Does the World Cup go on for too long

[hick2010uk]

We are in Day 5 of the World Cup and everything just seems so longwinded and quick frankly boring.

Is this because of the mismatches that we are seeing at present?

The format that i would like to see is 4 Groups of 4 with Knock out from Q/F onwards no Super Six/Eight, this will allow the minnows to play some games and this would also cut the schedule by at least a third.

What do you think, its pointless having 1 match a day as well

[flibbertyjibber]

Yes it is too long.

If as seems apparent they go back to full teams + 1 associate the World Cup next time has to take the same format as 1992 where it was round robin and the 37 matches were done and dusted in 32 days. They played 2 and sometimes 3 games a day to make sure it was all completed in a sensible timeframe where as this time the group stage takes nearly as long (29 days) but by then many floating fans will have long switched off.

The way this is (because of tv i presume) this time around as it was in West Indies is a farce. One game a day and mostly they are mismatches between minnows and top nations which will mean that people will get bored and switch off. I thought the whole idea was for the premier one day event to be a world showcase not a snoozefest. Surely World Cups are about attracting new fans not putting them off for life as it is too long?

Look at poor Ireland, this years competition will be in it's 7th day before they make an appearance which is a shambles. I am looking forward to tomorrow when we might see a decent game and praying that the good early start by Kenya continues today but lets face it apart from the pathetic England performance this tournament has been a letdown so far.

I hope to god it improves.


Rant over.

[Prince EWS]

We only have one every four years; I have no problem with the length of it. As long as the cricket is interesting and the games are meaningful then I'd love for it to go for as long as possible. The problem is that the vast majority of group games are entirely meaningless and we're essentially just waiting for the quarters for the first half of the tournament. Having four from each group advance means that, Bangladesh v England aside, it's a bit of a drag.

The obvious solution is to remove the quarters and go straight to semi-finals, to ensure that the group games have genuine meaning. All the nations would have fight tooth and nail for those top two spots in the group stages so they couldn't afford to drop games or get complacent at any stage.

[wpdavid]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

We only have one every four years; I have no problem with the length of it. As long as the cricket is interesting and the games are meaningful then I'd love for it to go for as long as possible. The problem is that the vast majority of group games are entirely meaningless and we're essentially just waiting for the quarters for the first half of the tournament. Having four from each group advance means that, Bangladesh v England aside, it's a bit of a drag.

The obvious solution is to remove the quarters and go straight to semi-finals, to ensure that the group games have genuine meaning. All the nations would have fight tooth and nail for those top two spots in the group stages so they couldn't afford to drop games or get complacent at any stage.

I suppose that some teams might be completely out of contention after 3 or 4 games, leading to too many dead rubbers and/or subsequent opponents having the luxury of playing them when they have nothing to play for,

[Burgey]

I'll get back to you in six weeks...

[Blaze 18]

Yes it is about two weeks too long.

[FaaipDeOiad]

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.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

We only have one every four years; I have no problem with the length of it. As long as the cricket is interesting and the games are meaningful then I'd love for it to go for as long as possible. The problem is that the vast majority of group games are entirely meaningless and we're essentially just waiting for the quarters for the first half of the tournament. Having four from each group advance means that, Bangladesh v England aside, it's a bit of a drag.

The obvious solution is to remove the quarters and go straight to semi-finals, to ensure that the group games have genuine meaning. All the nations would have fight tooth and nail for those top two spots in the group stages so they couldn't afford to drop games or get complacent at any stage.

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

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

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

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.

Pretty much agree with the lot

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

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.

Yeah, pretty much this.

I actually like this format because it gives all the associates 6 games - how you expect the associates to close the gap without regularly playing the bigger nations is beyond me - but at the same time, as you've highlighted, a one off success for an associate in this format pretty much means nothing unless they can back it up on another 3 occasions.

The biggest problem I've got with the format is the amount of time it takes to get through the group stage. Playing 1 match a day is ****ing ridiculous.

There's also been a few dire calls (mostly from our brothers in the subcontinent, oddly enough) who seem to think that cricket should simply be an elite sport. Frankly, that's rubbish. No-one complains that in the football World Cup, 48 of the 64 games are group matches, and that realistically only 6 or so out of the 32 qualifiers have any chance of winning it. If the football World Cup went down the route that the Cricket World Cup seems to want to go down, then Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, Spain, Italy and England would all qualify automatically, with the 8th place being a playoff between Uruguay and the Netherlands. Why bother including teams from North America, Africa, Asia or Oceania, as they won't win it? Why bother including half the European and South American teams, who also have no chance? I guarantee that if any football fan suggested that as a format for the World Cup, they'd get laughed at. Yet suggest that a cricket World Cup should only be between 8 teams, and people actually agree with you?

Deadset joke. It's a ****ing world event. The associates might not stand much of a chance, but that's not the point. The World Cup will be the pinnacle of these guys' careers, and the ICC should be encouraging as much participation from the Associates as possible. Excluding them from a major world event, and all the exposure that goes with it, is ****ing dire.

[Jono]

Yes its too long.

[vcs]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

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.

Well, they did all that last time and people still whined because Bangladesh and Ireland got through at India and Pakistan's expense. Just can't please everyone.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah, I really think the opposition to the presence of associates in the world cup stems from the terrible format that the ICC goes with every time, that forces a team that is clearly way below the standard of the opposition to play and get hammered 5 or 6 times. Associates who qualify should get the same opportunity as everyone else to progress, and if they beat a major nation they deserve their spot in the quarter finals. If they lose all three games by big margins, then at least there's still some excitement elsewhere in the group about who might qualify, and its over relatively quickly. They don't need to play six games to have participated, and there shouldn't be so much focus on protecting test nations from getting knocked out by giving them a huge group stage to determine who the actual top 8 teams are before moving forward.

A World Cup should be as much about performance on the day, under pressure as about finding the "best team in the world". You can work that out by looking at win percentages over a whole year or two.

edit:

Originally Posted by vcs

Well, they did all that last time and people still whined because Bangladesh and Ireland got through at India and Pakistan's expense. Just can't please everyone.

I think a lot of the reason people complained was because of the format with another group stage. If Ireland and Bangladesh knocked out two test nations and then went into a knockout game against Australia or South Africa or whoever and lost, it wouldn't hurt the rest of the tournament the way it does having a minnow who scraped through on the back of one victory play another 4 or 5 games and lose them all.

[gvenkat]

Frankly the Group stages are totally useless. This horse has been flogged long and it's dead. The ideal format would have been the following

12 teams - 2 groups of 6 each - 30 Games
Super 8's - 16 Games ( 4 from each group advance) - 16 Games

Semis - 2 and Finals -

Total of 49 Games and Tournamnet would have been over. They should have had atleast 2 games a day. This would reward teams like Dutch and Ireland and eliminating hopeless teams like Canada and Kenya

If they were hell bent on having 14 teams the should have let the gropu winner go to the Semis direct and had a knock out between 2 vs 3. That would have been fast

Now we are not sure why we have games like the one that is happening today. I'm glad we only have 10 teams for the next WC although I would have had 12 teams with the format I suggested.

Rant over..

[gvenkat]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Yeah, pretty much this.

I actually like this format because it gives all the associates 6 games - how you expect the associates to close the gap without regularly playing the bigger nations is beyond me - but at the same time, as you've highlighted, a one off success for an associate in this format pretty much means nothing unless they can back it up on another 3 occasions.

The biggest problem I've got with the format is the amount of time it takes to get through the group stage. Playing 1 match a day is ****ing ridiculous.

There's also been a few dire calls (mostly from our brothers in the subcontinent, oddly enough) who seem to think that cricket should simply be an elite sport. Frankly, that's rubbish. No-one complains that in the football World Cup, 48 of the 64 games are group matches, and that realistically only 6 or so out of the 32 qualifiers have any chance of winning it. If the football World Cup went down the route that the Cricket World Cup seems to want to go down, then Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, Spain, Italy and England would all qualify automatically, with the 8th place being a playoff between Uruguay and the Netherlands. Why bother including teams from North America, Africa, Asia or Oceania, as they won't win it? Why bother including half the European and South American teams, who also have no chance? I guarantee that if any football fan suggested that as a format for the World Cup, they'd get laughed at. Yet suggest that a cricket World Cup should only be between 8 teams, and people actually agree with you?

Deadset joke. It's a ****ing world event. The associates might not stand much of a chance, but that's not the point. The World Cup will be the pinnacle of these guys' careers, and the ICC should be encouraging as much participation from the Associates as possible. Excluding them from a major world event, and all the exposure that goes with it, is ****ing dire.

Cricket and Football comparisons are apples and oranges. Just cannot be compared at all. You cannot compare a game that ends just under 2 hours to a game that goes on for a day.

In football even if a minnow plays a strong team there is always a contest, becuase even if the stronger team is ahead by a goal the minnow pushes for it and so on and so forth.

Cricket is unlike that. Say the SL-Canada game and the Pak-Kenya game and the NZL-Ken game are over as a contest as soon as they score 300 or the minnows get out for cheap.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by gvenkat

Cricket and Football comparisons are apples and oranges. Just cannot be compared at all. You cannot compare a game that ends just under 2 hours to a game that goes on for a day.

In football even if a minnow plays a strong team there is always a contest, becuase even if the stronger team is ahead by a goal the minnow pushes for it and so on and so forth.

Cricket is unlike that. Say the SL-Canada game and the Pak-Kenya game and the NZL-Ken game are over as a contest as soon as they score 300 or the minnows get out for cheap.

It's the same comparison. With the exception of the USA in 1930 and South Korea in 2002, no side from North America, Africa, Asia or Oceania has ever made the semi finals.

There's plenty of one sided, "rubbish" games in a football World Cup. Only 8 nations have ever won a World Cup. That doesn't mean we should just scrap the "world" aspect and have only European and South American teams competing for the trophy - it would be a farcical competition if so.

The same applies to the Cricket World Cup. The game won't advance if we just make the World Cup a closed shop.