Quarterfinals to return in 2011 ICC World Cup

[Richard]

I must say I doubt it'll happen by then TBH, but there's lots of things that really cannot be predicted at all over a five-year span in cricket.

In fact, you might say, circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because..................

 

[Hurricane]

In terms of the top teams having to qualify. I think if you have a rating of say over 80 in the ODI rankings that should count as qualification. It will add some meaning to the one dayers that are played by teams on the cusp.

Bangladesh and Zimbabwe under this system would have to play matches against associates to qualify.
Canada got up and beat Bangladesh at one of the World Cups so perhaps some of those qualification games will be interesting to follow.

 

[slugger]

^^^^ best idea thus far

 

[aussie]

Yea, you might be right. I hope that by the time 2016 comes around, ODIs will be a completely insignificant part of the calendar and interest will fizzle to nothing.
Not going to happen before then though. We'll see.

Really this makes no sense yo..

 

[silentstriker]

I said I hope, not I am sure it will. If these T20 tourneys are successful, then maybe. It'll depend on the crowds and vieweship at ODI matches - the crowds were pretty bad for CT, and we'll see what the vieweship figures say.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I have absolutely no problems with associate nations at the WC. Wouldn't mind seeing even a few more. I think someone made the point that it is a World Cup precisely because it provides a lot of non-traditional teams the opportunity to progress all the way.

the basic problem IMO isn't the number of matches, but rather the frequency. I'd gladly watch a world cup with 20 teams and 4 matches a day, rather than 8 teams and 1.5 matches a day. The World Cup needs to be more of a festival, and less of a controlled experiment at facilitating the supposedly best team's ascend to the summit.

 

[Richard]

I said I hope, not I am sure it will. If these T20 tourneys are successful, then maybe. It'll depend on the crowds and vieweship at ODI matches - the crowds were pretty bad for CT, and we'll see what the vieweship figures say.

Apart from the first event in 1998/99, crowds for Champions Trophy matches have always been desultory. TV companies have still been willing to invest vast sums in broadcast rights, however, which gives a much more reliable picture of audience.

 

[Uppercut]

Would be farcical tho. England would slaughter (say) Denmark or Italy and NZ would destroy PNG or Fiji. They used to make some of the foundation nations qualify for the union WC, but after we put on over one hundred versus the game but limited Dutch (and didn't push in the scrum for fear of injuring one of the smaller and amateur oppo) this was abandoned. Serves no purpose.

No, I'm happy for the test nations to qualify directly but also think, for it to truly be a "world" cup, non test nations must have a chance of making it all the way, however unlikely that may be.

It's an interesting example of a qualification game, England vs. Denmark. You may well be right about some of the games but on the other hand you have matches like Bangladesh vs. Ireland and Zimbabwe vs. Kenya. Test nations qualifying directly is fine so long as there's some initial meritocracy in whether a nation becomes a test nation or not in the first place. Otherwise you have a situation where Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, or even a third-choice West Indies XI qualify automatically ahead of teams that are potentially much better.

Which is why this:

In terms of the top teams having to qualify. I think if you have a rating of say over 80 in the ODI rankings that should count as qualification. It will add some meaning to the one dayers that are played by teams on the cusp.

Bangladesh and Zimbabwe under this system would have to play matches against associates to qualify.
Canada got up and beat Bangladesh at one of the World Cups so perhaps some of those qualification games will be interesting to follow.

is such a good idea.

 

[Furball]

If you have everyone having to qualify you remove the "well the smaller sides weren't given a fair chance" excuse. You also make teams have to genuinely earn, rather than potentially fluke, their place in the significant stage (ie the Super Eights).

Ireland did genuinely earn their place in the Super Eights. They beat one Test side, and tied with another.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, I don't know how you could call either of those results a fluke. They never won through luck, they beat Pakistan by outplaying them and played well in the tie with Zimbabwe as well.

 

[Richard]

Ireland did genuinely earn their place in the Super Eights. They beat one Test side, and tied with another.

And if they had to beat a Test side three or four times, then that'd be genuinely earning, rather than fluking it as they did in the 2007 WC.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, I don't know how you could call either of those results a fluke. They never won through luck, they beat Pakistan by outplaying them and played well in the tie with Zimbabwe as well.

Zimbabwe - who aren't worthy of being a Test side - were in a near-impregnable position and then fell to a tie. Pakistan, while they were indeed completely outplayed in that particular game, were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Replay that match with those exact same teams 10 times and Ireland would probably not win it once. Pakistan were only outplayed because they, like they do from time to time, had a diabolical performance - and in this case it was at the worst possible time.

 

[GIMH]

Not giving enough credit to Ireland, I remember watching both of those matches and they deserved what they got out of them. A fluke would surely be an undeserved victory, and you certainly could not say that about Ireland's progress in 2007.

 

[wpdavid]

It's an interesting example of a qualification game, England vs. Denmark. You may well be right about some of the games but on the other hand you have matches like Bangladesh vs. Ireland and Zimbabwe vs. Kenya. Test nations qualifying directly is fine so long as there's some initial meritocracy in whether a nation becomes a test nation or not in the first place. Otherwise you have a situation where Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, or even a third-choice West Indies XI qualify automatically ahead of teams that are potentially much better.

Or at least in the same general ball-park. But yes, I agree with you completely about the unfairness of Bang and, especially, Zim automatically qualifying for the WC. But it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to come up with some sort of qualifying system that gets the best sides there without the mass of non-events that we saw in 2007.

tbh I couldn't work out how Ireland could be as good as they were in 2007 given that they wouldn't have qualified if there were only 2 associates there in a 12-side tournament. How exactly are the associates ranked, and over what period of tiem?

 

[Richard]

Not giving enough credit to Ireland, I remember watching both of those matches and they deserved what they got out of them. A fluke would surely be an undeserved victory, and you certainly could not say that about Ireland's progress in 2007.

A fluke being circumstances conspiring in their favour. There is no way on Earth Ireland deserved the tie with Zimbabwe IMO, the Zimbos were as good as home then fell to pieces in the home strait. Yes they beat Pakistan fair-and-square, but as I say - the game should've been a mismatch with the quality of players on view in mind, and if you replayed that game 10 times over it probably would be in all of them. They were in the right place at the right time with Pakistan having an off-day - Pakistan historically have off-days from time to time, and this was at the best possible time for Ireland.

As I say, if you set-up a group where Ireland had to win at least three out of four against two genuine Test sides (ie, there's currently 7 of them: Australia, England, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka) to qualify, they'd have precious little hope. If they managed that, then and only then you could you say qualification wasn't a fluke, IMO.

 

[andyc]

A fluke being circumstances conspiring in their favour. There is no way on Earth Ireland deserved the tie with Zimbabwe IMO, the Zimbos were as good as home then fell to pieces in the home strait. Yes they beat Pakistan fair-and-square, but as I say - the game should've been a mismatch with the quality of players on view in mind, and if you replayed that game 10 times over it probably would be in all of them. They were in the right place at the right time with Pakistan having an off-day - Pakistan historically have off-days from time to time, and this was at the best possible time for Ireland.

Just because one time falls to bits right at the end doesn't mean the other team didn't deserve the result. I'd say Ireland deserved a tie for keeping the pressure on them until the end.

As I say, if you set-up a group where Ireland had to win at least three out of four against two genuine Test sides (ie, there's currently 7 of them: Australia, England, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka) to qualify, they'd have precious little hope. If they managed that, then and only then you could you say qualification wasn't a fluke, IMO.

A fair few of the current 'genuine Test sides' would struggle to meet this qualification, Richard. The Test sides ranked the lowest or second lowest would naturally struggle against the stronger teams, but they'd still definitely deserve qualification to the WC.

 

[gvenkat]

The problem i have with this format is the 42 meaningless matches that is going to precede the QF. Give or take we are going to see all the top 8 teams in the QF, Maybe Bangladesh could beat West Indies.

SO in effect the WC starts with the QF. The league games have no impact whatsoever. Would have prefered to seen 12 teams of 2 groups and top 4 go to Super 8's. I think there is no point rewarding a team that finished 3rd and 4th in the ICC trophy. Canada, Kenya and Netherlands are just going to be mauled and There will be 18 such games. Ireland is no better either..

 

[Prince EWS]

The problem i have with this format is the 42 meaningless matches that is going to precede the QF. Give or take we are going to see all the top 8 teams in the QF, Maybe Bangladesh could beat West Indies.

SO in effect the WC starts with the QF. The league games have no impact whatsoever

Yeah, this is really what irritates me greatly. Unless Bangladesh, Zimbabwe or one of the Associates win a game or two, all these games are going to be completely meaningless, and then all of a sudden it'll be sudden death.

Given there's a fairly obvious gap after the eighth best team, spending 42 games figuring out the best eight and then just another 4 in figuring out the best four makes absolutely no sense at all.

I'd actually be okay with the format if the quarters were skipped and it went straight to the semis, as then all these group matches would mean something.

 

[GIMH]

Should just go straight to the final IMO, make them really mean something

 

[BoyBrumby]

Yeah, this is really what irritates me greatly. Unless Bangladesh, Zimbabwe or one of the Associates win a game or two, all these games are going to be completely meaningless, and then all of a sudden it'll be sudden death.

Given there's a fairly obvious gap after the eighth best team, spending 42 games figuring out the best eight and then just another 4 in figuring out the best four makes absolutely no sense at all.

I'd actually be okay with the format if the quarters were skipped and it went straight to the semis, as then all these group matches would mean something.

100% agreement.

In fact, if memory serves, it was precisely because quarter finals gave the group stages in 1996 a crushing air of inevitability (England qualified by beating The Netherlands & The UAE and lost to all three test nations we faced) that the world cup moved to a Super Six stage in 99.