Format ideas for future World Cups.

[LA ICE-E]

When a few year ago a committe was made by PCB to inquire into match-fixing scandals related to Pakistan loss to Bangladesh in 99 WC(or was that for some other fixing scandal, i am not sure), but anyways that committe then advised the PCB clearly that Inzamam-ul-haq or Mushtaq Ahmed should never be given any influential post in the Pakistan side (due to doubts over their linkage with some bookmakers).

all speculation and not really true...

 

[Hamilton B]

So if it makes it easier for the minnows to make it to the next round it should make it even easier for the "strong" teams to make it to the next round. All they have to do is beat two minnows, they dont even have to beat a team their own class, unlike the minnows who have to beat another of their own class...People who are complaining, are complaining because India(big money) is out...If all the top 8 went throught they wouldn't have complained about the format, but instead complain about what the point of having the minnows here if they cant make a impact...and now when they do make an impact..they complain about the format...Last time West Indies, Pakistan, South Africa and England were out in the group stage and they all at least won 2-3 matches unlike india and pakistan this time around...people just have to blame something for india not making the second round...if you have to bitch than bitch about your team not the format...the format isn't the reason they went out...

Just because India and Pakistan are out doesn't mean people have no right to criticise the poor format. If your main argument against those cricticising the format is 'sour grapes', its a pretty poor one.

The benefit of the earlier format was that traditionally stronger teams had a chance to make a comeback even after losing two games early on. This format doesn't allow that.

For example, Australia lost 2 of their first 3 games in 1999. They lost to New Zealand and Pakistan, and beat Scotland. Granted NZ aren't quite Bangladesh, but its close enough (Bangladesh beat NZ in a warmup game this time round, didn't they?). So, if we had the present format back then, Australia would have been out of the 99 World Cup after just 3 games too. And we all know who won that Cup.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Just because India and Pakistan are out doesn't mean people have no right to criticise the poor format. If your main argument against those cricticising the format is 'sour grapes', its a pretty poor one.

The benefit of the earlier format was that traditionally stronger teams had a chance to make a comeback even after losing two games early on. This format doesn't allow that.

For example, Australia lost 2 of their first 3 games in 1999. They lost to New Zealand and Pakistan, and beat Scotland. Granted NZ aren't quite Bangladesh, but its close enough (Bangladesh beat NZ in a warmup game this time round, didn't they?). So, if we had the present format back then, Australia would have been out of the 99 World Cup after just 3 games too. And we all know who won that Cup.

uhh lets see, your completely wrong and you points are invalid....it isn't a poor format...australia lost to 2 test nations...it didn't lose to a minnow nation....so if you lost to a minnow than all you have to do is beat a test team and another minnow team in this format...but if you lose to both a test team and minnow team than your ****ed...and you should pay the price for it...this is a tournament....whats the talk about comebacks? look at the fifa world cup its the same if the **** up twice they are out....no comebacks...if you need to prepare then thats the reason there's the warm up matches...and if you still mess up in your 1st game, you have the second and 3rd game to come back! So wow, there was one more game to come back in the other formats...but then when the real deal(super 6) started it had less quality games...Last time West Indies, South Africa and England were out in the group stage while still winning 3 games Plus Wisden even said the last two formats wasn't that good and the editors of cricinfo was praising this format...and it the criticizing begins from people like you who didn't complain before but now since india and pakistan is out you come here and complain... from.this isn't a poor format...its just your poor thinking....if you're going to say that the last one is a better format than this one than you're completely saying this because big money is out

 

[Hamilton B]

uhh lets see, your completely wrong and you points are invalid....it isn't a poor format...australia lost to 2 test nations...it didn't lose to a minnow nation....so if you lost to a minnow than all you have to do is beat a test team and another minnow team in this format...but if you lose to both a test team and minnow team than your ****ed...and you should pay the price for it...this is a tournament....whats the talk about comebacks? look at the fifa world cup its the same if the **** up twice they are out....no comebacks...if you need to prepare then thats the reason there's the warm up matches...this isn't a poor format...its just your poor thinking

Gee, and there I was thinking Bangladesh was a Test side. And good job comparing this to the FIFA World cup (a worse format. Atleast the ICC decided to go for a Super 8 stage. The FIFA WC goes straight into knockout mode). You can spout that mumbo jumbo all you want, the fact is Australia would have been knocked out in 99 if they had a similar format to 2007 back then. You dislike the idea of teams being allowed comebacks after a poor start, yet that is precisely what allowed Australia to go further on in the 99 World Cup. Open your mind.

 

[Athlai]

Just because India and Pakistan are out doesn't mean people have no right to criticise the poor format. If your main argument against those cricticising the format is 'sour grapes', its a pretty poor one.

The benefit of the earlier format was that traditionally stronger teams had a chance to make a comeback even after losing two games early on. This format doesn't allow that.

For example, Australia lost 2 of their first 3 games in 1999. They lost to New Zealand and Pakistan, and beat Scotland. Granted NZ aren't quite Bangladesh, but its close enough (Bangladesh beat NZ in a warmup game this time round, didn't they?). So, if we had the present format back then, Australia would have been out of the 99 World Cup after just 3 games too. And we all know who won that Cup.

The current format wouldn't stand for a group of Australia New Zealand Pakistan Scotland

Seeing that the top three are almost always ranked in the top 6 of the world.

 

[Hamilton B]

The current format wouldn't stand for a group of Australia New Zealand Pakistan Scotland

Seeing that the top three are almost always ranked in the top 6 of the world.

Maybe, but its the concept of the thing that is being missed big time here. The earlier format allowed for poor starts, the current one doesn't. There are teams that start off with a bang and end poorly, and there are teams that traditionally start off slow and gradually get into rhythm. The earlier format accomodated both types of teams. The current format clearly disadvantages the latter type even though there is no reason for believing the former type of team to be better than the latter.

 

[Athlai]

Maybe, but its the concept of the thing that is being missed big time here. The earlier format allowed for poor starts, the current one doesn't. There are teams that start off with a bang and end poorly, and there are teams that traditionally start off slow and gradually get into rhythm. The earlier format accomodated both types of teams. The current format clearly disadvantages the latter type even though there is no reason for believing the former type of team to be better than the latter.

Its hardly like a cold start into cricket.

Teams play all the way up to the world cup, and the warm up matches.

A top ranked side is given one chance to recover and thats all they should need if they are indeed the better side. Sure any team can have a bad day, and sides like Bangledesh and Ireland can have an oddly coinciding brilliant one. But you still lost.

The only way I see this format failing is that those poorer teams that do get through have to keep that form going for a very long time. A couple games they might have been able to hold some momentuem, but playing 6 other teams just to reach the semi's can be pretty rough.

I like the two bottom teams being knocked out. It says to all of the top teams, we HAVE to win. Instead of just being given the spots.

The Super 8 just gives us more cricket to watch (which isn't a bad thing).

 

[LA ICE-E]

Gee, and there I was thinking Bangladesh was a Test side. And good job comparing this to the FIFA World cup (a worse format. Atleast the ICC decided to go for a Super 8 stage. The FIFA WC goes straight into knockout mode). You can spout that mumbo jumbo all you want, the fact is Australia would have been knocked out in 99 if they had a similar format to 2007 back then. You dislike the idea of teams being allowed comebacks after a poor start, yet that is precisely what allowed Australia to go further on in the 99 World Cup. Open your mind.

no, when the pakistan lost to bangladesh it was a dead match so it wasn't a comeback....this a tournament not the ranking or a carrier...you can make comeback in the rankings...also you can make comeback here too, but its not a big space for comebacks...and thats what make the tournament interesting...if you start a tournament badly than all you have to do is win the next two thats it....and that too against minnows...if in the last one you lost the 1st two you had to win the next 4 out of 5 games and that too against test teams....i have a open mind you dont....if in 99 this format was there australia wouldn't have lost the 1st two because they wouldn't have two test sides in their group...

 

[LA ICE-E]

Its hardly like a cold start into cricket.

Teams play all the way up to the world cup, and the warm up matches.

A top ranked side is given one chance to recover and thats all they should need if they are indeed the better side. Sure any team can have a bad day, and sides like Bangledesh and Ireland can have an oddly coinciding brilliant one. But you still lost.

The only way I see this format failing is that those poorer teams that do get through have to keep that form going for a very long time. A couple games they might have been able to hold some momentuem, but playing 6 other teams just to reach the semi's can be pretty rough.

I like the two bottom teams being knocked out. It says to all of the top teams, we HAVE to win. Instead of just being given the spots.

The Super 8 just gives us more cricket to watch (which isn't a bad thing).

also at least you wont have a "minnow" team in the semis like last time and give people to bitch about like they did when kenya made it.

 

[Athlai]

I'm still looking forward to when a "minnow" team DESERVES to be there.

 

[LA ICE-E]

I'm still looking forward to when a "minnow" team DESERVES to be there.

so they dont right now?

 

[Athlai]

Bangladesh maybe, but if Ireland comes out and plays their way into the semi's than I'll be pleasantly surprised.

I was just talking about how Kenya may not have deserved to get into that semi, off their playing form alone anyway.

EDIT: I did mean in the semi's

Not the super 8, Ireland and Bangledesh deserve to be in the super 8

 

[LA ICE-E]

oh, good...i though you said they didn't deserve to be in super 8...yeah semis, you should have teams that deserves to be in the semis...and so unlike the last format every team in the semis will deserve to be in the semis and everyteam in the super 8 deserves to be in the super 8! oh sri lanka was a minnow like bangladesh in 96 and they went to the won it! and deserved it too.

 

[Hamilton B]

no, when the pakistan lost to bangladesh it was a dead match so it wasn't a comeback....this a tournament not the ranking or a carrier...you can make comeback in the rankings...also you can make comeback here too, but its not a big space for comebacks...and thats what make the tournament interesting...if you start a tournament badly than all you have to do is win the next two thats it....and that too against minnows...

Bermuda is a minnow, yes. Sri Lanka isn't.

if in the last one you lost the 1st two you had to win the next 4 out of 5 games and that too against test teams

Implying that the first two games were against minnows ? If a team loses to 2 minnow nations, they're definitely unworthy, but that is hardly the case under consideration.

....i have a open mind you dont....if in 99 this format was there australia wouldn't have lost the 1st two because they wouldn't have two test sides in their group...

India had two test sides in their group, didn't they?

 

[Hamilton B]

oh sri lanka was a minnow like bangladesh in 96 and they went to the won it! and deserved it too.

No, Sri Lanka weren't minnows in 96, and neither are Bangladesh in 2007. Both teams are/were sufficiently proficient enough before those respective World cups to get rid of the minnow tag. Sri Lanka more so than Bangladesh.

 

[GIMH]

Pakistan and India deserved to lose, however, that doesn't necessarily mean that this format was right. Pakistan and India both started the tournament vs a test playing nation. Granted BD are considered to be on the minnow level, but nevertheless they're still a Test side. Now that means 2 of the 4 Test nations (Pak, WI, Ind, BD) would start with a loss. That immediately put them under immense pressure, almost a "must win every game from here on" situation. I don't like the prospect of losing one game and immediately being on the verge of elimination. I think a team should be allowed to have 2 bad games, yet still have hopes to recover and continue on. I'm not saying that either Pakistan or India would have done much in the next round, but I think they should've had a chance to see what happens.

Are England and New Zealand not Test nations anymore then?

 

[Richard]

Then what on Earth was the West Indies game?

It wasn't a game against a substandard side.

Honestly, if you lose to the team ranked 8th and then an associate, I doubt you'll be having much effect on the WC anyway - there's no way Pakistan deserve to be there. Their team is an absolute shambles and I think they would have got an absolute drubbing in Super 8 if they played in it - much like Ireland will. Their showings indicated that they are quite clearly no genuine threat to the WC and they have been eliminated accordingly. As long as we don't have a situation where a team with any sort of chance of winning the Cup gets eliminated in the first round, then we don't really have a problem IMO - and Pakistan certainly were not that.

Not disagreeing at all with that.

 

[Richard]

If a side loses to a team it should be though, we can't just wipe it away as if it didn't happen though, or we'd just give the trophy to South Africa right now. All Pakistan had to do was beat Ireland - and they knew that - and yet they still lost. Quite obviously they are no loss.

Once again, I say - it's not a case of Pakistan being a loss or not, it's a case of a team losing to a massively inferior team (Pakistan, even the shambles that they were, were still far better than Ireland than South Africa are to England) and that being just about it.

 

[Richard]

all speculation and not really true...

All speculation, but whether it's really true is not known - for just that reason.

 

[Richard]

For example, Australia lost 2 of their first 3 games in 1999. They lost to New Zealand and Pakistan, and beat Scotland. Granted NZ aren't quite Bangladesh, but its close enough (Bangladesh beat NZ in a warmup game this time round, didn't they?).

WTF? New Zealand are infinately better now, never mind then (their WC99 team was almost certainly their best ODI XI ever) than Bangladesh have EVER been?

That's a ridiculous statement.