What should be the format of the World Cup?

[Cochblocked]

Except that they then divide the World T20 itself into two stages, so the 'real' tournament still only has ten teams.

Nah they bumped it up to a 'super 12' now instead of 10 which is slightly better.

 

[boncer34]

While I don't disagree, I get that the ICC really can't afford a repeat of 2007 right now. I figure at least with groups of five, India can't claim that they missed the finals because of the format.



I don't think it is. Imagine a World Cup as follows:

Group A               Group B        Group C       Group D
India                 South Africa   England       New Zealand
Pakistan              Bangladesh     Sri Lanka     Australia
Ireland               Afghanistan    West Indies   Zimbabwe
Hong Kong             Netherlands    Scotland      Papua New Guinea
United Arab Emirates  Nepal          Canada        Namibia

This was drawn randomly by seeding the top 20 teams in groups of four. Now, would I expect the lowest ranked team to beat the top team? Not at all. But I could see the second team beating the first. And the third team beating the second and the first. And the fourth team beating the third and the second. And the fifth team beating the fourth and the third. It's no guarantee, but at least one of those groups would throw up something unexpected.

This is the format that the Rugby World Cup uses, and I think the cricket teams could put up a better show than the rugby teams.

Hang on, in our group are we top or New Zealand? Coz if we're the 2nd team and you can see Zimbabwe or PNG beating us I want whatever it is your on.

 

[The Speaker]

Hang on, in our group are we top or New Zealand? Coz if we're the 2nd team and you can see Zimbabwe or PNG beating us I want whatever it is your on.

Australia is currently ranked 5th in the world. It was a quirk of the random generator that it put the strongest 2nd tier team and (probably) the weakest 3rd tier team in the same group, but you can see what I mean in the other three groups, and with the rest of group D.

Having said that: http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...stralia-4th-match-triangular-tournament-2014/

 

[Wolfs]

16 teams, 4 groups of 4 then QF, SF and F.

Basically 2007 without the Super 8 shit.

 

[Kram]

With only 3 games in the group stage, what if there is a washed out game? (or in somewhere like England even 2!) Opens the door too much for a team getting lucky.

 

[The Speaker]

With only 3 games in the group stage, what if there is a washed out game? (or in somewhere like England even 2!) Opens the door too much for a team getting lucky.

Letting the rare chance of bad weather in the middle of summer affect the size of groups seems like a bit much though.

 

[big_e]

16 teams, 4 groups of 4 then QF, SF and F.

Basically 2007 without the Super 8 shit.

Super 8 is too much, don't mind Super 6. Reduces the possible impact of a very good side missing out because of one bad day, and therefore means we have more chance of getting the best sides in the semis and final.

 

[Gough]

Just had a look at the format of the first World Cup, two groups of four but they had the group stage done with inside a week. Australia played three games in the week 7-14 June 1975.

 

[Marklar_33]

Just had a look at the format of the first World Cup, two groups of four but they had the group stage done with inside a week. Australia played three games in the week 7-14 June 1975.

The ACA would have kittens!

 

[The Speaker]

The ACA would have kittens!

Let's hope they don't catch wind of the World Cricket League schedules.

 

[Kram]

Letting the rare chance of bad weather in the middle of summer affect the size of groups seems like a bit much though.

3 group games just isn't enough, and maybe washouts aren't common but hardly unheard of either.

2 x groups of 7 is fine imo, just instead of quarter finals 1st goes straight through to the semi and 2 v 3 playoff for the other spot. Makes the group stage more important and competitive.

 

[The Speaker]

3 group games isn't enough, and washout aren't common but hardly unheard of either.

2 x groups of 7 is fine imo, just instead of quarter finals 1st goes straight through to the semi and 2 v 3 playoff for the other spot. Makes the group stage more important and competitive.

It's too far in the other direction. Five or six is reasonable. Seven smooths out the results too much.

 

[Marklar_33]

After reading all these posts, I’m changing my mind

I want the 4 groups of 5, then straight into quarters

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I like the 3x5 with Super Six suggestion.
Four group games doesn't drag things out too long, gives some coverage in case of weather, and two of five going through means the last round of games will probably have meaning for some teams.
Four games in the super 6. With a super 6 there is not really a need for semis (except $), it could go straight to a final to shave a few days off the length.

 

[SS3840]

I'd keep it simple
16 teams 4 groups of 4.

The 12 Test nations, 3 in each group, plus one associate team in each group. Drawn at random, like teams ranked 1 through 4 via ICC rankings drawn into groups, then 5 through 8 and so on.

Each team in the group plays each other once, top two from each group go into the quarter finals 1A v. 2B, 1B v. 2A etc., followed by the semis and the final.

 

[The Speaker]

I'd keep it simple
16 teams 4 groups of 4.

The 12 Test nations, 3 in each group, plus one associate team in each group. Drawn at random, like teams ranked 1 through 4 via ICC rankings drawn into groups, then 5 through 8 and so on.

Each team in the group plays each other once, top two from each group go into the quarter finals 1A v. 2B, 1B v. 2A etc., followed by the semis and the final.

While I agree, there won't be groups of four any time soon, which is why I've put forward a 20 team WC with groups of five instead, but otherwise exactly the same. In the case of 2019, it would just mean adding one of the UAE, Nepal, Canada and Namibia to each group.

 

[SS3840]

While I agree, there won't be groups of four any time soon, which is why I've put forward a 20 team WC with groups of five instead, but otherwise exactly the same. In the case of 2019, it would just mean adding one of the UAE, Nepal, Canada and Namibia to each group.

I'm aware of that, but we were asked what it will be, but what it should be. And I answered. That said, being a fan of most things Canadian, anyway they can get into the World Cup is fine with me.

 

[Marklar_33]

Seeing the results in these qualifiers, I’m inclined to want a World Cup of 2 groups of 8, or 3 groups of 6! The more matches between Associates, or Associates vs lower ranked full nations, the better!

 

[1989]

No quarter-finals please. Makes the back end of the tournament too flukey and the front end a waste of time.

 

[The Speaker]

 

[Cochblocked]

Following the associate tweeters is fair too depressing right now..

 

[The Speaker]

No quarter-finals please. Makes the back end of the tournament too flukey and the front end a waste of time.

While I sympathise with this to some extent, imagine if there were quarter-finals in 2007 instead of the tedious and uninteresting super eights? Using their results from that stage, matches as follows:

A1 vs B2
Australia vs Bangladesh
Australia win by 10 wickets

A2 vs B1
South Africa vs Sri Lanka
South Africa win by 1 wicket with 10 balls remaining

C1 vs D2
New Zealand vs Ireland
New Zealand win by 129 runs

C2 vs D1
England vs West Indies
England win by 1 wicket with 1 ball remaining

Semi-finals

Australia vs England
Australia win by 7 wickets with 16 balls remaining

South Africa vs New Zealand
New Zealand win by 5 wickets with 10 balls remaining

Final

Australia vs New Zealand
Australia win by heaps

Isn't that a fairly compelling set of results compared to what we got?

 

[IKnowtheDog]

14 teams is enough.

Would be a good idea for Association countries to play test nations more often though.

No point in having association nations playing test nations in the world cups if they don't play them in non world cup competitions otherwise how will they improve.

 

[The Speaker]

14 teams is enough.

Would be a good idea for Association countries to play test nations more often though.

No point in having association nations playing test nations in the world cups if they don't play them in non world cup competitions otherwise how will they improve.

Indeed. As I pointed out yesterday, between the end of the last World Cup and the start of these Qualifiers, the West Indies had played 35 ODIs against the top eight ODI nations. Scotland had played 0.

 

[Cochblocked]

14 teams is enough.

Would be a good idea for Association countries to play test nations more often though.

No point in having association nations playing test nations in the world cups if they don't play them in non world cup competitions otherwise how will they improve.

I feel like with so many t20 leagues and long test series, there is just less and less time to fit in ODIs. Sadly this means the assocites get pushed to the back. Gotta say though good on Pakistan for playing in Ireland's first test then playing matches against Scotland.