Yeah I read this......I do believe the author has a point.....most of the league games really do lack any excitement because the groups are so big and more than half of them will go through
I like that we have quarterfinals, so I can't make an unbiased comment on this. I do think World Cups could be scheduled better with 2 concurrent matches every day in the league phase, which the terms of TV rights sale by the ICC don't seem to allow for. The '96 WC was the first one I followed with any seriousness, and part of the festive charm was the concept of being able to switch over to watching another match if one wasn't interesting enough.
The group stages have the potential for tedium, but at least the rest of the tournament follows a knockout format, rather than the mind numbing boredom of the "Super Eights".
Plus, I like the fact that the associates who have qualified get 6 games. Makes the competition far more worthwhile for them, and gets their players a bit of exposure.
About the league stages being long, I do not care as I think that gives slow starters like India a chance to play themselves in. Wouldn't want a cold start meaning the end of the world cup.
It seems like it's just a big warm up for the quarter finals tbh. Hopefully Zimbabwe and Bangladesh step up and make the race to the quarters an interesting one.
Hope it'll be a better tournament than 2007 but if it is I think it'll be in spite of the format rather than because of it.
I love cricket, holding it close as I do to my bossom.
However, having been through the schedule, I will only be watching 14 of the 42 pool games.
It's meant to be cricket's showpiece, but only one-third of the games are worth a look.
How many more matches are played in this world cup as compared to previous ones?
The Super six would have been better for my liking,but then the groups would have to be shortened and there would be more room for one bad game and your out.