Quarterfinals to return in 2011 ICC World Cup

[Furball]

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.

 

[Chemosit]

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.

bit like saying australia didn't deserve to win the world cup after the klusener/donald run out debacle. sport and especially world cups are about teams taking advantage of situations to win against odds on occasion. it is what makes it interesting FFS

 

[Richard]

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..

The realisation of how ludicrous this was in 1995/96 meant that a Super <whatever> stage was implemented in 1999 and lasted 3 tournaments.

Can only hope the same happens this time.

 

[Richard]

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.

That's a nice easy way out way of looking at it TBH. Pressure isn't applied, it's felt. Zimbabwe felt pressure where they needn't have; Ireland didn't apply it.

If one team falls to pieces without another team doing much that's the team which gets the positive side of the outcome getting a result they didn't deserve. I had this argument years ago with old Neil Pickup who essentially tried to say it isn't possible for a side to not deserve victory (or tie-that-feels-like-victory if applicable). I frankly don't agree at all.

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.

As I say, the gap between 7th and 8th is massively larger than any other gap. There should never, under any circumstances, be consideration of a World Cup with fewer than 7 teams.

 

[Richard]

bit like saying australia didn't deserve to win the world cup after the klusener/donald run out debacle. sport and especially world cups are about teams taking advantage of situations to win against odds on occasion. it is what makes it interesting FFS

What makes sport interesting and who deserves what are not the same thing. No of course Australia didn't deserve to win the 1999 World Cup, they were the third-best (at best) team in the tournament. Of course South Africa should have won it.

But what happened happened, and it's very possible that the memories of the 1999 World Cup being a fine tournament would be that much less strong if Klusener and Donald had communicated properly.

 

[four_or_six]

bit like saying australia didn't deserve to win the world cup after the klusener/donald run out debacle. sport and especially world cups are about teams taking advantage of situations to win against odds on occasion. it is what makes it interesting FFS

Agree with this. If it was about finding who was best in the world, you may as well look at the ICC rankings. Or if you want the top sides in the quarters just start at that stage with the top 8.

 

[Richard]

 

[marc71178]

Ladies and gentlemen, please stop feeding the troll.

 

[Richard]

Marc and Robbins, stop acting like you're the adjudicator of what's what around here.

 

[gvenkat]

The realisation of how ludicrous this was in 1995/96 meant that a Super <whatever> stage was implemented in 1999 and lasted 3 tournaments.

Can only hope the same happens this time.

It's all about money. First the WC was shafted from Aus-NZ and Brought to the sub-continent, to make the sponsors, the local boards happy. They made sure that India will play 6 games no matter what.

The QF game that India features would be a big ticket item and all four venues hosting the QF will make sure the crowds are filled and the TV rights would be sold for exhorbitant prices.

In all these bunglings the WC loses it's charm. We will have to content with Australia vs Canada and South Africa vs Ireland and what not.

 

[gvenkat]

This terrible idea is a considerably inferior format to that of the last three Cups. There are going to be one obscene number of games that virtually no-one much wants to watch.

Nonetheless, the last one didn't work out as planned at all. At least this way there's some element of mystery - no-one can be quite sure just what's going to happen here.

Football and Cricket are not the same. You can watch a on-sided football game for 1.30 hours and get it over with. In Cricket it's a whole friggin day. There are going to be 12 such matches in this tournament apart from one or two boring matches among the top 8.

The best format was 1992 followed by the 1999 format, When everyone played everybody and there was interest. The WC should be no more than 10 teams or max 12 teams. 10 teams in a round robin fashion or 12 teams with a super 8 format.

What people need to understand is India and Pakistan had an off day in 2007 and they lost to bangla and Ireland. They also lost another game to Sri Lanka and West Indies who were equals.

So if we were to go by the smart alecks arguments here about david slaying golaith. Pakistan would never have won the 1992 world cup, They were on the brink after 5 games and would have been eliminated if it was any other format. Australia should never have won the 1999 World Cup after their off day against NZL and Pakistan.

 

[turnstyle]

Personally, i don't think there was anything wrong with the first stage of the world cup in 2007. It was done and dusted pretty quickly with some great upsets. What ruined it was THAT super 8 malarkey. As much as i loved watching Ireland playing more against the full members (only 2 games where we were annihilated) But by the game against Sri Lanka, i'd have enough.

16 teams
qf, sf, final!

It'd be all over in 3 weeks :-D