What should be the format of the World Cup?

[The Speaker]

Taking over a month and 45 matches to divide ten teams into five is rather lopsided and long-winded.

mouncey2franklin, what you want is a league, which is what the ICC will be doing from after the World Cup. It's not quite perfect yet, as not every team plays each other, but that's due to the unwieldy nature of 13 teams and politics. Still, it's a start.

2020–2023 ICC Cricket World Cup Super League - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mouncey2franklin]

Taking over a month and 45 matches to divide ten teams into five is rather lopsided and long-winded.

As I have already explained, the whole 'the tournament takes too long' thing makes no sense to me.

It is a once-every-four-years cricket tournament featuring the best players in the world.

 

[The Speaker]

As I have already explained, the whole 'the tournament takes too long' thing makes no sense to me.

It is a once-every-four-years cricket tournament featuring the best players in the world.

People can cope with the length if the tournament can justify it. That's been the biggest failing of so many WCs - they can't justify it. This format is particularly bad at building up to a crescendo, which is what any cup tournament should do. That's what they're designed for, but this format just trudges along with teams playing long after they're knocked out, before quickly throwing in three knockout matches at the end. It's poor design. The 2007 WC had this problem in the Super 8s, which is why so many people also felt it dragged on forever.

As for the 'best players in the world thing', most of them play in the IPL too.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

People can cope with the length if the tournament can justify it. That's been the biggest failing of so many WCs - they can't justify it. This format is particularly bad at building up to a crescendo, which is what any cup tournament should do. That's what they're designed for, but this format just trudges along with teams playing long after they're knocked out, before quickly throwing in three knockout matches at the end. It's poor design. The 2007 WC had this problem in the Super 8s, which is why so many people also felt it dragged on forever.

As for the 'best players in the world thing', most of them play in the IPL too.

You're not actually disagreeing with me though, bro.

 

[The Speaker]

You're not actually disagreeing with me though, bro.

How so?

 

[mouncey2franklin]

How so?

Read through what each of us have written.

It is like you are looking for a disagreement when there isn't one.

Are you a contrarian by nature?

 

[tandino]

I don't know what was so bad about 2015. 14 teams and 2 groups.

 

[The Speaker]

Read through what each of us have written.

It is like you are looking for a disagreement when there isn't one.

Are you a contrarian by nature?

No, I dislike disagreeing for its own sake.

Have you read through the whole thread?

 

[mouncey2franklin]

No, I dislike disagreeing for its own sake.

Cool well I think we agree. There is nothing wrong with a 'long' tournament, so long as it is structured appropriately.

 

[The Speaker]

Cool well I think we agree. There is nothing wrong with a 'long' tournament, so long as it is structured appropriately.

Which a ten team round robin isn't, as I've said more than often enough in this thread. Give how you've ignored both the pointing out of the Super League and the question about reading this thread, it can only be assumed that you are the contrarian.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

Which a ten team round robin isn't, as I've said more than often enough in this thread. Give how you've ignored both the pointing out of the Super League and the question about reading this thread, it can only be assumed that you are the contrarian.

Our point of disagreement is the format, not the length of the tournament

 

[The Speaker]

Our point of disagreement is the format, not the length of the tournament

The latter is a subset of the former. So while the length is not inherently a problem on it's own, it becomes a problem when they format is bad. Therefore, they are both problems at the moment. For the sake of comparison, the FIFA World Cup in 2018 was two weeks shorter.

 

[Redline]

I have liked the everyone plays everyone format. It doesn't feel to me like it has gone on too long. As someone else said it is only once every four years.

I do think their needs to be something more on the line for finishing high up the ladder come finals not just straight knockout.

 

[The King!]

I’m happy with this current set up though I liked seeing associate teams get an opportunity

Maybe incorporate a pre tournament of the associates/lowest ranked full sidesthat leads to qualification then straight into the real stuff

2007 was the only one I really noticed went forever

 

[corbies]

I’m happy with this current set up though I liked seeing associate teams get an opportunity

Maybe incorporate a pre tournament of the associates/lowest ranked full sidesthat leads to qualification then straight into the real stuff

2007 was the only one I really noticed went forever

This sort of did happen it was just that it happened in 2018 in Namibia as opposed to directly before the torunament.

 

[The Speaker]

This sort of did happen it was just that it happened in 2018 in Namibia as opposed to directly before the torunament.

*Zimbabwe. World Cricket League was in Namibia (and is proof that six team groups are great).

 

[corbies]

*Zimbabwe. World Cricket League was in Namibia (and is proof that six team groups are great).

Sorry, yes Zimbabwe.

 

[Cleavy]

I’m happy with this current set up though I liked seeing associate teams get an opportunity

Maybe incorporate a pre tournament of the associates/lowest ranked full sides that leads to qualification then straight into the real stuff

2007 was the only one I really noticed went forever

but then cricket pundits say they're sick of these qualification games and to get to the real stuff.

 

[ioppolo]

The T20 tournament that Bangladesh hosted had six or eight teams (including Bangladesh themselves and Zimbabwe) do a qualifier where the top two went through to the main tournament. Bangladesh almost got knocked out of this stage and were actually beaten by Hong Kong. Netherlands made the main tournament and almost beat South Africa and easily beat England.

 

[The Speaker]

The T20 tournament that Bangladesh hosted had six or eight teams (including Bangladesh themselves and Zimbabwe) do a qualifier where the top two went through to the main tournament. Bangladesh almost got knocked out of this stage and were actually beaten by Hong Kong. Netherlands made the main tournament and almost beat South Africa and easily beat England.

Yep, which is why it's ludicrous that they get shoved away in the first round. T20 is such an even format that there is no reason to create such an artificial divide.

 

[boncer34]

How many dead rubbers we had?

 

[The Speaker]

How many dead rubbers we had?

I made the point a couple of weeks ago (in another thread) that the washouts may well create less dead rubbers. Both are a result of the format (as the ICC has stated that they logistically cannot have reserve days given the format), so which do you prefer?

 

[cricketnut14]

from the sounds of it, no one is happy with any format for one reason or another.

now with the superleague odi championship, i would've thought the world cup could be condensed moving forward.
not real sure on the point of the odi championship when again everyone doesn't play everyone evenly and there's still a world cup.

the odi world cup is still the pinnacle of short form cricket.

either way i'm accepting on most formats as long as there aren't sudden death quarter finals.

don't mind a round robin format or group stages with a second stage and then semi's.

 

[corbies]

from the sounds of it, no one is happy with any format for one reason or another.

now with the superleague odi championship, i would've thought the world cup could be condensed moving forward.
not real sure on the point of the odi championship when again everyone doesn't play everyone evenly and there's still a world cup.

the odi world cup is still the pinnacle of short form cricket.

either way i'm accepting on most formats as long as there aren't sudden death quarter finals.

don't mind a round robin format or group stages with a second stage and then semi's.

It gives the bi-lateral series some much needed context and also will be used as a qualifier for the World Cup. I'm not sure everyone not playing everyone equally is that relevant either given the multitude of competitions around the world who don't have an even fixture.

 

[Badesumofu]

I'm not a fan of the 1v4, 2v3, WvW format for finals, and it's even worse when 1 and 2 don't at least get home finals. They could improve this WC format by adopting the IPL format of 1v2, 3v4, L(1v2) v W(3v4), Final. Reward teams for finishing higher, and also it would put more interest into games played by teams already assured of a top 4 finish.

I also object to the idea of a 'World Cup' that only has 10 teams in it, especially when half of them come from a basically contiguous area. It's nice to have everyone play everyone, but I'd prefer groups and then a knock out stage with quarter-finals and semi-finals. The trick is that you can't create each group with two predestined finalists in mind as the ICC have tended to do. That's bad because it makes the group stage a bit boring, and then if the 'wrong' teams make the finals then everyone gets upset and decides that those 'wrong' teams just shouldn't be allowed to play at all next time.

It probably doesn't help that there has been a period where there were a clear top 8 cricket nations, but I think that point is past now. Bangladesh are a good side and Afghanistan is competitive on its day although it hasn't won a match yet. Still any 4 groups > top two from each group progress model is going to have most groups with a clear top 2 before a game is played. Maybe somehow have 3 groups of 6 leading to a super 6 stage or something like that.