Format ideas for future World Cups.

[Richard]

Really Jason you need to get over the fact that India didn't make it, they were beaten by a better side on the day which is what counts.

JASON's a Lankan.

 

[Richard]

they have enough chances...its whinning like this when the big teams loses that take out the fun of the tournaments

No, it's not - the 2003 Cup would have been no more or less fun with or without the whinging about Kenya going so far.

Don't tar all with your brush.

 

[Richard]

does anyone think the l use the same format for 2011? i hope they do because that would be more appropriate than this time because the minnows will be better

No, they might be.

To suggest they inequivocally will baffles all logic.

 

[LA ICE-E]

No, it's not - the 2003 Cup would have been no more or less fun with or without the whinging about Kenya going so far.

Don't tar all with your brush.

people complained and didn't give credit to kenya for making it to the semi's and now the formats changed and ireland makes it fair and square and still there's complain about the format... you cant make some people happy no matter what you do...

 

[Richard]

People don't complain about the format, they complain about the happenings.

 

[LA ICE-E]

i see a lot of people complaining that teams dont get a second chance in this format(which is wrong because they do)

 

[Richard]

They don't.

Anyhow - in 2003 the problems were not not getting a 2nd chance, they were with washed-out games (and no reserve-days) and forfeits.

 

[LA ICE-E]

yeah i know...so this is way better format then last time...but still people complains...about invalid stuff because big money is out

 

[marc71178]

People don't complain about the format, they complain about the happenings.

They is a bit of an exaggeration as it suggests more than 1 person.

 

[LA ICE-E]

lol

 

[jemo27]

teams do get a second chance, India lost 2 games, so did pakistan, it there own fault

 

[Prince EWS]

They don't.

Anyhow - in 2003 the problems were not not getting a 2nd chance, they were with washed-out games (and no reserve-days) and forfeits.

Well, yes they do. Pakistan lost to West Indies - their second chance was their match against Ireland. They lost. India lost to Bangladesh - their second chance was their match against Sri Lanka - and again they lost it.

Anyway, I don't really see the need for second chances as much as everyone else. What if Australia go through the group and S8 stages undefeated and then got knocked out the semi final? That's probably more "unfair" than getting knocked out for losing against West Indies and Ireland in your first two games, IMO.

 

[crickmate]

sopt on. You just took my words

Well, yes they do. Pakistan lost to West Indies - their second chance was their match against Ireland. They lost. India lost to Bangladesh - their second chance was their match against Sri Lanka - and again they lost it.

Anyway, I don't really see the need for second chances as much as everyone else. What if Australia go through the group and S8 stages undefeated and then got knocked out the semi final? That's probably more "unfair" than getting knocked out for losing against West Indies and Ireland in your first two games, IMO.

 

[LA ICE-E]

yeah..its a tournament not the rakings...you get lots of chances to bring your team to the top in the rankings but this is a tournament and only tough teams who dont need second chances should stay...

 

[straightbat]

The world cup is structured to get to the top 8 teams as quickly as they can but still give the lesser teams a go at the world cup. Unfortunatly for the ICC 2 of the worlds better teams (according to ranking ) have being knocked out. I beleive the world cup goes too long now, it needs to be condensed to under a month, but wont because off TV/ sponsor dollars it brings the game.

I also believe as has being posted that a one off semi and final could be unfair for a team that goes undefeated through the group and super 8's. My solution for that would be 3 semi's. 1vs 2 winner through to final loser to play winner of 3vs4 winner of that game to final. This will at least give some incentive to finish 1st or 2nd as it gives you a second chance at the finals stage.

 

[LA ICE-E]

and your the one complaining about it being too long...and then suggest something that would make it even longer...

 

[Hamilton B]

This format is more favourable for minnows to qualify for the next round than earlier ones. A mistake on the part of the ICC. They wanted fewer 'minnowy' games, but instead ended up with more than earlier.

 

[LA ICE-E]

uh no they didn't...and its harder for the minnows to go through in this one than the past ones...because they have to beat at least one test side and one side similar to its own...and even then it wouldn't have happened if the "stronger" sides won its other matches...so if a "strong" side was strong it would lose to the minnows anyway and so its still the stronger sides out of the groups that went to the second round... and even then if you still going to call it minnow games then this world cup will have 24 minnows altogether where as the last one had 36 minnow games in the group stage alone.

 

[JASON]

I think the format should just go back to the one they had in World Cup 1992 where all teams play each other - reduce minnows number to just 1 team. (ie 10 Test teams +Kenya + top ICC Trophy /Associate qualifier)

Then top 4 play each other in Semis , then Final.

I am really annoyed at this format.

 

[Hamilton B]

uh no they didn't...and its harder for the minnows to go through in this one than the past ones...because they have to beat at least one test side and one side similar to its own...and even then it wouldn't have happened if the "stronger" sides won its other matches...so if a "strong" side was strong it would lose to the minnows anyway and so its still the stronger sides out of the groups that went to the second round... and even then if you still going to call it minnow games then this world cup will have 24 minnows altogether where as the last one had 36 minnow games in the group stage alone.

Must be the heat, but all that just went over my head

The way I see it, in a best case scenario (from a minnow point of view), all they have to do to qualify for the next round is to win 2 games - 1 vs fellow minnow, and 1 vs strong team.

In the 2003 World Cup, again considering a best case scenario for the minnows, for a minnow to qualify, they would have needed to win at least 3 out of their 6 group games - 2 vs fellow minnows and 1 vs strong team.

Obviously it is easier to upset 1 strong team and beat 1 fellow minnow than to upset 1 strong team and beat 2 fellow minnows.


If you consider the worst case scenario for the minnow team, they would need to beat all 3 teams in their group in the present format to be sure of qualifying for the next round. ie 1 win vs fellow minnow and 2 upsets vs strong teams.

In the 2003 format, in a worst case scenario for the minnows, they would need to win 4-5 games out of 6 to be completely sure of qualifying for the next round.

Once again, the present format proves to be a surer bet for the minnows to make it to the next round.