Format ideas for future World Cups.

[slugger]

I think next time ICC should consider 3 pools of 5 teams, the top 3 of each pool will proceed to the (Super 9) and carry the win points through as per normal. The teams will only play the other 6 teams from their opposing pools. The top 4 teams of the Super 9 will be the semi finalists.


I expect it to look something as follows. (based on current rankings)


Pool A
South Africa
Pakistan
England
Zimbabwe
Scotland

Pool B
Australia
Sri Lanka
West Indies
Kenya
Holland

Pool C
New Zealand
India
Bangladesh
Ireland
Canada

 

[LA ICE-E]

nope thats just worse...way too many games...the only thing that could be better is-16 in 4 groups and then instead of super 8 we have quater finals- this way we have less games but that could only happen is if we have better/competive teams in all the groups so that the real bussiness starts right there...or like 24 in 6 groups and then knock out of 12 teams...but thats just too far away..this format is ok

 

[pasag]

Fine with the current system tbh.

 

[Prince EWS]

Fine with the current system tbh.

Agreed. Of all the possible alternatives to the current system, I'd go with the above though. It depends how much Bangladesh improve between now and the next WC IMO.

 

[GIMH]

Agreed. Of all the possible alternatives to the current system, I'd go with the above though. It depends how much Bangladesh improve between now and the next WC IMO.

Yeah fair comment, though as we've seen in this WC you can't guarantee which teams will progress anyway

 

[slugger]

wow the current system has a total of 59 matches. The one I put together jumped to 90. the combined pool matches equal 60 and the super 9 will add an extra 27 and the semis plus the final takes it to 90 youd have to play 3 matches a day to get the done inside 6 weeks. well it looked good on paper.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah fair comment, though as we've seen in this WC you can't guarantee which teams will progress anyway

Agreed, but you can only plan for what is most likely really.

If Bangladesh continue their improvement and do it at somewhat exponentially, whichever two teams are grouped with them in the next WC will be significantly disadvantaged - providing the same system is used.

If Bangladesh are regularly competing at ODI level by 2011, I'd like to see the OP's system used. Otherwise, I'd keep the current one.

 

[chaminda_00]

You could always have two groups of 8, with no Super Sixs/Eight or whatever. The length of the tournment will be about the same, only slighly longer. Also its gives times like Pakistan, a 2nd chance. One thing people might forgot if we had the similar format in 96' then West Indies could have been knocked out in Group stages and not made the Semi Final. The big problem with this current format, is really you have no 2nd chance, if you stuff up one match.

 

[wpdavid]

3 groups of 4, with the top two from each group progressing to the super 6.
We'd have 3 test-playing nations plus one complete minnow in each group.

This way, each test team only plays one game against a complete minnow instead of two, which I think would be far preferable.

Easy, eh?

 

[chaminda_00]

3 groups of 4, with the top two from each group progressing to the super 6.
We'd have 3 test-playing nations plus one complete minnow in each group.

This way, each test team only plays one game against a complete minnow instead of two, which I think would be far preferable.

Easy, eh?

I can't see them ever dropping back to 12 teams...

 

[wpdavid]

I can't see them ever dropping back to 12 teams...

... probably not, but I just reckon that would be a better format. If standards do improve in enough countries, then by all means increase it to 16 again. As it is, international competition is being cheapened by some of what we're seeing. And what on earth is the pont of it?

 

[chaminda_00]

... probably not, but I just reckon that would be a better format. If standards do improve in enough countries, then by all means increase it to 16 again. As it is, international competition is being cheapened by some of what we're seeing. And what on earth is the pont of it?

So Ireland can beat Pakistan and show the 13th best side in the world can beat a Top 8 side. Using the 12 team format Ireland wouldn't have made it into the World Cup, only Scotland and Kenya out of the associates would have made it.

 

[wpdavid]

So Ireland can beat Pakistan and show the 13th best side in the world can beat a Top 8 side. Using the 12 team format Ireland wouldn't have made it into the World Cup, only Scotland and Kenya out of the associates would have made it.

Yeah I know, and it would be a shame to have missed that particular fixture, but how often are those games remotely interesting? Personally I'd happily lose Saturday's result if it meant we also lost the sort of nonsense we're seeing elsewhere. No doubt others will disagree.










They just happen to be wrong.

 

[chaminda_00]

Well the thing is in pretty much every World Cup there has been an upset where a minnow beat a established team. Yes the trashing happen more often then the upsets, But having more minnows, considering there next to no difference in standard between 9 to 15 in the world, 16 if you include Namibia over Bermuda. Then thats why 16 is the right number for the World Cup. In relatively there is 15 to 16 sides in the world that are capable of beating each other on their day.

 

[wpdavid]

Well the thing is in pretty much every World Cup there has been an upset where a minnow beat a established team. Yes the trashing happen more often then the upsets, But having more minnows, considering there next to no difference in standard between 9 to 15 in the world, 16 if you include Namibia over Bermuda. Then thats why 16 is the right number for the World Cup. In relatively there is 15 to 16 sides in the world that are capable of beating each other on their day.

I think the previous upsets have generally been at the hands of sides who are clearly in the next rank below test status. I'm thinking about Zim vs Aus in 1983 & vs England in1992, Bang vs Pak in 1999. Maybe Kenya vs WI in 1996 was close to the Ireland result, but that's about it, isn't it? Ultimately it's about personal preference, I guess.

The other thing that bothers me about this year's format is the super 8 instead of super 6. Clearly we're soon going to have games where one or both of the sides are out of the running, or where one has already qualified for the semis. I don't think that's great for the tournament. And it's probably un fair on the sides that have to play more games against sides who still need a result.

 

[slugger]

wow the current system has a total of 59 matches. The one I put together jumped to 90. the combined pool matches equal 60 and the super 9 will add an extra 27 and the semis plus the final takes it to 90 youd have to play 3 matches a day to get the done inside 6 weeks. well it looked good on paper.

Ha my bad, I checked my calculations its only 30 matches in the pool stage, there for total matches are as what we currently have.

 

[slugger]

Reading over the comments in the thread thus far, leads me to belive the format would need to be changed but only if over the next coming four years one of the minors become very competative/strong competition. If this is the case and they keep the pools at 4 with 4 teams per pool, then cricket would end up with soccers equivalent of the "pool of death" or atleast the pool of uncertainty. Which may have happened sooner than first thought re: SL/Ind/BD pool.

I Therefore I believe the 3 pools of 5/ Super 9 is the best option for the next WC.

 

[Richard]

Well the thing is in pretty much every World Cup there has been an upset where a minnow beat a established team.

Usually, though (and it's only been since 1996 and Kenya and WI) it has no bearing on the outcome - often it's a dead game.

 

[Richard]

Yeah I know, and it would be a shame to have missed that particular fixture, but how often are those games remotely interesting? Personally I'd happily lose Saturday's result if it meant we also lost the sort of nonsense we're seeing elsewhere. No doubt others will disagree.

I certainly don't.

Give me the prospect of a contest near-enough-every-game over the odd usually meaningless (and sometimes hugely damaging) upset.

 

[LA ICE-E]

I think that if teams get better the best thing would be knock out rounds after the 1st round then if a not so good team makes it to the next round they wont "throw off the balance of the tournament" . Also, the thing is its a tournament so doesn't matter if the best teams gets to the next round, if that happened it would be boring...its a tournament so things like this needs to happen, plus you already know the best team from the rankings...so the unpredictable outcomes of the tournament is the fun part.