Suggest Your Cricket World Cup Format

[Marius]

So, it seems that after 2015 World Cups are basically going to ICC invitationals. The 2019 and 2023 World Cups will follow the format of the 1992 World Cup - 10 teams playing a round robin, with the top four teams going into the semifinals.

This is the death knell for cricket as a global sport, I'm afraid, and I would be very surprised if cricket is still a global sport by 2050.

The 10-team format is ridiculous, leaves us with lots of dead games, and effectively shuts out the associates for good. My suggestion for the Cricket World Cup is as follows:

Four groups of four. This will allow you to have the 10 established sides, plus six emerging teams. The top two teams from each group go into the second round.

This leaves us with eight teams. The eight teams will be split into two groups of four (not sure how this will be done, possibly using seedings, or figure out a way of ranking them depending on how they did in the group games).

Each team plays each other once and the top two teams in each group then go into the semis.

There won't be many dead games in this format, and the tournament can probably be done in a month. Also, there is space for 16 sides, giving the little guys a chance to play in cricket's premier event.

What do you guys think? Any other suggestions?

 

[dogwalker]

As an SA fan, I suggest only group stages and no knockouts.

 

[weldone]

I like the format of 2015 World Cup.

 

[morgieb]

I like the OP's format, but that happened in 2007 and it didn't work. Upsets could really **** it.

 

[weldone]

I like the format of 2015 World Cup.

But I think 4 groups of 4 each according to the rankings (followed by QF, SF and F) is even better, as that reduces the number of Scotland vs Afghanistan matches and the like.

Group A: Rank 1, 7, 10, Qualifier 6
Group B: Rank 2, 8, 9, Qualifier 5
Group 3: Rank 3, 5, Qualifier 2, Qualifier 4
Group 4: Rank 4, 6, Qualifier 1, Qualifier 3

QF1: GrA 1 vs GrB 2
QF2: GrB 1 vs GrA 2
QF3: GrC 1 vs GrD 2
QF4: GrD 1 vs GrC 2

SF1: QF1w vs QF4w
SF2: QF2w vs QF3w

 

[cnerd123]

I'd prefer we get a lot more countries involved. Like the football WC.

8 groups of 4, assigned randomly. Each play each other once. Top 2 from each group proceed straight to KO stage (Final 16 -> QF -> SF -> F)

If the top 8 want to be assured of moving to the next stage, they can each be assigned to one group, with the remaining three teams in each group being assigned randomly. This involves Bang, Zim and all major associates.

This way we don't have too may matches (48 + 8 + 4 + 2 + 1 = 63 matches) while also including 32 nations. Play multiple matches simultaneously in the group stages, you can finish off all 48 games within three weeks. Then 1 day each for the remaining 15 games, with some rest/travel days, all in all can finish that in three weeks too.

You get a 32 team cricket world cup done and dusted in 6 weeks. All the major nations will almost certainly make it to the KO stage + probably Bang/Zim + some of the good associates. You get 24 non-test playing nations playing, so while you do have some squash games, you also have increased exposure for cricket around the world.

EDIT: Fixed some sloppy math.

 

[Marius]

I like the OP's format, but that happened in 2007 and it didn't work. Upsets could really **** it.

No, in 2007 they had a Super 8s, which took about 7 years to finish. My suggestion is - instead of Super 8s, have two 'Super 4s'.

And who cares about upsets, upsets are what the World Cup is about - Kenya beating West Indies, Ireland chasing down 300+ and tying with England, Zimbabwe beating Australia in their very first World Cup game.

That said, upsets are only cool when your team isn't being upset.

 

[Marius]

I'd prefer we get a lot more countries involved. Like the football WC.

8 groups of 4, assigned randomly. Each play each other once. Top 2 from each group proceed straight to KO stage (Final 16 -> QF -> SF -> F)

If the top 8 want to be assured of moving to the next stage, they can each be assigned to one group, with the remaining three teams in each group being assigned randomly. This involves Bang, Zim and all major associates.

This way we don't have too may matches (48 + 8 + 4 + 2 + 1 = 63 matches) while also including 32 nations. Play multiple matches simultaneously in the group stages, you can finish off all 48 games within three weeks. Then 1 day each for the remaining 15 games, with some rest/travel days, all in all can finish that in three weeks too.

You get a 32 team cricket world cup done and dusted in 6 weeks. All the major nations will almost certainly make it to the KO stage + probably Bang/Zim + some of the good associates. You get 24 non-test playing nations playing, so while you do have some squash games, you also have increased exposure for cricket around the world.

EDIT: Fixed some sloppy math.

I don't think cricket is globally popular enough to have 32 half-decent teams. Think cricket's upper-limit of decent sides is 20, that's why I think 16 is a decent number.

 

[Marius]

But I think 4 groups of 4 each according to the rankings (followed by QF, SF and F) is even better, as that reduces the number of Scotland vs Afghanistan matches and the like.

Group A: Rank 1, 7, 10, Qualifier 6
Group B: Rank 2, 8, 9, Qualifier 5
Group 3: Rank 3, 5, Qualifier 2, Qualifier 4
Group 4: Rank 4, 6, Qualifier 1, Qualifier 3

QF1: GrA 1 vs GrB 2
QF2: GrB 1 vs GrA 2
QF3: GrC 1 vs GrD 2
QF4: GrD 1 vs GrC 2

SF1: QF1w vs QF4w
SF2: QF2w vs QF3w

With my suggestion you will have the same number of minnows vs minnows games, and the only knockout games are the semis and the finals. A team still has to be consistent to get through the second round.

 

[weldone]

With my suggestion you will have the same number of minnows vs minnows games, and the only knockout games are the semis and the finals. A team still has to be consistent to get through the second round.

With your suggestion, for deciding semi-finalists, are you suggesting to use the 2nd round results only r a combination of 1st and 2nd round results or a combination of 1st round non-minnow and 2nd round results? It's not clear from OP.

If you're not considering first round results for deciding semifinalists, then there's no incentive to come 1st in first round.

 

[Marius]

With your suggestion, for deciding semi-finalists, are you suggesting to use the 2nd round results only r a combination of 1st and 2nd round results or a combination of 1st round non-minnow and 2nd round results? It's not clear from OP.

If you're not considering first round results for deciding semifinalists, then there's no incentive to come 1st in first round.

Haven't given it that much thought. Perhaps if you came first in your group in the first round, then you get two points (or however many for a win) automatically in the second round. So you start with one 'win' already. So any points you got from the game with your fellow qualified get carried over. So if, say, England and South Africa qualify from Group A, and England beat South Africa, England starts with two points that they have carried over from beating SA, while SA carries over none, because they lost to their fellow first-round qualifier.

This will mean that nearly all games will still have some needle.

 

[Howe_zat]

The beef I have with most World Cup formats is that they tend to focus on getting everyone to play each other rather than keeping the matches meaningful. In 2011 England had 5 ridiculously unpredictable matches in a row but none of them meant hardly anything individually, because the group-of-seven mini-league drowned out any upsets. Ireland and Bangladesh both posted remarkable wins but neither got anything to show for it. And when India tied with England early on it reduced a fantastic game to little more than an exhibition match.

So the key ought to be to keep any group (whether there is one group stage or two) as small as possible. Since I don't think it's reasonable to fly out Kenya or the like for one or two matches only, there ought to be groups of 4, followed by quarter finals and then finals.

If you don't think there's enough matches between the top sides to pay the bills there - and I would see the case - then have a second group stage with 8 teams split into two groups, with the top two from each going into the semis.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm with the people suggesting four groups of four, but I'd go straight to the semi-finals after that with no quarter-finals. There's a gap in world cricket between the top eight and the next little group of potential bananaskin teams, which means that few of the group matches are meaningful if you have quarters, and the four that are (high level bottom 8 side v low level top 8 side) often won't be tremendously competitive. The format people have proposed here kind of boils down to "lets give everyone three warmup games, hope there are no huge upsets and then have an eight team knockout".

To ensure that the group matches between high quality teams actually mean something, only the top team of each group should go through. This would make the group games more meaningful and also make the tournament slightly shorter.

 

[weldone]

I'm with the people suggesting four groups of four, but I'd go straight to the semi-finals after that with no quarter-finals. There's a gap in world cricket between the top eight and the next little group of potential bananaskin teams, which means that few of the group matches are meaningful if you have quarters, and the four that are (high level bottom 8 side v low level top 8 side) often won't be tremendously competitive. The format people have proposed here kind of boils down to "lets give everyone three warmup games, hope there are no huge upsets and then have an eight team knockout".

To ensure that the group matches between high quality teams actually mean something, only the top team of each group should go through. This would make the group games more meaningful and also make the tournament slightly shorter.

Moving directly to semi-final means less chance of a 'India beats Pakistan' encounter - so no

Edit: And other celebrated rivalries too

 

[Howe_zat]

I'm with the people suggesting four groups of four, but I'd go straight to the semi-finals after that with no quarter-finals. There's a gap in world cricket between the top eight and the next little group of potential bananaskin teams, which means that few of the group matches are meaningful if you have quarters, and the four that are (high level bottom 8 side v low level top 8 side) often won't be tremendously competitive. The format people have proposed here kind of boils down to "lets give everyone three warmup games, hope there are no huge upsets and then have an eight team knockout".

To ensure that the group matches between high quality teams actually mean something, only the top team of each group should go through. This would make the group games more meaningful and also make the tournament slightly shorter.

I agree but ultimately there's going to have to be some sacrifice of meaning to each individual game in order to have a substantial tournament, and not just because of trying to get the money in. A 10-day tournament akin to the Champion's trophy as you suggest would seem pretty anticlimatic to me after a four-year wait, and you want there to be some chance of a narrative developing. I just think the current format goes much too far in that direction.

 

[Prince EWS]

I agree but ultimately there's going to have to be some sacrifice of meaning to each individual game in order to have a substantial tournament, and not just because of trying to get the money in. A 10-day tournament akin to the Champion's trophy as you suggest would seem pretty anticlimatic to me after a four-year wait, and you want there to be some chance of a narrative developing. I just think the current format goes much too far in that direction.

Well I don't know many games you think I'll be scheduling on each day, but you're wrong. There would be 24 games in the groups stages alone, and even if I relented on my selfish "only one game per day" stance (I like to watch all the games in their entirety), I definitely wouldn't be having more than two, and I'd probably give top 8 v top 8 games their own special day regardless.. so we're looking at 14 days minimum just for the group stages, two semi-final days, a final day and of course some rest days for the finals teams in there too. We're looking at three weeks really.. and possibly more like four if I (and the TV broadcasters) got their way on the overlaps.

One of the biggest complaints about the World Cups in the past has been the length of them. I've actually argued against that criticism saying people wouldn't mind the length if the games were more meaningful, but nevertheless I don't see a three week tournament as being too short.

Ultimately I don't think too many narratives would be developing if all the non-knockout games were either foregone conclusions or pointless. Weldone spoke of the rivalry aspect.. how much would it suck if Pakistan and India ended up in the same group and their game was completely meaningless unless one of them managed to lose to Afghanistan?

 

[weldone]

Weldone spoke of the rivalry aspect.. how much would it suck if Pakistan and India ended up in the same group and their game was completely meaningless unless one of them managed to lose to Afghanistan?

(lol, the Afghanistan part was funny) Firstly, non-knockout doesn't equal meaningless. Winner in a group has the benefit of playing potentially a weaker opponent in QF. But that's not the point.

You're wrong mate. Ask anyone from India or Pakistan. This World Cup game is never meaningless. Even the 1999 World Cup game was not meaningless.

Scorecard - 2002-2003 ICC World Cup - 36th ODI - Pakistan v India - 01/03/2003

 

[weldone]

Also, your format doesn't allow a team to lose one match on their way to win World Cup. That's actually quite close to effectively being knockout without spelling knockout.

And I don't like knockout tourneys.

 

[Marius]

If you don't think there's enough matches between the top sides to pay the bills there - and I would see the case - then have a second group stage with 8 teams split into two groups, with the top two from each going into the semis.

Which is exactly what I suggested in my original post.

 

[weldone]

Ya Howe basically supported both mine and your format.