Cricket World Cup and it's future.

[LA ICE-E]

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.

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.

Yeah if the 1st round was drawn out to make sure that the best teams go forward, i doubt a lot of people will pay attention, like they pay attention to the odi championship. Odi's weren't pointless before 1998 with the champions trophy so why is it all of a sudden pointless? is it because the series are way to drawn out? Anything drawn out will just be boring just to make sure the best team wins, look at the ranking to know the best team. The best team doesn't need to win the tournament.


Um that was a rhetorical question. Any team could have been in a bad form and performed like those 2 teams as in losing as many games which would have made any tournament even with the top8 boring. So in the end good wish full concept but not a good full proof enough concept which would make a good wc format.

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.

why is it not worth while? If you are defeated you go home. so you better win. Plus a pool round like the 2007 wc then knock outs would give you at least some games.

A initial round with just the bottom is a awful idea, it would nothing different from the icc wc qualifiers just that bang and zim are in it. No point in it and they get plenty of games against each other anyway after qualifying and getting their ODI status. So nothing different as they usually get games from bangladesh/zimbabwe anyway so not really playing in front of the worldwide audience because people would care then. and they don't play bigger teams by default they do achieve qualification through the wc qualifier. so basically no point of having stages like that because it would be just doing the later stages of the wc qualifier over again.

the later part of the tournament with 5 teams in 2 group- almost the same tournament is done- champions trophy

 

[Richard]

Odi's weren't pointless before 1998 with the champions trophy so why is it all of a sudden pointless?

If you look carefully, there were multi-team tournaments pre-Champions Trophy, which did precisely what the Champions Trophy does now - provides a "filler" in between the absurdly long 4-year period between World Cups.

Um that was a rhetorical question. Any team could have been in a bad form and performed like those 2 teams as in losing as many games which would have made any tournament even with the top8 boring. So in the end good wish full concept but not a good full proof enough concept which would make a good wc format.

It's basic common-sense that had India and Pakistan qualified, there'd have been more likely to have been less mismatches than there were with Bangladesh and Ireland. You can never guarantee or come close to that there'll be no surfeit of one-sided games, but you can know which circumstances offer most encouragement to it.

 

[LA ICE-E]

If you look carefully, there were multi-team tournaments pre-Champions Trophy, which did precisely what the Champions Trophy does now - provides a "filler" in between the absurdly long 4-year period between World Cups.

It's basic common-sense that had India and Pakistan qualified, there'd have been more likely to have been less mismatches than there were with Bangladesh and Ireland. You can never guarantee or come close to that there'll be no surfeit of one-sided games, but you can know which circumstances offer most encouragement to it.

no duh, there's been tri-angular world series etc but it wasn't between the top 8 teams. the fifa world cup/olypics/world baseball classic etc. all are 4 years apart.

yeah there's more chance of less mismatches if india/ pakistan was there but no one could have said that for sure and the same thing could have happened with whatever team which would make it boring so in the end the format is a good wishful concept but not a foolproof format.

 

[wpdavid]

The ICC would do a better job as a 'filler' if it happened every 4 years though.

As for the WC, time hasn't mellowed my opinion that there are at least two options preferable to what we saw in 2003 & 2007.

1. Despite Richard's misgivings, 1996's warm-up group games before knock out quarterfinals was superior. Even if a very good SA side was unlucky enough to be Lara'd in the quarter finals, so what? That could just as easily happen in the semis, so what's the difference afaics.

2. Less minnows would mean way less pointless mismatches and a shorter tournament to boot. My preference would still be 12 sides in 3 groups of 4, with the top 2 going through to a super 6. OK, that means one group would have Bang as the 3rd side instead of a proper test team, but sometimes life is unfair. No-one will die as a result, so lets get over it.

 

[LA ICE-E]

The ICC would do a better job as a 'filler' if it happened every 4 years though.

As for the WC, time hasn't mellowed my opinion that there are at least two options preferable to what we saw in 2003 & 2007.

1. Despite Richard's misgivings, 1996's warm-up group games before knock out quarterfinals was superior. Even if a very good SA side was unlucky enough to be Lara'd in the quarter finals, so what? That could just as easily happen in the semis, so what's the difference afaics.

2. Less minnows would mean way less pointless mismatches and a shorter tournament to boot. My preference would still be 12 sides in 3 groups of 4, with the top 2 going through to a super 6. OK, that means one group would have Bang as the 3rd side instead of a proper test team, but sometimes life is unfair. No-one will die as a result, so lets get over it.

the # of team doesn't really matter as to how long a tournament is, a 64 team tournament could be held in a month while even a 12 or worse a 8 team tournament could take months. Even with more teams there are formats so there aren't that many mismatches.

 

[Richard]

Despite Richard's misgivings, 1996's warm-up group games before knock out quarterfinals was superior. Even if a very good SA side was unlucky enough to be Lara'd in the quarter finals, so what? That could just as easily happen in the semis, so what's the difference afaics.

Difference is simple - the less knockout games, the better the chance of the best team winning. I'm far happier with semi-final-final rather than quarter-final-semi-final-final. What has a 1-in-8 chance is reduced to a 1-in-4.

 

[Richard]

no duh, there's been tri-angular world series etc but it wasn't between the top 8 teams.

Err, yes it was. Well, actually not the top 8 teams, because there weren't 8 teams good enough on most of these occasions - but they involved the teams who were obviously ODI-standard at the time (sometimes excluding 1 or 2 of them). Here's a few examples of the sort of thing.

the fifa world cup/olypics/world baseball classic etc. all are 4 years apart.

And that's those sports, which are completely and totally 100% irrelevant to cricket. Many of these actually last 2 years. Cricket's multinational tournaments don't, so they need to happen more frequently than those in other sports.

yeah there's more chance of less mismatches if india/ pakistan was there but no one could have said that for sure and the same thing could have happened with whatever team which would make it boring so in the end the format is a good wishful concept but not a foolproof format.

Nothing and nothing is foolproof, and no-one is suggesting it is. It's a question of probabilities.

 

[Jonty Lathwal]

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.

It means you are Cricketweb's BADE-BUJURG

 

[Blamire]

''Late in 2007, the four host nations agreed upon a revised format for the 2011 World Cup, in which 14 teams will participate instead of 16. The first round of the tournament will be a round-robin similar to the one held in South Africa in the 2003 edition in which the 14 teams are divided into 2 groups of 7 teams each. The 7 teams play each other once with the top four from each group qualifying for the quarter-finals.

The format ensures that each team gets to play a minimum of six matches even if they are ruled out of the tournament due to early defeats''

What do you all think of the 2011 format?

 

[Richard]

Shocking. There's a good idea that can go wrong (2007) and there's a bad idea that's sure to produce lots of bad cricket however much good it manages.

 

[SJS]

It means you are Cricketweb's BADE-BUJURG

I suppose you could say that though there is one person older I think.

 

[Richard]

There's been at least 2 who have confirmed their age as older (than you SJS) who have at some point posted.

Neither are regulars, however.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Err, yes it was. Well, actually not the top 8 teams, because there weren't 8 teams good enough on most of these occasions - but they involved the teams who were obviously ODI-standard at the time (sometimes excluding 1 or 2 of them). Here's a few examples of the sort of thing.

And that's those sports, which are completely and totally 100% irrelevant to cricket. Many of these actually last 2 years. Cricket's multinational tournaments don't, so they need to happen more frequently than those in other sports.

Nothing and nothing is foolproof, and no-one is suggesting it is. It's a question of probabilities.

realize that the tournaments you linked that you said were needed, had ODI status for "sub" teams in its time, which you were arguing in the other thread shouldn't happen. And they didn't always have ODI standard teams, well the standard you call ODI standard that is.

Baseball is not at all irrelevant to cricket. They are quite similar. If you're going to say many of those actually last 2 years, well then the cricket world cup lasts actually about 4 years. Something that happens frequently is held to a lesser value than something that happens rarely.

Yeah there are way better formats than 8 team play all that would give way better probabilities of having meaning full games and leaves less to no chances of dead rubbers. And dead rubbers always devalues the tournament.

 

[Blamire]

Shocking. There's a good idea that can go wrong (2007) and there's a bad idea that's sure to produce lots of bad cricket however much good it manages.

Is that because there will be too many mis-matches, with associates playing six games?

 

[LA ICE-E]

''Late in 2007, the four host nations agreed upon a revised format for the 2011 World Cup, in which 14 teams will participate instead of 16. The first round of the tournament will be a round-robin similar to the one held in South Africa in the 2003 edition in which the 14 teams are divided into 2 groups of 7 teams each. The 7 teams play each other once with the top four from each group qualifying for the quarter-finals.

The format ensures that each team gets to play a minimum of six matches even if they are ruled out of the tournament due to early defeats''

What do you all think of the 2011 format?

Pretty crappy 1st round and then it's alright. Exactly leaves rooms for a lot of dead rubbers, all that does is devalues the tournament. Why does it have to ensure each team gets to play six games? The teams should earn their games. And if they aren't good enough to do that then exit the cup. Doesn't the full members get enough games between themselves through out the years? Why does it have to ensure them more games? So that is towards the associates I suppose. with all the talks about how the devalue the tournament. Now you going to have them play more dead rubbers/one-sided games that people complain about? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. dead rubbers adds nothing to the tournament, and this format leave a whole lot of chances for a whole lot of dead rubbers. Horrible 1st round formart, the knockout is alright.

Shocking. There's a good idea that can go wrong (2007) and there's a bad idea that's sure to produce lots of bad cricket however much good it manages.

? doesn't manage that much of goods.

 

[Julian87]

2011 the subcontinent are hosting it, 2015 I believe Australia and New Zealand will.

What bull****, it is Australia's turn.

 

[Julian87]

WC 2007 was the most boring cricket tournament ever............

I would go as far to say that the IPL was the most boring cricket tournament ever.

 

[Somerset]

What bull****, it is Australia's turn.

It doesn't go on 'turns' though, remember that with four subcontinent teams and only two australasian teams, they've got almost half the votes, more power and more expectation to host World Cups in that region more frequently.

 

[Somerset]

Is that because there will be too many mis-matches, with associates playing six games?

Exactly, the World Cup (IMO) should be a showcase of the World's best cricketing talent. Having minnows play in every third match in the first three weeks of the tournament is hardly doing justice to that.

 

[Somerset]

I would go as far to say that the IPL was the most boring cricket tournament ever.

Personally I really enjoyed the IPL, there was enough close matches and at least in New Zealand, 30 minute highlight packages, to quickly catch up with the latest matches. The final was brilliant, at least the umpires didn't stuff up.