Originally Posted by jot1
In view of the fact that we now know this isn't a World Cup and that the event was mainly staged to put it on the world map, so to speak, the format definitely worked.
It generated a lot of attention, got a lot of people who've never watched cricket, watching, and turned out to have some of the most exciting matches in a long time.
So, obviously, this format was the best for this particular competition, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
All teams playing each other and the two with the most wins playing the final, still does it for me as to determining the champion.
FTR I am a she.
It's a bit difficult to find a format that's sort of in-between two extremes I think. As an organiser you want the 8 best teams to go through to the next stage and compete against each other a few times. So you've then got a situation where those 8 teams play a big round robin in some shape or form like in the ODI World Cup which is overkill really, or you have two groups of 4 and you get what happened in this competition where it could do with being a tad longer.
I think in Twenty20 you could possibly stretch to two groups of 5/6 before the semis and final. But that would then complicate the earlier stage.