The Worst Ever World Cup....

[LA ICE-E]

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.

I agree. I like knockouts a lot more than league games but people complain about the knockouts too saying it doesn't give the big teams enough chances or something. That's the reason i think the changed the icc knockout to CT. I would like to have knockouts but i guess knockouts wouldn't give the ICC enough games to make money off. I would say that they should go follow the 20/20 wc format and make the super 8 2 groups of 8 and i would say that every team had a real chance to make the next round.

The 2007 World Cup is a PR disaster - Ian Chappell


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

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

yeah and? What? We all know that had they qualified we would have made more money but we can't do anything to make sure they qualify because it's not fair to the other teams. Nothing that can be done.

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.

Than there would be too many games with those so called "minnows" who people that are complaining are complaining about. And I don't think you got your calculation right with 19 matches because last time it was the same thing as you suggested but with a super 6 instead of super 8 and there were 54 matches instead of 51 which is now and if we added super 8 into last wc format, i would guess that it would have even more.

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

well we could do but it would be enough games for the icc my guess so i say 2 groups of 4 in the super 8 and then semis and finals.

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

That be something like the '96 format which people didn't like. But again too many games with the "minnows" in the group stage. so stick with groups of 4 for the group stage.

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.

I don't see too many negatives, but the negative that were are Death of Bob Woolmer(uncontrollable), Poor attendance and the one side matches involving the top 8 teams.

 

[Justcrazy]

This WC let down cricket and people start hating it...esp...IND, PAK fans quit following cricket...

 

[LA ICE-E]

how about you start by just not even coming to this forum... :

 

[sohum]

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

This is not to say that Planetcricket represents a fair sample size of the cricketing fan population, but the general opinion seems to be that the World Cup is too long.... and that is a format issue.[/quote]

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

Yeah..... read the last few posts, including your own!

 

[Kev]

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.

I didnt mean to suggest that the West Indies didn't deserve to hold the competition, of course they did, I just meant that tournaments spread over multiple countries (especially ones without land borders) are problematic for spectators as it limits the matches you can attend, lets face it if you were planning to go (I was, I just couldnt justify the expense in the end) you realistically are only going to attend 1 venue, 2 at best. This goes for all sports not just cricket.

If you are going to have tournaments split over several islands like this you just have to accept that you are limiting your spectator base and as a whole the tournament atmosphere suffers. Lets face it regardless of the format of the tournament if the games were all packed out with spectators and it had a real carnival atmosphere nobody would be complaining about anything.

I dont really know why the ICC does this, the next world cup is being held in Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka and the one after that is New Zealand and Australia. Why split it up like this give it to one country.

 

[valvolux]

The only thing lacking in this world cup has been the crowds. Apart from that it has been an excellent tournament. It's funny how the only people who think it's been a poor tournament are those who support the teams that failed. Fact is, if Australia were knocked out of the tournament early people would be regarding it as a great tournament. I'd like to hear those sky commentator's opinions on the tournament if England made it to the finals. Fact is the only time cricket is 'reborn' as they say is when Australia lose. It's not their fault it doesn't happen very often.

 

[Waqaspk456]

The worst World cup ever is World Cup 2007.

 

[andyptl18]

I hate the fact that there were so many one-sided affairs in this WC. Eng vs WI and SA vs SRL were only two exciting games to watch. There were so many games where the batting team scored 250+ then the chasing team was barely able to score 200. What is it the pitches or what? Anyways Go AUSTRALIA for World Cup Finals (hate Sri Lanka)

 

[LA ICE-E]

I didnt mean to suggest that the West Indies didn't deserve to hold the competition, of course they did, I just meant that tournaments spread over multiple countries (especially ones without land borders) are problematic for spectators as it limits the matches you can attend, lets face it if you were planning to go (I was, I just couldnt justify the expense in the end) you realistically are only going to attend 1 venue, 2 at best. This goes for all sports not just cricket.

If you are going to have tournaments split over several islands like this you just have to accept that you are limiting your spectator base and as a whole the tournament atmosphere suffers. Lets face it regardless of the format of the tournament if the games were all packed out with spectators and it had a real carnival atmosphere nobody would be complaining about anything.

I dont really know why the ICC does this, the next world cup is being held in Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka and the one after that is New Zealand and Australia. Why split it up like this give it to one country.

Well that's because the icc wants all the test nations to get a chance to hold it. But Countries like sri lanka and bangladesh and new zealand couldn't hold a very successful one alone.

This is not to say that Planetcricket represents a fair sample size of the cricketing fan population, but the general opinion seems to be that the World Cup is too long.... and that is a format issue.

Well, no that's not a format issue. It was an organizing issue because they could have had the same format and still held the tournament in about 27 days if they wanted too. 12 for group stage and 12 for super 8 and 3 for the finals. And Although, the next world cup isn't going to be that short, it's likely to be 40 days with the same format.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21621342-5001505,00.html

The only thing lacking in this world cup has been the crowds. Apart from that it has been an excellent tournament. It's funny how the only people who think it's been a poor tournament are those who support the teams that failed. Fact is, if Australia were knocked out of the tournament early people would be regarding it as a great tournament. I'd like to hear those sky commentator's opinions on the tournament if England made it to the finals. Fact is the only time cricket is 'reborn' as they say is when Australia lose. It's not their fault it doesn't happen very often.

Yeah that atmosphere was a set back but it improved a lot. And this world cup ticketing revenue is the most for a world cup, weird huh?
http://www.cricketworld.com/world_cup_2007/article/?aid=11055

 

[sohum]

Well, no that's not a format issue. It was an organizing issue because they could have had the same format and still held the tournament in about 27 days if they wanted too. 12 for group stage and 12 for super 8 and 3 for the finals. And Although, the next world cup isn't going to be that short, it's likely to be 40 days with the same format.

I think the format is tied closely in with the scheduling. Teams were playing 2 games a week at times which means if they cropped it any closer, there would be too heavy a toll on the players as well. I think a quarterfinal is kind of drastic, though. Perhaps two World Cups from now a QF will make sense when (hopefully) there are about 16 times that are on par with each other.

 

[LA ICE-E]

I think the format is tied closely in with the scheduling. Teams were playing 2 games a week at times which means if they cropped it any closer, there would be too heavy a toll on the players as well. I think a quarterfinal is kind of drastic, though. Perhaps two World Cups from now a QF will make sense when (hopefully) there are about 16 times that are on par with each other.

no, West Indies had like 19 days between their games etc. If you want to cover all of this including reserve days, tourists needs, players needs, admins needs, etc then it just too much an it has to be long. The icc needs to have a healthy amount of games for it's contracts with espn which is going be paying over 1 billion dollars and so on. So quarterfinals wont suit it much unless it have more teams like 24 teams with like 8 groups of 3 and then the top team goes through would give it enough games to have quarterfinals but we don't have that many strong enough teams yet. they can schedule it with a shorter length and it's not really that dependent on the format but also these things that they have to take into consideration.

 

[Ponting_14]

"We've dominated like no team has" Ricky Ponting

No, this was one of the best World Cups I have seen

 

[zimrahil]

"We've dominated like no team has" Ricky Ponting

No, this was one of the best World Cups I have seen

Definitely one of the best world cups if you are an australian.

For everyone else though, it will be remembered for:

-being too long

-hardly any tight finishes

-poor attendances

-winner of tournament was obvious for most of the 7 weeks (though this is no fault of Australia)

-Death of Bob Woolmer


There were highlights such as the 6 sixes, Ireland qualifying for super 8's etc, but the above points mean for me I am glad its all over !

 

[Master Khan]

let hope the next world cup is better then this one
And I agree This was the wrost world cup ever and if I was a Australia fan then I would choose the 2003 world cup as my best

92 was my best world cup

 

[Will_NA]

let hope the next world cup is better then this one
And I agree This was the wrost world cup ever and if I was a Australia fan then I would choose the 2003 world cup as my best

92 was my best world cup

I wonder why? :

Even though, you were 1 at the time.