ICC Champions Trophy should be split into two

[chris.hinton]

After the Mis matches early on in the ICC champions trophy. Perhaps this should be the Format for 2006

ICC Champions Trophy

Between

West Indies, England, Pakistan, Australia, Sri Lanka, India, New Zealand and South Africa

* 2 Groups of 4 (Play 3 games)
with a Final Round of 3 one day games plus Final

ICC Champions Plate

Between

Zimbabwe, Kenya, USA, Bangladesh, Scotland, Holland, UAE, Namibia


Same format as the Champions Trophy

The Winners of the Champions Plate will play off against the 7/8 off the Champions Trophy for 1 place in the Next Competition of Champions Trophy


What do you think of this Idea?

[luckyeddie]

You could still have 10 teams (2 groups of 5) and have the top 2 from each group going through into semi-finals.

I don't like the idea of a 3-game final, but the main thing is to get rid of so many meaningless games.

[Barney Rubble]

To be honest, I'm all in favour of the Trophy becoming a Twenty20 competition - it would certainly provide something out of the ordinary, and would probably have drawn bigger crowds than this year's disappointing ones.

How about 2 groups of 6, round robin format - wouldn't take so long, could be played over about 5 days, then quarter-finals day on a Saturday, followed by semis and final on a Sunday.

Only problem is whether or not 4 games can fit into quarter-finals day.

[masterblaster]

Im against the likes of USA competing in it. Kenya and Bangladesh have earnt their stripes in International Cricket, but putting USA in a table with Australia and New Zealand isn't great cricket nor is it great viewing.

A Champions Trophy should be the best of the best playing,

My proposal

Group A

Australia
India
England
Kenya
Zimbabwe
West Indies

Group B

South Africa
New Zealand
Sri Lanka
Pakistan
Bangladesh
Holland

The top 3 from each group goes through to the next round,

Elimination Final 1: Team 1 vs Team 2
EF 2: Team 2 vs Team 3
EF 3: Team 3 vs Team 4
EF 4: Team 5 vs Team 6

Semi Final 1: Winner 1 vs Winner 2
Semi Final 2: Winner 3 vs Winner 4

Final: Winner 1 vs Winner 2

Note this is just my opinion, and I welcome all of your ideas too.

[tooextracool]

all the above suggestions make the tournament too long and make it better than the world cup.....that is precisely what you are not supposed to do.

[Samuel_Vimes]

Originally Posted by masterblaster

Group B
<snip>
Holland

Sorry mate - but USA knocked out Netherlands fair and square in the qualifiers. I know it was on net run rate, and that Netherlands would probably beat the US nine times out of ten, but there were qualifiers and everybody knew the rules - and the US won them. Simple.

Not only that, but for the third time running, a team of English club cricketers won the European Championship...beating an admittedly not full-strength Netherlands, Scotland and Ireland in the process.

IMO the ICC should stick to funding the Intercontinental Cup, possibly extend it to a fourth day and to a four-team tournament per region (atm it's 3 days, 3 teams in Europe, Asia, America and Africa, although that would strain some players' working and studying), and also have regional tournaments for the nations just before that. The minnows should play in the World Cup, but not in the Champions' Trophy - they should get their experience from playing teams that are on a fair level with them, i.e. A teams or first-class teams (Kenya fought quite well with India A and Pakistan A in a tournament before the CT...still lost more than they won, but it was reasonable) often.

As for the Champions' Trophy itself...we do happen to have 11 ODI nations, so my suggestion is:

Pre-qualification

A tournament with the two bottom-ranked ODI teams and the four regional champions. Played in the same location as the CT, about three months before it.

Top three teams go through to

First round

IMO the Champions' Trophy should remain a knock-out. It was this year, realistically, and has always been. Besides, group stages with three teams is not to my liking - it brings too many opportunities for fixing, especially with net run rates. 3 groups of four means that teams are going to go through on comparisons of NRR as well. So for me, this becomes a knockout round between the teams seeded 5 to 9 (determined when the three qualifying teams have been settled)

Match 1: 5 v PQ3
Match 2: 6 v PQ2
Match 3: 7 v PQ1
Match 4: 8 v 9

Second round:

Match A: 1 v winner match 4
Match B: 2 v winner match 3
Match C: 3 v winner match 2
Match D: 4 v winner match 1

Semi-finals and final as normal.

[Neil Pickup]

I don't see what changes are needed.

As it stands, you have each of the four weaker nations (and the USA fully deserved to be there) playing twice, then clearing off home. Good for experience, and not affecting the later stages of the competition. Then you have the effective quarter-finals at the end of the 'groups' and the semis and the final - it's over in two weeks. I really don't see what the problems are, it does exactly what its brief is, it isn't the World Cup.

Håkon, the ECB XI in the European Championships is a Minor Counties combined team.

[Kent]

Originally Posted by Barney Rubble

To be honest, I'm all in favour of the Trophy becoming a Twenty20 competition - it would certainly provide something out of the ordinary, and would probably have drawn bigger crowds than this year's disappointing ones.

How about 2 groups of 6, round robin format - wouldn't take so long, could be played over about 5 days, then quarter-finals day on a Saturday, followed by semis and final on a Sunday.

Only problem is whether or not 4 games can fit into quarter-finals day.

I like this idea a lot, because IMO the CT doesn't really establish a meaningful champion of anything. ("Wow, we.....won 4 random ODIs!"). I also think it would be a much easier format to market when up to 80% of the fixtures don't involve a home side.

The only thing I'd feel slightly uncomfortable about is one country already playing the game for several years and all the rest (barring SA I think) going into it blind.

For example if I was trying to pick a NZ 20/20 side right now, it would take me a while to know what I could get away with. With up to US$250,000 of prizemoney at stake, I can't really say it's just a bit of fun.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The Champions Trophy is supposed to be a knockout tournament and that's effectively what it is currently. Generally the minnows of the group will be disposed of by both their seniors and then the senior teams will match up to kick off a straight knockout. No need for change as far as I'm concerned. As was mentioned above, it's not supposed to overshadow the World Cup.

[The Baconator]

if the tournament format was changed then it would take 2 long and it would basically be another world cup

[chris.hinton]

No it would not it would last 2 weeks

[Barney Rubble]

Originally Posted by The Baconator

if the tournament format was changed then it would take 2 long and it would basically be another world cup

Twenty20 would fit into a week - another plus.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by masterblaster

Im against the likes of USA competing in it. Kenya and Bangladesh have earnt their stripes in International Cricket,

And the USA earnt their spot.

Actually for me, that format worked quite well.

All minnows got 2 games against good sides.

All good sides had a warm-up game then a quarter final.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Samuel_Vimes

So for me, this becomes a knockout round between the teams seeded 5 to 9 (determined when the three qualifying teams have been settled)

Then complained about at the time by someone because his teams performed well since the cut-off...

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Kent

I like this idea a lot, because IMO the CT doesn't really establish a meaningful champion of anything. ("Wow, we.....won 4 random ODIs!").

Out of interest, did you express that opinion at the time that NZ won it as well?