-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Stumped!
- Thread starter GHick405
- Start date
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
I am in for the wooden spoon as always 
Eh probably not. Just log in once a week to do the youth pull, dont really do much else with the team
cnerd123
likes this
I like 3 groups of 6, so we really just need 1 more managed team.
@Athlai @Flem274* @Daemon @CricAddict @Son Of Coco @andruid please play with us ?
@Athlai @Flem274* @Daemon @CricAddict @Son Of Coco @andruid please play with us ?
cnerd123
likes this
After the initial group stages, how should we proceed?
We can take the Top 4 from each group and do a straight KO stage, seeded on group stage standings. Might need a two stage round robin for this. The cons is that you don't play as wide a variety of opponents.
Or we can do a single stage round robin, and use the standings to split temas into new groups. The Top 2 from each initial group goes into the Cup, middle 2 into the Plate, bottom 2 into the Spoon. Then another round robin stage, followed by eliminators and final within each group. This way you play a wider range of opponents, while keeping the competition roughly the same length. The problem is that having some bad luck early in the first group stage can completely eliminate you from winning the cup.
The third and whackier suggestion is groups of 6, single round robin, reshuffle the groups, another round robin, and then use a combined points table to determine the Top 12 for the KO stage! More randomness, but wider range of opponents, and should still ensure the 'best' 12 teams stay in contention for the title.
Thoughts?
We can take the Top 4 from each group and do a straight KO stage, seeded on group stage standings. Might need a two stage round robin for this. The cons is that you don't play as wide a variety of opponents.
Or we can do a single stage round robin, and use the standings to split temas into new groups. The Top 2 from each initial group goes into the Cup, middle 2 into the Plate, bottom 2 into the Spoon. Then another round robin stage, followed by eliminators and final within each group. This way you play a wider range of opponents, while keeping the competition roughly the same length. The problem is that having some bad luck early in the first group stage can completely eliminate you from winning the cup.
The third and whackier suggestion is groups of 6, single round robin, reshuffle the groups, another round robin, and then use a combined points table to determine the Top 12 for the KO stage! More randomness, but wider range of opponents, and should still ensure the 'best' 12 teams stay in contention for the title.
Thoughts?
Groups of 6 does feel a bit limited in terms of variety of opposition for those that don't progress. The 3rd suggestion - would need to know more about how groups are reshuffled.
Happy to go with majority verdict though and appreciate its an idea - which is more than I've come up with!
If we don't get an 18th - bots will be needed - 17 can't really be divided and I recall being told that odd things happen when you have an odd number of teams in a group with a side playing themselves - in such a scenario I would prefer 2 groups of 9 like CWC5 but don't let that last part put you off prospective new entrants! - would be nice to have a new team in the CWC family.
If we get 18 and I and others don't think of another idea I wouldn't be against the middle suggestion - with the top one intrigued how a straight KO stage would work - top 4 from 3 groups would equal 12 - even if top side or top 2 went to a later round would end up with an odd number of teams at some point if not mistaken.
Happy to go with majority verdict though and appreciate its an idea - which is more than I've come up with!
If we don't get an 18th - bots will be needed - 17 can't really be divided and I recall being told that odd things happen when you have an odd number of teams in a group with a side playing themselves - in such a scenario I would prefer 2 groups of 9 like CWC5 but don't let that last part put you off prospective new entrants! - would be nice to have a new team in the CWC family.
If we get 18 and I and others don't think of another idea I wouldn't be against the middle suggestion - with the top one intrigued how a straight KO stage would work - top 4 from 3 groups would equal 12 - even if top side or top 2 went to a later round would end up with an odd number of teams at some point if not mistaken.
cnerd123
likes this
12 team KO stage:
Top 6 teams (2 per group) automatically through and seeded based on their points/NRR
Bottom 6 teams also seeded on points/NRR and play each other as follows:
Qualifier 1 - 9th seed vs 12th
Qualifier 2 - 10th seed vs 11th
Play Off 1 - 8th seed vs winner Qualifier 1
Play Off 2 - 7th seed vs winner Qualifier 2
Both Play Off winners enter into final KO stage as 7th and 8th seeds. Which team is which depends on their group stage points/NRR.
Then you have 8 teams seeded 1st to 8th, can draw up quarter finals, semi finals and finals.
This way only 6 out of the 18 teams (possibly 5 out of the 17 managed ones) will be eliminated completely after the group stage. So it keeps most of us involved. We can also draw up seeding matches for the losing teams as we did for CWC5.
Top 6 teams (2 per group) automatically through and seeded based on their points/NRR
Bottom 6 teams also seeded on points/NRR and play each other as follows:
Qualifier 1 - 9th seed vs 12th
Qualifier 2 - 10th seed vs 11th
Play Off 1 - 8th seed vs winner Qualifier 1
Play Off 2 - 7th seed vs winner Qualifier 2
Both Play Off winners enter into final KO stage as 7th and 8th seeds. Which team is which depends on their group stage points/NRR.
Then you have 8 teams seeded 1st to 8th, can draw up quarter finals, semi finals and finals.
This way only 6 out of the 18 teams (possibly 5 out of the 17 managed ones) will be eliminated completely after the group stage. So it keeps most of us involved. We can also draw up seeding matches for the losing teams as we did for CWC5.
CricAddict
Cricketer Of The Year
Sorry buddy. I am in a break mode right now.
StephenZA
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
So I`m gonna suggest a different format. 16 teams (I`m happy for TNT to drop out).
4 groups of 4 round robin (based on current dev rankings), home and away. Played quickly we can have 3 matches a week be done in two weeks. Top two from each group then move into a 8 player round robin. Bottom 2 from groups move into a lower bracket round robin. This means that the strongest and weakest teams are mostly separated early and there is a more competitive group 8 stage round robin. We can slow that down to two matches a week?
We can then have top four from top of group 8 stage straight into semi-finals. Else we can have the number 3 and 4 in 'top' group play against 1 and 2 in second group and that can decide semis against the top two from group 1 (similar to this last season). The second might be worth it because dev teams change over the season! It depends if you want it to be about long term success or team success at that point!
I also don't think we play matches (unless people really want to!) for 13th and 14th place etc. I understand it is meant to be inclusive. But if you have an eliminator matches, semi's and final's (possibly 3rd/4th) can be done quickly without having all these other games going on that people are less interested in. Its not like stumped stops and people are not involved in other tournaments. (Or just need a break!). It should just not drag.
Its a classic sort of format but the classics work!
4 groups of 4 round robin (based on current dev rankings), home and away. Played quickly we can have 3 matches a week be done in two weeks. Top two from each group then move into a 8 player round robin. Bottom 2 from groups move into a lower bracket round robin. This means that the strongest and weakest teams are mostly separated early and there is a more competitive group 8 stage round robin. We can slow that down to two matches a week?
We can then have top four from top of group 8 stage straight into semi-finals. Else we can have the number 3 and 4 in 'top' group play against 1 and 2 in second group and that can decide semis against the top two from group 1 (similar to this last season). The second might be worth it because dev teams change over the season! It depends if you want it to be about long term success or team success at that point!
I also don't think we play matches (unless people really want to!) for 13th and 14th place etc. I understand it is meant to be inclusive. But if you have an eliminator matches, semi's and final's (possibly 3rd/4th) can be done quickly without having all these other games going on that people are less interested in. Its not like stumped stops and people are not involved in other tournaments. (Or just need a break!). It should just not drag.
Its a classic sort of format but the classics work!
Magrat Garlick
Global Moderator
n with both teams
Charlie B
U19 Vice-Captain
Congrats to all with their ideas for the tournament
My preference is Stephen's so 4x 4 leading to a bottom 8 and a Top 8. the Top 8 round robin again leading to 4 in the knock out (no back door for the bottom 8 to creep back in again at any point - the bottom 8 schedule will then mirror the Top 8 for places 9-16
Not sure how the teams are initially split - it seems grim if we have 4 groups that any manager would find both their teams in the same group
Stephen should not have to fall on his sword - if everyone wants to enter their teams then ***** can stick 17 bits of paper in a hat at home and pull out one that will not get a slot (harsh but fair)
My preference is Stephen's so 4x 4 leading to a bottom 8 and a Top 8. the Top 8 round robin again leading to 4 in the knock out (no back door for the bottom 8 to creep back in again at any point - the bottom 8 schedule will then mirror the Top 8 for places 9-16
Not sure how the teams are initially split - it seems grim if we have 4 groups that any manager would find both their teams in the same group
Stephen should not have to fall on his sword - if everyone wants to enter their teams then ***** can stick 17 bits of paper in a hat at home and pull out one that will not get a slot (harsh but fair)
I would like the idea of IPL style semi finals if there was support for this idea to ensure even if a group of 3 or 4 teams pull away there is incentive for a top 2 spot and would just be the 1 extra game to arrange in knockouts but yeah a fan of Stephen's idea.
Presumably it would just be entering 8 names (excluding hb with just 1 team) and the manager could decide which of their teams Didn't feature if we went down that route.
Presumably it would just be entering 8 names (excluding hb with just 1 team) and the manager could decide which of their teams Didn't feature if we went down that route.
Wow just looking at DEV rankings as it stands Charminster CC (13th overall) are 2nd ranked CWC team just behind TMOs (12th overall) and ahead of Jura CC (14th overall). I think the rankings got a bit confused with my Charminster side - no way are they the 13th best DEV side around lol.
Tagging others in case of any objections - @cnerd123 @Charlie B @JOJOXI @Jarquis @Magrat Garlick @StephenZA @honestbharani @ataraxia @SillyCowCorner1
Perhaps give a few days for any objections and progress with this if everyone is happy
@StephenZA @Charlie B @cnerd123 and others as well what are your thoughts on IPL style playoffs for top 4 - for anyone not familiar
1st v 2nd - Winner goes to final, loser plays winner of 3rd v 4th
3rd v 4th - Loser eliminated, winner plays loser of 1st v 2nd
loser of 1st v 2nd vs winner of 3rd v 4th - winner of this goes onto play the winner of 1st v 2nd who progressed straight to final
Final
Perhaps give a few days for any objections and progress with this if everyone is happy
@StephenZA @Charlie B @cnerd123 and others as well what are your thoughts on IPL style playoffs for top 4 - for anyone not familiar
1st v 2nd - Winner goes to final, loser plays winner of 3rd v 4th
3rd v 4th - Loser eliminated, winner plays loser of 1st v 2nd
loser of 1st v 2nd vs winner of 3rd v 4th - winner of this goes onto play the winner of 1st v 2nd who progressed straight to final
Final
Overall Ranking | CWC Ranking | Team Name |
12 | 1 | The Merry Orangutans |
13 | 2 | Charminster CC |
14 | 3 | Jura CC |
34 | 4 | Dynamo Schmaltzberg |
54 | 5 | Moooo |
55 | 6 | GG CC |
57 | 7 | Ashgrove Astronauts |
72 | 8 | The Wild Geese |
75 | 9 | Zor*x CC |
79 | 10 | Free HK |
93 | 11 | AtaraX Wellington |
96 | 12 | Winton CC |
117 | 13 | AtaraXIa |
134 | 14 | Honest Hunks |
158 | 15 | Dynamo Morpork |
173 | 16 | Plymouth Pirates |
201 | 17 | The Net Theorists |
Will do it based on seedings at the time of the draw but if rankings remain the same - could throw up some very interesting groups, Free HK and Zor*x CC as 3rd seeds, Dynamo Morpork and Ataraxia as 4th seeds.
Also at time of doing draw I'll keep affiliates seperated, I'll put teams drawn in 1st available group that doesn't have their affilate in.