Road to the 2019 CWC

[TheJediBrah]

why is all your posting so negative.

unrequited love

 

[cnerd123]

every now and then bangladesh or ireland has a few upsets and takes one of the clearly established top 8 teams spot in the quarter finals then proceed to get thumped in that KO game

those 8 teams i'm talking about (aus, eng, india, sa, pak, nz, wi, sl) could all possibly make the top 4 in this everyone plays everyone format. it wouldnt be a huge shock if any combination of those teams made the top 4. yes even WI vs SL in a final is a more realistic chance of happening than zim or bangladesh making the semis in 2019

IDK I quite like it when an established team loses their spot in the KO stages to a lesser team, even if the lesser team ends up being an easy game for whoever they're matched up against. Simply the potential for one of the better sides to be ousted early is quite exciting.

A round-robin of all established teams + minnows where the established teams go on to the next round sounds dull tbh. Might as well just start at the KO Stage then. Groups + top 2 proceeding gives more leeway for upsets and makes it more entertaining, and ultimately whoever wins is still a worthy winner.

 

[Spark]

Lynn-Maxwell-MMarsh just strikes me as taking serious liberties in England. I know their pitches in LO cricket have been some of the most high scores prone ever laid out, but still...

 

[mr_mister]

IDK I quite like it when an established team loses their spot in the KO stages to a lesser team, even if the lesser team ends up being an easy game for whoever they're matched up against. Simply the potential for one of the better sides to be ousted early is quite exciting.

A round-robin of all established teams + minnows where the established teams go on to the next round sounds dull tbh. Might as well just start at the KO Stage then. Groups + top 2 proceeding gives more leeway for upsets and makes it more entertaining, and ultimately whoever wins is still a worthy winner.

but you have no idea which 4 of those established 8 teams will make the final 4. so how can you say 'may as well start at the KO stage'


in the 92 version you'd have to say it was quite surprising that Australia and the West Indies both missed out on making the top 4. It still allows for some upset results. Look at how unbelievably pointless the group system was 4 years later in 96. England played like utter ****e yet still made the quarters



Australia/South Africa/India/England are the odds on teams to make the semis in 2019, but I bet one or two will miss out

 

[cnerd123]

but you have no idea which 4 of those established 8 teams will make the final 4. so how can you say 'may as well start at the KO stage'


in the 92 version you'd have to say it was quite surprising that Australia and the West Indies both missed out on making the top 4. It still allows for some upset results. Look at how unbelievably pointless the group system was 4 years later in 96. England played like utter ****e yet still made the quarters



Australia/South Africa/India/England are the odds on teams to make the semis in 2019, but I bet one or two will miss out

I assumed KO Stage meant 4 quarter finals, then semis and finals. IE, 8 teams in the KO stage. Hence I said there isn't much point to a round robin if you're going to just end up there.

A round-robin system with semis' following it has some merit i suppose. But then you don't get the minnows that global exposure they deserve. What is a World Cup without Dwayne Leverock or Aasif Karim or John Davidson or Kevin O Brien...

 

[mr_mister]

I agree but for scheduling purposes you need to draw the line somewhere for this everyone plays everyone and the top 4 advance format they're going for. 12 teams in a round robin is quite a lot. If it was up to me it'd be a 16 team tournament every time but Im still pretty excited for the 2019 structure, since I think the 92 structure is one of the best ones they've had. I liked the 1999 one too

 

[cnerd123]

I want:

4 groups of 4. Each team plays each other once - total of 24 games in the first stage (6 per group)

Top 2 from each group proceeds into KO stage - quarter finals, semis and the final. Seedings/match-ups based on points/NRR from group stage. Only 7 more games.

Grand total of 16 teams and just 31 games. Each team plays atleast 3 matches, the finalists will have played 6.

If we allow for 2 games to be played on the same day, this whole tournament can be done and dusted within a month.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I want:

4 groups of 4. Each team plays each other once - total of 24 games in the first stage (6 per group)

Top 2 from each group proceeds into KO stage - quarter finals, semis and the final. Seedings/match-ups based on points/NRR from group stage. Only 7 more games.

Grand total of 16 teams and just 31 games. Each team plays atleast 3 matches, the finalists will have played 6.

If we allow for 2 games to be played on the same day, this whole tournament can be done and dusted within a month.

That's basically the Champions Trophy

 

[cnerd123]

That's basically the Champions Trophy

Except more teams

 

[mr_mister]

it's what they did in 2007 right? I'm pretty meh on group stages where you only play 3 games. I like how the 92 system rewarded form over a long period of time. Not insanely long but longer than 3 games. With 3 games one hiccup can **** up your whole tournament

 

[cnerd123]

it's what they did in 2007 right? I'm pretty meh on group stages where you only play 3 games. I like how the 92 system rewarded form over a long period of time. Not insanely long but longer than 3 games. With 3 games one hiccup can **** up your whole tournament

2007 was crazy. They did the 4 groups of 4, but then did a Super 8, which then fed into the Semis.

I think there is no need for the Super 8. You don't need a 3-stage elimination process to get the 4 best teams. Go straight from groups to KO. The Super 8 just defeats the purpose of the groups, it was like the groups existed purely to showcase how week the minnows were, before letting the 'proper' teams play the 'actual' world cup.

I love how the hiccup can **** up your whole tournament. It's fantastic entertainment. Gives the minnows something to really play for - to be that hiccup that screws up India or Australia's tournament. If you have a few minnows but like, 2 groups or 1 big group and a round robin structure, it's just 4-5-6-7 games for the minnow team to show up and get beat around a bit before going home. Not really fun and doesn't give them much hope of leaving an impression.

 

[TheJediBrah]

it's what they did in 2007 right? I'm pretty meh on group stages where you only play 3 games. I like how the 92 system rewarded form over a long period of time. Not insanely long but longer than 3 games. With 3 games one hiccup can **** up your whole tournament

Nah 2007 had a another group stage after the first, before the finals.

You can't have a World Cup where you only play 6 games at most

 

[TheJediBrah]

2007 was crazy. They did the 4 groups of 4, but then did a Super 8, which then fed into the Semis.

I think there is no need for the Super 8. You don't need a 3-stage elimination process to get the 4 best teams. Go straight from groups to KO. The Super 8 just defeats the purpose of the groups, it was like the groups existed purely to showcase how week the minnows were, before letting the 'proper' teams play the 'actual' world cup.

I love how the hiccup can **** up your whole tournament. It's fantastic entertainment. Gives the minnows something to really play for - to be that hiccup that screws up India or Australia's tournament. If you have a few minnows but like, 2 groups or 1 big group and a round robin structure, it's just 4-5-6-7 games for the minnow team to show up and get beat around a bit before going home. Not really fun and doesn't give them much hope of leaving an impression.

Yeah and what's wrong with that? It's perfect in that it gives the minnows games in the World Cup, but doesn't ruin it with dozens of pointless one-sided games.

 

[cnerd123]

Yeah and what's wrong with that? It's perfect in that it gives the minnows games in the World Cup, but doesn't ruin it with dozens of pointless one-sided games.

You still had pointless one-sided games in the Super 8. When you do the group stages, you risk top sides being kicked out. What happened was India and Pakistan got kicked out, and Ireland and Bangladesh made it through. Add to that WI being generally dire anyways (but good enough to crawl out of the Group stages), and you had dozens of pointless mismatches in the Super 8.

If you're going to include Associates, the only way you minimize pointless games is in a format where they get knocked out quick. Doing groups where each-team-plays-once increases the odds of them making it to the next stage, so you can't have a second stage that is also a round-robin. And if your first round has a lot of teams in one or two big groups with lots of games, you will definitely eliminate the minnows from the second round, but have to incur a ton of pointless games anyways.

If you're going to include them, it will have to be in a format like I described, where if they do make it to Stage 2, it's already do-or-die, and every game matters. You can't have a big group and lots of round robin games because you will inevitably have tons of pointless matchups.

Unless you eliminate Associates entirely - which is what the ICC have done. -.-

 

[mr_mister]

It's not like deep runs by minnows have made a huge difference anyway. The best ever performance by a minnow at a WC was Kenya's run to the semi finals in 03, look where they are now

 

[cnerd123]

It's just entertaining that's all

 

[NUFAN]

Warner - Lynn - Smith - Head - Maddinson - Cartright - Harper + - Starc - Cummins - Zampa - Hazelwood


Never mind what team England serves up because we just generally win WCs for breakfast.

I feel like I could come up with 42 variations of the 5, 6, 7 that would be more successful and realistic then what you've named.

1. Marsh Stoinis Paine
2. Marsh Stoinis Carey
3. Maxwell Stoinis Carey
4. Head Stoinis Carey
5. Marsh Stoinis Bancroft
6. Handscomb Stoinis Carey
7. Lynn Marsh Paine
8. Turner Stoinis Carey
9. Stoinis Maxwell Wade
10. Marsh Stoinis Wade
11. Marsh Marsh Paine
12. Stoinis Short Carey
13. Marsh Stoinis White (lol)
14. Marsh Turner Bancroft

Should I continue.

 

[straw man]

Glenn Maxwell would make a good #6 for NZ, should come over imo

 

[NUFAN]

Who was left out of our T20I team that is a chance for our ODI team. Thinking about the World Cup next year.

The squad is Aaron Finch (c), Mitch Marsh (vc), Alex Carey (vc), Ashton Agar, Nathan Coulter-Nile, Chris Lynn, Nathan Lyon, Glenn Maxwell, Ben McDermott, Darcy Short, Billy Stanlake, Mitch Starc, Andrew Tye, Adam Zampa.

I guess Stoinis and Head are the obvious picks, plus Cummins and Hazlewood who are returning from injury.

Anyone else? Obviously Smith and Warner when the bans are over. Is Paine still an ODI option in the selectors thoughts?

So ive nominated 7, can anyone see an aussie making the world cup squad of I assume 15 players outside the 21 names listed?

 

[stephen]

Wade. The entire WA team.