Does the World Cup go on for too long

[Blaze 18]

Not really mate.. You cannot compromise on Quality. Just becuase you give more **** on one day does not mean people will be interested. The assocaites should be limited. As of today, THe gap between WI and canada is huge. So you can imagine the gap between India and Canada. All I'm saying is have the associates play in Champions trophy and just get maybe two to the WC. I also personally dont like the idea of only 10 teams next WC. But at the same time I dont want 14 teams. 12 is the ideal situation.

I'm not averse to the idea of cutting down the number of associates, nor I am against letting them all play. I see merit in both sides of the argument. The biggest issue that I - and, by the looks of it, a lot of others - have is the fact that the tournament only really "starts" on March 24 (or whenever the knockout stages commence). That is basically thirty odd days wasted, as we already know the eight teams that will qualify for the next stage. This is what makes these one-sided matches unbearable - we already have a very good idea as to who will qualify and who won't, yet we have to sit through boring two hundred run thrashings for a good month. If we had say, two weeks worth of group matches, I'm fairly certain people wouldn't have too many problems with the one-sided games.

By the way, how long do World Cups in other sports last ? I know the Football World only lasts about a month, and it is one of the things that make it so appealing to just about everyone - even people who don't generally watch football.

 

[Prince EWS]

Meh, football World Cups are only every 4 years as well, and they only last a month, with more than twice as many teams.

Doesn't mean it's right though.
It'd be like someone going into a "Is the FIFA World Cup too short?" thread and arguing that the cricket WC is longer with less teams.

I don't like you singling Bangas V England out either when the Windies are in our group too

Haha I was waiting for someone to pick up on that. I rate the Windies a bit though; I think they're a bit of a darkhorse despite their ranking.

 

[Prince EWS]

Most people's solution appears to be playing more than one game per day. It seems I'm in a minority (possibly of one in this thread) but I absolutely despite that idea. There are few things in life that annoy me more than having two simultaneous cricket games from around the world on for half the day and nothing for the other half, or missing cricket on one day because there are two games on at the same time and then not having any cricket to watch the following day.

Obviously not everyone is as obsessive about it as me, but I want to watch all the games! Live! Unless you want to start one game at 7am and one at 3pm, then I give the big thumbs down to two matches a day.

I actually really like the length and the scheduling of the Cup. I just think it's a bit lopsided - playing a thousand games to find the best eight teams and eliminate the minnows, then going straight to knockouts to separate the good teams after all that just seems poorly prioritised. The group games should definitely have more meaning if they're going to go as long as they do.

 

[silentstriker]

I honestly think that the best format would be 16 teams and four groups of four, so the group stage was over much faster and the knockout stage would involve just as many teams. Less teams with larger groups but fewer teams progressing would also be alright, but would obviously mean a few less knockout games which are really the most memorable encounters of most World Cups.

Having four groups would mean that the group stage was still relatively meaningless since there would be two test nations in each, but there would be a real chance of a single upset getting a minnow through, which is really the only way having associate teams in the WC can be worthwhile. In the current format, if a team like Ireland were to beat a test nation in a single game they still wouldn't necessarily get through and that test nation would most likely qualify anyway, just because you have to lose at least 3 games and most likely 4 to have any chance of going out. Each game in a WC needs more riding on it than that, and if a minnow nation beats an established one, it should actually matter unless that established team turns it around and wins all their other group games. This is the format that works for the football WC, where there is also a significant gap between the strongest teams and the weakest ones, but at least one major contender is knocked out by an underdog every time.

I like the longer knockout stage they are using this time though. I think the super six style format was a bit drawn out for a big tournament, which should have more high pressure matches. Best solution is a shorter group stage with more riding on each result, and a shorter tournament overall because of that.

Agreed completely.

 

[gvenkat]

Most people's solution appears to be playing more than one game per day. It seems I'm in a minority (possibly of one in this thread) but I absolutely despite that idea. There are few things in life that annoy me more than having two simultaneous cricket games from around the world on for half the day and nothing for the other half, or missing cricket on one day because there are two games on at the same time and then not having any cricket to watch the following day.

Obviously not everyone is as obsessive about it as me, but I want to watch all the games! Live! Unless you want to start one game at 7am and one at 3pm, then I give the big thumbs down to two matches a day.

I actually really like the length and the scheduling of the Cup. I just think it's a bit lopsided - playing a thousand games to find the best eight teams and eliminate the minnows, then going straight to knockouts to separate the good teams after all that just seems poorly prioritised. The group games should definitely have more meaning if they're going to go as long as they do.

I'm partially in agreement with you. I would also like to watch all games. But if ur going to have useless lop-sided games to select the best 8 why not have two games.

The best possible way would have been to have just 3 teams go to the next round. That would have been good. Group winners go to Semis direct and 2 vs 3 play a knock out to decide the other two semi finalists.

 

[gvenkat]

Agreed completely.

I honestly think that the best format would be 16 teams and four groups of four, so the group stage was over much faster and the knockout stage would involve just as many teams. Less teams with larger groups but fewer teams progressing would also be alright, but would obviously mean a few less knockout games which are really the most memorable encounters of most World Cups.

Having four groups would mean that the group stage was still relatively meaningless since there would be two test nations in each, but there would be a real chance of a single upset getting a minnow through, which is really the only way having associate teams in the WC can be worthwhile. In the current format, if a team like Ireland were to beat a test nation in a single game they still wouldn't necessarily get through and that test nation would most likely qualify anyway, just because you have to lose at least 3 games and most likely 4 to have any chance of going out. Each game in a WC needs more riding on it than that, and if a minnow nation beats an established one, it should actually matter unless that established team turns it around and wins all their other group games. This is the format that works for the football WC, where there is also a significant gap between the strongest teams and the weakest ones, but at least one major contender is knocked out by an underdog every time.

I like the longer knockout stage they are using this time though. I think the super six style format was a bit drawn out for a big tournament, which should have more high pressure matches. Best solution is a shorter group stage with more riding on each result, and a shorter tournament overall because of that.

Effectively that would mean in the group stages, You will only have probably half the games involving top teams. I'm not sure if that is a good advert for a world event.

There is no way you can compare Football and Cricket. They are two differnt entities. The global audience for Football is more, for cricket it's not as much as football is. For example a game between Brazil and South Korea would have all the people of South Korea watching it. Here a game between Australia and Canada will not be watched by anyone in Canada. That is the point that does not seem to be getting across to people.

If all you wanted was knock out games, Then we need to go back to the ICC champions trophy in 1998 and 2000. IMO, 1992 and 1999 were two of the best WC. 1992 for the simple reason everyone played everyone and 1999 for the way Aussies came back in the Super Six stage. every game was a knock out.

If ICC wanted to adopt a truly global format like FIFA. there should be qualifiers like FIFA. You think the big boys will want to play those games.

 

[GIMH]

Doesn't mean it's right though.
It'd be like someone going into a "Is the FIFA World Cup too short?" thread and arguing that the cricket WC is longer with less teams.

Except that the FIFA WC is probably the most successful sporting event going(I said probably, it's definitely up there) so I don't think it really works the other way round.

 

[Prince EWS]

Except that the FIFA WC is probably the most successful sporting event going(I said probably, it's definitely up there) so I don't think it really works the other way round.

Doesn't mean it's successful for that reason. If I actually followed it, I'd probably want it to go longer. As it stands though I definitely think it goes too long.

 

[GIMH]

The key to any successful event is leaving people wanting more. They'll come back next time that way. It's why the T20 WCs were good, well before they decided to saturate by holding one every four days.

 

[Debris]

I would be interested to know if people from the associate nations are more interested in the tournament because their sides are in it. Are you hurting the fanbase of cricket by excluding them? I am certainly a fan of keeping them in.

If you keep the associates, I don't see why the FIFA world cup format isn't a good idea. You might get an upset or two and a "big name" side missing out on the knockout stage but, really, is any team which loses to Kenya/Canada going to win the WC anyway.

 

[gvenkat]

I would be interested to know if people from the associate nations are more interested in the tournament because their sides are in it. Are you hurting the fanbase of cricket by excluding them? I am certainly a fan of keeping them in.

If you keep the associates, I don't see why the FIFA world cup format isn't a good idea. You might get an upset or two and a "big name" side missing out on the knockout stage but, really, is any team which loses to Kenya/Canada going to win the WC anyway.

How many people apart from a few in Ireland give a damn about this cup. Seriosly who are we kidding? The Dutch, Canada and Kenya don't really give a rat's rear about their teams or this tournament.

As I said before 12 teams would be ideal format. That would serve many purposes. The assocaites will still get to play 5 games against the Test nations. The group games are meaningful and a super 8 stage that would have momentum from the group stages. If there is a good enough associate that can pip a Test team for a place in the super 8, Then they must be darn exciting and should do well in the super 8's too.

Until then this format and the excessive number of associates are a waste of time.

 

[Furball]

Super 6s/8s are dire, surely part of the pressure of such an event is that in the latter stages, 1 bad performance means you're out of the tournament?

Super 8s remove all pressure from those games, which only adds to how meaningless they are.

 

[gvenkat]

Super 6s/8s are dire, surely part of the pressure of such an event is that in the latter stages, 1 bad performance means you're out of the tournament?

Super 8s remove all pressure from those games, which only adds to how meaningless they are.

And the group stages now are just so great eh? Do you remember 1999 WC? Aussies were under pressure every game. THere was nothing dire there. as far as i know. Maybe if we want that pressure stage and a one off knock out we should just select 3 teams, reward the group winner with a direct semis and let 2 vs 3 play a knock out.

 

[wpdavid]

And the group stages now are just so great eh? Do you remember 1999 WC? Aussies were under pressure every game. THere was nothing dire there. as far as i know. Maybe if we want that pressure stage and a one off knock out we should just select 3 teams, reward the group winner with a direct semis and let 2 vs 3 play a knock out.

The one unacceptable game a vauguely remember from 1999 was one of the group games involving Australia - possibly against WI. Someone else can probably do this more justice than I'm managing, but my recollection is Aus deliberately chasing an easy target slowly because of the effect on their opponent's position.

I think super 6s are OK - it would be a mistake imo to equate them with super 8s simply because it's harder for a team to be definitily through or out when only six are involved.

That being said, I don't have a problem with knockout stafe quarter finals either. People always quote SA being Lara'd at that stage in 1996 when they were probably the better team, but that's just one of those things afaics.

 

[Jono]

Knock out games are critical to World Cups. It's not a league, it's a tournament. Hence there have to be matches whereby if you don't perform on that day, tough ****. However I think personally from the group stages you should go straight to semis. It'll make all matches of the group stage that much more vital. No need for quarter finals.

How much more would Sri Lanka vs. Pakistan tomorrow mean if only the top two of each group went through? Same with India vs. England on Sunday. Right now either team could get murdered and still pretty much know they'll be in the quarters. Yes winning helps ensure you player a worse performing team in the quarters, but it's not a big enough carrot.

 

[Jarquis]

But if the current sized groups were maintained and they went straight into the semis there'd be so many dead rubber matches it'd be unbelievable. At least currently there's the battle for fourth spot and where you finish in positions 1-4 is actually important. In the current format more teams have something to play for, your way could see the group decided in the first 3 matches which would just be terrible.

IMO, the best format would be four groups of 3 teams with the winner of each group advancing to the semis. Means each game has something riding on it. Even four groups of four wouldn't be that bad.

 

[Jono]

Yep, I think that'd work fine too. Good idea.

 

[gvenkat]

The one unacceptable game a vauguely remember from 1999 was one of the group games involving Australia - possibly against WI. Someone else can probably do this more justice than I'm managing, but my recollection is Aus deliberately chasing an easy target slowly because of the effect on their opponent's position.

I think super 6s are OK - it would be a mistake imo to equate them with super 8s simply because it's harder for a team to be definitily through or out when only six are involved.

That being said, I don't have a problem with knockout stafe quarter finals either. People always quote SA being Lara'd at that stage in 1996 when they were probably the better team, but that's just one of those things afaics.

I recall that game. Australia did everything within their right. I did not understand why there was a hue and cry about it. There was nothing wrong they were doing, All they were doing was to make sure that they carried WI along with them so that they get the points.

It was just a reverse of what a team would do if it requires that they score the runs in 40 overs to reach the next stage or something like that. Australia were playing as if they would benefit if they reached the target in 47 instead of 40. Nothing absolutely wrong.

 

[gvenkat]

Knock out games are critical to World Cups. It's not a league, it's a tournament. Hence there have to be matches whereby if you don't perform on that day, tough ****. However I think personally from the group stages you should go straight to semis. It'll make all matches of the group stage that much more vital. No need for quarter finals.

How much more would Sri Lanka vs. Pakistan tomorrow mean if only the top two of each group went through? Same with India vs. England on Sunday. Right now either team could get murdered and still pretty much know they'll be in the quarters. Yes winning helps ensure you player a worse performing team in the quarters, but it's not a big enough carrot.

If knock out's is all you need. Then all we need to do is have a simple change instead of 4 teams going in, 3 should go. However the group winner goes direct to the semis. However I still think how often do we get every test team to play everyone, So It should be a league.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

The scheduling is the problem. Whoever had the bright idea to get the World Cup started with a string of meaningless one-sided games between test nations and associate nations was seriously deluded. I think there's a place for minnows in the World Cup, but not as the only match on any given day - that's lunacy.

What they should have done is get the group stages out of the way with two matches a day; one potentially exciting matchup between two evenly matched teams and one clunker that is expected to be one-sided.

What has killed this World Cup dead so far is that all the excitement people have coming into it is completely flattened by starting with pointless drubbings that look like they are going through the motions.