What should be the format of the World Cup?

[frankrizzo]

I was going to bump this later, but seeing the direction of the discussion in the WC general discussion thread appears to be veering towards this I thought it's probably worth having this available to attack/defend the current format in.



Two groups of five into semi-finals could've dealt with that particular issue.

Yeah I like that idea, would need rain days for sure but as we have said an upset means more chance of India going out without having played enough games so icc wouldn't do it.

But in general terms it makes every game meaningful and doesn't reward those who only beat the weaker sides, format like that I think I would prefer the tie breaker to be based on the winner of the pool game rather than run rate though.

 

[corbies]

It'll be interesting to see how a 10 team World Cup plays out after qualification is played through the ODI Super League. In my mind the ICC have two options, they either have to open up the World Cup to more teams and let the top nations continue to only play themselves in bilateral series. Or they - for lack of a better word - force the top nations to play more bilateral series against the nations ranked 9-16 and have the World Cup as a sort of an exclusive finals series every 4 years.

I actually don't mind this format for the World Cup. Cricket played between the top nations when they are both actually playing their best line-ups is great. However I thought the automatic qualifying was a bit of a disgrace given it is almost impossible for a nation outside the top 9 to automatically qualify just due to how the rankings work.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Or they - for lack of a better word - force the top nations to play more bilateral series against the nations ranked 9-16 and have the World Cup as a sort of an exclusive finals series every 4 years.

This would be my preference. Expose those 9-16 teams to the level on a more consistent basis and actually give them some home games vs the big drawcard nations.

Would actually get rid of the meaningless one day series tag too.

Every one dayer that's played in the 3.5 years following a World Cup should be part of the qualification process for the next one.

Eg need to play a minimum of three games home and three games away over the 3.5 year qualifying period vs the top 16 ranked teams.

We might play Afghanistan the minimum 6 times and India 36 times during that period. Then the table works on a percentage.

We win 5/6 vs Afghanistan which gives us 0.83 from that match up.

Split the games 18/18 vs India which gives us 0.50 from that match up.

Top 8 teams qualify for that 'exclusive finals series' as you've called it but all 16 have been part of the show.

 

[corbies]

This would be my preference. Expose those 9-16 teams to the level on a more consistent basis and actually give them some home games vs the big drawcard nations.

Would actually get rid of the meaningless one day series tag too.

Every one dayer that's played in the 3.5 years following a World Cup should be part of the qualification process for the next one.

Eg need to play a minimum of three games home and three games away over the 3.5 year qualifying period vs the top 16 ranked teams.

Eg we might play Afghanistan the minimum 6 times and India 36 times during that period. Then the table works on a percentage.

We win 5/6 vs Afghanistan which gives us 0.83 from that match up.

Split the games 18/18 vs India which hives us 0.50 from that match up.

Top 8 teams qualify for that 'exclusive finals series' as you've called it by all 16 have been part of the show.

They're already sort of doing this through the ODI Super League starting in 2020.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

They're already sort of doing this through the ODI Super League starting in 2020.

Are they?

I've sort of zoned out on all the test championship / super league stuff

 

[corbies]

Are they?

I've sort of zoned out on all the test championship / super league stuff

Sort of.

2020–2023 ICC Cricket World Cup Super League - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Ishikawa]

It'll be interesting to see how a 10 team World Cup plays out after qualification is played through the ODI Super League. In my mind the ICC have two options, they either have to open up the World Cup to more teams and let the top nations continue to only play themselves in bilateral series. Or they - for lack of a better word - force the top nations to play more bilateral series against the nations ranked 9-16 and have the World Cup as a sort of an exclusive finals series every 4 years.

I actually don't mind this format for the World Cup. Cricket played between the top nations when they are both actually playing their best line-ups is great. However I thought the automatic qualifying was a bit of a disgrace given it is almost impossible for a nation outside the top 9 to automatically qualify just due to how the rankings work.

Exactly articulated my thoughts. A 10 team world cup is fine by me on the proviso:
1. There is a genuine qualification process. ie. at the very least two spots require qualification by a tournament, with the remainder dictated by rankings
2. There are at least 14 teams participating in the ODI Championship getting regular fixtures against whatever nation the draw dictates

 

[Cochblocked]

The league will be interesting. I'm not 100% certain Australia will allow Zimbabwe to tour they'd be worse for money than Bangladesh but i really hope it happens. Similar with South Africa and Netherlands. It does seem fixed that teams mostly play teams around there rankings so hopefully in the 2024-2026 one they play the other teams. Also do we know what happens to the last placed team? Will they get relegated and the top associate from league 2 promoted? Will it be a playoff? Does it have to be the Netherlands?

As for the World Cup i think the best we can hope for in terms of more teams is a 2 team increase and then a 2x6 format. Would look something like:

Australia
NZ
South Africa
Bangladesh
Afghanistan
Ireland


India
England
Pakistan
West Indies
Sri Lanka
Zimbabwe

This would then go- top 4 from each group go to quarter finals

Australia vs West Indies
India vs Bangladesh
NZ vs Pakistan
England vs South Africa

Semis
Australia vs England
India vs NZ

Final

Would get India a max 8 games min of 5 which we all know is important. I would love a 16 team comp but this might be the best i can hope for.

 

[corbies]

The league will be interesting. I'm not 100% certain Australia will allow Zimbabwe to tour they'd be worse for money than Bangladesh but i really hope it happens. Similar with South Africa and Netherlands. It does seem fixed that teams mostly play teams around there rankings so hopefully in the 2024-2026 one they play the other teams. Also do we know what happens to the last placed team? Will they get relegated and the top associate from league 2 promoted? Will it be a playoff? Does it have to be the Netherlands?

As for the World Cup i think the best we can hope for in terms of more teams is a 2 team increase and then a 2x6 format. Would look something like:

Australia
NZ
South Africa
Bangladesh
Afghanistan
Ireland


India
England
Pakistan
West Indies
Sri Lanka
Zimbabwe

This would then go- top 4 from each group go to quarter finals

Australia vs West Indies
India vs Bangladesh
NZ vs Pakistan
England vs South Africa

Semis
Australia vs England
India vs NZ

Final

Would get India a max 8 games min of 5 which we all know is important. I would love a 16 team comp but this might be the best i can hope for.

The promotion/relegation will be decided once they can ensure one of the big nations aren't going to be in a relegation place.

Also in your 12 team comp the Netherlands and Scotland have probably shown they are better ODI sides than atleast Zimbabwe and probably Ireland given but thats not really important to what you are saying.

 

[Cochblocked]

The promotion/relegation will be decided once they can ensure one of the big nations aren't going to be in a relegation place.

Also in your 12 team comp the Netherlands and Scotland have probably shown they are better ODI sides than atleast Zimbabwe and probably Ireland given but thats not really important to what you are saying.

Yeah i agree i put it that way just to show the 12 full members can make it. The way Scotland are playing they deserve to be apart of this super league but not at the expense of the dutch. Maybe it can be expanded that pleases everyone although means more needs to be played.

 

[The Speaker]

UEFA is doing something interesting with the Nations League, might be worth thinking about an equivalent for cricket - twice per WC cycle?

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Yeah i agree i put it that way just to show the 12 full members can make it. The way Scotland are playing they deserve to be apart of this super league but not at the expense of the dutch. Maybe it can be expanded that pleases everyone although means more needs to be played.

14 or 15 keeps hopes alive for leading Associates, and having more than that with ODI status gives a meaningful goal to the next few.
Both are probably required. A larger world cup, and more games for the next tier between WCs (partly to prepare for the WC, and partly just for general improvement and exposure).
WC exposure in some nations is the only time cricket rates a mention, it brings its own sponsorship opportunity for that brief period and a small amount of prizemoney. But a few games against the top sides every four years doesn't help much for continual improvement.

 

[Cochblocked]

14 or 15 keeps hopes alive for leading Associates, and having more than that with ODI status gives a meaningful goal to the next few.
Both are probably required. A larger world cup, and more games for the next tier between WCs (partly to prepare for the WC, and partly just for general improvement and exposure).
WC exposure in some nations is the only time cricket rates a mention, it brings its own sponsorship opportunity for that brief period and a small amount of prizemoney. But a few games against the top sides every four years doesn't help much for continual improvement.

I would love a 16 team WC more than anything in Cricket but as i said i think 12 is the best we can hope for in the short term (if 4 years can be called short term)

 

[Gough]

14 or 15 keeps hopes alive for leading Associates, and having more than that with ODI status gives a meaningful goal to the next few.
Both are probably required. A larger world cup, and more games for the next tier between WCs (partly to prepare for the WC, and partly just for general improvement and exposure).
WC exposure in some nations is the only time cricket rates a mention, it brings its own sponsorship opportunity for that brief period and a small amount of prizemoney. But a few games against the top sides every four years doesn't help much for continual improvement.

The cynic in me suggests that the ICC would rather these nations not played ODIs at all preferring they concentrate on T20.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

The cynic in me suggests that the ICC would rather these nations not played ODIs at all preferring they concentrate on T20.

I don't think there's anything cynical about that at all. ODI as a format is almost dead. T20 and Test are far enough differentiated that it's a different skillset (almost a different sport!). ODI is generally just a slowed down T20 now.

T20 has the potential to be a genuinely worldwide event, with the 'finals' including 20+ teams.

The issue (as always) is the risk of a big team going out early, so round-robin style will remain to maximise the number of games India/Eng/Aus/etc can play, and those nations not wanting to play the 'minnows'.

I would use a "4-yr, Perfect Ladder" format. Most recent home and away series (3 games) counts against every nation, so long as completed in the last time period (4 years for WC). With ~30 nations, Australia could play their regular opponents - Aus v India would occur at least twice, maybe even three times both Home and Away - but can only earn points for two series against that opponent, meaning they HAVE to play other opponents to maintain their points/seeding.

 

[Ishikawa]

I don't think there's anything cynical about that at all. ODI as a format is almost dead. T20 and Test are far enough differentiated that it's a different skillset (almost a different sport!). ODI is generally just a slowed down T20 now.

T20 has the potential to be a genuinely worldwide event, with the 'finals' including 20+ teams.

The issue (as always) is the risk of a big team going out early, so round-robin style will remain to maximise the number of games India/Eng/Aus/etc can play, and those nations not wanting to play the 'minnows'.

I would use a "4-yr, Perfect Ladder" format. Most recent home and away series (3 games) counts against every nation, so long as completed in the last time period (4 years for WC). With ~30 nations, Australia could play their regular opponents - Aus v India would occur at least twice, maybe even three times both Home and Away - but can only earn points for two series against that opponent, meaning they HAVE to play other opponents to maintain their points/seeding.

People love sprouting off this meaningless cliche because, y'know Warney said it once or something.

But why? It still attracts great viewing audiences, strong crowds, displays quality cricket and you don't have to look far to see how highly relevant it is to fans. TV and corporate dollars remain flowing in because of this. Why should it go anywhere?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

One dayers are a cash cow.

That's why there are still so many 'meaningless' one day tournaments around the place.

Long games and they go into prime time

 

[Underarm]

The T20 World cup format looks great. 2 Groups of 6 with Semifinals.

A round robin group stage for teams 9-16 in Geelong/Hobart for the final spots in the main group stage as well which gives good representation for Associaties as well.

 

[The Speaker]

One dayers are a cash cow.

That's why there are still so many 'meaningless' one day tournaments around the place.

Long games and they go into prime time

There won't be many one day tournaments any more. Most ODIs played will be part of the Super League.

The T20 World cup format looks great. 2 Groups of 6 with Semifinals.

A round robin group stage for teams 9-16 in Geelong/Hobart for the final spots in the main group stage as well which gives good representation for Associaties as well.

All it really does is push them away from the big stage and make people not pay attention to it.

As shown by the fact that they don't get to play in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane or Perth.

 

[Underarm]

All it really does is push them away from the big stage and make people not pay attention to it.

As shown by the fact that they don't get to play in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane or Perth.

People aren't going to pay attention to Scotland vs UAE, it doesn't matter where you play it.

And there's plenty of matches at big grounds for the 11th and 12th ranked teams when they get to the groups of 6 stage of the tournament.

 

[The Speaker]

People aren't going to pay attention to Scotland vs UAE, it doesn't matter where you play it.

And there's plenty of matches at big grounds for the 11th and 12th ranked teams when they get to the groups of 6 stage of the tournament.

It's a T20 match, and they schedule two matches on the same day at the same ground. People can get two games for the price of one. If there is any format not to patronise Associates in, it's T20.

 

[footyfan1978]

Format of World Cup has to come down to a question of, do you want an intense two week period event like the Olympics ? or a drawn out event for around 6 weeks that been the norm for some time now. I certainly get more excited at the intense nature and excitement of when it is only two weeks , the pressure is on from start that if you screw up more than once you basically gone. If you want it longer than two weeks, what we got now is the most pure format it might take long time to get there but the best teams will advance to semi-finals and those that missed out certainly deserve to miss out.

If you having 10 teams like now the best way to have two week format is probably two groups of 5 teams. Each team within own group meet once over first week and maybe in second week the bottom two of each group are eliminated. For second week of World Cup you reward the leading team of each group with direct spot in semi-final whilst the teams second on each table play a knock out qualifying final against the third team from other group. Those two winners advance to semi-finals to meet the two teams that already got there via topping their group stage. You have two semi-finals on same day and two or three days later the final. Done in two weeks. Any side at most has 7 games across that period and sent home after a week if you fail to make top three of your group stage after four games.

South Africa been dead and buried for some time this World Cup but forced to hang around like a bad smell.
I prefer a two week tournament as so much more intense and feels more massive knowing it happens in same time period like Olympics.

But reality is for television money they probably always going to stick to this tournament being close to two months. If that is the reality at least the pure format of all teams meeting once is one good thing to have with it. Ten teams seems right for this compromise of tv money and still have a pure tournament to find the best side in world at this format.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

I like the current format. Every team plays every other team once. The best four teams play finals.

The only changes I would like to see:

1) Reserve days. Perhaps a few days at the end of the tournament set aside to replay the washouts.

2) Best-of-three finals. Nine matches to see who plays finals, and two matches to lift the trophy, seems senseless to me.

If the WC is meant to be about determining the best team in the world every four years, best-of-three finals is logical.

Especially in cricket, where a few good balls can change a match.

People say the tournament is too long already. Too long for what? It is once every four years, two months of world class cricket is fine.

I don't expect this post to be popular, and I don't expect the ICC to ever implement what I am suggesting here. Just sharing my thoughts.

Why do we need more team in the World Cup? As if we really want to watch hapless teams clogging up the fixture.

Afghanistan this time around is bad enough. Their kids won the U19 Asian cup recently so I hope in four years they'll be better.

The group format is crap because it means that classic matches are no guarantee.

I want to see Eng vs Aus, Aus vs NZ, Eng vs India, India vs Pakistan, SAF vs India, any sub-continental battle.

Do I really want to watch a 0-3 Netherlands trying to pull off a miracle against a good team? No thanks.

 

[sydney_gws]

I like the current format. Every team plays every other team once. The best four teams play finals.

The only changes I would like to see:

1) Reserve days. Perhaps a few days at the end of the tournament set aside to replay the washouts.

2) Best-of-three finals. Nine matches to see who plays finals, and two matches to lift the trophy, seems senseless to me.

If the WC is meant to be about determining the best team in the world every four years, best-of-three finals is logical.

Especially in cricket, where a few good balls can change a match.

People say the tournament is too long already. Too long for what? It is once every four years, two months of world class cricket is fine.

I don't expect this post to be popular, and I don't expect the ICC to ever implement what I am suggesting here. Just sharing my thoughts.

Why do we need more team in the World Cup? As if we really want to watch hapless teams clogging up the fixture.

Afghanistan this time around is bad enough. Their kids won the U19 Asian cup recently so I hope in four years they'll be better.

The group format is crap because it means that classic matches are no guarantee.

I want to see Eng vs Aus, Aus vs NZ, Eng vs India, India vs Pakistan, SAF vs India, any sub-continental battle.

Do I really want to watch a 0-3 Netherlands trying to pull off a miracle against a good team? No thanks.

The current format could be improved with having a play off for 4th, with 4v5 playing a match to decide who plays 1st in the semi final. There is then a great incentive to finish top 3 rather than top 4. It will ensure less dead rubbers in the last 10 or so preliminary round matches. With 5th, even south africa would still be mathematically alive.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

The current format could be improved with having a play off for 4th, with 4v5 playing a match to decide who plays 1st in the semi final. There is then a great incentive to finish top 3 rather than top 4. It will ensure less dead rubbers in the last 10 or so preliminary round matches. With 5th, even south africa would still be mathematically alive.

Yes, that is another fairer finals solution. How they used to do the VFL finals, iirc.

Stage 1

1 -> rest

i) 2 vs 3
ii) 4 vs 5

Stage 2

iii) 1 vs [winner of i]
iv) [loser of i] vs [winner of ii]

Stage 3

[Winner of iii] -> rest

v) [loser of iii] vs [winner of iv]

Stage 4

vi) Final = [winner of iii] vs [winner of v]

---

Still prefer best of three series, though.