Which World Cup format is best: knockout (QFs), single round-robin, additional group stage(super 6)?

[Dulex9]

We seen the super six in the 1999, 2003 WC.

We also seen a super 8 in the 2007 WC which was interesting a country played so many matches and anything could have happened.

Then 96, 11, 15 knockout QF.

Other world cup's top 2/4 SF's.

Should we have round robin like the 1992, 2019 or some teams then knockout stages qf, sf, final or even small group of teams like the 2007 and play a super 8?

The 2007 WC was interesting. It was almost do or die for most teams as they needed to win 2 out 3 in their group stages and win more than half of their games to reach the semi's. So it certainly adds to the excitement.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Saurav]

Loved the 2003 WC format

 

[Markhor]

Have always said about WC formats that my preference is for 12 teams (2 groups of 6).

The teams finishing top go straight into the semi finals. 2nd v 3rd face each other in play-offs with the winners proceeding to the semi-finals.

Super 6s and 8s are too convoluted and drag the tournament on unnecessarily.

 

[hitthestump]

2011/2015 was the worst by far. The whole 'group stage' had zero relevance with the top 8 teams literally only needing to ensure they beat the minnows to progress. They could get smashed by everyone else and it'd mean nothing, as after that it is just a matter of who has the best 3 games.

I don't really care how they do it but the knockouts need to begin at the semi's.

 

[hitthestump]

Loved the 2003 WC format

I also liked it. You lose at least one big team at each stage with the minnows getting plenty of games. We saw Kenya make a run in that tournament which showed that lesser teams got a fair crack at progression without the unsatisfying occurance of winning a one-off game against a big team e.g India and Pak in 2011.

Super 6's gives the viewer a bit of fatigue though so it would be good if this aspect could be changed somewhat.

 

[Itachi]

Anything except super 6.

 

[Bilal7]

The charm of the world cup is the high stakes and pressure. This is why you definitely need to have quarter-finals before the semis. The 2011 and 2015 world cups had the best format, in my opinion. Unfortunately, cricket is regressing and there are hardly 3 or 4 proper teams that could hope to challenge England and India.

Ideally, we would have four groups, with ten top teams capable of beating each other distributed among them with the other spots being filled by minnows.

 

[Last Monetarist]

My preference is the format in use in 96, 2011 and 2015. Two groups of 6 or 7, and then knockouts. It adds a lot of excitement to the latter half of the tournament, and is not as convoluted as an additional group stage such as the super 6, which creates permutations that can be gamed eg. Australia trying to knockout NZ in 99 by deliberately crawling to their target against the West Indies.

A single round robin or the format with an additional group stage also causes the tournament to come across as a never-ending drag, which invariably leads to a drop in interest.

 

[Saurav]

I also liked it. You lose at least one big team at each stage with the minnows getting plenty of games. We saw Kenya make a run in that tournament which showed that lesser teams got a fair crack at progression without the unsatisfying occurance of winning a one-off game against a big team e.g India and Pak in 2011.

Super 6's gives the viewer a bit of fatigue though so it would be good if this aspect could be changed somewhat.

You mean 2007

 

[hitthestump]

The charm of the world cup is the high stakes and pressure. This is why you definitely need to have quarter-finals before the semis. The 2011 and 2015 world cups had the best format, in my opinion. Unfortunately, cricket is regressing and there are hardly 3 or 4 proper teams that could hope to challenge England and India.

Ideally, we would have four groups, with ten top teams capable of beating each other distributed among them with the other spots being filled by minnows.

If you have 8 qualifying spots then the early group games have zero pressure though.

A top 8 team can happily lose to Aus, SA and NZ and they'll still qualify as long as they beat USA and Namibia. Likewise even if they win all of those big games it means sod all come to the knockouts as one bad game there means it's game over.

 

[ask_analyse_act]

1992, 2019 round robin is good where every single team face each other before going into the knockouts.

1999, 2003 super six is also good...


It should be the top 4 or 6 teams to fight for the title...

It is only a 10 or 12 team WC where only the 8 test playing nations compete for the WC, so QF will make those 8 teams to qualify which is quite obvious, even though bangladesh try their luck hard to make an upset to one of those lower ranked test side.

 

[nextover666666]

I like the 1992 and 2019 format its the best and quality of tournament is amazing

However i would like to have 12 teams rather than 10 personally. Ever team playing each other once in odi world cup is the way to go

For t20 world cup group stage and knockout is fine for that format

 

[Mesozoic]

Anything other than the farce of a "10 team world cup" and the 2007 format.

 

[Saj]

Poll added

 

[Hasan123]

I liked the 2019 format.

 

[KarachiWala]

The 99/2003 format was the best

 

[Last Monetarist]

The biggest issue I have with the current format is that it's a closed shop for associate teams, and you get the same dreary match-ups as a normal bilateral cycle (India/Pakistan excepted).

The purpose of a World Cup should be to grow the game, and you miss out on great stories such as Kenya beating the West Indies or Ireland beating England. Such upsets enhance the legacy of a World Cup. You need at least 12 teams competing, as it's the only way that the likes of Afghanistan, Ireland, and Zimbabwe can sustain the game at a competitive level.

I honestly feel that the 2019 World Cup was worse than 2007, as I struggle to remember anything about it other than the farce of the super over. It felt like a bloated edition of the Champions Trophy.

 

[liam26]

2011 Format was not good because the big first round of the tournament was just a formality and the Top 8 teams of the tournament were guaranteed to qualify for the Quarter Finals as long as they avoid defeats to minnows.

Super 6s format was best in my opinion as every match had something riding on it . Even 92 and 2019 formats are good because every match was important to the outcome of the tournament.

 

[gazza619]

1992 WC format all the way!

 

[Abu_Hamza]

One needs to know which is the format which ICC will like to have ? For ICC the best format is 2019 format coz India plays every team and it brings more revenue for ICC. One more thing is that it gives a fair chance to all teams and the best teams will go to knockout stages even if they had a bad day.

 

[salahuddin10]

The 2019 wc format is perfect for odis.For t20s i ll prefer 4 groups of 5 teams each

 

[rhony]

round robin is the best. Let the world champion be someone that will play all the teams and wins the knockouts. Takes away the luck in the league phases and the best 4 will move forward to semis.

 

[Saj]

Call me biased, but the 1992 format was the best.

Everyone playing each once and the top 4 into the semi-finals.

 

[Amjid Javed]

Call me biased, but the 1992 format was the best.

Everyone playing each once and the top 4 into the semi-finals.

Agreed format allows for most consistant teams to get to semi finals atleast.

 

[GreenKhan]

The 1992 and 2019 format is the best! Each match potentially is important and that adds to the intensity. A team can start fast and fizzle out or start slow and peak at the right time .

Allows each team to play each other as well .

The only negative is that less chance for the minnows but if they play qualifiers allows a team or two to participate then that’s fine .

 

[King_Kohli]

2019 round robin is my favorite one.