts the last 10 days. Considering the WC is over a month, this is ridiculous.
/rant
----------
The real draw-back to this format is that the real action, that everyone keeps harping on about, only lasts the last 10 days. Considering the WC is over a month, this is ridiculous.
/rant
The 03 format is pretty much the same as the current one just with a Super 6 instead of quarter finals.
Getting the right format for cricket is tricky since conditions can really boost the possibility of an upset. I'd like to keep the associate nations in the World Cup but they are playing far too many games in the group stage.
Getting the right format for cricket is tricky since conditions can really boost the possibility of an upset. I'd like to keep the associate nations in the World Cup but they are playing far too many games in the group stage.
icyman
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- May 17, 2004
- Profile Flag
- India
Going back to the 1992 format would also be pretty much exciting. Play the World Cup as a league, with the Top 4 teams battling it out in the semi-finals. If the ICC sticks to a 10 team WC, the number of matches, if played in a league,with each team playing the other once will be 45. Add the 2 semi-finals and then the grand final. A total of 48 matches which can be completed in around a month's time,if two matches are played every day.
Else, the format can be altered slightly by splitting teams into 2 groups of 5 each, with the top 2 from each playing in the semis.
Else, the format can be altered slightly by splitting teams into 2 groups of 5 each, with the top 2 from each playing in the semis.
Last edited:
I like the idea of teams playing in a league and then going straight to the semis and final. Two groups of 5 teams each, playing each other and the top two from each group qualify for the semis. The 2007 format is just bad. You cant place the chances of qualifying to the next round that heavily on an upset. Good teams should be allowed to come back. Every team should play a minimum of 5 matches in a World Cup. So the league phase should have 5 games atleast.
All the World Cup formats do just that. The soccer world cup is known for big name teams exiting in the group stages. Rugby has the same format, just the big guns get the job done.
ferg512
International Coach
Yes, I liked 2003 better as in this one the test nations know all they have to do is just beat the minnows as they are pretty much through. If you had Super 6 it would add a lot of spice to the group stage as you aren't guaranteed to make it. I suppose the problem would be one of the host nations not making it through.
From a NZ perspective I can see the thinking that we only have to beat the minnows and we are in, which kind of renders the games against test nations pointless. Although you could also say those games are really important to make sure you have it easier at the finals stage.
Fair point. The main problem is the number of games the minnows are playing against the big guns which more times than not leads to a massive thrashing. 5 games is too many, 3 would be the ideal amount.
ferg512
International Coach
Yeah definitely, thats a far bigger problem. I hope for the minnows sake, they at least put up a decent fight in the remaining games. But if they don't and continue to get thrashed they don't really have a leg to stand on when they complain about being kicked out.
----------
Another problem for the minnows is that this ones in the sub-continent which isn't really ideal for them, really hard conditions to adapt to. I recall somewhere on PC someone saying that the upsets are usually when there is a bit in the wicket and the minnow can bowl first and chase a smallish total. Its going to be pretty hard for them to bowl a side out cheaply and anything really over 250 should be too hard too chase.
Similar threads
- Poll
