Quarterfinals to return in 2011 ICC World Cup

[honestbharani]

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci-i...ry/343196.html




It seems we are back to the full knock out format.


I preferred a super 6 with the top 4 teams going through to the semis. Maybe it will mean more matches, but it will be more meaningful.


But I guess, still, the team winning the WC should have to beat 3 hopefully good teams on the trot to win the trophy. So I suppose it is not that bad. But I still feel it could have been better with the Super 6 format.

[sideshowtim]

Don't like it. More chance of a crap team getting through to the semis or final. Essentially you could have a really average tourney, finish 4th in your group, have a good game or two and end up in the final. Really don't like it.

[Googenheim]

I like it. Especially considering that the presence in the Super 6/Super 8 of teams like Zimbabwe in 99, Kenya and Zimbabwe in 03 and Bangladesh and Ireland in 07 makes a mockery of the concept itself.
People keep going on about the fact that good teams can have an off day in the quarterfinals, but forget the fact that they can have an off day in the semifinals and final of any other format too! For all you know a team could top the Super 6 stage and get knocked out in the semifinal anyway. This way atleast the final winner will have to hold their nerve for 3 straight games rather than just 2. Besides, I'd take 7 knockout games over a prolonged super 6 stage any day. This is what a World Cup should be like. There is a reason why the Football World Cup and all Grand Slams in tennis make use of as many knockout stages as possible.

[sideshowtim]

I like it. Especially considering that the presence in the Super 6/Super 8 of teams like Zimbabwe in 99, Kenya and Zimbabwe in 03 and Bangladesh and Ireland in 07 makes a mockery of the concept itself.
People keep going on about the fact that good teams can have an off day in the quarterfinals, but forget the fact that they can have an off day in the semifinals and final of any other format too! For all you know a team could top the Super 6 stage and get knocked out in the semifinal anyway. This way atleast the final winner will have to hold their nerve for 3 straight games rather than just 2. Besides, I'd take 7 knockout games over a prolonged super 6 stage any day. This is what a World Cup should be like. There is a reason why the Football World Cup and all Grand Slams in tennis make use of as many knockout stages as possible.

The top teams deserve more of a chance, and quarters give them less of a chance. With the quarter final format you're rewarding the worse teams and punishing the better teams. That's not how the World Cup should be.

[Googenheim]

The top teams deserve more of a chance, and quarters give them less of a chance. With the quarter final format you're rewarding the worse teams and punishing the better teams. That's not how the World Cup should be.

How is that rewarding the worse teams? Doesn't make sense to oppose quarterfinals while not looking the semifinals and the final in the same way. What difference does it make to a top team being knocked out having a bad day in a Quarterfinal as opposed to having the exact same experience in a Semifinal?

And it isn't like top teams haven't been punished in the last 3 world cups with the Super 6/Super 8 format. The only time quarterfinals were tried earlier was in 96, and the only questionable result in those set of matches was South Africa being knocked out by the West Indies. And even that result could be perfectly justified given that West Indies have tended to beat South Africa more often than not in World Cups, and South Africa are also known to choke in knockout situations anyway (be it a league game, Quarterfinal or even a Semifinal).

[Athlai]

When will they learn its the cricket that sells it and not the format, give us good matches and we will be entertained whether its a month long or 6.

[sideshowtim]

When will they learn its the cricket that sells it and not the format, give us good matches and we will be entertained whether its a month long or 6.

Spot on. The reason no one liked the last tournament was not because it was too long, but rather that Australia simply didn't look like being beaten.

[sideshowtim]

How is that rewarding the worse teams? Doesn't make sense to oppose quarterfinals while not looking the semifinals and the final in the same way. What difference does it make to a top team being knocked out having a bad day in a Quarterfinal as opposed to having the exact same experience in a Semifinal?

And it isn't like top teams haven't been punished in the last 3 world cups with the Super 6/Super 8 format. The only time quarterfinals were tried earlier was in 96, and the only questionable result in those set of matches was South Africa being knocked out by the West Indies. And even that result could be perfectly justified given that West Indies have tended to beat South Africa more often than not in World Cups, and South Africa are also known to choke in knockout situations anyway (be it a league game, Quarterfinal or even a Semifinal).

Because the teams that normally wouldn't have been good enough to make the knock out stages now make the knock out stages, and after being iconsistent throughout the tournament, have a chance to beat the team that had easily been best throughout the tournament if they have an off day.

Personally, I'd like to see 2 groups and the 2 teams finishing at the top playing each other in the final. That way you'd get a shorter tournament as well as the 2 best, most deserving teams playing each other in the final. That or just 1 big group of the Top 10 or 12 teams in the world with the 2 top finishers going in to the final. The current format is OK but its certainly better than having quarter finals though.

[Googenheim]

Because the teams that normally wouldn't have been good enough to make the knock out stages now make the knock out stages, and after being iconsistent throughout the tournament, have a chance to beat the team that had easily been best throughout the tournament if they have an off day.

But the best team can have an off day in the Semifinal or Final too. And if the weak team is good enough to beat 3 top teams on the trot, I say good on them, they deserve to win the World Cup. World Cups are all about how teams perform in clutch situations. If they were about the best team winning, South Africa should have won in 99.

Heck, one need look no further than New Zealand not winning in 92 despite there being the best possible format (made possible by the low number of teams) as proof of the fallibility of any format which includes even a single knockout game. We can't avoid this unpredictibility, and so might as well have the most entertaining format for the viewers and enjoy it.

[sideshowtim]

But the best team can have an off day in the Semifinal or Final too. And if the weak team is good enough to beat 3 top teams on the trot, I say good on them, they deserve to win the World Cup. World Cups are all about how teams perform in clutch situations. If they were about the best team winning, South Africa should have won in 99.

Heck, one need look no further than New Zealand not winning in 92 despite there being the best possible format (made possible by the low number of teams) as proof of the fallibility of any format which includes even a single knockout game. We can't avoid this unpredictibility, and so might as well have the most entertaining format for the viewers and enjoy it.

We can't avoid the best team not always winning, you're right. We can however, make there a greater chance of it happening. 2 groups of say, 6 or 7 nations, with the group winners going into the finals sounds the best to me as it's good with time and the most consistent teams go through to the final.

[Googenheim]

We can't avoid the best team not always winning, you're right. We can however, make there a greater chance of it happening. 2 groups of say, 6 or 7 nations, with the group winners going into the finals sounds the best to me as it's good with time and the most consistent teams go through to the final.

Yeah, agree. But that wouldn't find favour with the viewers and would make for a very bland tournament. Just one team qualifying from a group of 6-7 means that the percentage of non-significant matches in the league stage would reach alarming highs. If a dominant team takes an unassailable lead halfway through the league stage, almost 90% of matches there on would be a waste of time.

[honestbharani]

The crucial issue is to find the balance between allowing the best team to win and at the same time allowing the best kind of tourney from the viewers' perspective. At the end of the day, sport is about viewership and if you can't get viewers to tune in, you have to change the format of the game or the tourney.... Otherwise, everyone plays everyone would be the only way anys port would be run.

[Samuel_Vimes]

Yeah, agree. But that wouldn't find favour with the viewers and would make for a very bland tournament. Just one team qualifying from a group of 6-7 means that the percentage of non-significant matches in the league stage would reach alarming highs. If a dominant team takes an unassailable lead halfway through the league stage, almost 90% of matches there on would be a waste of time.

Not sure how the number of insignificant matches will decrease with this format. As it stands, it'll be horribly obvious which teams go through even before the tournament starts - even assuming one minnow does get up against, say, England, that team will likely come back and take a win against one of the other top teams, and the minnow will be knocked out on net run rate.

The suggested format really is the worst of all worlds. It increases the amount of minnow v non-minnow matches, while decreasing the amount of minnow teams; it increases the amount of dead games (who is going to care if they're second or third in the group?); instead of one huge group with uneven strengths, like in 2007, we get two huge groups with uneven strengths; and then, after five weeks of formality, suddenly the tournament is supposed to come alive in a one-week knockout frenzy.

If they only had semis, at least there would be some chase for second place in each group. Or possibly the 1st place getting a bye to the semis with 2nd and 3rd playing off in a pre-semifinal (or quarter if you like). As it stands, it's recipe for dull.

[Janus]

Something no-one seems to be saying is that the ICC's agreement with ESPN-Star means that the world cup can be no-less than 47 matches. So the ICC has once again shot itself in the foot.

Personally I'd favour 16 teams in four groups of four filtering into two groups of four. with semis , final and 3rd place play-off. That's Forty matches in total and thus a shorter tournament.

I actually don't buy into all of this "We must protect the full members" Nonsense as In my opinion they should be able to keep their standard up. If Pakistan can't beat Ireland and India can't beat Bangladesh that's not Ireland and Bangladesh's problem, it's India and Pakistan's for not playing good enough cricket. There should be no protectionism.

[four_or_six]

The more chance of Australia being brilliant in the group stages but then not winning the better I reckon.