Your World Cup!

There's been lots of talk on here, with the ICC, and from two greats, Martin Crowe and Sachin Tendulkar, on how a Cricket World cup should be formatted. Crowe and Sachin would like more teams, hence more games, and have it longer (please no), whilst the ICC are pondering less teams (associates).

I think it's fair to say this one has been set up to get the top teams into the QF's, given you can lose three games and still go through, ie England, if we get there. It's also too long for me. One game per day in the week, and even a rest day (?).

How would you go about organising a world cup, if you were left in charge? Less games? More competitive games? Associates?

I would like 12 teams, including 4 groups of three, with the top two going through to the QF's. This way, you could have one bad day, and be gone, which would hopefully make it more competitive. I would have a spare day, just in case it rained. Going out due to bad weather would be a bummer.

So, something like

Aus   NZ   SA   Ind
Eng   PAK  WI  Sri
Uae  Zim   Ban Ire

I know this means the top two should still prevail, but the weaker teams would have more chance, imo.

More games? Yes. More teams? Yes. If you want a test nations ODI tournament, watch the Champions Trophy. The world cup like all world Cups is in half a festival. I honestly can understand why you can't have three games a day. Might work out a little unfair from a rest period point of view, but cricket is hardly rugby

Aren't they doing away with the CT?

Thinking further, 4 groups of 4, is ok with me. I'm not against associate teams, just want a better COMPETITION.

Was it? It was on the Future Tours Program when I downloaded it in May last year. Don't have the revised version I concede. Regardless, with the gap between bowlers and batsmen increasing, the likelihood of embarrassing totals for the Assocs is increasing.

I would say however that the Champions Trophy and it's lack of success is an indicator that it isn't as simple as having a short tournament, and more importantly a series of big games doesn't seem to actually work either. I've never bought into the idea that the CWC doesn't catch on because it's too long. EPL is nine months a year every damn year, and it isn't too long. The Fina world cup series is also incredibly long annually, but doesn't lack an audience. Of course these aren't exact like for like equivalents, but the point is the idea that people are bored after 40 odd days of cricket is for me not quite palatable.

I think realistically cricket fans are adaptively more tuned to bilateral series. A bit like rugby where a bug tour to NZ just gets the blood pumping. So The Ashes, Indo-Pak, Aus-SAF. The idea of a dozen odd nations playing each other and one emerging victorious isn't quite cricket. Maybe it's because cricket, like rugby was a little late into the whole world cup thing, and even into the 80s, you had Botham's Ashes, The four horsemen discombobulating England as a matter of course.

I do prefer games thick and fast, when it comes to tournaments, and I have the impressions that's the same with most?

My format is a happy medium between the CT and this current system.

Nah, I don't like it, that way the draw can end up the wrong way.

Play two groups and let the teams earn their positions for the finals

I like the two groups idea myself. Four groups of four doesn't work for the ICC financially, unless they then make a super eight. If it pleases the court, I'd rather not have to go through that again.

What do we want?
A reasonable number of teams with some room for associates on merit.
Avoiding excessive numbers of games, and absurdly long winded group stages where most games end up being meaningless.
As many games as possible to be reasonably evenly matched
The big draw teams to face each other, preferably more than once
Some opportunities for the lower ranked teams to play games they can win and earn the right to qualify


My sat in the bath proposal:
12 teams, top 10 plus pre-tournament round robin between ranks 11,12,13,14 for two spots

Two streams of knock out games.
Top 6 in one, bottom 6 in the other.

Stream 1 (seeded from ICC rankings)
a 1v6
b 2v5
c 3v4

Stream 2
d 7v12
e 8v11
f 9v10

winner a b c progress to pool 1
loser a b c plays winner d e f to progress to pool 1
loser d e f goes to pool 2

pools play round robin, 5 games each
4 top sides from pool 1 progress to a semis and final for cup
2 top sides from pool 1 plus bottom 2 from pool 1 progress to knockout for plate
other 4 play for medals with "everyones a star" embossed on them and a certificate of achievement.

That way associates get competitive games and the right to qualify to play the big boys on merit if they can beat lower ranked test teams for the privilege. The big teams are all likely to have to play each other at least once. Excessive numbers of serious mismatches are avoided. Everyone gets plenty of games. Early games are genuinely meaningful.
And most importantly no-one can figure out how the hell its supposed to work.

I don't actually mind the current format in terms of the group make-up and giving associates decent access to the tournament.

What I can't stand is the glacial pace of the group stage. So current format, with 2 or 3 games per day and no days without games.

VTR wrote:I don't actually mind the current format in terms of the group make-up and giving associates decent access to the tournament.

What I can't stand is the glacial pace of the group stage. So current format, with 2 or 3 games per day and no days without games.

Yes, that's my biggest bugbear, only one game in the week. This tournament should be drawing to a close, not still be in the group stages.

The issues with this format:

1. Its long
2. A good portion of the games are largely meaningless for those involved
3. Regardless of the rules there was always going to be a lot of one sided games
4. It was always unlikely to produce any surprise progressions
5. Its really long. And tedious.

A shorter format and us England fans would be put out of our misery much more quickly as well. A bit like the last football World Cup where England were out 6 days after playing their first game. The efficient route to failure!

4 groups of four. Top two in each group go through to a second group stage, two groups of 4. Then you play semis and the final.

39 matches.

it should be the way it is, or 4 groups of 4, but that drags the tournament a bit, so I would keep it the way it is, producing good games, the best 4 associates are doing a good job, Afg and Ireland on their day are as good as a test playing nation...its ridiculous excuse that they are removing them to make it competitive.

Scot - Good fight vs NZ, Good Fight vs BD, Thriller vs Afg,
UAE - Done well with the bat generally
Afg, - Good bowling vs BD, Good fight vs SL, Thriller vs Scots
Ireland - Beat WI, Beat Zim

And they're not competitive..

It is a horrendous idea and will surely kill off Cricket to the wider world - 10 team World Cup, Is not a world cup, it makes no sense whatsoever. Ireland should be given test status and also AFG, does that mean they should play Aus, SA, no let them be able to tour Zim, BD, WI. the world cup cannot reduce from 14, especially not to 10, AFG and Ireland have been as good as anyone, I know am not alone when I say I want to see Ireland in the QF and also wouldn't mind Afg winning a match vs a test team.

--1992 format...all play all..and top 4 in s.f

--10 teams

--top 8 in ICC rankings automatically qualify

--last 2 in ICC rankings play qualifiers with the top 6 associate teams

KP_fan wrote:--1992 format...all play all..and top 4 in s.f

--10 teams

--top 8 in ICC rankings automatically qualify

--last 2 in ICC rankings play qualifiers with the top 6 associate teams

But the game has expanded since 92. its illogical to still have it at 10 teams

KO-KING wrote:

KP_fan wrote:--1992 format...all play all..and top 4 in s.f

--10 teams

--top 8 in ICC rankings automatically qualify

--last 2 in ICC rankings play qualifiers with the top 6 associate teams

But the game has expanded since 92. its illogical to still have it at 10 teams

the last reasonable admission to full test status was of SA in 1992
how else has game expanded since?

If it all......it has contracted with one full test status nation WI is almost minnow quality now...in their results ( not man to man strength)

KP_fan wrote:

KO-KING wrote:

KP_fan wrote:--1992 format...all play all..and top 4 in s.f

--10 teams

--top 8 in ICC rankings automatically qualify

--last 2 in ICC rankings play qualifiers with the top 6 associate teams

But the game has expanded since 92. its illogical to still have it at 10 teams

the last reasonable admission to full test status was of SA in 1992
how else has game expanded since?

If it all......it has contracted with one full test status nation WI is almost minnow quality now...in their results ( not man to man strength)

You have the likes of Ireland beating test nations all the time, Afg have taken them close, BD often beat good teams - they had a poor 2014, but have been good in recent years, they have beaten New Zealand the Cup favourites 8/9 times in a row, the game has clearly expanded, there are far more quality teams now