Was the format wrong?

[Perm]

Originally Posted by Richard

Really, WTF does it matter what the stupid thing's called? It's a global Twenty20 tournament - nothing else matters in the slightest. I$C$C can call it whatever they think will do them most help.

It matters a great deal, and yes, there are things that matter other than the name of the tournament. Open your eyes about Richard and push past your hate of Twenty20, if this is the World Cup then obviously it'll be more important and prestigious than just a tournament, much in the same way the World Cup is in relation to the Champions Trophy.

[anoop4real]

Originally Posted by Perm

Really? Always thought this was the first World Cup. Don't tell me this is the Champions Trophy of Twenty20.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by ColdSnow

Sanz, I think your dig at Jot was uncalled for. He just made a point that the format might be flawed.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

It matters in the same way it matters whether you are playing in a ODI World Cup or ODI Champions Trophy. Big difference in terms of the prestige.

Prestige and Twenty20 don't go together.

[Perm]

Originally Posted by Richard

Prestige and Twenty20 don't go together.

In your rather biased opinion.

[Richard]

Well Manan slags-off ODIs in his own inimitably biased way, so I thought I'd return the compliment.

[Perm]

Originally Posted by Richard

Well Manan slags-off ODIs in his own inimitably biased way, so I thought I'd return the compliment.

Not as you are doing here. silentstriker can see why people think ODI's are important and why people enjoy them, however you seem intent on slagging-off Twenty20 cricket and claiming it can't be prestigious, which it very obviously can be.

[Richard]

I've never seen Manan say so much as a single positive word about one-day cricket, even the 60-over stuff.

So I like to ape him when Twenty20 is the subject between us.

[jot1]

Originally Posted by ColdSnow

Sanz, I think your dig at Jot was uncalled for. He just made a point that the format might be flawed.

Anyway...Jot, I think the "best" format to ensure that the best team goes forward is obviously have each team play against each other and then the two best play the final.

But such a format will run too long. This format was very entertaining for me.

In view of the fact that we now know this isn't a World Cup and that the event was mainly staged to put it on the world map, so to speak, the format definitely worked.
It generated a lot of attention, got a lot of people who've never watched cricket, watching, and turned out to have some of the most exciting matches in a long time.
So, obviously, this format was the best for this particular competition, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
All teams playing each other and the two with the most wins playing the final, still does it for me as to determining the champion.
FTR I am a she.

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by jot1

In view of the fact that we now know this isn't a World Cup and that the event was mainly staged to put it on the world map, so to speak, the format definitely worked.
It generated a lot of attention, got a lot of people who've never watched cricket, watching, and turned out to have some of the most exciting matches in a long time.
So, obviously, this format was the best for this particular competition, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
All teams playing each other and the two with the most wins playing the final, still does it for me as to determining the champion.
FTR I am a she.

It's a bit difficult to find a format that's sort of in-between two extremes I think. As an organiser you want the 8 best teams to go through to the next stage and compete against each other a few times. So you've then got a situation where those 8 teams play a big round robin in some shape or form like in the ODI World Cup which is overkill really, or you have two groups of 4 and you get what happened in this competition where it could do with being a tad longer.

I think in Twenty20 you could possibly stretch to two groups of 5/6 before the semis and final. But that would then complicate the earlier stage.

[jot1]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

I think in Twenty20 you could possibly stretch to two groups of 5/6 before the semis and final. But that would then complicate the earlier stage.

If it could stretch to two groups of 5/6 it would generate more money for the host country. More fans coming, more gate money. As 20/20 can handle 3 games a day it shouldn't lengthen the tournament by too much longer. Even going with just the top 8 teams, playing 3 games a day, all playing each other at least once should be possible.

[Scaly piscine]

Well it depends with the money, it would sort of assure you'd get the top 8 through to the next stage, but you'd get more dead games and more games involving teams like Kenya, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe etc. which wouldn't be as attractive as other games obviously.

For the first stage:

If you had 10 teams make it through you'd have to have 5 groups of 3+

If you had 12 teams make it through you'd have to have 4 groups of 4+ or 3 groups of 5+