Quarterfinals to return in 2011 ICC World Cup

[chaminda_00]

2003 Kenya and Zimbabwe made it into the Super 6s and Kenya into the semi final. Really it doesn't matter what format you have, they is always going to be a high chance that a minnow makes it past the first round. All it really takes is one or two lucky wins and they make it through.

The best format was 92. But we can't have that format any more due to numbers. Reckon they would have been better off having 12 sides. Make Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Kenya qualify. 14 teams just makes for a very boring group stage with too many matches.

Super 6/8 will never work, as more often then not a minnow will make it past the group stages and makes the format just boring. Personally I thought the best format since 92 was 96, with 12 teams and QFs.

 

[Richard]

That is protectionism though. It doesn't happen in the Football world cup so why should it happen in Cricket? Uruguay have in the past won world cups but didn't qualify for the 2006 world cup, by the ICC and Cricket elitist reckoning Uruguay should have a divine right to world cup participation.

What happens in football is completely irrelevant to cricket. There are enough wrong-headed analogies with football in cricket as it is. I want no account taken of anything that happens in the football World Cup when we're planning the cricket one.

Either way, agree with Haakon that this format is the worst that could possibly be conceived. As said, I$C$C have already handicapped themselves by pre-arranging the maximum number of games.

What I'd have done myself, as I said after the 2007 event, is keep the same format, but place the preliminary group-stage as something held 6 months before the Super Eight. Then you'd have the "shorter" tournament that everyone wrong-headedly wants (as sst said earlier, the quality is the problem with the last 2 tournaments, not the length - if we get a 6-week long crackerjack tournament most people will be wishing it could've gone on even longer) and you'd also fulfill the maximum number of games thingy, allowing someone else to cover the preliminary stages. With any luck, too, that'd mean all "actual" World Cup games will be between ODI-standard sides, provided we don't have any slip-ups like Bangladesh and Ireland beating India and Pakistan again.

Either way, looks like we might have to endure something I'd thought impossible after 2003 and 2007 - a tournament worse than either. And knowing cricket like we know it, that'll probably mean the tournament is the best since 1999.

BTW, whoever it was that said WC99 was devalued by Zimbabwe reaching the Super Six - it wasn't. Zimbabwe were a ODI-standard side in those days, it was completely England's fault that they didn't qualify due to the abjectness of their performances against South Africa and India.

 

[honestbharani]

2003 Kenya and Zimbabwe made it into the Super 6s and Kenya into the semi final. Really it doesn't matter what format you have, they is always going to be a high chance that a minnow makes it past the first round. All it really takes is one or two lucky wins and they make it through.

The best format was 92. But we can't have that format any more due to numbers. Reckon they would have been better off having 12 sides. Make Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Kenya qualify. 14 teams just makes for a very boring group stage with too many matches.

Super 6/8 will never work, as more often then not a minnow will make it past the group stages and makes the format just boring. Personally I thought the best format since 92 was 96, with 12 teams and QFs.

I don't think 1 lucky game will ever be enough to get a minnow into the super 6 stage in a 14 or 12 team world cup. And if they have 2 good games, who is to deny that they earned the right to be there????

 

[Janus]

What happens in football is completely irrelevant to cricket. There are enough wrong-headed analogies with football in cricket as it is. I want no account taken of anything that happens in the football World Cup when we're planning the cricket one.

I disagree, tournament structure has nothing to do with the sport played or the ethos of said sport.

 

[Richard]

Different sports require different structures. Simple as, IMO.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Dire, as they say round these parts.

The whole concept of the "Super" stages was introduced after the format of the 1996 tournament had rendered the first round largely irrelevant & this is essentially the same set-up with two extra places for the minnows. Then we qualified for the quarters with a 2-3 record, our wins coming against the might of the UAE & the Netherlands; this time wins over (say) Zimbabwe, Ireland & Scotland would probably suffice.

Cricket seems uniquely antipathetic towards minnows amongst team sports. For instance let's take rugby union, which is a very similar sized sport to cricket. When Fiji qualified ahead of Wales & Argentina deposed Ireland from the 2007 tournament this was generally seen as a positive boon for the sport (unless you happened to be Welsh or Irish, obv), showing its increasing depth of competitiveness. Bangladesh & Ireland ousting India & Pakistan was met with nothing but the gnashing of teeth & wringing of hands tho.

Obviously one doesn't need a degree in Economics to suppose why it was seen a bad thing that the sport's main revenue stream was unrepresented in the latter stages of the last tournament, but that is the nature of sporting competition: sometimes David does slay Goliath.

 

[chaminda_00]

I don't think 1 lucky game will ever be enough to get a minnow into the super 6 stage in a 14 or 12 team world cup. And if they have 2 good games, who is to deny that they earned the right to be there????

There would be a good chance that a top side loses all their matches against the top sides. Then lose one match against someone like Bangladesh. Bangladesh would then qualify for the next round ahead of that side. Most likely a team would have to win two matches against the top sides. I don't think it is out of question a minnow qualifies from one good game.

As mentioned above in theory you only need to win three games to make it to the QFs/Super 8. Potentially only one against a top 8 side.

 

[Richard]

Cricket seems uniquely antipathetic towards minnows amongst team sports. For instance let's take rugby union, which is a very similar sized sport to cricket. When Fiji qualified ahead of Wales & Argentina deposed Ireland from the 2007 tournament this was generally seen as a positive boon for the sport (unless you happened to be Welsh or Irish, obv), showing its increasing depth of competitiveness. Bangladesh & Ireland ousting India & Pakistan was met with nothing but the gnashing of teeth & wringing of hands tho.

Obviously one doesn't need a degree in Economics to suppose why it was seen a bad thing that the sport's main revenue stream was unrepresented in the latter stages of the last tournament, but that is the nature of sporting competition: sometimes David does slay Goliath.

I've given my reasons why I don't think either will be of much long-term benefit TBH.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

There would be a good chance that a top side loses all their matches against the top sides. Then lose one match against someone like Bangladesh.

Much less chance than in the four-team format though; for a start, it has to be the same top side that crunches against Bangladesh as loses their other three matches. And teams like England or West Indies, who would be prime candidates to fall in three top games, are yet to lose to Bangladesh and are usually pretty decent at disposing teams supposedly weaker than themselves.

2003 is a bit irrelevant as an example because of the forfeiting going on. If England had played and won in Zimbabwe (not entirely out of the question) or the rain not destroyed the Pak-Zim game, Zimbabwe would have been out; similarly, if Shaun Pollock had understood the Duckworth/Lewis rules or New Zealand had played and won in Nairobi, Kenya would have been out on net run rate.

 

[Janus]

Different sports require different structures. Simple as, IMO.

The thing is they don't, Imagine a sixteen team cricket world cup with quarters, semis and final. It works out all well and fine if the big teams play to their actually ability and not under their ability. That format is the format used when the football world cup featured sixteen teams and works well if you stop thinking about protectionism, Pakistan and India should have been playing to the best of their ability but weren't, tough but fair.

 

[chaminda_00]

Much less chance than in the four-team format though; for a start, it has to be the same top side that crunches against Bangladesh as loses their other three matches. And teams like England or West Indies, who would be prime candidates to fall in three top games, are yet to lose to Bangladesh and are usually pretty decent at disposing teams supposedly weaker than themselves.

2003 is a bit irrelevant as an example because of the forfeiting going on. If England had played and won in Zimbabwe (not entirely out of the question) or the rain not destroyed the Pak-Zim game, Zimbabwe would have been out; similarly, if Shaun Pollock had understood the Duckworth/Lewis rules or New Zealand had played and won in Nairobi, Kenya would have been out on net run rate.

Yes and no, 2003 was under a Super 6 format, so under a Super 8/QF they would both have made it through anyway. Even when you consider the ifs and buts.

At the end of day when you have a Top 8, all required to make the next stage for tournment to go as planned. There is always going to be a realistic chance that one of minnow going through. If this does happen, then QF format is better then Super 8, where they reduce the overall quality of cricket. Atleast this way they would most likely only play one extra game.

 

[honestbharani]

Yes and no, 2003 was under a Super 6 format, so under a Super 8/QF they would both have made it through anyway. Even when you consider the ifs and buts.

At the end of day when you have a Top 8, all required to make the next stage for tournment to go as planned. There is always going to be a realistic chance that one of minnow going through. If this does happen, then QF format is great then Super 8, where they reduce the overall quality of cricket. Atleast this way they would most likely only play one extra game.

yeah, I get your point and you are right.


But I meant super 6, not super 8. I want to see only the top 3 from each group go through. In that case, it would be that much more meaningful and a much better chance that the teams that have actually played the better cricket would go through.

 

[Richard]

The thing is they don't, Imagine a sixteen team cricket world cup with quarters, semis and final. It works out all well and fine if the big teams play to their actually ability and not under their ability. That format is the format used when the football world cup featured sixteen teams and works well if you stop thinking about protectionism, Pakistan and India should have been playing to the best of their ability but weren't, tough but fair.

16 teams is nowhere near enough for a football WC, though. And it's far too many for a cricket one, TBH. Especially when Bermuda are 1 of them.

Really, the notion that Bermuda vs India has a part to play in an interesting tournament is such nonsense it beggars belief.

The reality is that a cricket World Cup would work best at the current time with 8 teams. And if you (ie, I$C$C) stop thinking about pretending we have the world we don't in the game of cricket, that's the reality you'll see.

As I say - I simply do not care for "it worked for football" (especially if it's "it worked for football 48 years ago") and hence plunging in and assuming it must also work for cricket. I want no notice taken at all of the fact that a format worked for a different sport. I'm not denying that it did; simply that the fact that it did matters.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I've given my reasons why I don't think either will be of much long-term benefit TBH.

I've re-read your post a couple of times and, unless I've missed it completely, you haven't actually.

 

[chaminda_00]

yeah, I get your point and you are right.


But I meant super 6, not super 8. I want to see only the top 3 from each group go through. In that case, it would be that much more meaningful and a much better chance that the teams that have actually played the better cricket would go through.

The thing is had a Super 6 or Super 8 really ever worked well interms of improving the quality of cricket. The only Super Group match that I really remember was the SA/Aus match at the end of 2003 format. It was a great game, but the fact that it was pretty much knockout match was why it was so great IMO.

A knockout format for from the group stages improve the quality of tournment. Quality doesn't always equal quanity which is the basic of Super Group format. Most teams play in 2nd gear in the Super Group matches. The teams don't usually find that cutting edge until it is knockout cricket, unless they have to win those matches to qualify for the semis.

 

[Janus]

16 teams is nowhere near enough for a football WC, though. And it's far too many for a cricket one, TBH. Especially when Bermuda are 1 of them.

Really, the notion that Bermuda vs India has a part to play in an interesting tournament is such nonsense it beggars belief.

The reality is that a cricket World Cup would work best at the current time with 8 teams. And if you (ie, I$C$C) stop thinking about pretending we have the world we don't in the game of cricket, that's the reality you'll see.

As I say - I simply do not care for "it worked for football" (especially if it's "it worked for football 48 years ago") and hence plunging in and assuming it must also work for cricket. I want no notice taken at all of the fact that a format worked for a different sport. I'm not denying that it did; simply that the fact that it did matters.

they only stopped using the 16 team concept in the 80's if I'm not mistaken and anyway only a handful of teams have ever won the football world cup so are you saying that should be restricted to them? how about the fact that when the football world cup is hosted in Europe there is a European winner, should Brazil, Argentina be excluded on the basis that only European teams are going to win?

Respectfully, Bermuda's place in the world cup was down to the ICC's terrible qualification format, would much prefer UAE and Namibia have a chance than Bermuda and Canada.

So as far as your concerned we don't play cricket in Ireland?

 

[andruid]

The crucial issue is to find the balance between allowing the best team to win and at the same time allowing the best kind of tourney from the viewers' perspective. At the end of the day, sport is about viewership and if you can't get viewers to tune in, you have to change the format of the game or the tourney.... Otherwise, everyone plays everyone would be the only way anys port would be run.

I am sensing that there is a certain confusion between best and test team here. In a any given tournament it is supposed to be unless there is, downright match fixing, a situation where the team that plays the best ans smartest cricket emerging tops whether of whatever special privileges they have/or don't have over their opponents outside the competition. So in the Unlikely event the Bermuda get their act together and charge all the way and win the to the final and win it should be because they played the best and the smartest cricket at the side tournament, and if a team like Australia happen to have what's being passed of on this thread as 'a bad day' then they should be prepared to accept the consequences of allowing the bad day to happen whether its in the group stages of in the semi-final, irrespective of whoever they are plaing when they have that 'bad day.'
Basically if a potentially good team(or even a whole group of good teams) fails to live up to its expectations in a tournament the buck should stop with the team itself.

 

[silentstriker]

In a format like this, the team that wins is the best team. Simple as. There is no such thing as 'allowing the best team' to win. You play badly when it matters, you lose, and that just sucks for you. The best team is the one that won when it mattered and came away with the cup.

 

[andruid]

Much less chance than in the four-team format though; for a start, it has to be the same top side that crunches against Bangladesh as loses their other three matches. And teams like England or West Indies, who would be prime candidates to fall in three top games, are yet to lose to Bangladesh and are usually pretty decent at disposing teams supposedly weaker than themselves.

2003 is a bit irrelevant as an example because of the forfeiting going on. If England had played and won in Zimbabwe (not entirely out of the question) or the rain not destroyed the Pak-Zim game, Zimbabwe would have been out; similarly, if Shaun Pollock had understood the Duckworth/Lewis rules or New Zealand had played and won in Nairobi, Kenya would have been out on net run rate.

That is a big if. Sri Lanka had already gone to Nairobi on a crest of Minnow bashing and they got caned. There is no guarantee New Zealand would have certainly beaten Kenya in front of a passionate Gymkhana crowd and and how well Kenya were playing then. On the same evin of ifs and buts if a team is not plaing well enough to dispose of minnows then one can argue that they will probably not raise their game enough to be any more competitive against their test counterparts than the minnow that knocked them out.

 

[ret]

i like the QFs .... the fact that teams can't afford to lose once they are in the QF brings in more tension and interest .... any team that wins 3 games in a row in such pressure situation deserves to win the tournament