Cricket World Cup and it's future.

[LA ICE-E]

I like that idea. Also, I would like to see the WC being a 10 or 9 team affair with a qualifying tournament for the last 3 or 4 spots between the best minnows and the 7th, 8th and 9th ranked teams... Sorta like the champions trophy.

yeah then why don't you and people that like only the top 8 just be happy with the champions trophy? It's basically what you like just with a different name. so just think of it as the world cup for yourself. And the long drawn out qualification process that you like, well there you go think of the icc ranking is the qualification process done over a period of 2 years.

 

[LA ICE-E]

WC 2007 was the most boring cricket tournament ever............
It was too long and there were very few interesting matches........

I think WC 1999 was the best (credits to Klusener....)
ICC should shorten it (1 month perhaps).....

and a better format....(Super 8 was boring)

It was boring because Australia dominated, no one really challenged them. All the other teams weren't in their best form including the top 8. And one sided games which includes the one sided games between the top 8 that happened as much as one sided games between the top and associates. and the super 8 was a good concept if it happened in the best possible way but then again most are good concepts if it happens in the best way imagined.

 

[duffer]

It was boring because Australia dominated, no one really challenged them.

I think the empty stands and the lack of atmosphere contributed a lot to the poor spectacle, Australia dominated 03 as well but most people I know loved that tournament. But I agree with JL who reckons 99 was the best with 96 running it a close second.

 

[Jonty Lathwal]

It was boring because Australia dominated, no one really challenged them. All the other teams weren't in their best form including the top 8. And one sided games which includes the one sided games between the top 8 that happened as much as one sided games between the top and associates. and the super 8 was a good concept if it happened in the best possible way but then again most are good concepts if it happens in the best way imagined.

South Africa & New Zealand are very good ODI teams......
but never perform very well in the World Cups.........
New Zealsnd sweeped Australia 3-0 just before the world cup.....

 

[SJS]

First post here so apologies if this type of thread has been posted before or I post in the wrong area - just getting to grip with the place.

The Cricket World Cup is, or at least should be, the biggest prize in cricket. It is the pinnancle of a players career to be in a side that becomes World Champions. However, with last years farce of a tournament in the West Indies and the ever criticised WC format, I think it is time to make strcutural changes to how the tournament is played.

I understand that following the 2007 CWC the ICC have reduced the number of teams competing in the WC to 14, from the 16 in 2007. One of the criticisms of the 16 team tournament is that there were too many miss matches, with one side dominating a game.

Also, the WC seemed to last an awful long time which caused people to lose interest in the middle stages of the competition. There were low crowds largely due to ticket prices and regulations concerning safety.

The Super 8s stage almost seemed unecessary with the top teams playing each other too much, and there was still one sided games involving Ireland and Bangladesh.

However, surely the 'minnow' nations of international cricket deserve to compete in the competition? How can a World Cup only involve a select few nations? There were shocks in that Ireland beat Pakistan and Bangladesh beat India, so it wasn't all one sided. It also gave many people an insight into cricket in other countries besides the Test playing nations. many people didn't know that Ireland had a decent ODI cricket team before the WC.

What do you think of the First Round stage - was it successful in what it set out to achieve? Was the Super 8s too long, would a QF stage make for better viewing?

Maybe even at 14 teams the WC will be too one sided, or maybe it will help the rich defeat the poor by excluding the weaker teams from competing?

It's difficult and there are pro's and con's for each format, but if you had to produce the next WC in four years time (or whenever you felt it necessary) - who would host it? Who would compete? And why?

Lot of things contribute to the failure of a particular edition of the Championship.

If the last one was held in the sub-continent, or South Africa or Australia it would not have been the farce it was.

The format, length of the tournament etc are fine and legitimate issues but how the tournament is conducted, the organisational capabilities of the Central Cricket Authority of the place, the strength of the local population to fill the stands, the ease, difficulty of those from other countries (and locals) to got to different venues to watch, the pricing policy etc etc are much more important when the failure is observed in one edition.

West Indies World Cup had all these problems and more.

Maybe, the long term health of the World Cup is not at its 'pinkest', i dont know but maybe, but I wouldn't go by what happened in the West Indies to draw that conclusion.

 

[Jonty Lathwal]

Lot of things contribute to the failure of a particular edition of the Championship.

If the last one was held in the sub-continent, or South Africa or Australia it would not have been the farce it was.

The format, length of the tournament etc are fine and legitimate issues but how the tournament is conducted, the organisational capabilities of the Central Cricket Authority of the place, the strength of the local population to fill the stands, the ease, difficulty of those from other countries (and locals) to got to different venues to watch, the pricing policy etc etc are much more important when the failure is observed in one edition.

West Indies World Cup had all these problems and more.

Maybe, the long term health of the World Cup is not at its 'pinkest', i dont know but maybe, but I wouldn't go by what happened in the West Indies to draw that conclusion.

Cha-Cha ji how do u manage to write long"articles" like this????

 

[LA ICE-E]

I think the empty stands and the lack of atmosphere contributed a lot to the poor spectacle, Australia dominated 03 as well but most people I know loved that tournament. But I agree with JL who reckons 99 was the best with 96 running it a close second.

Yeah I forget that, but yeah i agree empty stands too but look at what SJS said which makes sense.

South Africa & New Zealand are very good ODI teams......
but never perform very well in the World Cups.........
New Zealsnd sweeped Australia 3-0 just before the world cup.....

Yeah exactly not all teams are going to be competitive in the specific tournament and people wanting a 8 team league tournament doesn't get it that not all teams are going to be that competitive and their will be one sided games just like there are so many in normal odi series between the top 8 and there can be a lot of meaningless dead rubbers in the world cup. the best format for a tournament is the one that leaves the least chance of having meaningless games.

Lot of things contribute to the failure of a particular edition of the Championship.

If the last one was held in the sub-continent, or South Africa or Australia it would not have been the farce it was.

The format, length of the tournament etc are fine and legitimate issues but how the tournament is conducted, the organisational capabilities of the Central Cricket Authority of the place, the strength of the local population to fill the stands, the ease, difficulty of those from other countries (and locals) to got to different venues to watch, the pricing policy etc etc are much more important when the failure is observed in one edition.

West Indies World Cup had all these problems and more.

Maybe, the long term health of the World Cup is not at its 'pinkest', i dont know but maybe, but I wouldn't go by what happened in the West Indies to draw that conclusion.

I agree, the world cup needs a format that leaves the least chance of meaningless games and yeah the top 8 tournament could have the least meaningless games but it could also have a lot of them so knock outs aren't a bad idea. So I think ultimately the best format would be like the a short pool group 1st round then knock out like the fifa world cup or even just knock out like the ncaa basketball march madness which is a 64 team knockout tournament and is a hell of a tournament too. Because If you were undefeated for that long that the team that wins deserves to be there and you can't take that away. People have to get over the thought that oh the team that wins have to be the best team in the world. no it's just a tournament, a big tournament but if australia didn't win would that make them not the best team? no they would still be the best team but it would have meant they didn't win the most important tournament.

 

[Richard]

I think the empty stands and the lack of atmosphere contributed a lot to the poor spectacle, Australia dominated 03 as well but most people I know loved that tournament. But I agree with JL who reckons 99 was the best with 96 running it a close second.

Nah, '92 was the best with '99 running it a close second.

'96 was pretty poor IMO.

 

[Richard]

yeah then why don't you and people that like only the top 8 just be happy with the champions trophy?

Because the Champions Trophy isn't the World Cup, it's the Champions Trophy. It's supposed to be a short'n'sharp tournament. The World Cup, on the other hand, is supposed to be something of decent length. That doesn't, though, mean either need to involve more than 8 teams. And if you do that, you'll decrease the quality.

 

[duffer]

Nah, '92 was the best with '99 running it a close second.

'96 was pretty poor IMO.

Matter of opinion really but l loved 96. Maybe because it was the first time I really got into cricket and the first time I started staying up late and religiously watching all the games.

Great experience for mine and a lot of lasting memories especially Sachin's stumping. Aravinda's hundred and the Eden Gardens collapse. A tournament I'll always remember fondly.

 

[Richard]

Matter of opinion really but l loved 96. Maybe because it was the first time I really got into cricket and the first time I started staying up late and religiously watching all the games.

Likewise, 1992 was the first time I noticed international cricket, and 1999 was the first time I started following it (ie, teams other than England) religiously. So they've always had a particular place in my affections.

Great experience for mine and a lot of lasting memories especially Sachin's stumping. Aravinda's hundred and the Eden Gardens collapse. A tournament I'll always remember fondly.

Apart from Aravinda's century to beat Australia and the fact that WI promoted pinch-hitters to finish a game quickly which they ended-up losing, and the fact that Jayasuriya was caught at third-man against SA, I know pretty much nothing about the 1996 event.

 

[Somerset]

Hmm lets see, some problems, big boring problems. A team could be knocked out really early at the start of the tournament but has to keep on playing all of the rest of the nine games. Just because it was all nice in 92 doesn't mean it will always happen that way and every team will be in good form. Which would make the tournament really boring. People thought the super 8 was going to be like that too and look what happened when it didn't work out the best way imagined. 'cause you know what yeah it'd be really great if all teams played their best and it'd be really competitive until the last ball is bowled in the last match of the group stage. But that's not always going to happen and will leave us with a lot of dead rubbers just as having groups of 7 may as well dol next wc,

There would only be seven group games, and I'd imagine that if a team loses their first three, then the next four may not be competitive, admittedly. Thats the risk you'd take. However, at that stage in the tournament, the other seven teams would presumably still be vying for spots so the intensity would still be very high IMO.

The Super 8 in the 2007 World Cup was different to my my idea because it didn't have the best teams - with Ireland and, at their current level, Bangladesh, it didn't have enough competitive sides.

 

[Somerset]

I like that idea. Also, I would like to see the WC being a 10 or 9 team affair with a qualifying tournament for the last 3 or 4 spots between the best minnows and the 7th, 8th and 9th ranked teams... Sorta like the champions trophy.

Thanks. At least I have one supporter for my World Cup schedule.

 

[duffer]

The Super 8 in the 2007 World Cup was different to my my idea because it didn't have the best teams - with Ireland and, at their current level, Bangladesh, it didn't have enough competitive sides.

Yep, I think the main reason the 07 cup dragged so badly was the lack of "big games" that happened with Bangladesh and Ireland getting through.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Because the Champions Trophy isn't the World Cup, it's the Champions Trophy. It's supposed to be a short'n'sharp tournament. The World Cup, on the other hand, is supposed to be something of decent length. That doesn't, though, mean either need to involve more than 8 teams. And if you do that, you'll decrease the quality.

why have 2 tournaments which basically does the same thing? And what is the point of having a long tournaments which is basically the same thing as a lot of odi's combined together just like normal odi tounaments. The ICC ODI championship isn't that exciting which produces the best teams wins as a tournament where a team that's not the best can win against big odds.

There would only be seven group games, and I'd imagine that if a team loses their first three, then the next four may not be competitive, admittedly. Thats the risk you'd take. However, at that stage in the tournament, the other seven teams would presumably still be vying for spots so the intensity would still be very high IMO.

The Super 8 in the 2007 World Cup was different to my my idea because it didn't have the best teams - with Ireland and, at their current level, Bangladesh, it didn't have enough competitive sides.

Well then we should have just kept the 2007 format and take that risk. How do you know that 2 top 8 teams could perform like bangladesh and ireland (not playing standards) and lose most of their games then? It would still be the same long boring tournament.

Yep, I think the main reason the 07 cup dragged so badly was the lack of "big games" that happened with Bangladesh and Ireland getting through.

What proof is there that 2 of the "top 8 teams" couldn't be a bad form and perform badly and lose games like the 2 underdogs in 2007? And if that happened by 2 of the top 8 teams then what?

 

[SJS]

Cha-Cha ji how do u manage to write long"articles" like this????

Putter ji, I just put my finger on my key board and the words flow.

PLUS, for most part, I prefer to "say' something rather than stick to just passing critical comments on what others are saying. The latter can be done with a cryptic/cynical sentence (sometimes a word or two that may be censo by CW) but for the former I find, I need a bit more.

 

[Richard]

why have 2 tournaments which basically does the same thing? And what is the point of having a long tournaments which is basically the same thing as a lot of odi's combined together just like normal odi tounaments. The ICC ODI championship isn't that exciting which produces the best teams wins as a tournament where a team that's not the best can win against big odds.

The ICC ODI "Championship" is an utter irrelevance which I doubt anyone takes the blindest bit of notice of.

What's the point of having two ODI championships that basically do the same thing? Well, apart from the fact they don't (one provides a short'n'sharp tournament, the other a longer one) the answer is obvious - a multinational tournament is required every 2 years in order to avoid ODIs becoming completely pointless.

What proof is there that 2 of the "top 8 teams" couldn't be a bad form and perform badly and lose games like the 2 underdogs in 2007? And if that happened by 2 of the top 8 teams then what?

There's obvious proof that they could, and if you don't realise what that is then there's no point trying to make you see. Whether they would is more open to question.

 

[Blamire]

On the thought of a knock-out tournament, whilst that might increase the intensity of the games it would ensure the losers in the first round just one game in the competition, which I don't think is particularly worthwhile.

On the other hand, long drawn out groups can produce meaningless games where team are already out of a competition but must play further games to satisfy the schedule.

I thought the 2007 World Cup had got this right at first - an initial round to get rid of the minnows, they were guaranteed 3 games before they went home. Then the best teams progressed to a further round.

I do think good cricket under any format can produce a successful WC, much of the problems were down to poor hosting.

Perhaps an initial round of two groups - say Group A of Bangladesh, Scotland, Canada and Netherlands and Group B of Kenya, Zimbabwe, Ireland, Bermuda.

Thats 6 games per group so 12 games for two groups. There could be 2 games per day, so the first round would take roughly a week. The winners of each group would play the runners up of each group and the two winners would enter the Second Round.

The Second Round would feature the top 8 ICC ranked ODI teams plus two qualifiers. The ten teams split into two groups of 5, top 2 qualify for semis then a final.

The Associate nations would get plenty of games under their belt in front of a worldwide audience, and they could actually win WC games, rather than get tonked in them all. They would achieve qualification, rather than play the bigger teams through default, which is what they basically do now.

All the games would have considerable weighting too.

 

[Richard]

On the thought of a knock-out tournament, whilst that might increase the intensity of the games it would ensure the losers in the first round just one game in the competition, which I don't think is particularly worthwhile.

No, never in favour of a straight knockout. Always an idea I'm 100% against.

 

[Somerset]

No, never in favour of a straight knockout. Always an idea I'm 100% against.

Agreed TBH. In saying that it may be the only way New Zealand can win a world tournament! (see Champions Trophy 2000)