Skip to main content
ZCF

Home of cricket conversation, community and memory

ZCF Join ZCF
Menu
Board index » Zimbabwe Cricket Forum

Discussion

2019 World Cup structure

Zimbabwe Cricket Forum 8 posts 38 views

Discussion

Latest Login to reply
Legend

Opening post


eugene wrote:2007 was only bad because Australia were so dominant. The format itself was great. 16 teams, but the minnows only supposedly playing three matches, instead of six or seven. Seeing India and Pakistan being knocked out was great fun.

What I get annoyed about is that people complain about formats that don't have the potential to spring any surprises, but then when we finally get one (like in 2007) people complain because a few shock results occurred resulting in the elimination of some big teams. If India and Pakistan had made it through the 2007 format would have been hailed as a great success as it meant no one had to sit through Canada playing 6 group matches and allowed the Super 8s to start as soon as possible.

4 groups of 4 is the way to go. This 10 team format is crap.


I couldn't agree more.

To shorten the tournament I would rather suggest to play more matches on the same day, one during the day, one day/night. The last round of matches in each group must be played simultaneously to avoid even the suspicion of dark machinations. Then move to a straight knock-out or Super 8s (I prefer the former).

foreignfield wrote:

eugene wrote:2007 was only bad because Australia were so dominant. The format itself was great. 16 teams, but the minnows only supposedly playing three matches, instead of six or seven. Seeing India and Pakistan being knocked out was great fun.

What I get annoyed about is that people complain about formats that don't have the potential to spring any surprises, but then when we finally get one (like in 2007) people complain because a few shock results occurred resulting in the elimination of some big teams. If India and Pakistan had made it through the 2007 format would have been hailed as a great success as it meant no one had to sit through Canada playing 6 group matches and allowed the Super 8s to start as soon as possible.

4 groups of 4 is the way to go. This 10 team format is crap.


I couldn't agree more.

To shorten the tournament I would rather suggest to play more matches on the same day, one during the day, one day/night. The last round of matches in each group must be played simultaneously to avoid even the suspicion of dark machinations. Then move to a straight knock-out or Super 8s (I prefer the former).


I really wish such a tournament was held. But the reality is ICC's 70% market comes from India. If India gets knocked out early like 2007,then it will suffer revenue losses. So ICC will always format the tournament so as to get maximum revenue by giving maximum games possible to India. That is where this 10 team 'World Cup' (read Champions Trophy) idea springs from. If tomorrow Indian spectators tire of cricket and move to some other sport, the ICC will be left wringing its hands with no market. That's why what is urgently needed in cricket is administrators with long term goals to expand cricket, not shut the shop up to suck up as much money as possible from the Indians and redistribute among the Big Three/Four.
Veteran
The world cup farce is due to elitist attitudes. In America do you think the NFL worries themselves about whether the Dallas Cowboys reach the Superbowl? The Superbowl is the Superbowl, regardless of who plays in it - because teams get there by winning. The fact that ICC frets over India's progress in the world cup is embarrassing, and the fact that the Indian population switches off once their team gets knocked out makes them immature spectators. It's their right of course but true cricket fans stay with the tournament to see who gets crowned. And the ECB attitude to Zim is now horrifying, we have a country with a small but very old cricket heritage and the "mother country" is doing it's best to kill it. What if Zim improves its ranking and NZ finds itself in this play off, then gets knocked out by Ireland? Would ICC stand by and watch? I think a 16 team tournament, with 2 matches a day, gives both smaller teams a couple of days in the spotlight and yet swiftly moves to the Super 8's. The whole thing should take about 3 weeks; football can manage a 32 team world cup in less than a month.
ZCF OriginalZCF Hall of Famer
I think 16 teams with two separate groups stages is fine. 4 groups of 4 - round robin, then 2 groups of 4 that progressed - round robin, then semis and a final. 24 games + 12 games + 2 games + 1 game - 39 and done. Maybe a third place playoff to make it 40 games - since it is a lot less than the 48 or 54 lately.

Aside from the "danger" of a big team getting knocked out in the first round, two of the three games in the first round will matter. The game against the other Big 8 team for position, the game against the threat team (BD,Zim/Ireland) and there will be only a couple of mickey mouse games per group against the 12-16 teams where slaughter will occur. Out of 39 matches only about 8 having no meaning and being a chance for outside upsets is pretty good.

Finalists would play 8 matches, 2nd round teams 6 matches and first round teams 3 matches. Seems fair.
The Third Innings
ZCF OriginalZCF Hall of Famer
Four groups of 4 is gaining steam. There is really no downside to the format.
My All-time Zimbabwe XI
Neil Johnson, Brendan Taylor, Murray Goodwin, Andy Flower (w), David Houghton, Sean Williams, Heath Streak (c), Andy Blignaut, Paul Strang, Eddo Brandes, Blessing Muzarabani

eugene wrote:Four groups of 4 is gaining steam. There is really no downside to the format.


Except that the ICC will lose money due to the short nature of the tournament and the danger of India getting kicked out early. And since the only aim of ICC seems to make money, I guess we can rule out such a format being implemented.
ZCF Hall of Famer
The ICC does what ever India wants as long as they don't p**s off England too much as for everyone else tough luck :x :x
ZCF OriginalZCF Hall of Famer

eugene wrote:Four groups of 4 is gaining steam. There is really no downside to the format.


Thats a bit of an overkill. Outside the Test nations who else can play quality cricket? Only Ireland and Afghanistan. Canada, Netherlands, Scotland, whoever can at best entertain for a half of a match before being overwhelmed.

I think 12-14 is a decent number, and I'm now leaning towards 12.

Actually, nevermind. 4 groups of 4 with the "lesser" sides only playing 3 matches is probably best. But then you need a protracted Super 8 stage to make the real money and generate real interest. But then a top side in the group of death could always stand to miss out if they lose just one game too many.

But a 10 team tourney is a farce.
Bangladesh cricket fanatic, observer of all others.
Latest Login to reply Return to Zimbabwe Cricket Forum

Reply

Login to reply.