Worst World Cup "on paper"

[G.I.Joe]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

100% agreed re the format; it was the fact that quarter-finals meant the group stages were rendered, to all intents and purposes, redundant in 1996 that lead to the creation of the "Super Sixes" in 99. But after India and Pakistan failed last time the ICC obviously feel the need to cook the books again to (pretty much) guarantee the big 8 all safely advance. & even if one of the big countries contive to eff up they're guaranteed 6 games.

In 96 we qualified for the quarters by beating the might of UAE & the Netherlands; this time we can safely lose to India, SA & the Windies & as long as we beat the Irish, the Dutch and the Banglas we'll be right.

I hardly think its cooking the books here. The '99 format would have done just as well to avoid an early exit if that was the aim of the organisers. The quarterfinals exist because the BCCI loves knockout games, thats all.

I reckon there's a lot of people reading into the format what they needn't.

[Himannv]

On paper I'd say that the teams aren't that strong. However, if anything, this adds to the interest in the cup I reckon. There is a fairly decent number of teams who could pull off a key win here and there and blow the competition wide open. Its anyones game at the moment.

SA - Probably the best team of the lot on paper but will choke obv.

India - Very strong I reckon but I think its all down to how well their bowlers can contain opposition batsmen.

SL - Not a bad team and quite strong. Leaving out Randiv from the squad weakens them slightly IMO.

NZ - I reckon but they have a lot of players who could raise their level with the bat. Its their bowling which appears to lack something though.

Pakistan - No idea what they'll end up doing tbh. Underestimate them at your own peril.

WI - Another difficult team to rate. All it takes is a Gaylestorm or two and they'll be winning games here and there and surprise everyone.

AUS - Weaker than what they were before obviously but by no means a pushover. May even go on to win it and prove everyone wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

ENG - Very strong team coming into this competition. They've been very good for a while now.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by howardj

I think the format from the 1999 World Cup in England was the best - it was the best World Cup I have seen.

12 nations – 2 Group of 6 (9 test playing nations + 3 qualifiers)
Super Six Stage
Semi-finals
Final

This

[Blaze 18]

Originally Posted by TumTum

Didn't the side in 2003 have a better or more inform bowling attack?

Debatable. There is not much in it either way (this bowling attack is largely the same, only difference is Praveen Kumar instead of Javagal Srinath), but the current batting line-up is definitely stronger. More importantly, this ODI team has won almost everywhere in the last two-three years. As good as the 2003 team was - and they were good - I can't recall them ever being as consistent as the current lot.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by laksh_01

The boring pace of Super 8 is wat hit the 2007 CWC not India & Pakistan exit & definitely not the number of nations.

The main reason the Super 8s were so boring was because India and Pakistan had exited though.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by marc71178

The main reason the Super 8s were so boring was because India and Pakistan had exited though.

yeah good point. Once India and Pak exited it made sure that almost 1.5 billion people lost a lot of interest in the cup.

[marc71178]

Plus set up a succession of relatively dull and predictable games.

Even if 1 of the 2 had made it through it would have been less tedious.

[vcs]

Upsets do not make a tournament boring FFS.

[marc71178]

It depends - the actual upset isn't boring, but the result of the upset can be (as shown by the super 8s last time)

[vcs]

Blame the teams that didn't show up.. not the ones who beat them, and hence fully deserved their places in the Super 8. Besides, Bangladesh did beat SA in the Super 8's as well, so their place was no less justified than England or W. Indies, who did very little of note.

Once I got over the disappointment, I found it quite refreshing TBH.

[G.I.Joe]

I forgot there was a World Cup going on once India got knocked out.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by G.I.Joe

I forgot there was a World Cup going on once India got knocked out.

ditto here with Pakistan

[Uppercut]

I didn't

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by G.I.Joe

I hardly think its cooking the books here. The '99 format would have done just as well to avoid an early exit if that was the aim of the organisers. The quarterfinals exist because the BCCI loves knockout games, thats all.

I reckon there's a lot of people reading into the format what they needn't.

Nah, disagree. In 99 only 6 teams made it through, meaning some of the proper test nations had to go home early reagrdless. In fact, as yer Zimbas qualified too, 3/8 took an early bath, but that's beside the point.

This time, with 8 teams advancing and each team playing 6 games the chances of upsets are reduced considerably.

[Uppercut]

It makes no sense to me that it takes 42 matches to determine who the best 8 teams are when everyone knows who those teams are, and a further 7 to decide who the best out of those 8 is when that spot is still totally up for grabs.

But on the other hand, I'm liking all the cricket Ireland get to play.