World Cup 2019 - Format Discussion Thread

[Ronaldo7]

And those talking about the luck factor not being a thing in this World Cup need to revisit the 92 World Cup because it had the same format

This just makes it more interesting unlike the 2003 and 2007 world cup where we knew even before the wc started who's going to win

 

[aloo paratha]

This just makes it more interesting unlike the 2003 and 2007 world cup where we knew even before the wc started who's going to win

2003 and 2007 was decided before the cup was even started not because of the format, but because Australia was just too dominant. Give that Australian team any format and they'll win the cup 9 times out of 10.

 

[Ronaldo7]

2003 and 2007 was decided before the cup was even started not because of the format, but because Australia was just too dominant. Give that Australian team any format and they'll win the cup 9 times out of 10.

There are a few factors in this world cup which would make it exciting. Such as there are 7 teams that could potentially win it, the English weather etc.

 

[Ronaldo7]

Don't you think this format will also have a pretty high percentage of meaningless games? It's pretty likely that there will be at least 3 teams that basically don't have a chance to get into the semis just 2-3 weeks into the tournament.

Isn't that how it is in every world cup?
Some teams are out in like 4 matches.

 

[aloo paratha]

Isn't that how it is in every world cup?
Some teams are out in like 4 matches.

Yes, except they don't go on to play 5 more matches even once they're virtually out of the tournament.

 

[Markhor]

This is the best format. Infact, if it was on me....I would get rid of semi finals /finals as well and adopt EPL kind of structure. Every team play against each other twice and the table topper is the world cup winner. In that way best team eventually wins the trophy and chances of weak teams like BD, Ire etc fluking few knockout matches towarda glory is reduced.

I know knockouts are hugely popular bcoz of excitement/euphoria etc. but need not be the best format.

Then it'd no longer be a Cup competition but a league. The beauty of a Cup competition is how teams cope under the pressure of a knockout.

Anyway when you look at the history of the World Cup, regardless of format used the best team usually prevails.

 

[Markhor]

Why can't we use the 99 format in which points are carried in group games.

Then Super Sixes.

Then the semi and final.

I mean every match matters and no match is useless.

Don't know why 99 wasn't used.

It was the best ever and Australia proved why they are world Champions and Pakistan were second best team anyways and the places were rightfully decided.

1999 was a great World Cup in spite of the format, not because of it.

The reason why that is such a memorable event is because you didn't have, unlike in 2003 and 2007, such a large gulf between the favourites and the rest.

You had three top teams in Australia, South Africa and Pakistan. Sri Lanka were the defending champions, New Zealand were perennial dark horses, India still had some top players whilst even the likes of Zimbabwe had a strong side.

The white Dukes ball also ensured a good contest between bat and ball.

I will never understand this forum's fascination with Super Sixes and Super Eights other than childhood nostalgia. The Cricket World Cup is already dragged out longer than most sporting World Cups yet folks want it to be even longer.

 

[Stewie]

Then it'd no longer be a Cup competition but a league. The beauty of a Cup competition is how teams cope under the pressure of a knockout.

Anyway when you look at the history of the World Cup, regardless of format used the best team usually prevails.

Not really.. West Indies in 83, pakistan/India in 87, NZ in 92, SA in 96, Pakistan in 99, all lost and they were the best teams. Only in subsequent world cups, where mostly Aussies ruled the roost, the best team won. Or the first two when Windies were unbeatable

 

[Markhor]

Not really.. West Indies in 83, pakistan/India in 87, NZ in 92, SA in 96, Pakistan in 99, all lost and they were the best teams. Only in subsequent world cups, where mostly Aussies ruled the roost, the best team won. Or the first two when Windies were unbeatable

On what planet were Pakistan the best side in 1999 ? We lost FOUR matches in that tournament including a disgraceful loss to Bangladesh.

That batting lineup was massively reliant on Anwar and Inzamam. Afridi, Wasti and Razzaq did not have good techniques for seaming English conditions yet batted in the top order. Salim and Ijaz were past their prime. The saving grace of that lineup were the bowlers and all rounders. But Australia and South Africa were better teams if one looks objectively.

In 1996, Pakistan were on paper the favourites being defending champs and playing in Asia but the post-1992 side were massive chokers. Sri Lanka had the best side for the conditions and deserved their win having revolutionised one day cricket with two hard hitting openers. They had two of the best one day batsmen of the 90s in Jayasuriya and Aravinda, were well led by Ranatunga, and Murali was world class.

Pakistan were one of the best one day teams in the late 1980s and early 1990s, having won several multilateral tournaments even before 1992 such as the Nehru Cup, Australasia Cup and Champions Trophy. They may have received some luck with the format but they were worthy winners.

In 1987 any one of Australia, England, West Indies, India and Pakistan could've won.

1983 is the outlier where an out and out underdog won ahead of the favourites. The rest I disagree with you.

 

[Stewie]

We were the best side in 99 ... you don’t believe me ask around. Our losses were in the second round when we got complacent. The only team that was on equal footing with us was SA.

You need to watch the World Cup games again. Pakistan was the red hot favorite and the best team in that world cup

 

[Stewie]

On what planet were Pakistan the best side in 1999 ? We lost FOUR matches in that tournament including a disgraceful loss to Bangladesh.

That batting lineup was massively reliant on Anwar and Inzamam. Afridi, Wasti and Razzaq did not have good techniques for seaming English conditions yet batted in the top order. Salim and Ijaz were past their prime. The saving grace of that lineup were the bowlers and all rounders. But Australia and South Africa were better teams if one looks objectively.

In 1996, Pakistan were on paper the favourites being defending champs and playing in Asia but the post-1992 side were massive chokers. Sri Lanka had the best side for the conditions and deserved their win having revolutionised one day cricket with two hard hitting openers. They had two of the best one day batsmen of the 90s in Jayasuriya and Aravinda, were well led by Ranatunga, and Murali was world class.

Pakistan were one of the best one day teams in the late 1980s and early 1990s, having won several multilateral tournaments even before 1992 such as the Nehru Cup, Australasia Cup and Champions Trophy. They may have received some luck with the format but they were worthy winners.

In 1987 any one of Australia, England, West Indies, India and Pakistan could've won.

1983 is the outlier where an out and out underdog won ahead of the favourites. The rest I disagree with you.

You can disagree with me, sure... but doesn’t make you right... google World Cup history and you will see what I am talking about.

 

[Mamoon]

While that is correct, this format actually is the best way to get the best 4 teams in the Semi Finals . . cuz it requires good performances over a period of time and it also has enough room for any major upsets to be overcome by good sides!

So in reality, in my opinion this format makes it very very tough for a team like Pakistan to go and win the world cup unlike our champions trophy performance where we got on a role in the last 2 matches and scraped through SA and SL (in the group stage) . .

So even though I agree with you that the knock out games have an unmatched thrill . . this format ensures that you don't have a team that can just get on a role for a few games and win the world cup . .

Quite true. I think an England vs India final is almost a certainty unless either (or both) of them slip in the semifinals. Over 9 games, these two should outperform all other teams.

I expect England and India to be the top two (in any order) with New Zealand taking the third spot. The fourth spot should be between Australia, South Africa and Pakistan. A lot people are considering West Indies as the dark horse this time, but I don't see them performing consistently over 9 games.

They are still very beatable and can easily flounder against the likes of Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

 

[Markhor]

You can disagree with me, sure... but doesn’t make you right... google World Cup history and you will see what I am talking about.

What do I need to Google - did Pakistan lose to Bangladesh in 1999 or not ?

Only childhood nostalgia would make one think Pakistan were the best team in 1999.

 

[Stewie]

What do I need to Google - did Pakistan lose to Bangladesh in 1999 or not ?

Only childhood nostalgia would make one think Pakistan were the best team in 1999.

England lost to Zimbabwe in the 92 World Cup.. does that mean England were not a favorite in 92? In fact all world cups have one or two upsets. South Africa lost to Zimbabwe in 1999. Does that mean they were not a contender or a top team in that World Cup.

Your way of reasoning is flawed here. Pakistan and SA were the top two contenders in the 99 World Cup despite losing to minnows. You don’wsnt to believe me fine but AustraliA were not the favorites in that tournament till they beat SA in the super six stage And then tied the final.

Similarly Pakistan was not the red hot favs in 92, NZ and England were as the toournanebt progressed. NZ did not lose to any team in that World Cup except two in a trot to Pakistan, one of them being the semi. Similarly England only lost two games in the whole tournament, one to NZ and one to Zimbabwe. Does that not make them hot favorites or the best team?

In 1996 Sri Lanka did well no doubt but they won two games by walkovers. I still think SA were the best team in thst World Cup till they ran into a red hot Lara in the QF. They were undesfeated till then.

With my age I have the advantage of remembering all world cups since 87. And I know my cricket because I sat through those matches and have vivid memories of most of them.

You can read through results summaries and come to your conclusions, but that doesn’t mean you are right.

 

[Markhor]

England lost to Zimbabwe in the 92 World Cup.. does that mean England were not a favorite in 92? In fact all world cups have one or two upsets. South Africa lost to Zimbabwe in 1999. Does that mean they were not a contender or a top team in that World Cup.

Your way of reasoning is flawed here. Pakistan and SA were the top two contenders in the 99 World Cup despite losing to minnows. You don’wsnt to believe me fine but AustraliA were not the favorites in that tournament till they beat SA in the super six stage And then tied the final.

Similarly Pakistan was not the red hot favs in 92, NZ and England were as the toournanebt progressed. NZ did not lose to any team in that World Cup except two in a trot to Pakistan, one of them being the semi. Similarly England only lost two games in the whole tournament, one to NZ and one to Zimbabwe. Does that not make them hot favorites or the best team?

In 1996 Sri Lanka did well no doubt but they won two games by walkovers. I still think SA were the best team in thst World Cup till they ran into a red hot Lara in the QF. They were undesfeated till then.

With my age I have the advantage of remembering all world cups since 87. And I know my cricket because I sat through those matches and have vivid memories of most of them.

You can read through results summaries and come to your conclusions, but that doesn’t mean you are right.

Again, Pakistan lost four matches in 1999 so it wasn't just one or two off days for the supposed best side of the tournament which you claimed. And again, look at the Pakistan batting lineup in 1999. Are you seriously telling me that was superior to Australia's and South Africa's ? If Anwar and Inzamam failed, we'd struggle to post 200.

South Africa by far had the best W/L record between the 96 and 99 WCs and beat Pakistan 14 ODIs IN A ROW until 2000 ! Australia themselves WHITEWASHED Pakistan in our backyard in 1998, and had also had a better W/L record than us in that era. So what criteria were you using to base your assertion that we were stronger than both in 99.

Zimbabwe were a far stronger team in the 1990s than Bangladesh with several top players like the Flower brothers, Streak, Neil Johnson etc. Pakistan even lost a Test series to Zimbabwe the year before. Zinbabwe were a decent mid level side whereas Bangladesh were out and out minnows.

As for 1992 - Pakistan won 10 out of 13 ODI series between the end of the 1988/89 Benson and Hedges World Series and the 1992 World Cup. You speak about your historical knowledge so you should know they won the 1989 Champions Trophy, the 1989 Nehru Cup (a mini World Cup), 1990 Australasia Cup, whitewashed both West Indies and New Zealand in 1990 and the 1991 Wills Trophy.

Yes we benefited from some luck on the way but so did Eng in the SF, as did Aus in 99 with the tied SF. But it makes for a better story to say we were no hopers, underdogs etc when our late 1980s/early 1990s side was the best side Pakistan ever had under Imran. Against New Zealand we always backed ourselves having whitewashed them two years earlier.

I am not doubting your cricketing knowledge but your objectivity, and if one takes their green tinted glasses off they can see that 1999 Pakistan side had a soft underbelly and was massively dependent on star individuals.

 

[Bewal Express]

Great format if the weather holds. The best WC so far was in 92 as everyone played everyone else. I agree the tournament is too long by perhaps 2 weeks.

 

[Stewie]

Again, Pakistan lost four matches in 1999 so it wasn't just one or two off days for the supposed best side of the tournament which you claimed. And again, look at the Pakistan batting lineup in 1999. Are you seriously telling me that was superior to Australia's and South Africa's ? If Anwar and Inzamam failed, we'd struggle to post 200.

South Africa by far had the best W/L record between the 96 and 99 WCs and beat Pakistan 14 ODIs IN A ROW until 2000 ! Australia themselves WHITEWASHED Pakistan in our backyard in 1998, and had also had a better W/L record than us in that era. So what criteria were you using to base your assertion that we were stronger than both in 99.

Zimbabwe were a far stronger team in the 1990s than Bangladesh with several top players like the Flower brothers, Streak, Neil Johnson etc. Pakistan even lost a Test series to Zimbabwe the year before. Zinbabwe were a decent mid level side whereas Bangladesh were out and out minnows.

As for 1992 - Pakistan won 10 out of 13 ODI series between the end of the 1988/89 Benson and Hedges World Series and the 1992 World Cup. You speak about your historical knowledge so you should know they won the 1989 Champions Trophy, the 1989 Nehru Cup (a mini World Cup), 1990 Australasia Cup, whitewashed both West Indies and New Zealand in 1990 and the 1991 Wills Trophy.

Yes we benefited from some luck on the way but so did Eng in the SF, as did Aus in 99 with the tied SF. But it makes for a better story to say we were no hopers, underdogs etc when our late 1980s/early 1990s side was the best side Pakistan ever had under Imran. Against New Zealand we always backed ourselves having whitewashed them two years earlier.

I am not doubting your cricketing knowledge but your objectivity, and if one takes their green tinted glasses off they can see that 1999 Pakistan side had a soft underbelly and was massively dependent on star individuals.

Saeed, Inzi, Yousaf, razzaq, Afridi, Moin, Azhar.. ijaz..

You say that’s weak? Come on!!! Once again we can’t have on objective discussion if you think these players who were all at the peak of their batting prowess at the time, except perhaps for Ijaz and you think we were weak?

I don’t know what is stronger then. For pakistan this is pretty strong. Yes head to head we always have and probably will have weaker batting opposed to Australia and SA and the likes but it was our bowling and the all rounders such as razzaq, Azhar, Afridi, and saqi who could bat, that made us the best team in the tournament in 1999.

 

[Stewie]

By the way [MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION], I think you are on a completely different plane of discussion as me. You seem to be comparing Pakistani sides of the past to make your point, which could be correct in its own right but I am just talking about the best performing or favorite side of a World Cup as the tournament wore on..

Its comparing apples and oranges quite frankly

 

[Markhor]

Saeed, Inzi, Yousaf, razzaq, Afridi, Moin, Azhar.. ijaz..

You say that’s weak? Come on!!! Once again we can’t have on objective discussion if you think these players who were all at the peak of their batting prowess at the time, except perhaps for Ijaz and you think we were weak?

I don’t know what is stronger then. For pakistan this is pretty strong. Yes head to head we always have and probably will have weaker batting opposed to Australia and SA and the likes but it was our bowling and the all rounders such as razzaq, Azhar, Afridi, and saqi who could bat, that made us the best team in the tournament in 1999.

Feel like we're having a circular discussion. Again, you're just looking at the names on paper and making conclusions.

Saeed and Inzy were the only two top class batsmen. Yousuf had only played international cricket for a year. Ijaz and Salim were finished by 1999.

Wasti, Razzaq and Afridi had NO business batting in the top order in seaming/swing friendly English conditions.

Yes there were great bowlers and all rounders, but Aus and SAF also had top bowlers.

Once again, if these guys were as strong as you claim then we wouldn't lost four matches, including getting bowled out for 132 in the final. There was too much reliance on a few star individuals whereas Australia were a stronger collective with much better discipline and mentality in big games.

 

[Hasan123]

Quite true. I think an England vs India final is almost a certainty unless either (or both) of them slip in the semifinals. Over 9 games, these two should outperform all other teams.

I expect England and India to be the top two (in any order) with New Zealand taking the third spot. The fourth spot should be between Australia, South Africa and Pakistan. A lot people are considering West Indies as the dark horse this time, but I don't see them performing consistently over 9 games.

They are still very beatable and can easily flounder against the likes of Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

India and England maybe the best teams but I feel as though they may cruise through the group stage and 1 could falter in the semis. There is no way you can 11 perfect games .

I don't think India will be in the final. England's batting depth should be enough to them to the final but even that isn't certain.

 

[Stewie]

Feel like we're having a circular discussion. Again, you're just looking at the names on paper and making conclusions.

Saeed and Inzy were the only two top class batsmen. Yousuf had only played international cricket for a year. Ijaz and Salim were finished by 1999.

Wasti, Razzaq and Afridi had NO business batting in the top order in seaming/swing friendly English conditions.

Yes there were great bowlers and all rounders, but Aus and SAF also had top bowlers.

Once again, if these guys were as strong as you claim then we wouldn't lost four matches, including getting bowled out for 132 in the final. There was too much reliance on a few star individuals whereas Australia were a stronger collective with much better discipline and mentality in big games.

Seems to me you are just hung up on the four losses. One of which was the final. I think we lost two matches fair and square. The other one being a group game against SA. But the other two losses were pretty suspicious.

Still doesn’t change the fact that Pakistan was a top favorite for thst World Cup along with SA. You can scream and shout till the cows come home about the issues with that team and that it lost four games but it doesn’t change the overall opinion and assessment of our team in that World Cup.


https://www.dawn.com/news/1208405

http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc_cricket_worldcup2011/content/story/264393.html

 

[Suleiman]

Whoever wins this World Cup will be the true champion, as you have to prove your worth vs all teams

 

[Stewie]

India, England, Australia and the fourth team I am hoping will be Pakistan.

 

[aloo paratha]

There are a few factors in this world cup which would make it exciting. Such as there are 7 teams that could potentially win it, the English weather etc.

Again, any format would be exciting when there are 7 contenders. 2003 and 2007 really only had 2 or 3.

 

[Bigbb]

Best and the most balanced format for a WC should be
12 teams split into two groups , play round robin. Top 2 from each through to SF and then final. In this format, every group game becomes immensely important and the longevity is also reduced. And also two more teams can play.

 

[MMHS]

Eventually, I think this is the best format, as better teams have multiple chances to fix one bad day or an unexpected slip. A bit further can be done by introducing the PL/SL system of last 4, which allows best 2 teams a 2nd chance and it doesn't eliminate some combination in the final. 2nd chance part is self understandable, won't explain but the other issue is if in a tournament there is one odd weak team in SF, their pair gets an undue advantage. IND played Kenya in 2003 and BD 2017 (not by plan, so Indians should be relaxed here), but bigger problem is that, the other pairing is quite unlucky - one of them will miss out. SAF was extremely unlucky in 1999 to face AUS in SF, as they had a 15-0 run that time against PAK..... it was certain that AUS-SAF can't meet in 2007 or 1999 Final, WIN-PAK can't meet in 1979 Final, IND-PAK can't meet in 2011 Final ..... The PL/SL system, actually keeps all 6 (AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, CD) combinations open for final. This WC,I think 3 teams are slightly ahead of the rest pack, and one of them'll miss out to get one of other 2 SF, which can be covered by PL/SL model. However, I personally like the SF>Final route, because of the thrills of a KO game.

The flaw of 1999/2003 system was that it allowed fixing games, or forfeiting games, or under performing. I give a classic example from 1999 from instant memory (there are few others). AUS were facing elimination against WIN in last group game and they had to win in. However, if AUS wins by big margin (which they did eventually), means WIN eliminated and AUS, PAK, NZ advances - Aussies lost to PAK & NZ in group games means they would carry zero points .... so once they got WIN all-out for 170 or so, they tried to keep the game as long as possible (49+ overs were required), so that WIN's NRR doesn't suffer much and they leap-frog NZ, and by virtue of beating WIN, Aussies would advance with 2 points - it was absolute comical that AUS took last few runs at less than 1/over.

There was other side of the equation as well - Kiwis forfeited the Kenya game in 2003, and Kenya did beat SRL ..... then SAF miscalculated against SRL, while WIN lost 2 crucial points for a wash out against BD (they had much better NRR than Kenya) ..... so 3 teams advancing were SRL, NZ & Kenya, with Kenya carrying 2 wins. Similarly, in other group, Poms gave ZIM a walk-over, then ZIM's last game against PAK got washed out, so they advanced and eventually Kenya made it to SF for those 2 carryover wins + win against ZIM in super six.

Ideally, I would like to see a WC of 12 teams, in 3 groups of 4 each and then top 3 from each group advances, with 2 games carried from group stages (it's 3P4, therefore the carryover won't be that complicated) - in super Nine, each team plays 6 games against 6 teams of other 2 groups. Eventual top 4 plays SF>F.

Of the 10 teams in 2019 WC, top 6 qualifies for next WC by default, No. 10 relegated to qualifiers by default with top 6 Associates and one of the 7-9th team joins them in qualifiers based on the ranking may be on 31st DEC, 2021. 4 of the 8 teams in qualifiers join the top 8 in IND 2023. This will make sure that even if a team misses SF cut early, still very much focused not to finish 10th and try to win one of the last 2 automatic qualifying spots (5th & 6th).

 

[Gabbar Singh]

Not a fan of this format - a side can have 2 losses (+ perhaps even a tie or no result) and still make the semis which doesn’t feel right. You shouldn’t be able to win a World Cup if you’re beaten more than once in the tournament.

 

[Chokli]

Not a fan of this format - a side can have 2 losses (+ perhaps even a tie or no result) and still make the semis which doesn’t feel right. You shouldn’t be able to win a World Cup if you’re beaten more than once in the tournament.

2011 and 2015 WC formats were horrible

 

[waleed88]

Don't you think this format will also have a pretty high percentage of meaningless games? It's pretty likely that there will be at least 3 teams that basically don't have a chance to get into the semis just 2-3 weeks into the tournament.

Exactly. Like the FIFA world cup, the excitement starts after the group stages end. I cannot see anything that will make games do or die besides the points table. Which just means it will be a long and slow world cup.

 

[waleed88]

Again, Pakistan lost four matches in 1999 so it wasn't just one or two off days for the supposed best side of the tournament which you claimed. And again, look at the Pakistan batting lineup in 1999. Are you seriously telling me that was superior to Australia's and South Africa's ? If Anwar and Inzamam failed, we'd struggle to post 200.

South Africa by far had the best W/L record between the 96 and 99 WCs and beat Pakistan 14 ODIs IN A ROW until 2000 ! Australia themselves WHITEWASHED Pakistan in our backyard in 1998, and had also had a better W/L record than us in that era. So what criteria were you using to base your assertion that we were stronger than both in 99.

Zimbabwe were a far stronger team in the 1990s than Bangladesh with several top players like the Flower brothers, Streak, Neil Johnson etc. Pakistan even lost a Test series to Zimbabwe the year before. Zinbabwe were a decent mid level side whereas Bangladesh were out and out minnows.

As for 1992 - Pakistan won 10 out of 13 ODI series between the end of the 1988/89 Benson and Hedges World Series and the 1992 World Cup. You speak about your historical knowledge so you should know they won the 1989 Champions Trophy, the 1989 Nehru Cup (a mini World Cup), 1990 Australasia Cup, whitewashed both West Indies and New Zealand in 1990 and the 1991 Wills Trophy.

Yes we benefited from some luck on the way but so did Eng in the SF, as did Aus in 99 with the tied SF. But it makes for a better story to say we were no hopers, underdogs etc when our late 1980s/early 1990s side was the best side Pakistan ever had under Imran. Against New Zealand we always backed ourselves having whitewashed them two years earlier.

I am not doubting your cricketing knowledge but your objectivity, and if one takes their green tinted glasses off they can see that 1999 Pakistan side had a soft underbelly and was massively dependent on star individuals.

Pakistan team of 1999 had the fear factor. Shoaib Akhtar was the surprise element that most of the teams didn't see.

Saqlain was at the peak of his powers.

Razzaq and Azhar both contributed around 12-13 wicjets in the tournament.

It was one of the most forimidable bowling attack if not the only best formidable attack.

The game against South Africa was a very close one. They chased 220 with around 2-3 balls to spare.

Klusener won it for them but he was dropped on Saqlain's bowling and we couldve won that even, that match went either way.

Pakistan was their usual unpredictable self in that tournament.

Australia's team was there to be beaten, they had a pretty mediocre group stage and had to win all 3 matches to qualify for the semis.

Pakistan went in as favorites in the final once South Africa lost having already beaten them in the group stage. To say Pakistan team underperformed in the final was an understatement. It was a travesty how they didn't win, but didn't turn up at all.

 

[Chokli]

Exactly. Like the FIFA world cup, the excitement starts after the group stages end. I cannot see anything that will make games do or die besides the points table. Which just means it will be a long and slow world cup.

can't compare a 32 team world cup to a 10

 

[waleed88]

can't compare a 32 team world cup to a 10

We have had knockouts before. My point being.

 

[Chokli]

We have had knockouts before. My point being.

We only have 8 good teams, the World Cup is every 4 years.. All the teams deserve to play each other in the same tournament to find out who really is the best.

When else would we get the chance to see all 8 of the top ODI teams battling it out?

 

[Stewie]

We only have 8 good teams, the World Cup is every 4 years.. All the teams deserve to play each other in the same tournament to find out who really is the best.

When else would we get the chance to see all 8 of the top ODI teams battling it out?

The last World Cup with similar format, only Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka and India were out of the running early.. but we still didn’t know who the last semi finalist was till the last league game was finished.. with upsets and all, I am sure all the games will matter, and there will only be 5-6 pointless games out of 45, not any more than other formats..

 

[waleed88]

We only have 8 good teams, the World Cup is every 4 years.. All the teams deserve to play each other in the same tournament to find out who really is the best.

When else would we get the chance to see all 8 of the top ODI teams battling it out?

The charisma of the world cup is that lesser teams have a chance to make it through to the bigger changes. Which is what makes it attractive.

Again Ireland knocking out Pakistan, or Ireland knocking out England in 2011. Or Bangladesh knocking India out in 2007.

That is what makes it special.

This world cup will be nothing but a drag.

it just excludes a miracle and that is what the pakistan team would need.

A long and drawn out group stage, that makes it certain for a few teams that always get nervous in knockouts and eliminators. So to avoid the chance of turning things around, we will be left with a certain top 3 and a wild card no.4. Basically a dog fight between 5 teams for the 4th spot.

Ofcourse I won't be complaining if I support India or England. This works for them.

 

[waleed88]

Since India hasn't been doing well in knockouts since the 2013 Champions Trophy, this kinda works for them too. Only 2 knockouts to focus on. They will almost certainly qualify for the semis.

 

[Chokli]

The charisma of the world cup is that lesser teams have a chance to make it through to the bigger changes. Which is what makes it attractive.

Again Ireland knocking out Pakistan, or Ireland knocking out England in 2011. Or Bangladesh knocking India out in 2007.

That is what makes it special.

This world cup will be nothing but a drag.

it just excludes a miracle and that is what the pakistan team would need.

A long and drawn out group stage, that makes it certain for a few teams that always get nervous in knockouts and eliminators. So to avoid the chance of turning things around, we will be left with a certain top 3 and a wild card no.4. Basically a dog fight between 5 teams for the 4th spot.

Ofcourse I won't be complaining if I support India or England. This works for them.

That doesn't do any good for the tournament... Sure the minnows might surprise you once but you're not going to get the minnows surprising every single game which ruins the enjoyment.

2007 World Cup was awful, you had so many pointless matches with Ireland and Bangladesh that should have been Pakistan and India.

Keep the minnows for the T20 World Cup.

No place for them in the 50 overs.

 

[Chokli]

The last World Cup with similar format, only Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka and India were out of the running early.. but we still didn’t know who the last semi finalist was till the last league game was finished.. with upsets and all, I am sure all the games will matter, and there will only be 5-6 pointless games out of 45, not any more than other formats..

Exactly, each game is meaningful.

 

[MMHS]

2007 WC was the worst of the lot - for 2 bad (or good days, IRL & BD made it to super 8, and despite BD winning against SAF, most of the other games were one sided. And, that format took so many days for meaningless games that eventually people started to lose interest at the business end.

This 2019 format is by far the best, only that they should have made it 12 teams affair and may be some relegation for finishing among last 4, so that there are 2 battles going on till last day - one for top 4 and one for (to avoid) last 4.

 

[Itachi]

It has been done to increase india's probability to win the world Cup. Nothing else.

India and England r quite consistent with their performance in this format with occasional hiccups. A prolonged and lengthy wc with limited no of knock out matches is in their best interest.

This wc will be boring and pathetic.

So you want a team to fluke win?

 

[Ronaldo7]

So you want a team to fluke win?

An unpredictable world cup is interesting.

 

[Stewie]

2007 WC was the worst of the lot - for 2 bad (or good days, IRL & BD made it to super 8, and despite BD winning against SAF, most of the other games were one sided. And, that format took so many days for meaningless games that eventually people started to lose interest at the business end.

This 2019 format is by far the best, only that they should have made it 12 teams affair and may be some relegation for finishing among last 4, so that there are 2 battles going on till last day - one for top 4 and one for (to avoid) last 4.

2007 was the absolute worst. Three games to make your case for the next round. I am sure ICC lost a lot of money in that World Cup. Hahaha.

 

[Stewie]

So the popular opinion here seems to be that this will be terrible and it’s done to favor India and Pakistan has no hope here..

Seems like I am the only one who thinks this format actually helps pakistan a lot because we are slow starters and we gradually build into it.

 

[Chokli]

So the popular opinion here seems to be that this will be terrible and it’s done to favor India and Pakistan has no hope here..

Seems like I am the only one who thinks this format actually helps pakistan a lot because we are slow starters and we gradually build into it.

This World Cup will be one to remember.

Should have always been this format or the super 6 format.

The Quarter Final format was lame.

 

[Blistering Barnacle]

Personally, I like this format very much.

I think people underestimate how meaningful a lot of the games will be.

The 92 WC was my favorite format of the lot.

 

[Blistering Barnacle]

The charisma of the world cup is that lesser teams have a chance to make it through to the bigger changes. Which is what makes it attractive.

Disagree.

That's what makes it a drag. Getting good teams knocked out on an off day or a bad pitch doesn't make for an exciting tournament, as you know those minnows will get mowed over anyway.

 

[Stewie]

We need more of quality matches between top sides.. no minnow has won the World Cup by just making it to the second round so it’s pointless romanticism. Give me high quality cricket between the top sides and no upsets and I’ll be fine.

 

[waleed88]

Disagree.

That's what makes it a drag. Getting good teams knocked out on an off day or a bad pitch doesn't make for an exciting tournament, as you know those minnows will get mowed over anyway.

Yes so the knockouts aren't just between the top sides and the minnows. The knockout is between two good sides as well.

Over the years we have had some crackers in super sixes or quarter finals. Which is why it is a little baffling to see them end.

The biggest would be in terms of magnitude was the quarter final match between India and Pakistan. Not great for us, but great in terms of a spectacle.

You are only getting 3 knock out games in a long and weary tournament, where each team will play 7 or 8 games. If I don't goto sleep sighting my teams prospects, which will end after a couple of games, then the rest of the games will just serve as net practice and yawn inducing for the teams that won't make it.

 

[waleed88]

This tournament reminds me of the PSL, where it is just so boring to watch the games you can hardly recall any memorable ones in the group stages. You almost always remember the knockouts.

 

[waleed88]

We need more of quality matches between top sides.. no minnow has won the World Cup by just making it to the second round so it’s pointless romanticism. Give me high quality cricket between the top sides and no upsets and I’ll be fine.

Minnows have won it. Then these minnows became great teams as you know it now. Nobody rated the Pakistan side of 1992.

 

[waleed88]

Pakistan's clash with Australia in 2015 was pretty exceptional for me, that was also a knockout game. Sure alot has been made of it in the news, but when that game happened everyone stood up and applauded that performance.

Other notable games are India vs Australia in the 2011 world cup.

If your team is good, whether a knock out or not, your team will be good enough to win the world cup.

Australia has proven over the years that it is not a fluke to win the world cup 3 times in a row.

If you are good you will come out everytime, no matter what the format is of the tournament.

 

[Stewie]

Minnows have won it. Then these minnows became great teams as you know it now. Nobody rated the Pakistan side of 1992.

Assuming 88 stands for the year of your birth, I am not surprised to hear your comments.

Look up the word minnow in the dictionary. Pakistan has never been a minnow in any World Cup.

Minnows are teams like Kenya, Canada, Zimbabwe, Ireland, etc.

 

[Balthazar]

This format would give more exposure to minnows to a quality cricket. This is the only way they get better. I wanted one of Ire/Sco to qualify for the WC in place of Afg, as they have been playing it for so long. This is the best format.

 

[giri26]

The only problem with this format is that you can only have 10 teams max. If you have more than that the WC will go on for ever. This also restricts the amount of weaker teams which can participate. By the evidence of what we saw in the Qualifier, SCO wasn't that far behind from WI & AFG who qualified. So even though this is the most competitive format, this isn't the best for teams like Ireland, Zimbabwe, SCO etc who are trying to make that upgrade. It is also unfair on those teams as they don't get to play enough ODIs against the top teams to actually get the points to get into the top 10. So you are basically saying:
1. You cannot play the WC
2. You will not get enough games to improve your points
3. You will not get enough games against top sides to improve your skills.

 

[Itachi]

Assuming 88 stands for the year of your birth, I am not surprised to hear your comments.

Look up the word minnow in the dictionary. Pakistan has never been a minnow in any World Cup.

Minnows are teams like Kenya, Canada, Zimbabwe, Ireland, etc.

I believe he meant, in the beginning, every team is a minnow. Pakistan was also one which developed itself it to a great one.

 

[light]

I personally liked the 2007 format (even though it didn't turn out well for us and you guys). Even the associates teams would lick their lips. Every game would have a meaning. Every team must be on their best to qualify to the next round. For this WC, I like the idea of every team plays everyone once and will actually give the most consistent team a chance to win the cup, it limits the amount of team that can participate.

 

[ar2020]

This is the best format. Each game matters. Super 6 or Super 8 etc. have always been rubbish same with QFs.

 

[waleed88]

Assuming 88 stands for the year of your birth, I am not surprised to hear your comments.

Look up the word minnow in the dictionary. Pakistan has never been a minnow in any World Cup.

Minnows are teams like Kenya, Canada, Zimbabwe, Ireland, etc.

Minnow is a relative term. The Pakistan team of 1992 was unrated, with Javed the only notable batsman and Wasim was the only strike bowler. Imran was well past his years.

And you only have to see their track in record throughout the tournament. It wasn't exactly smooth sailing. A team that was bowled out for 72 against the same side they won in the final and were saved by rain in that group game.

Meaning of the word minnow 'is a person or organization of relatively small size, power, or influence'

As you can see the word 'relative'

Minnows is not a cricketing term like leg before the wicket or caught behind, full toss.

Secondly my age has nothing to do with understanding definitions which are abstract and don't exactly quantify anything.

 

[Chokli]

Minnows have won it. Then these minnows became great teams as you know it now. Nobody rated the Pakistan side of 1992.

Lol no Minnow has won the World Cup.

 

[ar2020]

Minnow is a relative term. The Pakistan team of 1992 was unrated, with Javed the only notable batsman and Wasim was the only strike bowler. Imran was well past his years.

And you only have to see their track in record throughout the tournament. It wasn't exactly smooth sailing. A team that was bowled out for 72 against the same side they won in the final and were saved by rain in that group game.

Meaning of the word minnow 'is a person or organization of relatively small size, power, or influence'

As you can see the word 'relative'

Minnows is not a cricketing term like leg before the wicket or caught behind, full toss.

Secondly my age has nothing to do with understanding definitions which are abstract and don't exactly quantify anything.

A minnow is a country that is not known in that sport. Namibia, Kenya, Scotland, Holland in cricket. Saudi Arabia, Costa Rica, Canada in soccer.

 

[waleed88]

Lol no Minnow has won the World Cup.

India wasn't a minnow against West Indies?

 

[waleed88]

Lol no Minnow has won the World Cup.

Srilanka was considered a minnow until they won 1996.

 

[waleed88]

A minnow is a country that is not known in that sport. Namibia, Kenya, Scotland, Holland in cricket. Saudi Arabia, Costa Rica, Canada in soccer.

Netherlands was actually a pretty good team in 1999 world cup.

 

[waleed88]

Bangladesh was also a minnow until 2011/2012. Would anyone call Bangladesh a minnow if they won the world cup? I doubt that. Which is why this term is relative, because everyone is loooking in hindsight to their teams achievements having won the said tournament.

 

[The_Odd_One]

This is the best format. There will be virtual knockout games. Australia vs WI in the 1992 WC was a nail biter due to which Pakistan qualified for the semifinals. I’m sure, 3rd and 4th team will be decided based on some crazy scenarios.

 

[MMHS]

There is an old thread on this, mods can merge both...

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...-Format-Discussion-Thread&highlight=World+Cup

 

[goran]

We have icc ranking and icc mace to reward the most consistent team.

Wc shouldn't be like that. Its main purpose is to promote the game and entertain the public. Nothing can match the excitement of a knockout match.

I think we should already give the wc to England and india instead of wasting our time since these r the two teams that reside at the top of the ranking.

This wc will be an absolute bore fest.

If you watched the 92 WC, you wouldn't call it boring. In fact, the previous few WCs have been absolutely boring with lots of meaningless matches. This is a good format.

 

[waleed88]

This is the best format. There will be virtual knockout games. Australia vs WI in the 1992 WC was a nail biter due to which Pakistan qualified for the semifinals. I’m sure, 3rd and 4th team will be decided based on some crazy scenarios.

Or rain, just like in 1992. Let's be honest Pakistan were more than just lucky to reach the semi's.

The thing with knockouts is, if they are washed out, they have to happen in another day.

This won't be the case here. Guaranteed 3-4 games atleast will be rain affected and that will only dampen the fun.

What a bummer.

I am guessing by the time India vs Pakistan happens. Pakistan will probably have been knocked out, and India would've qualified. With only pride and the streak to play for.

 

[waleed88]

Netherlands was actually a pretty good team in 1999 world cup.

My bad I meant Zimbabwe, also considered minnows by many.*

 

[The_Odd_One]

Or rain, just like in 1992. Let's be honest Pakistan were more than just lucky to reach the semi's.

The thing with knockouts is, if they are washed out, they have to happen in another day.

This won't be the case here. Guaranteed 3-4 games atleast will be rain affected and that will only dampen the fun.

What a bummer.

I am guessing by the time India vs Pakistan happens. Pakistan will probably have been knocked out, and India would've qualified. With only pride and the streak to play for.

Pakistan's "luck" in the 1992 WC has been discussed to death and I won't even go there but despite these washouts, the outcome of almost every match had some significance. Each match will be important for the 3rd and 4th team. England and India are going to make it pretty easily but two of Australia, NZ, SA, and Pakistan will need a lot of "luck" to qualify for the semi-finals.

 

[ar2020]

Pakistan's "luck" in the 1992 WC has been discussed to death and I won't even go there but despite these washouts, the outcome of almost every match had some significance. Each match will be important for the 3rd and 4th team. England and India are going to make it pretty easily but two of Australia, NZ, SA, and Pakistan will need a lot of "luck" to qualify for the semi-finals.

You forgot WI...

 

[waleed88]

Pakistan's "luck" in the 1992 WC has been discussed to death and I won't even go there but despite these washouts, the outcome of almost every match had some significance. Each match will be important for the 3rd and 4th team. England and India are going to make it pretty easily but two of Australia, NZ, SA, and Pakistan will need a lot of "luck" to qualify for the semi-finals.

Let's not count out Bangla and Afghanistan..

We barely chased one total against Afghanistan and lost against Bangladesh chasing 240.

 

[waleed88]

Sarfraz referred to the same thing when he talked about the Indian game.

Which means he is not sure his team will be in the tournament by the time the game against India comes about..

Hence he is downplaying his team's chances and asking people to think about the game against India even if we don't win the world cup, which can be a shot at redemption for a more than likely failed tournament progression

 

[The_Odd_One]

You forgot WI...

WI is a very inconsistent team. They can make it to semis but is very unlikely.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Let's not count out Bangla and Afghanistan..

We barely chased one total against Afghanistan and lost against Bangladesh chasing 240.

Pakistan will beat Bangladesh 4 out of 5 times outside Asia because Bangladeshi bowling is completely toothless outside Asia. They bowl well on slower pitches at home and the UAE where I expect them to beat Pakistan.

Afghanistan just do not have the experience and skill set to compete consistently with more established teams in a global event.

 

[Stewie]

Minnow is a relative term. The Pakistan team of 1992 was unrated, with Javed the only notable batsman and Wasim was the only strike bowler. Imran was well past his years.

And you only have to see their track in record throughout the tournament. It wasn't exactly smooth sailing. A team that was bowled out for 72 against the same side they won in the final and were saved by rain in that group game.

Meaning of the word minnow 'is a person or organization of relatively small size, power, or influence'

As you can see the word 'relative'

Minnows is not a cricketing term like leg before the wicket or caught behind, full toss.

Secondly my age has nothing to do with understanding definitions which are abstract and don't exactly quantify anything.

Bhai what’s wrong with you. Rameez, sohail and Imran all Scored. Ramiz was one of the top scorers in the league stage.

 

[Chokli]

Let's not count out Bangla and Afghanistan..

We barely chased one total against Afghanistan and lost against Bangladesh chasing 240.

that was in the UAE

 

[Chokli]

India wasn't a minnow against West Indies?

no they weren't

Srilanka was considered a minnow until they won 1996.

sri lanka were far from minnows in 1996

 

[waleed88]

Yes and Pakistan can chase totals in England correct?

 

[waleed88]

no they weren't



sri lanka were far from minnows in 1996

How many people believed India could win against West Indies in the World cup Final? Not alot, especially when they capitulated for a small total.

How was Srilanka's performance in the previous 2 editions of the world cup? If they were miles better than Zimbabwe then please do tell.