What's new

A fantastic World Cup format because...

D

Donal Cozzie

ODI Debutant
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Runs
9,541
Post of the Week
4
As everybody knows, there are absolutely zero one sided games between Full Member nations, hence why all the weak minnows (when have they ever added anything) were deservedly kicked out.

Credit to England and South Africa for a truly mesmerising game of cricket that wet down to the last ball. I'm sure every game will live up to this high level of standard and quality.

As we all saw in 2011, 2015 and earlier, every single one sided game in cricket is due to Associate nations. Fantastic that we shall see none this time around.

Absolutely trembling in anticipation at the match-ups that await ;-)
 
Absolutely terrible format. Nine games per side in the group stages is ridiculous in this day and age with the games being whole day affairs as well. I'm willing to bet that halfway through the group stages the semi-finalists will be more or less decided and the rest of the games will be dead rubbers for all intents and purposes. To make tournaments exciting you need more knockout matches, more crunch games. ICC is run by absolute buffoons.
 
.. because it resembles the IPL. The gentlemen's game has been hijacked by you-know-who & has been turned into a circus.

I'm firmly rooting for india, I hope they win the next 10/20/50 cups, tournaments, series in a row, because cricket-on-TV is nothing more than a cash-cow to milk & keep gullible, unemployed fools occupied.
 
There is no chance of not playing tougher teams and getting away lol india played just Pakistan, BD, SL, SA to get to the final of CT 2017
 
Ten teams. It's hardly a "World" cup. It's just another Champions Trophy.

I already miss Zimbabwe, and I would love to see the likes of Ireland and Netherlands and Nepal. I do not care how one-sided the games might be.

As for the format, it's nice and simple.
 
The format is the best. Every team plays against each other and the top four teams go to the Semi Finals, no weak groups, no group of death, no advantage or disadvantage to any team.
 
16 teams 4 groups, top 2 go to super eight stage where each team plays 7 matches & top 4 from super eight go to semis. 55 matches as compared to 48 with current format. Good representation for associate nations as well and tough competition in super eight. Probability of India or Pakistan getting out in group stage also gets minimized when they have three matches to play.
 
Last edited:
Tbh the WC should have more teams. This way it just looks like a copy of the CT.
 
12 teams, 2 groups of 6 with top 2 of each going to semis is the ideal format.

gives space to Associate nations as well create real tension to qualify, not ridiculous quarterfinals.
 
In this format every game matters, in all other formats it didnt as much. They should have also reduced it to 4 weeks, it's still too long.
 
Another absolutely nailbiting game on the cards here. Privileged to witness so many close quality games. No riff raff allowed here.

Roll on Saturday!
 
So first 4 matches are all going to be one-sided hammerings.

SA vs BD will likely be the first close match.
 
Sin Nombre said:
So first 4 matches are all going to be one-sided hammerings.

SA vs BD will likely be the first close match.
Click to expand...

Oh no no you have it all wrong!

The whole reason its ten teams is because everybody was saying there would be no hammerings as no pesky "minnows" are clogging it up.

I suggest you look again ;-) This format guarantees excitement! 5 whole weeks of it before the knock outs! I'm so grateful ;)
 
Best format.
Only deserving teams will go through group stage.

Minnows should be happy that they will play 9 matches in worldcup that to against top teams & have more chance to show their talent.
 
I quite like this format. It means that no team can “get the kinder side of the draw” and so the finalists will be there purely on quality and merit.
 
James said:
I quite like this format. It means that no team can “get the kinder side of the draw” and so the finalists will be there purely on quality and merit.
Click to expand...

Which is why football should have a 32 team league right? So nobody gets a "group of death"?

Agree totally. Imagine getting to watch Brazil play 31 times!
 
TBH Pakistan and SA being so terrible in the opening fixtures is more of an argument to not include even more minnows.
 
Well said Donal.

People saying luck of the draw and so one, that is the beauty of cup tournaments. It creates drama and surprises.

Quite rich [MENTION=1842]James[/MENTION] is talking about luck of the draw given England's run last year in the FIFA World Cup...
 
Last world cup was even more boring! These teams can at least bounce back later... So both formats has pros and cons! The issue is with the length of the game (50 overs) which is playing in people's mind! Nobody seems to have so much time as in 90s...
 
RamLakhan said:
Last world cup was even more boring! These teams can at least bounce back later... So both formats has pros and cons! The issue is with the length of the game (50 overs) which is playing in people's mind! Nobody seems to have so much time as in 90s...
Click to expand...

But didnt WI, who lost to Ireland first up, and Pakistan, who got thrashed in their two opening games, not "bounce back" to qualify on NRR in 2015?

Hmmmmmm....
 
OP is just bitter because Ireland are not in the WC.

He doesn't realise that minnows have more chance of winning if they play against more teams rather than a handful.

Oh well, 2023 it is, perhaps.
 
First of, I am one of those who was against the World Cup format because it limits the amount of oppurtunities for the associates or weaker test nations.

However, Donal is using examples where even matches between top teams are being one-sided. Now hold on for a second. Yes 10-team tournament means more competitive games ON-AVERAGE. With all due respect to weaker teams, they would won average lose by greater margins. For example if anyone followed Ireland-BD-WI tri series? Ireland lost first match by 180+ runs, 2nd match they scored 320 but that was chased PRETTY EASILY and 3rd match they scored 290 odd which Bangladesh chased with 7 overs to spare. WI were played a depleted side, Bangladesh rested Soumya and Fizz.

ICC had a dilemma: either make the world cup more competitive and improve quality or add some variety as well as include more associate nations in the world cup. They chose the former - Do I agree with it? Not reaelly, but does it make sense? It does. Comparison with football wont work here because in football even the 100th ranked side can compete well with a team ranked at 30/40. In cricket, Even a 12th ranked side like Zimbabwe have not been able to compete with Bangladesh in an ODI for almost half a decade.

TBH cricket hardly has much fans outside the top 10 teams, and not like if ICC includes new teams there will be a sudden bloom in terms of cricket popularity. Credit to ICC for atleast compensating by allowing more teams to participate in the ICC WT20 and televising the ICC world cup qualifiers.

I still feel 10 teams doesn't feel like a world cup but 12 team tournament would have been great. Infact I think the previous format - 14 teams was uneventful before but given that teams like Bangladesh and Afghanistan are more than capable for getting into the top 8, things could be pretty interesting now. I believe once teams like Scotland, Zimbabwe, Nepal, Netherlands improve then we can see immensely competitive world cups in the future and ICC will be FORCED to include more teams.

I will commend Ireland's performance in previous world cups. They have won 7/8 world cup matches already.
 
Technics 1210 said:
OP is just bitter because Ireland are not in the WC.

He doesn't realise that minnows have more chance of winning if they play against more teams rather than a handful.

Oh well, 2023 it is, perhaps.
Click to expand...

Of course, he is bitter. This is a glorified Champions Trophy just for short-term greed.
 
World cup should eventually be reduced to 8 teams.

No point of having extra crowd with no hopes of winning the trophy.

There is a qualifier tournament where all teams can earn their spot.
 
Another enthralling contest between SL and NZ.

Sure am glad there are no minnows!
 
Ireland should have done better at the qualifiers. This format is great! No ifs and buts, you've gotta beat 4/5 good teams to qualify, which minnows cannot do.
 
freelance_cricketer said:
World cup should eventually be reduced to 8 teams.

No point of having extra crowd with no hopes of winning the trophy.

There is a qualifier tournament where all teams can earn their spot.
Click to expand...
Thats called the champions trophy!
And we are the CHAMPIONS!
Seriously, its supposed to be a world cup, should have at least 16 teams in it. 4 groups of 4.
I miss the irish fans, bring alot of colour to the tourney. Also england match with ireland or scotland is always worth watching.
And i will never forget when ireland beat us and knocked us out of 2007wc, can laugh about it now but was virtually in tears at the time. Theres alwys a upset which makes the tourney.
Bring back the 16 team WC!
 
Wer already getting tortured with one sided contests with minnows like pak SL afgh bang.

Why would you want to add scotland v Papa new guinea to the list. Is Boyd Shoaib Akhtar Rankin gonna win Ireland the title?

Icc would go bankrupt within days!!
 
Donal Cozzie said:
Another enthralling contest between SL and NZ.

Sure am glad there are no minnows!
Click to expand...

Lol you think having Ireland and Scotland would have been better? :))

This is exactly why ICC chose to have a World Cup with only 10 teams.

Nobody wants to watch Ireland and Scotland, other than their 20 fans.
 
AZ said:
12 teams, 2 groups of 6 with top 2 of each going to semis is the ideal format.

gives space to Associate nations as well create real tension to qualify, not ridiculous quarterfinals.
Click to expand...

Two groups of 6/7 and then having super sixes.
 
I like this format to be honest, nowhere to hide for struggling teams. You play everyone so no excuses. Also means that fans who like to talk big about their team know that there will be a reckoning, so trash talk can come back and bite you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AZ said:
12 teams, 2 groups of 6 with top 2 of each going to semis is the ideal format.

gives space to Associate nations as well create real tension to qualify, not ridiculous quarterfinals.
Click to expand...

That's my ideal format too, 12 is the happy medium with only the best Associates qualifying.

10 teams renders the World Cup as an extended Champions Trophy. While 14, as we saw in the last two tournaments, is too many with the 13th and 14th team being lambs to the slaughter.

Also given this World Cup is in England and Wales - are people seriously saying wobody would've turned up to watch Ireland and Scotland given the size of their communities here ?
 
Markhor said:
10 teams renders the World Cup as an extended Champions Trophy. While 14, as we saw in the last two tournaments, is too many with the 13th and 14th team being lambs to the slaughter.
Click to expand...
Which means Pakistan has not won a proper World Cup; only two Champions Trophies :ma
 
The games have been so one sided. I get that that there is going to be a difference in class between the smaller and bigger teams, but no game has gone down to the last few overs. Hopefully it changes soon.
 
With respect to teams like Ireland and posters like Donal, comparisons with soccer are irrelevant. Longer versions of cricket will never have more than a handful of teams playing competitively . Even 10 teams is too many . Only top 9 should play the World cup in this format. A 39 game world cup is all we need. Too many teams will dilute the quality of matches . This World Cup has been brilliant so far. Nothing to complain about.

I can the see argument of having more teams for the World T20 though.
 
This world cup may turn out least entertaining of them all. Cricketing gods are punishing us all for our folly. We have excluded the deserving teams from biggest cricketing event for short term profit.
 
JattMaula said:
This world cup may turn out least entertaining of them all. Cricketing gods are punishing us all for our folly. We have excluded the deserving teams from biggest cricketing event for short term profit.
Click to expand...

It's just how the scheduling is. The dead matches are at the start. The middle phase should be entertaining though
 
Ronaldo7 said:
It's just how the scheduling is. The dead matches are at the start. The middle phase should be entertaining though
Click to expand...

I hope at least some matches before knockouts are close. Can't wait a month for good matches.
 
I saw Afghanistan play yesterday and I think there is a very good article on cricinfo which says they are a team of No. 8s.

I like Donal Cozzie, he is a very good poster, I'm all for a 12 team WC but I'm sure even he would admit that Zimbabwe, Scotland and Ireland had every chance of making it to the WC, they should have because they are more mature ODI batting units, Scotland were hard done by the rain, but honestly Zimbabwe and Ireland simply messed it up all by themselves.
 
2007 had the best format.

India/Pakistan just spat the dummy and had a cry because they were really bad.
 
1999 and 2003 were actually good formats, they were not like 1996, 2011, 2015 where all you had to do was win a couple of games and get through to Quarter finals at the same time it eliminated the one bad day and get knocked out kind of scenario of 2007.

1999, 2003 also ensured more participation of associate nation and the fact that only 3 teams from each group qualify for super 6, it kept the format competitive. Esp now when associates along with Zim, Ire, Afg and Ban who are far more competitive than what they were in 2003, the format will be perfect.
 
Why so passive aggressive man?

I want to see more teams in the World Cup, Ireland, Netherlands, Zimbabwe all deserve to play for doing so well at their level, maybe even Nepal, but they would more or less result in the same one sided contests, also the World Cup isn't over yet.
 
So far this wc is been boring. Im not saying that just because pak got battered, its just slogs or bouncers, no finese what so ever!
 
Well, World Cup means World Cup. Should have associate nations atleast the likes of Zimbabwe, Ireland, Scotland and Netherlands as they have been improving even with the miniscule amount of fixtures they get to play. Ireland have a respectable WC record with wins against Pak, England, WI and Bangladesh. Zim, surely has been receding but that is more down to the board and maybe the economy crisis there. With there full strength squad, they are still a very decent team. Scotland have improved a lot in last 2-3 years.

Should make 3 pools 6 teams each. Top 2 get to the super sixes. The top 2 from the super sixes play the final. No need for semis. Just my two cents here.
 
BunnyRabbit said:
Well, World Cup means World Cup. Should have associate nations atleast the likes of Zimbabwe, Ireland, Scotland and Netherlands as they have been improving even with the miniscule amount of fixtures they get to play. Ireland have a respectable WC record with wins against Pak, England, WI and Bangladesh. Zim, surely has been receding but that is more down to the board and maybe the economy crisis there. With there full strength squad, they are still a very decent team. Scotland have improved a lot in last 2-3 years.

Should make 3 pools 6 teams each. Top 2 get to the super sixes. The top 2 from the super sixes play the final. No need for semis. Just my two cents here.
Click to expand...
Completely agree on Zimbabwe and Ireland as these were two solid teams who might have given a decent fight to newly appointed minnows like Pakistan, SL and the ever improving Afghanistan and Bangladesh.

ICC has done its best to do a disservice to the game of cricket!
 
aqeelPK said:
16 teams 4 groups, top 2 go to super eight stage where each team plays 7 matches & top 4 from super eight go to semis. 55 matches as compared to 48 with current format. Good representation for associate nations as well and tough competition in super eight. Probability of India or Pakistan getting out in group stage also gets minimized when they have three matches to play.
Click to expand...

16 teams 4 groups is the format where Ind and Pak went out early in the WC and ICC lost a ton of money.

knowing BCCI..er..I mean ICC only cares about money you will never evveeerrr see this format again
 
This is not a wc! It is a chapions +2 trophy round robin competition.
Wc should have 16 teams - 4 groups of 4. This round robin format is soo boring. No knock outs til the end of the group stage. After 4 defeats, a team may still have 5 more games to play, even though they have no chance of qualifying to the semi - just stupid.. BOREFEST!
 
I admit when associates teams played in wc against the big boys, i wouldnt watch all the match but keep track of the score. And if a upset is on the cards i would watch the last hour or 2. That was exciting to see if the little guy can slay the giant. I guess now i will just have to watch the last hour or so of pak and sl games to see if they can slay the giants. How the mighty have fallen!
 
I for one think the 2003 WC format was pretty good because there 12 teams in 2 groups each. So among 6 teams, only 3 teams could get to the next round. The good thing about this format was it allowed for associates to compete against one another and also meant that it was competitive. Issue with current format is its a bit TOO competitive. I honestly believe that there should be more value to knockout games than round robin fixtures which emphasize on consistency. FIFA world cup has not only QF but also round of sixteen.
 
Executioner said:
I for one think the 2003 WC format was pretty good because there 12 teams in 2 groups each. So among 6 teams, only 3 teams could get to the next round. The good thing about this format was it allowed for associates to compete against one another and also meant that it was competitive. Issue with current format is its a bit TOO competitive. I honestly believe that there should be more value to knockout games than round robin fixtures which emphasize on consistency. FIFA world cup has not only QF but also round of sixteen.
Click to expand...

In 2003, we had 14 teams in 2 groups and a total of 54 games scheduled including Semis and Final. That world cup definitely needed this format. We never got to see the likes of De Silva, Hooper , Donald, Kirsten , Klusener, Rhodes against 2W's, Anwar, Saqi, Stewart, Knight, Bevan,Lehmann etc.
 
Cricket is played in few countries and even in those few it's declining sport in most of them and not major sport in any of them apart from sub continent..

If you want to grow then you need to spread game. But I don't think ICC administrators want to grow so current format is fine. Let it play like this till sub continent countries find new sport in next 20-30 years and then cricket can die a slow death :)
 
big_gamer007 said:
Cricket is played in few countries and even in those few it's declining sport in most of them and not major sport in any of them apart from sub continent..

If you want to grow then you need to spread game. But I don't think ICC administrators want to grow so current format is fine. Let it play like this till sub continent countries find new sport in next 20-30 years and then cricket can die a slow death :)
Click to expand...

Cricket has accepted it's slow death. Myopic admins will bleed it dry. Like field hockey it will be a sport occasionally remembered.
 
JattMaula said:
Cricket has accepted it's slow death. Myopic admins will bleed it dry. Like field hockey it will be a sport occasionally remembered.
Click to expand...

I think it depends on whether majority of next generation from sub continent pick up on other sports or not. If by any change India can produce a good international level footballer then cricket will die like field hockey. otherwise it will be a slow death.
 
big_gamer007 said:
I think it depends on whether majority of next generation from sub continent pick up on other sports or not. If by any change India can produce a good international level footballer then cricket will die like field hockey. otherwise it will be a slow death.
Click to expand...

It will be a slow death in India even if we somehow magically become decent footballing nation. It would have died quiet fast but IPL will sustain it for some time. Now it will putter out lamely. :(
 
India is not going to become a good (top 30 in the world) footballing nation in the next 20 years.

Most Indians watch it on tv, not send their kids to practice 8 hours on their ball skills in the heat.

Crickets is easier in that regard, most of time, you are just standing around.
 
Donal Cozzie said:
As everybody knows, there are absolutely zero one sided games between Full Member nations, hence why all the weak minnows (when have they ever added anything) were deservedly kicked out.

Credit to England and South Africa for a truly mesmerising game of cricket that wet down to the last ball. I'm sure every game will live up to this high level of standard and quality.

As we all saw in 2011, 2015 and earlier, every single one sided game in cricket is due to Associate nations. Fantastic that we shall see none this time around.

Absolutely trembling in anticipation at the match-ups that await ;-)
Click to expand...

Stop crying frank lampard :))) hope you enjoy watching us on the TV both in the Cricket and Footy :akhtar

Don't be so bitter Donal boi, Afghanistan earned the right to be in the WC unlike you, not their fault you folded so easily. Enjoy the tournament ;)
 
I agree, it should ideally have been a 12-team tournament. The associates are now stronger than they have ever been. On current form, Scotland would easily emerge victorious against a team like Sri Lanka over a five-match series. In fact, I remember Scotland beating England, one of the favorites to win the World Cup, in an ODI last year!
 
I prefer the format of the 2015 WC. 14/16 teams in 2 groups with 7/8 teams each.

We really have 12 decent ODI sides. The 10 playing here + Ireland + Zim. You can surely add 2 to 4 more teams.

The only difference would be that the teams go straight into semis, and remove quarters.

I don’t mind the super six format either.
 
pakpassfan said:
16 teams 4 groups is the format where Ind and Pak went out early in the WC and ICC lost a ton of money.

knowing BCCI..er..I mean ICC only cares about money you will never evveeerrr see this format again
Click to expand...

Did you just do a Chris Jericho impression? :dd
 
12 team world cup would be more fair but would mean fewer games per side.
 
This World Cup just gets better and better!

WI beat Pakistan
England beat SA
BD beat SA
PAK beat England

This tournament is already wide open . So are there no clear favourites here?
 
One of the undefeated teams will be favourites. I said RSA at the beginning, now it could be the Aussies. India still to start their campaign can't be dismissed either. The Cricket WC is always a very open tournament.
 
England will struggle to go to Semis now. All the hoopla around batting depth is thrown out the window. Remember these guys even got hammered by IRE giving them a record of highest WC chase ever back in 2011.

Semifinal is now completely wide open. Before the tournament, BD chance to reach semi was like 100, now it is just 3.
 
BDfanforever said:
England will struggle to go to Semis now. All the hoopla around batting depth is thrown out the window. Remember these guys even got hammered by IRE giving them a record of highest WC chase ever back in 2011.

Semifinal is now completely wide open. Before the tournament, BD chance to reach semi was like 100, now it is just 3.
Click to expand...

Their batting depth will win them more games then not. They nearly pulled it of today as well but for good bowling changed by Sarfraz and in turn good bowling by those bowlers. England will be easily in semis, very good team.
 
BDfanforever said:
England will struggle to go to Semis now. All the hoopla around batting depth is thrown out the window. Remember these guys even got hammered by IRE giving them a record of highest WC chase ever back in 2011.

Semifinal is now completely wide open. Before the tournament, BD chance to reach semi was like 100, now it is just 3.
Click to expand...

Pakistan has been playing England for the last month and were able to cross the line after 4-5 matches would be tougher for other teams to do as well against England in 1 off matches
 
Donal Cozzie said:
Two decent games tbf.

So 2/6 competitive so far.
Click to expand...

not all games will be competitive, if 70-80% of the games are competitive at the end of the world cup we can say this world cup format did what ICC wanted

I for one support this format.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Buffet
Kumar Sangakkara versus Virat Kohli in the Test format
2 3
Replies
186
Views
9K
mominsaigol
mominsaigol
MenInG
The Anderson–Tendulkar Trophy: Significance?
Replies
50
Views
2K
The Bald Eagle
The Bald Eagle
The Bald Eagle
World Cricketers' Association calls for a more equitable revenue distribution and a revamp of the ICC's governance model
2 3
Replies
169
Views
7K
U$ofA
U
MenInG
India v Pakistan: The greatest cricket rivalry - A Netflix documentary
2
Replies
141
Views
6K
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
Ball Blazer
"Our careers are over": Oman players decry on non payment of dues; Oman Cricket to disburse T20 World Cup prize money [Update@post#1&7]
Replies
6
Views
817
The Bald Eagle
The Bald Eagle
Back
Top