The Worst Ever World Cup....

[Kev]

For me the problem with this World Cup has absolutely nothing to do with which teams qualified and which teams didn't. There isn't one problem but its a mixture of the following elements.

1: Its in the West Indies - Sadly the geography works against the tournament as most fans just cant afford to travel from island to island, look at the semi's and final - 3 different locations so its pretty much out to go to both a semi and the final. Add the fact that both the semi venues haven't held a game for ages either and its a recipie for low attendance.

2: Too commercialised - There are too many restrictions on what you can and cant bring to the ground to protect the sponsors brands, this along with the banning of instruments earlier in the tournament totally ruins the atmosphere.

3: Too Long - If your going to have high local prices for entry you simply wont fill the grounds, again this ruins the atmosphere and turns people off. OK in richer countries you can get away with a longer tournament as more locals can afford to go.

4: Too many dead games - Super 8 format has to go, just go for a straight knockout after the initial group stages

Having said all that, I've really enjoyed listening to virtually all the matches on the radio.

 

[Master Khan]

So yes I think this is the Worst World Ever Just Tell me All The Good Stuff If you think is good.
And I totally Agree With KEV

 

[Will_NA]

So yes I think this is the Worst World Ever Just Tell me All The Good Stuff If you think is good.
And I totally Agree With KEV

This world isn't all that bad. It is the only one proven to inhabit life.

The progress and evolution of Ireland and Bangladesh has been a real highlight of this tournament.

 

[Kev]

Yes, I was delighted for Ireland and also happy for Bangladesh, sadly once they got into the super 8's they were never going to get any further.

The format doesn't allow the neutral supporters to really get behind an underdog. Ok they might have got knocked out earlier but imagine how much more it would have meant if Bangladesh's victory over South Africa (for example) actually counted for something, now that would have been excitement - a minnow knocking a superpower out, in the next round everyone would have been behind Bangladesh (apart from the team they were playing of course).

For me Cup competitions are always more exciting than league competitions, leagues are much more predictable whereas knockouts have the promise of major upsets.

 

[Sagacious]

The 2007 World Cup is a PR disaster - Ian Chappell

If administrators were judged on performance the way players and coaches are, there would be a much higher turnover of officials.

The 2007 World Cup is a case in point. Malcolm Speed, the chief executive officer of the ICC, in response to strident criticism of the tournament said he was concentrating on the "positives rather than the negatives". A serious cross-examination of Speed's assertions suggest he's doing more than just looking at a glass that is half full and it must contain something far stronger than water.

First, there was the failure of heavyweight Pakistan to qualify for the Super Eights. That was quickly followed by the mysterious murder of their coach Bob Woolmer and the abrupt retirement of the captain Inzamam ul-Haq. India, with its serious financial clout, was the next major team to be a no-show in the prestige section of the tournament. Shortly afterwards their coach Greg Chappell announced he wasn't seeking an extension in the role but skipper Rahul Dravid survived.

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/extracover/content/current/story/290371.html

It's just not the Indians saying that WC is a failure.

 

[Will_NA]

It's just not the Indians saying that WC is a failure.

PR failure. However hard you try, you can't hide your bitterness.

 

[Skater]

Restrict the number of teams involved in the World Cup to 14.

Start off with two groups of 7 teams. Each team plays each other once.

After these matches, the top 4 teams from each group qualify for the Super Eight where the same rules apply as currently. Teams will only play 4 matches each, however, as the points from group games against the fellow 3 qualifiers are carried forward.

The top 4 from the Super Eight qualify for the semi finals, and then onto the final.

19 matches for the entire World Cup, as opposed to 51.

 

[Kev]

I really hate that idea Lee, what is the point of the super 8 stage if so many points are reliant on first round performance.

 

[Skater]

I'm just trying to think of a format to make the World Cup higher quality and not as long. How about this? As before, but scrap the Super Eight:

1st Group A v 4th Group B
2nd Group A v 3rd Group B
3rd Group A v 2nd Group B
4th Group A v 1st Group B

Semi-finals

Final

 

[Deleted member 11215]

i dont see whats wrong with 4 groups. 4 in each. 2 go through, that leaves 8. Then Quaters, semis and a final.

 

[Kev]

i dont see whats wrong with 4 groups. 4 in each. 2 go through, that leaves 8. Then Quaters, semis and a final.

Yep, the simple formats are generally the best.

 

[Griffo]

much better much more exciting and associates will prove themselves every game i hope it is like that in 2011

 

[kodos]

For me the problem with this World Cup has absolutely nothing to do with which teams qualified and which teams didn't. There isn't one problem but its a mixture of the following elements.

1: Its in the West Indies - Sadly the geography works against the tournament as most fans just cant afford to travel from island to island, look at the semi's and final - 3 different locations so its pretty much out to go to both a semi and the final. Add the fact that both the semi venues haven't held a game for ages either and its a recipie for low attendance.

Well to me this WC has been great overall for WI cricket despite their early exit. The grounds now looks first class and no longer dilapidated like they were years back. Also perhaps this may revolutionise cricket again in the WI like what happened in the 03 WC in South Africa despite their premature exit, there was a large surge in interest in cricket after the WC and now cricket is the second most popular sport in SA behind soccer. Also the Windies deserved a chance to host the WC as they are after all a test playing nation. Also each of the islands in the WI have rather small populations, take Barbados for example, the population is about 280,000 people and the ground holds 28,000, that makes the ground difficult to fill as it is approx. 1 in 20 civilians going to the cricket.

2: Too commercialised - There are too many restrictions on what you can and cant bring to the ground to protect the sponsors brands, this along with the banning of instruments earlier in the tournament totally ruins the atmosphere.

Agree with this. The banning of instruments early in the WC was pathetic by the ICC. Completely ruined the atmosphere as you said. I understand the security perspective but to me they went over the top. Also from what I heard people were not allowed to bring food into the grounds, that is also pathetic, I see nothing wrong with bringing an esky full of drinks to the ground as from my past experiences foods at all sporting grounds are ridiculously expensive. Also from what I heard the food prices and merchandise were also ridiculously overpriced which may have also deterred spectators. To me this is the WC for the tourists and not for the locals which is a real shame.

3: Too Long - If your going to have high local prices for entry you simply wont fill the grounds, again this ruins the atmosphere and turns people off. OK in richer countries you can get away with a longer tournament as more locals can afford to go.

Surprisingly the rugby WC also goes on for about 40 odd days as well but as you said the more wealthier nations or nations with higher national incomes, attendances won't be a problem as people would attend multiple games whereas local West Indians will most likely attend 1 game throughout the whole tournament.

4: Too many dead games - Super 8 format has to go, just go for a straight knockout after the initial group stages

Also agree. The super 8 stage needs to be abolished and replaced by a knockout stage or at worse split the 8 teams into 2 groups with 4 teams each and each team playing the other team 3 times, then top 2 qualify and play the semis. I like the number of teams though, 16 is just about right. It gives the weaker nations a chance to shine like we saw with Ireland and if cricket wants to expand beyond the 10 major nations then it needs to have more teams in the WC. To me cricket can not survive with only ten nations, it needs to be more global like soccer or tennis.

 

[LA ICE-E]

No, they were just complacent.Let's wait for India's tour to BD and we will talk more about 'mighty' minnows Bangladesh after that.


You have been doing that for quite a long time here, bashing India & Pakistan for each and everything.Get real Mr.Ice.

No more discussion with you regarding this issue.

What are you talking about? I never bashed India and i really don't have any interest in pakistani cricket. India is favorite team out of the top 8. I have to admit though that i have lost some interest after sachin lost his invisible tag but still my favorite players. But I have always supported the underdogs 1st.

To be perfectly honest, the format in World cup 96 was the best for me. End of story.

that's fine but:

The 1996 format is almost universally recognised as the worst ever.

The point I am making is had the ICC even considered the top 8 not making it through, they would have organized the tournament differently.

Ah, I'm not sure about that, cause the hosts England didn't make it to the 2nd round in '99 and still the ICC kept the same format with then South Africa(the hosts) not qualifying.

I don't think you will find a significant portion of cricket fans agree that this format is okay.

Really? cause a lot of them do. But they just say that it would have been better had india and pakistan qualified.

It is too long. You suggested it yourself, by recommending that two games be played a day. If the ICC had taken into consideration this, they would probably also have thought of methods to shorten the tournament.

Yeah, I agree with it that it might be too long but at the same time, it's the same length as the 2003 WC.

Finally, if you go back to my first post, you will find that I said that the "only place the ICC are to blame" is that they made the assumption that all the teams they expected to qualify would qualify. I'm not saying that the ICC should have helped the top teams qualify or any other points that you infer that I am making. They aren't to blame because the top teams didn't bring their top games. They are only to blame because they expected without a doubt that the aforementioned would happen.

Yeah, I guess. But is there really anything more they could have done in case of the format?

For me the problem with this World Cup has absolutely nothing to do with which teams qualified and which teams didn't. There isn't one problem but its a mixture of the following elements.

1: Its in the West Indies - Sadly the geography works against the tournament as most fans just cant afford to travel from island to island, look at the semi's and final - 3 different locations so its pretty much out to go to both a semi and the final. Add the fact that both the semi venues haven't held a game for ages either and its a recipie for low attendance.

I agree. If the same thing would have been in say, England or Australia or India(although i have some doubt seeing the CT games) than I would guess that it wouldn't have been as bad. It's just that it was too much to handle, and even though they did almost everything right, in planing, the things they messed up on was big things which cost this tournament a lot.

2: Too commercialised - There are too many restrictions on what you can and cant bring to the ground to protect the sponsors brands, this along with the banning of instruments earlier in the tournament totally ruins the atmosphere.

I agree, that's just being greedy. And what's the point of trying helping the sponsors when it's not really helping them because people didn't come for the same reason.

3: Too Long - If your going to have high local prices for entry you simply wont fill the grounds, again this ruins the atmosphere and turns people off. OK in richer countries you can get away with a longer tournament as more locals can afford to go.

Agree on the latter parts.

4: Too many dead games - Super 8 format has to go, just go for a straight knockout after the initial group stages

Well how about 2 groups of 4 in the second round? no/or at most 4 dead matches. Also, I think there were about 5 dead matches in the super 8 right? There were more in the past or am I wrong?

Having said all that, I've really enjoyed listening to virtually all the matches on the radio.

Well i didn't enjoy watching the aussies bash all other teams though

 

[cricket_lover]

This world cup had too many negatives to start with.

But its just these semi-finals and the finals that are the most interesting I've seen, for a while. All the three teams balanced, I hope they give a wonderful finish to this so far controversial tournament.