What's with the format?

[CG123]

The Rugby Sevens format would be the perfect one to follow. Have 16 teams in four pools of four, with "the top two teams in each pool advance to the Cup competition. The four quarterfinal losers drop into the bracket for the Plate. The Bowl is contested by the third and fourth-place finishers in each pool, while the Shield is contested by the losing quarterfinalists of the Bowl."

Therefore everyone will play at least five games, instead of this stupid format atm where four teams are going to be heading home after only playing two games. Also there would be limited blowouts, because after the pool stage the teams get seeded with other similar teams and the lesser teams still get a chance to experience the World Cup. And at the later stage the lesser teams can just play their games at the same time as main teams, so it doesn't drag out.

 

[Prithvi]

The basic problem with this World Cup was it started on a Tuesday and the main matches (like India-England, South Africa-Sri Lanka) have been scheduled on week ends to attract more crowds. And in the mean time, they were given games against minnows, who couldn't do anything.

I agree that Afghanistan's qualification was a joke, they're no way near causing an upset, unless the opposition fails for big time. Inclusion of Netherlands could have been a bit better.

 

[CG123]

I agree that Afghanistan's qualification was a joke, they're no way near causing an upset, unless the opposition fails for big time. Inclusion of Netherlands could have been a bit better.

They weren't that far off India, that result last night was a bit of a joke though. I guess they couldn't really do what Bangladesh did against us and just block it out to get a semi-respectable total, because it was a must win for them. That's part of the reason why they should run several tournaments after the pool stage like they do with Rugby Sevens, because then they'd still have something to play for if they'd lost so they could have pushed towards a more respectable total instead of having there top order fall apart chasing 10 an over which they were never going to get.

 

[Owzat]

it's been terrible scheduling rather than the format.

well the format could be bad but it's been made impossible to tell. we've now got sri lanka v south africa to watch, but it will mean nothing. india v england will be similar.

why relegate all the important early games to meaningless status?

well, the answer is because it protects the big teams, even if they get beat they have a second bite at the cherry knowing they have to win against the other big team, but with the advantage that they will have likely already qualified (run rate usually helps the big teams as minnows tend to win games closely and get smashed when the lose)

so after the tournament we'll have the usual "the minnows shouldn't be there/were uncompetitive" line, despite the fact the tournament was geared up to make them as uncompetative as possible because if one of them did sneak through we'd have scores of whinging from the ICC about losing sponsorship (like the 2007 world cup) and fans not seeing their team in the last 8.

It is a bit too much like the 2007 World Cup, the organisers and TV wanted the big eight teams to qualify and play each other in a round robin and two teams upset the applecart because of this 1st stage format offering banana skins.

Big team loses to small team, then to the other big team, small team goes through. That's why they scrapped it for the last World Cup I'm sure, made sure the teams they wanted through got there.

The key is playing enough games in the round that the best teams will go through, or the teams that play best. Minnows can manage an upset or two, but play them in two groups of six round robin and they tend to fade. So for say 33 games they could have played two groups of six (2 x15 games) and then semis and a final.

Maybe instead of playing meaningless series all over (ODIs) they should have the World Cup every four years and a round robin World Championship in the middle of the four years, like the Euros and World Cup in football. TV would probably dictate a 10 team round robin had to be played all games on a different day so someone could watch the lot, so that's 45 games plus a final or semis IF they decided upon them which I wouldn't - just make it a league with Champions, Runners-Up and maybe third as a recorded achievement.

Inbetween the World Championship and World Cup they could play round robins in smaller tournaments to decide some of the 10 teams, or in fact proper qualifiers for all countries. Groups like at the World Cup but everyone bar maybe holders to qualify. It would certainly give meaning and interest to every ODI played. 4-5 team qualifying groups in the summer, neutral venue round robin with say :

Qualifying 1 : Australia, Zimbabwe, Ireland, Kenya, Papua New Guinea
Qualifying 2 : England, Pakistan, Canada, Namibia, UAE
Qualifying 3 : South Africa, Bangladesh, Scotland, Bermuda, Hong Kong
Qualifying 4 : Sri Lanka, West Indies, Holland, USA, Nepal
Qualifying 5 : India, New Zealand, Afghanistan, Denmark, Uganda

Gives the minnows some practice and exposure against big teams without cluttering a finals competition with them, gives the pretenders a chance to show what they can do, and the big teams can do their bit while having a nice warm up for a bigger competition ahead.

Two teams qualify from each group. I've deliberately included Bangladesh and Scotland, Zimbabwe and Ireland in the same groups to make it as tough for the biggest team as possible and also to give the non-Test teams a better chance of qualifying without facing say India and New Zealand or England and Pakistan. Round Robin would only mean 10 games per group so wouldn't last forever, assuming TV didn't go OTT with scheduling.

Or at a push, certainly if you used it for World Cup qualifying, you could have three teams qualify or a best two third placed teams clause and make the finals 12-14 teams. 16 is too many, there need to be at least half the teams or more good enough when you start increasing numbers. The European Championships of football are expanding the finals to 24 teams out of about 53 eligible. Means teams like Wales, Scotland, Latvia, Estonia etc can qualify, but what will they add to, and get from, the finals when it will be merely increasing the numbers and not the quality?

 

[CG123]

Maybe instead of playing meaningless series all over (ODIs) they should have the World Cup every four years and a round robin World Championship in the middle of the four years, like the Euros and World Cup in football. TV would probably dictate a 10 team round robin had to be played all games on a different day so someone could watch the lot, so that's 45 games plus a final or semis IF they decided upon them which I wouldn't - just make it a league with Champions, Runners-Up and maybe third as a recorded achievement.

Wouldn't that essentially be an expanded Champions Trophy, which is getting scraped after next year?

 

[Owzat]

Wouldn't that essentially be an expanded Champions Trophy, which is getting scraped after next year?

Quite probably, but it's not me scrapping worthwhile competitions I assume simply to try and reduce cricket instead of reducing meaningless series and scrapping the (ODI) rankings

Better a proper competition where you play different sides, than play the same side 3-7 times and prove nothing. At least the Champions Trophy doesn't become a "dead rubber" after three games as can be the case, the final decides the winner so most games do matter - if the format is right.

 

[CG123]

Quite probably, but it's not me scrapping worthwhile competitions I assume simply to try and reduce cricket instead of reducing meaningless series and scrapping the (ODI) rankings

Better a proper competition where you play different sides, than play the same side 3-7 times and prove nothing. At least the Champions Trophy doesn't become a "dead rubber" after three games as can be the case, the final decides the winner so most games do matter - if the format is right.

I'm not disagreeing with you, because I think that something like the Champions Trophy should stay. Therefore in a four year cycle there would the 50 over world cup, two 20 over world cups, and a 50 over trophy thing, which is exactly what they've got for this four year cycle.

Obviously the key is getting the format right for each of them/just the two world cup's now since there's no longer going to be another world 50 over event, which the ICC can't seem to do atm.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

It is a bit too much like the 2007 World Cup, the organisers and TV wanted the big eight teams to qualify and play each other in a round robin and two teams upset the applecart because of this 1st stage format offering banana skins.

I agree, the thing that I think it's worth remembering is that in the 2011 world cup, the minnows were nowhere near as uncompetitive as people made out.

in the group with kenya, zimbabwe and canada ok, they were quite poor (however this was very much the ICCs fault, holding the qualifying 2 years in advance, in the time leading up to the world cup afghanistan and scotland had surpassed kenya and canada and had beaten them easily in the ICC intercontinental tournaments), but in the other group they weren't any less uncompetitive than some of the big teams. BNG and ireland beat england, but more importantly the games they played with each other were very tight. as for qualifying, well, did anyone expect them to qualify when the groups were such that they'd have to beat 2 of the big test teams within a week to manage?

this is where this world cup has missed a trick imo. see, one of the reasons people wrote off the minnows in that world cup was because really, no one had much interest in watching them play each other. ireland v bangladesh was a very close match but drew relatively little interest so they only judged them on the matches they could be bothered watching, against the bigger test nations.

I don't think that would happen in twenty20 tournament. I think that's the attraction of the format, I think people would watch bangaldesh versus afghanistan and ireland v zimbabwe etc this tournament could have organised so that the smaller teams had a slightly longer stay.

4 team groups work, to the point that football tournaments would rather have "best 3rd place" teams going through than have 3 or 5 team groups. either do this, or invite another few teams. I don't really see the problem in having a few crappy games against scotland and canada in the mix early on.

certainly beats watching two big teams square off in meaningless matches where both has qualified for a place in the next round, something that has happened at the 2007 and the 2011 world cup and as is happening now. we're waiting to see SL play SA for what exactly?

edit: to be fair, bangladesh and ireland don't have the same problems so maybe it's presumptious to blame the organisers too much for the scheduling.

 

[sifter132]

this is where this world cup has missed a trick imo. see, one of the reasons people wrote off the minnows in that world cup was because really, no one had much interest in watching them play each other. ireland v bangladesh was a very close match but drew relatively little interest so they only judged them on the matches they could be bothered watching, against the bigger test nations.

I don't think that would happen in twenty20 tournament. I think that's the attraction of the format, I think people would watch bangaldesh versus afghanistan and ireland v zimbabwe etc this tournament could have organised so that the smaller teams had a slightly longer stay.

^I don't agree. Even in T20 I think minnow vs minnow would get old pretty quickly. The average fan would know maybe 1 or 2 players from each team, and if there were multiple minnow vs minnow games it would just drag the tournament. Would be a great change of pace for the hardcore fans like us, but I think the average cricket watcher NEEDS to see a team with players that he recognises.

As for whether these SA-SL games are meaningless or not. Well I guess they are in the big picture, but in that way, aren't ALL the T20 games in the last 2 years meaningless if they weren't knock out world cup games?

So I actually like this format. Not too many minnow vs minnow matches and it's not taking too long. Some of these 16/20/32 team ideas would just completely halt the world cricket calendar, and I'm not ready to do that for a knockout T20 tournament. If it's going to last longer than a month, I'm going to start losing interest (hear that IPL?? )

 

[ferg512]

So I actually like this format. Not too many minnow vs minnow matches and it's not taking too long. Some of these 16/20/32 team ideas would just completely halt the world cricket calendar, and I'm not ready to do that for a knockout T20 tournament. If it's going to last longer than a month, I'm going to start losing interest (hear that IPL?? )

I understand that completely and thats why I thought the 9th place playoff would be a great idea. 9th vs 12th and 10th vs 11th and then a final between the two winners. This would only benefit the minnows, and I think people would have watched it because there would only be a couple of games. This is pointless now seeing as there is 16 teams at the next tournament, have they said yet what the format will be in 2014?

 

[War]

The Rugby Sevens format would be the perfect one to follow. Have 16 teams in four pools of four, with "the top two teams in each pool advance to the Cup competition. The four quarterfinal losers drop into the bracket for the Plate. The Bowl is contested by the third and fourth-place finishers in each pool, while the Shield is contested by the losing quarterfinalists of the Bowl."

Therefore everyone will play at least five games, instead of this stupid format atm where four teams are going to be heading home after only playing two games. Also there would be limited blowouts, because after the pool stage the teams get seeded with other similar teams and the lesser teams still get a chance to experience the World Cup. And at the later stage the lesser teams can just play their games at the same time as main teams, so it doesn't drag out.

. Yes this is brilliant idea for future world t20 formats. One of my friends who follows rugby was highlighting this to me the other day and i think it makes perfect sense

While for future 50 over world cups, just go back the 1992 world cup format with the 9 major nations playing each other once. Then the top 4 teams advancing to the semi-finals.

However too bad idiots run the ICC and such logical suggestions may never happen.

 

[spooony]

. Yes this is brilliant idea for future world t20 formats. One of my friends who follows rugby was highlighting this to me the other day and i think it makes perfect sense

While for future 50 over world cups, just go back the 1992 world cup format with the 9 major nations playing each other once. Then the top 4 teams advancing to the semi-finals.

However too bad idiots run the ICC and such logical suggestions may never happen.

They can leave out the rain calculations of 92........

 

[Skater]

. Yes this is brilliant idea for future world t20 formats. One of my friends who follows rugby was highlighting this to me the other day and i think it makes perfect sense

While for future 50 over world cups, just go back the 1992 world cup format with the 9 major nations playing each other once. Then the top 4 teams advancing to the semi-finals.

However too bad idiots run the ICC and such logical suggestions may never happen.

Having 9 Test countries playing each other at the World Cup would do little to expand the game, which is what we're all trying to do.

Associates like Afghanistan and Ireland just need to keep playing ODIs and Twenty20s against the top sides. That way they will improve. Also, I agree with the suggestion of extra play-offs for eliminated teams. It would give the associates something else to aim for other than just qualifying for the tournament.

 

[spooony]

Having 9 Test countries playing each other at the World Cup would do little to expand the game, which is what we're all trying to do.

Associates like Afghanistan and Ireland just need to keep playing ODIs and Twenty20s against the top sides. That way they will improve. Also, I agree with the suggestion of extra play-offs for eliminated teams. It would give the associates something else to aim for other than just qualifying for the tournament.

Exactly! But most replies here are suggesting (1) How to make the most amount of cash out of a world cup and (2) A cricket lover will only watch top teams playing instead of We want to see the best batsman in the world competing in the tournament.

Sadly its not the case in this tournament as the Netherlands are not competing in it.

 

[War]

Having 9 Test countries playing each other at the World Cup would do little to expand the game, which is what we're all trying to do.

Associates like Afghanistan and Ireland just need to keep playing ODIs and Twenty20s against the top sides. That way they will improve. Also, I agree with the suggestion of extra play-offs for eliminated teams. It would give the associates something else to aim for other than just qualifying for the tournament.

T20 is the format that will be used to expand the game, not 50 overs my friend. Which is why the ruby sevens formats suits future t20 world cups perfectly.

Outside of the officially "Cup" format, the bowl and plate legs to it, means an associate/lesser team can win something.

If these associates show improvement and solidity in future world t20 tournaments, then they can graduate to the 50 overs tournaments - then maybe tests match play one day as well.

While that happens in the t20, the 50 overs tournament can have a proper format in which all the best teams can play each other on the world stage. Instead of previous tournaments, where you spit them in groups and not all teams play.