-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Speed: Next Cup Won't be Shorter
- Thread starter leeami
- Start date
- Tagged users None
There is no reason why two super 8s games cant be played in one day. That would haev cut down this world cup massively.
- Banned
- #3
If anything, being on the sub-continent, it will go for longer.
Speed is a money hungry fool, that should be removed from his position and strung up, along with the Sub-Continent members of their respective boards.
Speed is a money hungry fool, that should be removed from his position and strung up, along with the Sub-Continent members of their respective boards.
Would it be harsh to say the wrong man was murdered during this World Cup?
I think my solution on two 7 team groups followed by quarter finals, semi finals and the final is a vastly superior format to the current tripe being served up. It's also at least 2 weeks shorter.
I think my solution on two 7 team groups followed by quarter finals, semi finals and the final is a vastly superior format to the current tripe being served up. It's also at least 2 weeks shorter.
That alone would have sped things up by two weeks. The ICC should have insisted that some of the grounds install lights, then have a day game and day/night game on each day during the Super Eights.
Marklar_33
Brownlow Medallist
Two Groups and a Super Six even, then its only 2 matches before the Semi-Finals, and you have to beat every other decent side to win...
Just make it top 12 teams, 2 groups of 6 and then QF, SF, F
Maybe expand qualiying to include some of the test teams too.
Maybe expand qualiying to include some of the test teams too.
Speed is a vermin for the game
Harsh or stupid ?
At least in the Sub continent the time zone will be much more friendly for us Aussies, TV wise.
the amount of games a team plays has not changed, i think this world cup has felt like its dragged on is because the group stage was so short and the super 8's extended.
i think they should just have the 2 groups of 6 or 7 teams then the super 6's like the 2003 format
i think they should just have the 2 groups of 6 or 7 teams then the super 6's like the 2003 format
hate the idea of a sudden death QF.
i guess the advantage of a lengthy world cup has advantaged australia in the way that they had that extra time to get over injuries etc.
ChrisFooty
Premiership Player
At least they are going to cap the number of teams (16) for the 2011 world cup.
too much money involved for these small third world countries.
as it is, some of them are going bankrupt because not as many people as expected rocked up for the cup and they spent heaps on building the new grounds.
and some of these countries struggle to grow grass on the cricket ground let alone build first class stadiums.
It wouldn't hurt the money-hungry vultures from the Sub-Continent to dig into their pockets and help these nations provide adequate cricket grounds, would it? Afterall, they never seem to have a problem milking the game for every last cent.
I think there were too many minnows. I watched some of those games, ie saffers vs dutch and it was horrible to watch. There are no positives out of it. Okay, Ireland got through but they were well out of their depth and made the super 8s suck balls. If India and Pakistan had got through every game would have been interesting and enjoyable, instead of 11 of the games being crap.
I think they should have ten teams and everyone plays each other once, then semi finals and a final. This is 48 matches which is still a lot but you can have two a day for the first round which comes to a four week tournament.
The teams that would play would be Aussies, Kiwis, Lankans, Saffers, Windies, Poms, Indians, Pakis, Banglas and Kenyans. OR, the minnow tournament could decide the last two spots. Thoughts?
I think they should have ten teams and everyone plays each other once, then semi finals and a final. This is 48 matches which is still a lot but you can have two a day for the first round which comes to a four week tournament.
The teams that would play would be Aussies, Kiwis, Lankans, Saffers, Windies, Poms, Indians, Pakis, Banglas and Kenyans. OR, the minnow tournament could decide the last two spots. Thoughts?
Firstly, Malcolm Speed is not even trying if he's trotting out these kinds of excuses...
Secondly, quarter-finals in 1996 were a massive disaster.
The reason being that cricket has a "Big 8" and we all knew that the Big 8 were going to qualify for the quarter-finals.
It also gave equal weighting to the team that finished first in its group and the team that finished fourth in its group.
As a result we had 30 matches in the group stage over three weeks that amounted to not much more than glorified warm-up matches.
South Africa won their first five matches then played the W'Indies in a sudden death quarter final and ended up getting rolled by Lara having one of his days.
We do however need more sudden death games?
The solution...
Secondly, quarter-finals in 1996 were a massive disaster.
The reason being that cricket has a "Big 8" and we all knew that the Big 8 were going to qualify for the quarter-finals.
It also gave equal weighting to the team that finished first in its group and the team that finished fourth in its group.
As a result we had 30 matches in the group stage over three weeks that amounted to not much more than glorified warm-up matches.
South Africa won their first five matches then played the W'Indies in a sudden death quarter final and ended up getting rolled by Lara having one of his days.
We do however need more sudden death games?
The solution...
Two groups of 6 (it could be seven but we tried this in 2003 and it made the early stages drag) play a round robin.
Top 3 in each group (pool A and pool B) qualify for a Final Six modelled on the McIntyre Final 4.
Elimination Finals:
A2 v B3 - loser out
A3 v B2 - loser out
Minor Semi Final:
Winners of Elimination Finals - loser out
Major Semi Final:
A1 v B1 - winner to final
Preliminary Final:
Winner of Minor SF v Loser of Major SF - loser out/winner to final
World Cup Final:
Winner of Major SF v Winner of Prelim Final
*****************************************
It makes the prelim games interesting. It's not just a battle for the first three places - the battle for first is important because you get the double chance before the final.
It also provides for five knockout games in the finals - must win cricket is more exciting than dead rubbers in Grenada.
It makes sense to us because we're used to variations of this system (the old final 5 and final 4.
It just needs the cricket world to buy it.
Cheers.
Top 3 in each group (pool A and pool B) qualify for a Final Six modelled on the McIntyre Final 4.
Elimination Finals:
A2 v B3 - loser out
A3 v B2 - loser out
Minor Semi Final:
Winners of Elimination Finals - loser out
Major Semi Final:
A1 v B1 - winner to final
Preliminary Final:
Winner of Minor SF v Loser of Major SF - loser out/winner to final
World Cup Final:
Winner of Major SF v Winner of Prelim Final
*****************************************
It makes the prelim games interesting. It's not just a battle for the first three places - the battle for first is important because you get the double chance before the final.
It also provides for five knockout games in the finals - must win cricket is more exciting than dead rubbers in Grenada.
It makes sense to us because we're used to variations of this system (the old final 5 and final 4.
It just needs the cricket world to buy it.
Cheers.
I reckon its a great format. The more the merrier.
But then again, I don't particularly care who wins the cup so I'm not really hanging out for the final.
Just wished we had've seen more of the Indians and Pakis - maybe take some time out of the Super 8 and add it to a more extended group stage to reduce the chance that one upset loss will effectively end the chances of a team.
For instance, under the current format, the eventual winners Australia would've been out of the 1999 World Cup after the first three games like India and Pakistan were this time around.
But then again, I don't particularly care who wins the cup so I'm not really hanging out for the final.
Just wished we had've seen more of the Indians and Pakis - maybe take some time out of the Super 8 and add it to a more extended group stage to reduce the chance that one upset loss will effectively end the chances of a team.
For instance, under the current format, the eventual winners Australia would've been out of the 1999 World Cup after the first three games like India and Pakistan were this time around.
I Like it, 2 groups of 6 except why not just go straight to the Final Four, then have the Semi finals, Prelim final, Grand Final system like grade cricket in Adelaide.
Personally, I thought the best World Cup format was in 92, every team played each other once. Top 4 qualify.
Speed (the imbecile) acknowledges tournament is too long
"We listen to criticism and there has been a lot of it from people saying it's been too long, so we'll look to make it shorter," Speed told the BBC. "We'll seek to reduce this 47-day World Cup by seven or 10 days and hopefully we'll get it down to somewhere between five and six weeks next time."
"We listen to criticism and there has been a lot of it from people saying it's been too long, so we'll look to make it shorter," Speed told the BBC. "We'll seek to reduce this 47-day World Cup by seven or 10 days and hopefully we'll get it down to somewhere between five and six weeks next time."
- Banned
- #25
I don't know if this is true or not, but I heard that China paid for various facilities for this World Cup in exchange for those nations' support at the United Nations.
Similar threads
- Poll
