What's new

Should there be a 3rd place match in Cricket World Cups?

Syed1

ODI Captain
Joined
Jan 22, 2015
Runs
46,041
Post of the Week
3
The thread title says it all. In the Fifa WC the two losing semi-finalists play an inconsequential third place match, which most fans will attest is usually is a very, very entertaining affair. Both sides know that the match does not matter a great deal and play with a certain degree of freedom.


So is there merit in the ICC WC also having a third place match? After the final line-up for the semis is picked we know position of every team from 5-10. Then after the final we know who is 1st and who is 2nd. What we do not know is who is 3rd and who is 4th. Imagine if Pak and Ind both end up losing in their semis (provided we reach there) we will never know who did better at the WC. :vk2
 
For me, yes, there should be.

I actually want the playoff system replacing the existing semi final and final system.
 
I like the idea in football world cups...until you actually see the match and how bored both sides look. Not sure how that can be sustained over a 100 overs of cricket.
 
Nope, there have been calls for FIFA to scrap the 3rd place match as it's a waste of time and one team ends up leaving a well played tournament with two straight losses.
 
No but the last group games should be played simultaneously not fair in certain teams if nrr comes into play they will know exactly what to do if they play on the last day.
 
It's stupid but I'm surprised the ICC hasn't done it yet as it could mean an extra game for 2 top nations.
 
The truth is its not necessary but I personally would not mind it at all in fact I get see this happening more in t20 World Cup in terms of footballing tournaments like World Cup copa America etc a third place match is always a fun match too watch because both teams still want to win but at the same time they try to attack more were the finals usually tend be more defensive and in some cases boring

So for cricket I don't see it as a bad thing at all but at the same time it's not neccasary but I am not Agaisnt it
 
They have it in the Rugby World Cup too.
Having a 3rd/4th playoff would be very depressing for NZ as we were losing semifinalists in 1975, 1979, 1992, 1999, 2007, and 2011 before making the 2015 final. We really need to win the tournament this time!
 
Nah, its very depressing for the team as no point. I'd hate if we lost the semi-final and then had to play a 3rd spot while India or any other rival had the final the next day. I am sure the players would like to go back home asap.
 
It has incentive for the home team, because it is an opportunity to finish on a high in front of the home crowd. However, if the home team fails to qualify for the semis, the match is reduced to a glorified friendly.
 
Rubbish concept

3rd position doesn’t matter. Either you win the tournament or not. Other positions are meaningless in every World Cup
 
Useless match.

Sort of like offering a bone to the team who is not reaching the final.

Who is more interested in the bone?

Team A who lost or Team B who lost.

Both teams look disinterested and the bone is won by the one who lazily strolls to victory despite every effort to lose.
 
This idea will work well in Olympics because they have gold, silver and bronze medals for top 3 teams. :inti
 
No but there should be a match after the final between the winner team and the rest of the tournament XI.
 
Leave that for T20 leagues. This is a World Cup, there should be proper knockouts.

Actually, that's up for debate. Even in the playoff system, you do have knockout matches like the 2nd qualifier is basically a semi final and the eliminator is like a quarter final. What I want to shed light on is that say the table topper wins 8/9 out of 9 league matches and loses the semi final for one bad day and they are out. The playoff system rewards consistency in the league phase and diminishes the 'one bad day' factor for 1st or 2nd team.
 
I think there should be a 3rd place play-off to ensure the losing semi-finalists do not play one less game than the finalists. That one extra game could be the difference for a player (who has missed out on the final), between being the leading run scorer/wicket-taker (and therefore man of the tournament) and losing out on all accolades.
 
Actually, that's up for debate. Even in the playoff system, you do have knockout matches like the 2nd qualifier is basically a semi final and the eliminator is like a quarter final. What I want to shed light on is that say the table topper wins 8/9 out of 9 league matches and loses the semi final for one bad day and they are out. The playoff system rewards consistency in the league phase and diminishes the 'one bad day' factor for 1st or 2nd team.

You gotta play the pressure well to be the best in the world. All other sports use this same format, I don't see them complaining.
 
Do you even remember who made it to the 2nd place for every world cup? No? Neither does majority of the population. But I bet almost all cricket fans knows who has a WC in their cabinet. 3rd place, no one will ever talk about it, let alone remember.
 
I don't know. Must people don't really care about third place games in Football WC. All the stakes are lost aswell. Its just like a bilateral game.
 
Instead of semis if we had qualifier and knockoffs like we do for the leagues it would have been better
1. The fag end of the tournament their would be fewer dead rubbers
2. We would get the top 4 places
3. Harder for 3rd and 4th ranked teams to fluke it and win the final
 
You gotta play the pressure well to be the best in the world. All other sports use this same format, I don't see them complaining.

I do see your point and nobody will complain I agree. I understand that you're trying to say if the table topper is good enough then they should be winning against the 4th side in the semi. What I am trying to say is that if the table topper has a bad day in the semi, they are out. Their supremacy and dominance in the league phase disappears. The 4th team hobbles in the league stage and somehow makes it to the semi and wins the semi and final and they are champion. The playoff system makes the 3rd or 4th side work harder to reach the final than the 1st or 2nd team as the 1st or 2nd team dominated the league phase. That's the other side of the coin. That's it.

Instead of semis if we had qualifier and knockoffs like we do for the leagues it would have been better
1. The fag end of the tournament their would be fewer dead rubbers
2. We would get the top 4 places
3. Harder for 3rd and 4th ranked teams to fluke it and win the final

This.
 
I do see your point and nobody will complain I agree. I understand that you're trying to say if the table topper is good enough then they should be winning against the 4th side in the semi. What I am trying to say is that if the table topper has a bad day in the semi, they are out. Their supremacy and dominance in the league phase disappears. The 4th team hobbles in the league stage and somehow makes it to the semi and wins the semi and final and they are champion. The playoff system makes the 3rd or 4th side work harder to reach the final than the 1st or 2nd team as the 1st or 2nd team dominated the league phase. That's the other side of the coin. That's it.



This.

Well the way I feel about it is that the best team is the team who plays pressure the best. Rather than having a "bad day", it's usually the top teams inability to handle the pressure which sees them knocked out. It's already a big enough advantage for the 1st team to be facing the 4th.
 
Well the way I feel about it is that the best team is the team who plays pressure the best. Rather than having a "bad day", it's usually the top teams inability to handle the pressure which sees them knocked out. It's already a big enough advantage for the 1st team to be facing the 4th.

Well even in the playoff, there will be pressure and 3rd or 4th team can't just fluke it. They will have to earn it.
 
Well even in the playoff, there will be pressure and 3rd or 4th team can't just fluke it. They will have to earn it.

Teams 1 and 2 getting a second chance just seems lame to me. You shouldn't have second chances in the knockouts of a World Cup. I don't mind this system for T20 leagues though.
 
Teams 1 and 2 getting a second chance just seems lame to me. You shouldn't have second chances in the knockouts of a World Cup. I don't mind this system for T20 leagues though.

The second chance is for the reason they dominated the league phase. 1st vs 2nd is qualifier 1 or you can say race to the final.

See it like this:

Qualifier 1 (Race to the Final): 1st vs 2nd
Eliminator (Quarter Final): 3rd vs 4th [Knockout Match]
Qualifier 2 (Semi Final): Winner of Eliminator vs Loser of Qualifier 1 [Knockout Match]
Final: Winner of Qualifier 1 vs Winner of Qualifier 2 [Knockout Match]
 
Back
Top