So the tournament's too long, eh???

[Mister Wright]

What I really liked about WC 2007 is the format. The Group stages meant something. Even when teams were playing minnows they had to play their best side, because if they lost, they had to win the other two. It also made the game between the 'competitive' nations all that much more import, because it gave you an incentive to win the game and have some extra points in the super stage.

.

[16 tins of Spam]

10 teams, each plays the other once in a round-robin format. Top four into the semi's, and so on. That's 48 games. I personally have nothing against the minnows, but to be honest if the tournament left them out, would anyone complain?

[Fiery]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Theoretically, a country that has as limited a talent pool as NZ, who also happens to open the bowling with James Franklin and play Craig McMillan should not make the semi finals.

A bit harsh imo. Both those guys ended up with reasonably good stats for the tournament:
McMillan Ave 32.57 S/R 87.35 (and he smashed the Aussies with a 67 ball ton in the Chappell Hadlee and fully deserved his place in the WC squad). Franklin took 11 wickets and averaged 95 with the bat and was one of the only guys who actually played alright in the semi.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Fiery

A bit harsh imo. Both those uys ended up with reasonably good stats for the tournament:
McMillan Ave 32.57 S/R 87.35 (not to mention that fact he killed the Aussies in the Chappell Hadlee and fully deserved his place in the WC squad). Franklin took 11 wickets and averaged 95 with the bat and was one of the only guys who actually played alright in the semi.

Which highlights my point really. The standard of cricket on display was so poor that even McMillan and Franklin managed to do well.

[Fiery]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Which highlights my point really. The standard of cricket on display was so poor that even McMillan and Franklin managed to do well.

mmm condescending. There were far worse players (in all teams) on display than those two. (Haddin and Johnson for example )

[FRAZ]

Well honestly speaking , from a marketing point of view it was necessary to develop the format in such a way .There is just a simple reason behind it and i.e. Pakistani and Indian teams . Had they reached the super 8's then the viewership and interest and bla bla would have been better . Longer versions of the tournaments are made to prolong the chances of having the money maker teams for a longer period of time . I think that any sane marketing oriented person over here will definately agree with me . But anyways !!!

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Fiery

mmm condescending. There were far worse players (in all teams) on display than those two. (Haddin and Johnson for example )

That's precisely my point, again. The standard of cricket was poor. Comparatively speaking, McMillan and Franklin were good. That says it all.

I'm not taking anything away from NZ (well, perhaps I am, a bit) - they did as well as their small player pool allowed them to do really. If India, Pakistan and England were as organised, focused as professional as NZ, the standard of world cricket would be much, much better (but unfortunately for you, NZ would drop to about 6th on the world rankings.) I like NZ because they basically operate at maximum capacity all the time - an admirable trait that other nations could learn from.

[Fiery]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

That's precisely my point, again. The standard of cricket was poor. Comparatively speaking, McMillan and Franklin were good. That says it all.

I'm not taking anything away from NZ (well, perhaps I am, a bit) - they did as well as their small player pool allowed them to do really. If India, Pakistan and England were as organised, focused as professional as NZ, the standard of world cricket would be much, much better (but unfortunately for you, NZ would drop to about 6th on the world rankings.) I like NZ because they basically operate at maximum capacity all the time - an admirable trait that other nations could learn from.

Again...patronising viewpoint. If we operated at maximum capacity there would be a parade down Queen St about now

[16 tins of Spam]

Give it up.

[thierry henry]

I agree with you EWS, but I think you'd laugh if you saw the way NZers respond to our cricket team.....our public and media generally regard the Black Caps as a bunch of underperforming wussies who should do better. The World Cup performance has been widely panned as an unmitigated disaster. I'm serious.

[16 tins of Spam]

Originally Posted by thierry henry

our public and media generally regard the Black Caps as a bunch of underperforming wussies who should do better.

Unless they start winning, in which case said media and public act like they've never said a harsh word against the BCs ever.

[Fiery]

Originally Posted by thierry henry

I agree with you EWS, but I think you'd laugh if you saw the way NZers respond to our cricket team.....our public and media generally regard the Black Caps as a bunch of underperforming wussies who should do better. The World Cup performance has been widely panned as an unmitigated disaster. I'm serious.

Originally Posted by 16 tins of Spam

Unless they start winning, in which case said media and public act like they've never said a harsh word against the BCs ever.

I prefer to be like that than to settle for mediocrity tbh

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by 16 tins of Spam

10 teams, each plays the other once in a round-robin format. Top four into the semi's, and so on. That's 48 games. I personally have nothing against the minnows, but to be honest if the tournament left them out, would anyone complain?

Yes, I would, and I'd also question how you ever expect the game to grow if you exclude them.

[LA ICE-E]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

IIRC the 1996 WC was criticised for basically giving a bye to the quarter finals for the big 8, thus rendering the group matches largely irrelevant. We (England) qualified by beating the might of the Netherlands (no offence meant) & the UAE. It was because of this that the "Super" stage was introduced in subsequent tournaments to give the group stage more meaning.

In my mind there's no doubt that the Super 8 was too long & I personally have never liked the idea of carrying results from earlier rounds forward. I'd just propose two groups of 4 teams in the second round instead with the top two teams progressing to the semis.

Originally Posted by Samuel_Vimes

But the Champions Trophy already patented that format.

(the easy solution: Get rid of the Champions Trophy and replace it with a Twenty20 WC. Everybody wins. Except those who like the middle overs, poor sods.)

you read my mind! but then you know there's the people who wants a tournament for the elite teams alone and then those would try to make the wc a elite team tournament. right now when they complain we can simply say go watch the CT for that but still i'm not a fan of the CT.

[LA ICE-E]

Originally Posted by 16 tins of Spam

10 teams, each plays the other once in a round-robin format. Top four into the semi's, and so on. That's 48 games. I personally have nothing against the minnows, but to be honest if the tournament left them out, would anyone complain?

yeah i would! go watch the CT for your elite teams tournament