What should be the tournament format of the 50 overs World Cup?

[UN talkz]

It is becoming pathetic edition after edition.
I personally liked the concept of 4 teams per group and then super 8's and then SF's and finally the Final.
But last two editions it has been 7 teams per group and two groups in total with top 4 teams from both groups qualifying into quarter-finals, then SF's and the Final. Tbh it was quite boring and depressing.
Now it is going to become even worse with only 10 teams playing and no groups whatsoever, it is going to be played like the T20 leagues and to me there is hardly any difference bw CT and WC considering WC now has only top 10 teams and CT has top 8.

My Opinion

• I would want it to be 24 team event in future ( we r playing WC and not Asia Australia Cup)

• There should be 8 groups with each group having 3 teams, each group containing 1 of the top 8 teams.

• 
  Top 2 teams from 8 groups qualify into next round which is Pre-Quarter finals.(elemination of 8 teams and 8 teams move forward)

• Then Pre-Quarter finals will be followed by Quarter finals.(4 teams get eliminated and 4 qualify for SF's)

• Semi- Finals

• Final

By this format there is huge chance of upsets and we can actually see a minnow team take Cricket's biggest Trophy which is not possible under current system.

Like i said i liked 4 teams per group thing, like in 2007 WC Ban vs India, Pak vs Ire and Ban vs SA were huge suprises and this 24 teams event can throw even more suprises.

Under the current system (10 team system) It is simply not possible for a team like Ireland or Netherlands to beat the best 9 teams and then qualify for semi finals.

Also more teams are needed to actually make it look like a WC.

Views????
[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] [MENTION=133760]Abdullah719[/MENTION] [MENTION=93712]MenInG[/MENTION] [MENTION=9]Saj[/MENTION] [MENTION=57576]MRSN[/MENTION]

 

[Rayyman]

4 groups of 5 teams. Top 2 teams from each group moves onto Quarter-Finals, then Semi-Finals, then the Final.

The 20 teams can be the 10 main teams and then 10 minnows.

So:
Australia, Bangladesh, England, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, West Indies, Zimbabwe.

and

Afghanistan, Canada, Hong Kong, Ireland, Nepal, Netherlands, Papua New Guinea, Scotland, United Arab Emirates and United States of America.

 

[Varun]

Like in 1992, it should be an all-play-all with the top-4 making the semi-finals.

2 associates can compete, that is in addition to Ireland and Afghanistan who are now full members.

 

[Arham_PakFan]

20 team event with 4 groups of 5 teams each.Each group has 3 full members and 2 Associates.Ireland,Afghanistan and Zimbabwe cannot be in the same group.Top 2 teams from each group qualify and play the Super 8’s.Top four teams go to the semi’s.

There will be some boring,one sided matches but this would help provide exposure to teams like Netherlands,Scotland and Nepal and will help them grow like Afghanistan and Ireland.

 

[Rayyman]

So I would like the groups to be:

Group A: England, New Zealand, West Indies, Hong Kong, United Arab Emirates

Group B: South Africa, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Canada, Scotland

Group C: India, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Netherlands, Papua New Guinea 2

Group D: Australia, Sri Lanka, Ireland, Nepal, United States of America

 

[USofA]

@OP, though your suggestion is interesting, it may not be practical. The WC is one of the biggest revenue source not just for the ICC but also the likes of WI, SL, Zim, and even Bang and Pak. Having more teams will dilute the $$ pool as more teams get a share of the $$ pie. This will lead to the full boards who depend on ICC $$ to get less of it. So you are going to hear a lot of grumbling from them.

Also I do not think the cricket world is large enough to support a 24 team tournament. There are going to be a lot of meaningless games that the broadcaster will have to show and not make money. This will cut into their profits. So you are going to hear grumbling from them.

The ICC has cut it down to 10 teams purely to please the broadcaster and the teams that rely on the tournament $$ handouts.

 

[j_kazmi]

16 teams, 4 groups, each group should have atleast 2 teams from the top 8. Then there’s a quarter final, semi final and then a final.

Short and sweet no need for a 45 day tournament. A shorter 25-30 day tournament will mean less dead rubber games and bigger crowds and will ensure the tournament doesn’t drag on for too long.

 

[j_kazmi]

So I would like the groups to be:

Group A: England, New Zealand, West Indies, Hong Kong, United Arab Emirates

Group B: South Africa, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Canada, Scotland

Group C: India, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Netherlands, Papua New Guinea 2

Group D: Australia, Sri Lanka, Ireland, Nepal, United States of America

This is good but I think there should be 16 teams instead of 20. That way the top two will be able progress to the quarter finals and there will be less dead rubber games.

When cricket grows a bit more and when the more competitive teams emerge than we can have a 20 team tournament.

 

[Rayyman]

This is good but I think there should be 16 teams instead of 20. That way the top two will be able progress to the quarter finals and there will be less dead rubber games.

When cricket grows a bit more and when the more competitive teams emerge than we can have a 20 team tournament.

That's true.

 

[hadi123]

I agree that the format for the next World Cup is not good. Each teams playing each other once then the top 4 making semi's is boring. What makes most tournaments exciting is playing teams from another group in a knock out match as they haven't played before in the tournament. But I disagree there should be 24 teams.

My format would be to have 16 teams:

Pakistan
India
South Africa
Sri Lanka
England
Australia
New Zealand
Bangladesh
West Indies
Zimbabwe
Afghanistan
Ireland
Netherlands
Scotland
Nepal
Hong Kong

24 teams would be too much as there would be more minnows than major teams.

I think 16 teams would be the right balance as it's a World Cup so you want a lot of countries but not too many associates. For the sake of the argument let's say the other 4 teams would be Netherlands, Scotland, Nepal and Hong Kong as I said above but there would be something like qualifiers to determine these teams.


4 Groups of 4 like in the 2007 WC but I wouldn't have the super 8

Could be like this

Group A: Pakistan, India, West Indies, Nepal

Group B: England, New Zealand, Afghanistan, Scotland

Group C: Australia, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Hong Kong

Group D: South Africa, Bangladesh, Ireland, Netherlands


And from there on, the best 2 teams in each group go straight into quarter finals, semi finals and finals. Having another group of the best 8 teams like in 2007 is overkill and more eliminator matches will show which teams can really handle the pressure.


QF 1: A1 vs B2
QF 2: A2 vs B1
QF 3: C1 vs D2
QF 4: C2 vs D1

Then the winners of QF 1 vs winners of QF 4 in one semi and the winners of QF 2 vs winners of QF 3 in the other semi. Then the final.

I feel a format like this would be great.

 

[Markhor]

12 teams is the optimal, that way the best of the Associates are rewarded with participation without having too many uncompetitive games. We saw the 13th and 14th teams at the 2015 WC get hammered out of sight.

Let's not over-complicate things. Two groups of six with the top teams qualifying to the semi-finals automatically.

For the two remaining semi-final spots: A2 faces B3 and A3 takes on B2 in play-offs. Allowing the third placed teams in a group a chance to progress will allow the possibility of an underdog going all the way.

Have two games in one day in order to reduce the length of the competition. No Super 6s/8s rubbish.

 

[HuzaifaE]

I loved the 2007 format, although we won't be seeing it ever again for obvious commercial downsides for an early upset.

 

[The_Odd_One]

None wants to watch #16 ranked team.

3 groups of 12 teams (4 teams per group) is the best solution. 2 teams from each group play the super 6 round. Teams which have faced off in the first round do not face each other again. Top 2 teams play the final.

Group A
SA
Pakistan
Bangladesh
Ireland

Group B
India
New Zealand
Sri Lank
Zimbabwe

Group C
Australia
England
West Indies
Afghanistan

 

[The_Odd_One]

None wants to watch #16 ranked team.

3 groups of 12 teams (4 teams per group) is the best solution. 2 teams from each group play the super 6 round. Teams which have faced off in the first round do not face each other again. Top 2 teams play the final.

Group A
SA
Pakistan
Bangladesh
Ireland

Group B
India
New Zealand
Sri Lank
Zimbabwe

Group C
Australia
England
West Indies
Afghanistan

Let's say SA and Pak qualify from group A, India and NZ from group B, and Australia and England from group C. You have 6 best teams who will each play 4 matches. The quality of cricket will be really good and hopefully there will not be many one sided matches.

 

[USofA]

[MENTION=57506]hadi123[/MENTION], the 2007 format will never be adopted. It does not guarantee India past the first round. The TV people will not have that. Even if it is adopted, the TV rights bid will be much lower. This in turn will have ripple effect for several boards.
[MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION]'s suggestion seem very workable.

 

[hitthestump]

No high variance formats please, it's the World Cup not a lottery.

Associates can't compete at the 50 over level so the less of them the better, you can't say they're there for anything other than a token gesture (i fully support more associates at the T20 level though where they can actually make an impact).

Also no formats where groups are basically a formality, where the top 8 teams are effectively guaranteed to qualify anyway and there's no pressure to win any group games except vs associates.

 

[hitthestump]

12 teams is the optimal, that way the best of the Associates are rewarded with participation without having too many uncompetitive games. We saw the 13th and 14th teams at the 2015 WC get hammered out of sight.

Let's not over-complicate things. Two groups of six with the top teams qualifying to the semi-finals automatically.

For the two remaining semi-final spots: A2 faces B3 and A3 takes on B2 in play-offs. Allowing the third placed teams in a group a chance to progress will allow the possibility of an underdog going all the way.

Have two games in one day in order to reduce the length of the competition. No Super 6s/8s rubbish.

Good post.

 

[aloo paratha]

16 teams on 2 groups of 8, top 4 make it to quarters, then semis then final.

 

[giri26]

24 teams is too many for the world cup. The tournament will become too long and there will be lots of games which will be of least interest to fans. 12 teams is ideal and I think ICC should not go beyond it for a World Cup.

 

[khurram39]

12 teams comprising of 4 groups.

4 out in 1st round remaining 8 divided in 2 groups

top 1 from each group go straight 2 semi

remaining 6 play each other for the rest 2 semi

semi final
& final

or you may exclude last 2 teams from each group
and the rest 6 play each other for the semi final.

 

[shah_1]

I like the current format

The difference between full member and associate teams gets quite wider with format being longer. Have more teams in T20 cricket World Cup, best possible chance to market cricket to associate nations.

 

[Angrez Pakistani]

IPL like!

 

[finalfantasy7]

I like the 1999 format - however it should allow Ireland and Afghanistan to compete.

Increases the champions trophy - so teams like Holland Canada and USA can play

 

[Lefthanded]

Not enough competitive teams for a WC larger than 10, everyone plays everyone. First one I saw was '92 and I thought the format was ideal.

Most importantly, best of 3 finals with no dead rubbers.

In '07, Gilchrist made SL's chase irrelevant after his magical 149 after Australia batted first. It seemed cruel to lose your chance at being a world champion because one guy had a freak day. [I love Gilchrist but I was backing SL].

 

[KyoOne]

Broadcasters want maximum games played India. I dont see smaller groups leading to knockouts directly in future.

They'd either make groups of 6 each (2015 format) or make it roundrobin leading to knockouts (2019 format), meaning it at least has 5 games to be played by India.

I'd take 2015 format given the two.

 

[sundries]

We should have a 10 team World Cup with each team playing each other ie 9 matches per team and the top 4 go into the Semi Final which was I think the format in the '92 WC and was the best .. There is no point playing smaller teams in World Cups and then forgetting them for 4 years till the next World Cup .. We should rather have more Triangular and Quadrangular series with Big teams and include the smaller teams in such tournaments for exposure..

 

[bujhee kom]

1992 format was the best. All play all and the top 4 progress.

 

[prop558]

It is becoming pathetic edition after edition.
I personally liked the concept of 4 teams per group and then super 8's and then SF's and finally the Final.
But last two editions it has been 7 teams per group and two groups in total with top 4 teams from both groups qualifying into quarter-finals, then SF's and the Final. Tbh it was quite boring and depressing.
Now it is going to become even worse with only 10 teams playing and no groups whatsoever, it is going to be played like the T20 leagues and to me there is hardly any difference bw CT and WC considering WC now has only top 10 teams and CT has top 8.

My Opinion

• I would want it to be 24 team event in future ( we r playing WC and not Asia Australia Cup)

• There should be 8 groups with each group having 3 teams, each group containing 1 of the top 8 teams.

• 
  Top 2 teams from 8 groups qualify into next round which is Pre-Quarter finals.(elemination of 8 teams and 8 teams move forward)

• Then Pre-Quarter finals will be followed by Quarter finals.(4 teams get eliminated and 4 qualify for SF's)

• Semi- Finals

• Final

By this format there is huge chance of upsets and we can actually see a minnow team take Cricket's biggest Trophy which is not possible under current system.

Like i said i liked 4 teams per group thing, like in 2007 WC Ban vs India, Pak vs Ire and Ban vs SA were huge suprises and this 24 teams event can throw even more suprises.

Under the current system (10 team system) It is simply not possible for a team like Ireland or Netherlands to beat the best 9 teams and then qualify for semi finals.

Also more teams are needed to actually make it look like a WC.

Views????

[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] [MENTION=133760]Abdullah719[/MENTION] [MENTION=93712]MenInG[/MENTION] [MENTION=9]Saj[/MENTION] [MENTION=57576]MRSN[/MENTION]

It should be 12 + 4 = 16 Team tournament

12 Test Playing nations + 4 Associate members - the semi finalists of ICC Trophy. Hopefully Scotland, Netherlands, Kenya & UAE

 

[UN talkz]

So i u take a look at this thread... Nobody is willing to have more teams in a WC.
This way game will never move forward and will soon die with joke formats like T10 and T20 being played in leagues in Asia and Australia.
ICC simply needs to invest more in the game. Looking at the current circumstances there will be nothing like Zimbabwe Cricket or Cricket Windies in next 10-15 years