The Dead-Rubber WC?

[ferg512]

Hopefully the West Indies dont collapse today so it will at least be a competitive game. I've hardly watched any of the games so far, just too boring. Although, hopefully Canada and Zimbabwe etc. can improve, its just Kenya I'm really worried about they are far too out of their depth.

----------

This is the World Cup you are meant to be ready to go from the first match. If you have not been preparing to be at your peak come the first game of the World Cup, then tough luck. If you give those top teams 6 games against the minnows then I'm sure France wouldn't have gone out early in 2002, they would have been able to get into rhythm same goes for Italy in the 2010 WC. Also Rugby is very similar in the top nations to minnows, you don't see them trying to give 6 games against those same teams. They understand upsets happen and if you aren't good enough to beat the minnows then you deserve to go.

Yes, completely agree although I must say it was tough to get through some of those games with Bangladesh and Ireland in the last one. Despite that I would probably prefer that instead of this one with the long drawn out group stage.

 

[aussie1st]

None of the formats so far are perfect, if you want to get rid of the long drawn out format then groups of 4, quarters, semis, final is the way to do it. You won't have to worry about the minnows being thrashed for long, and if they make it to the next round then they will either have a fairytale run or be knocked out in the quarters.

 

[Brook]

None of the formats so far are perfect, if you want to get rid of the long drawn out format then groups of 4, quarters, semis, final is the way to do it. You won't have to worry about the minnows being thrashed for long, and if they make it to the next round then they will either have a fairytale run or be knocked out in the quarters.

No idea why this doesn't happen already, not to mention it would give them spare days to replay rain affected matches

 

[sohum]

here's the thing. we can't have it both ways.

we either have a safety net for big teams in case they fail, which if they don't need creates useless games at the end of that stage.

Or we dispense with the safety net so every game counts, hence losing it puts a big team out.

I do not see the point in all the teams just playing each other in round robin, then going into a semi final situation, where the 4th best team in the league can win it. it also creates dead rubbers for the best teams as they secure a top 4 place. Am i the only one that remembers how dross the super 8 stage in the last world cup was?

16 teams, the 14 here plus scotland and afghanistan (i.e. all of world cricket league 1) 4 groups of 4.

top 2 disperse in 2 more groups of 4.

top 2 go into semi finals and then finals.

teams play each other mostly, but also avoid meeting each other in consecutive stages. Associates get 3 games, which is enough but not overkill, plus one of them will be against another associate for bragging rights. should one pull off a big result, they only get another 3 games so it's not like 2007 where ireland were stuck in the super 8s for 6 games. big teams have to make every game count as you don't just play for progression you play for an easier group or opponent.

The format you are bagging doesn't even exist. There's no round-robin followed by semis, it's a RR followed by QFs.

Cricket is a game that there are so few countries that you want to see rivalries play out during the tournament. For example, in the 2007 WC, we missed out on an India-Pak rivalry because both these teams lost an upset game early in the WC.

The Associates effectively get to play 2-3 oppositions of equal or lesser strength than them as well as full strength oppositions. This gives them a chance to not totally get battered in the first round and also ensures that the future rounds of the WC aren't polluted by teams who made it on the basis of one lucky day.

----------

This is the World Cup you are meant to be ready to go from the first match. If you have not been preparing to be at your peak come the first game of the World Cup, then tough luck. If you give those top teams 6 games against the minnows then I'm sure France wouldn't have gone out early in 2002, they would have been able to get into rhythm same goes for Italy in the 2010 WC.

The difference of course being that soccer teams have a long run-up to the WC with a lot of qualifying. You have played with your teams in a knockout-ish format for long enough to justify being at the WC. As well as the fact that the talent disparity is so much smaller. If you lose after preparation like that then yes, you deserve to lose.

Compare this to cricket, where teams are playing practice matches just a week prior to the tournament.

Also Rugby is very similar in the top nations to minnows, you don't see them trying to give 6 games against those same teams. They understand upsets happen and if you aren't good enough to beat the minnows then you deserve to go.

Also, unlike rugby or soccer, cricket has a LOT to do with conditions. Pitch conditions, weather conditions, etc. Soccer and rugby, not so much. The grass/soil may differ from location to location but honestly it is much more about competing on pure skill rather than competing on how well you have adjusted to the conditions.

Just look at the 07 results. After losing to Bangladesh, India recorded the highest score of the tournament (IIRC) against a poor Bermuda team. They ended up falling to a superior team (Sri Lanka) but clearly they had adjusted to the conditions a lot better since their first official WC game.

The same way you are campaigning for the 2003 WC. That same WC which featured 2 minnows in the next round, one which was thrashed and the other which reached the semi on the back of beating only Zimbabwe in the Super 6s.

You happily ignore the fact that the minnows were only there because teams refused to play in those host countries? The 03 format would be ideal if we actually had every game played because the top teams would have qualified and it would also mean 2 of the upper-echelon teams would have been eliminated.

I'm not saying the 07 format is perfect, get rid of the Super 8s and put in a Quarter final and you get rid of the problem of the underdog team playing 7 games unless they plan on winning the WC which is great. The 07 format does not guarantee more than 3 matches to a minnow, this WC does.

You also wipe out the potential of all the rivalries play out. This is not soccer, I repeat.

 

[aussie1st]

The difference of course being that soccer teams have a long run-up to the WC with a lot of qualifying. You have played with your teams in a knockout-ish format for long enough to justify being at the WC. As well as the fact that the talent disparity is so much smaller. If you lose after preparation like that then yes, you deserve to lose.

What is this preparation you are going on about? The qualfying stage ends 8-12 months before the WC starts. In any sports that is a long time. After that all the teams have are warm ups. Cricketers are way more prepared than any International soccer side could ever be, Australia played 1 ODI (meant to be 3) against India, 3 against SL, an entire Ashes series and 7 ODIs against England. How much more preparation do they need? So according to you if you lose after that prepartaion you deserve to lose. Which is exactly how it should be. As I mentioned rugby is similar to Cricket in terms of playing nations strengths, you don't see them making massively long group stages to get the best teams through. This is the same for every other world cup format.

Also, unlike rugby or soccer, cricket has a LOT to do with conditions. Pitch conditions, weather conditions, etc. Soccer and rugby, not so much. The grass/soil may differ from location to location but honestly it is much more about competing on pure skill rather than competing on how well you have adjusted to the conditions.

If this was such a concern then why is the final one match only? A team could dominate the whole world cup apart from the final where the get the worst of the conditions and lose.

Just look at the 07 results. After losing to Bangladesh, India recorded the highest score of the tournament (IIRC) against a poor Bermuda team. They ended up falling to a superior team (Sri Lanka) but clearly they had adjusted to the conditions a lot better since their first official WC game.

Again it's called being at your best come the WC. If you want to adjust to the conditions then get their earlier and play more warmup matches. It is India's own fault for not being at their best from game one. Also they had the opportunity to make up for their loss against Bangladesh by beating Sri Lanka, they failed to do so.

You happily ignore the fact that the minnows were only there because teams refused to play in those host countries? The 03 format would be ideal if we actually had every game played because the top teams would have qualified and it would also mean 2 of the upper-echelon teams would have been eliminated.

You are assuming no upsets would have occurred in those matches, replace those forfeits with upsets and the same two teams go through. Whatever format you use, they all require 1 lucky win. The 2003 and 2011 formats require you to beat the associates, so all they have to do is spring one upset and beat the other associates and they are essentially through.

You also wipe out the potential of all the rivalries play out. This is not soccer, I repeat.

This is the WC not lets play our rivals.

 

[sohum]

Cricketers are way more prepared than any International soccer side could ever be, Australia played 1 ODI (meant to be 3) against India, 3 against SL, an entire Ashes series and 7 ODIs against England. How much more preparation do they need? So according to you if you lose after that prepartaion you deserve to lose. Which is exactly how it should be.

What use is Australia's preparation of playing 7 ODIs in Australia where the pitches are almost completely different than in India?

As I mentioned rugby is similar to Cricket in terms of playing nations strengths, you don't see them making massively long group stages to get the best teams through. This is the same for every other world cup format.

The conditions argument takes care of this, as well. As far as the "same for every other world cup format", you are incorrect there as well. The FIBA World Championship, for example, has 24 teams in 4 groups of 6 teams each (although they did have 4 groups of 4 when it was a 16-team tournament).

If this was such a concern then why is the final one match only? A team could dominate the whole world cup apart from the final where the get the worst of the conditions and lose.

You're missing the point once again. It's getting used to the conditions. You're obviously going to be more used to the conditions at the end of the tournament rather than the beginning.

Again it's called being at your best come the WC. If you want to adjust to the conditions then get their earlier and play more warmup matches. It is India's own fault for not being at their best from game one. Also they had the opportunity to make up for their loss against Bangladesh by beating Sri Lanka, they failed to do so.

The warm-up matches are organized by the World Cup committee to make sure everyone has the same number of games. As I pointed out already, India lost one game they were supposed to (to finalists Sri Lanka) and one game they weren't supposed to (to Bangladesh). They also recorded, what was at the time, the largest margin of victory in a ODI game against Bermuda.

You are assuming no upsets would have occurred in those matches, replace those forfeits with upsets and the same two teams go through.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing now. An upset would have been an upset, which would mean beating the odds. The forfeit didn't correctly give the better team on the day the points. Besides, one upset by Zimbabwe and Kenya would not have guaranteed their place in the next round.

Whatever format you use, they all require 1 lucky win. The 2003 and 2011 formats require you to beat the associates, so all they have to do is spring one upset and beat the other associates and they are essentially through.

You can't progress on the basis of one lucky win in the 2011 (or 2003) format. You would have to have a lot of things go in your favor after the upset (including being able to knock off the other associate teams--who are closer to your talent level). A team that lost to an associate team would have an opportunity to repair the damage by beating a team that is of their level or better (for example, if England lost to the Netherlands, they could have beaten India, who they were less favored again and still be alive in the tournament).

This is the WC not lets play our rivals.

Valid point. But it's going to stop existing if you see the likes of associate teams playing in the secondary rounds of the tournament regularly. The associate teams in cricket aren't good enough to consistently knock off the Test nations. Cricket is a sport predicated on individual performances. At the end of the day, most people would prefer to see Akhtar vs. Tendulkar rather than Johnston vs. Iqbal.

And why do you keep ignoring the point that this format of the WC allows associate teams to play other associate teams who are of a similar level on a world stage? No one watches the ICC Cup, so this is the one chance for players to really make a name for themselves by putting up a good performance against another lesser team.

 

[aussie1st]

What use is Australia's preparation of playing 7 ODIs in Australia where the pitches are almost completely different than in India?

The same way you were talking about a soccer teams preparation. They played their qualfying matches in compeltely different conditions to the WC.

The conditions argument takes care of this, as well. As far as the "same for every other world cup format", you are incorrect there as well. The FIBA World Championship, for example, has 24 teams in 4 groups of 6 teams each (although they did have 4 groups of 4 when it was a 16-team tournament).

Fair point. I don't follow basketball but I'm not watching the WC to watch massive blow outs which is what has happened thus far.

You're missing the point once again. It's getting used to the conditions. You're obviously going to be more used to the conditions at the end of the tournament rather than the beginning.

Again you can get use to the conditions by getting in the country earlier and organising more warm ups yourself. Compare the English 07 Ashes campign to the one just completed, the difference? More warmups. Also the point I was making was the conditions might be overcast give a huge advantage to the bowling side. You can't prepare for that, the toss essentially decides the game. That is cricket.

You can't progress on the basis of one lucky win in the 2011 (or 2003) format. You would have to have a lot of things go in your favor after the upset (including being able to knock off the other associate teams--who are closer to your talent level). A team that lost to an associate team would have an opportunity to repair the damage by beating a team that is of their level or better (for example, if England lost to the Netherlands, they could have beaten India, who they were less favored again and still be alive in the tournament).

India could have made up for the loss by beating SL. There is no way they were suppose to lose that match, India had beaten them in the leadup to the WC. Yes this format gives you more games to make up for the damage but the downside is these lopsided matches.

And why do you keep ignoring the point that this format of the WC allows associate teams to play other associate teams who are of a similar level on a world stage? No one watches the ICC Cup, so this is the one chance for players to really make a name for themselves by putting up a good performance against another lesser team.

I'm not the one calling for them to be sacked from the WC, the ICC is. I am in favour of keeping them and letting them play 3 matches. 1 of those games will be show casing themselves against similar skilled teams and the other 2 against the big guns. Money is also another issue, the games involving the associate will be losing a heck of a lot especially the ones not involving the host.

 

[sohum]

The same way you were talking about a soccer teams preparation. They played their qualfying matches in compeltely different conditions to the WC.

Are you now arguing that field conditions in soccer are as tied to the result as pitch conditions in a cricket match? Sure, there are some things that tie in, such as how fast the field is or how spongy the bounce is, but really, soccer comes down to more about individual ball skills and ability to play with your team.

Fair point. I don't follow basketball but I'm not watching the WC to watch massive blow outs which is what has happened thus far.

Massive blowouts have occurred in all World Cups, regardless of the initial round format. Just look at the 2007 WC:

Australia beat Scotland by 203 runs
South Africa beat Netherlands by 223 runs
Australia beat Netherlands by 229 runs
South Africa beat Scotland by 7 wickets (with 27 overs to spare)
Sri Lanka beat Bermuda by 243 runs
India beat Bermuda by 257 runs
Sri Lanka beat Bangladesh by 198 runs
New Zealand beat Kenya by 148 runs
New Zealand beat Canada by 114 runs

You're not going to ever get rid of blowouts when the margin of talent is so large.

Again you can get use to the conditions by getting in the country earlier and organising more warm ups yourself. Also the point I was making was the conditions might be overcast give a huge advantage to the bowling side. You can't prepare for that, the toss essentially decides the game. That is cricket, live with it.

Like what happened to Sri Lanka in the final? I understand that that's part of the game, but I don't see how it contradicts my statement. Bad conditions favouring a weaker side in the short opening round means that they get knocked out as well.

India could have made up for the loss by beating SL. There is no way they were suppose to lose that match, India went into the 07 WC as favourites to win the whole thing. Yes this format gives you more games to make up for the damage but the downside is these lopsided matches.

As I have pointed out, the lopsided matches exist in every World Cup. This WC is looking worse because there is only one game played every day. The 2003 WC was similarly lopsided in the opening round but since each day featured two games, it didn't seem as bad. And I don't remember if India went in as favourites but that's irrelevant, imo.

I'm not the one calling for them to be sacked from the WC, the ICC is. I am in favour of keeping them and letting them play 3 matches. 1 of those games will be show casing themselves against similar skilled teams and the other 2 against the big guns. It is about the economics, how much would the ICC make of the associates v associates games so far? If anything they are making a loss.

You really want to step away from the economics argument. If this WC featured the 4x4 format and India and Pakistan were eliminated in the first round because of a freak game, do you think the ICC would make more or less money?

 

[birkolifer]

None of the formats so far are perfect, if you want to get rid of the long drawn out format then groups of 4, quarters, semis, final is the way to do it.

That is far too sensible for the ICC to ever consider.

The current format is only second to 07 in the running for 'Most shambolic organization of a global sporting tournament'.

 

[aussie1st]

Are you now arguing that field conditions in soccer are as tied to the result as pitch conditions in a cricket match? Sure, there are some things that tie in, such as how fast the field is or how spongy the bounce is, but really, soccer comes down to more about individual ball skills and ability to play with your team.

Who said it was just the pitch. There is also the weather which will be a huge factor come the 2022 WC. This is the professional era if you can't adapt to conditions for the biggest event in your sport then you don't deserve to win. If that means getting more matches in the host country then do it, the world cup only comes around every 4 years so there is no time to be slack with your preparation.

Massive blowouts have occurred in all World Cups, regardless of the initial round format. Just look at the 2007 WC:

I know you can't get rid of the blowouts, but you can reduce them by having groups of 4 compared to 7.

Like what happened to Sri Lanka in the final? I understand that that's part of the game, but I don't see how it contradicts my statement. Bad conditions favouring a weaker side in the short opening round means that they get knocked out as well.

Yes and that is cricket.

Anyway we can argue for years on the tangents but it comes down to a simple preference. If you want to avoid having too many matches for the associate nations then you go with the groups of 4, quarters, etc. If you want to all but guarantee the top 8 test teams get through then you use the longer format. I prefer having the guarantee that matches aren't dull and drawn out. The two problems with the 07 format was the long and dull stage got moved to the Super 8s which is fixed by having a quarter final and the big names teams being knocked out is always a worse case scenario and the onus is on those teams to be on their game from ball one.

 

[birkolifer]

You really want to step away from the economics argument. If this WC featured the 4x4 format and India and Pakistan were eliminated in the first round because of a freak game, do you think the ICC would make more or less money?

The World Cup shouldn't be about making money, it should be about a celebration of the finest cricketers in the world competing to be crowned world champions. And that includes minnows, as long as they qualify on merit through their associate leagues then they deserve a shot against the full members.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

The format you are bagging doesn't even exist. There's no round-robin followed by semis, it's a RR followed by QFs.

Cricket is a game that there are so few countries that you want to see rivalries play out during the tournament. For example, in the 2007 WC, we missed out on an India-Pak rivalry because both these teams lost an upset game early in the WC.

I was bagging the 2007 WC format, and no we missed out an india-pak game because india and pakistan were both crap. That is there problem, you can't manufacture the perfect tournament, if you want to see india pakistan play, wait until the organise a series against each other.

seems harsh for everyone to moan about the minnows unless the tournament is designed to give them as little chance as possible.

I want to see all the cricket teams play a tournament to see who is the best, not a sham that's designed to showcase some rivalries.

 

[ferg512]

None of the formats so far are perfect, if you want to get rid of the long drawn out format then groups of 4, quarters, semis, final is the way to do it. You won't have to worry about the minnows being thrashed for long, and if they make it to the next round then they will either have a fairytale run or be knocked out in the quarters.

This is far too logical for the ICC to comprehend. That would really be the perfect format. You really thought they might've learned from the 07 disaster but they haven't. Even Rugby has the same problem with far too many games, I don't know why these other sports don't just follow FIFAs format but with 16 teams.

 

[Owzat]

The World Cup shouldn't be about making money,

Doesn't matter whether you or I think it should be about cricket, the organisers no doubt are looking to make ?$$??$$ otherwise they wouldn't keep changing the format. In this the 10th tournament I'm guessing this is about the 7th different format.

1975 : two groups of 4 followed by SFs (1)
1979 : two groups of 4 followed by SFs (1)
1983 : two groups* of 4 followed by SFs (2)
1987 : two groups* of 4 followed by SFs (2)
1992 : one round robin group of 9 followed by SFs (3)
1996 : two groups of 6 followed by QFs (4)
1999 : two groups of 5 followed by 'super six' and SFs (5)
2003 : two groups of 7 followed by 'super six' and SFs (6)
2007 : four groups of 4 followed by 'super eight' and SFs (7)
2011 : two groups of 7 followed by QFs (8)

*played two games against other teams in the group

My guess wasn't bad, an underestimate in fact. Only in the early World Cups was the format consistent, before S*y took over the world (of TV) and they wanted more, more and more. The first FOUR World Cups were relatively consistent in format, the difference being the number of times each team in a group played each other - not including changes to the numbers of overs etc

But here's the biggest indicator of the 'growth' of the World Cup

1975 : 15 ODIs
1979 : 15 ODIs
1983 : 27 ODIs
1987 : 27 ODIs
1992 : 39 ODIs
1996 : 38 ODIs
1999 : 41 ODIs
2003 : 54 ODIs
2007 : 51 ODIs
2011 : 45 ODIs

Pretty sure this World Cup will be 45 ODIs, each group of 7 playing each other once = 7x6* / 2 = 21 (x 2) + 2 SFs + 1 Final

So from simple early beginnings of averaging to 21 games for the first 4 World Cups it has gone to around 40 games per World Cup in the 90s to averaging 50 per World Cup post 2000. Now someone has realised it is too many games on top of normal series with the arrival of T20Is etc

Still the ?$$???$$$ will rule all, why do you think football authorities are DESPERATE to get the football World Cup and European Championship declassified as a protected TV event or whatever they call it ie they want it taken off BBC and ITV so they can make more ?????

 

[sohum]

The two problems with the 07 format was the long and dull stage got moved to the Super 8s which is fixed by having a quarter final and the big names teams being knocked out is always a worse case scenario and the onus is on those teams to be on their game from ball one.

The Super 8 was long and drawn out because Bangladesh and Ireland each had 7 games in that stage, which were basically walkovers. If India and Pakistan had been there instead, the stage would still have been long but it would definitely have been a little more meaningful since each game would have a bearing on who qualified to the semis.

The risk/reward ratio was imbalanced in 2007 imo, on the big names being knocked out. If that happened, which it did, you ended up with a bunch of dead rubber games in the stage of the tournament that was actually supposed to matter.

----------

The World Cup shouldn't be about making money, it should be about a celebration of the finest cricketers in the world competing to be crowned world champions. And that includes minnows, as long as they qualify on merit through their associate leagues then they deserve a shot against the full members.

Syl was the one talking about money issues and how the 2007 event may have saved money. I was merely pointing out how I thought he was incorrect on that point.

And the weaker teams do have a shot. It's just that they cannot progress based on one lucky day of play in the 2003/2011 formats. In the end, you want to see as much quality cricket as you can in a world cup. Yes, it's nice to see an upset or two, but it's no fun seeing a team clobbered 7 times in the "Super" 8 round because they just had one good day earlier in the month.

----------

I was bagging the 2007 WC format, and no we missed out an india-pak game because india and pakistan were both crap. That is there problem, you can't manufacture the perfect tournament, if you want to see india pakistan play, wait until the organise a series against each other.

India and Pakistan were not crap--they had one bad game in the tournament (although Pakistan, arguably, should have beaten the West Indies).

I want to see all the cricket teams play a tournament to see who is the best, not a sham that's designed to showcase some rivalries.

Exactly, and a longer opening round is much better at determining who is the best because all the better teams play each other. In the current format you can't sneak into the next round purely on the basis of one day's luck. You need to be one of the best teams in the tournament to go to the next round.

Compare that to 2007, where Bangladesh and Ireland were clearly not one of the best teams in the tournament but ended up playing 10 games each in the tournament and losing most of them.

----------

*snip*

It's more interesting to look at the number of games with regards to the number of teams. Going by your numbers:

1975: 15/8 = 1.875
1979: 15/8 = 1.875
1983: 27/8 = 3.375
1987: 27/8 = 3.375
1992: 39/9 = 4.333
1996: 38/12 = 3.167
1999: 41/10 = 4.100
2003: 54/14 = 3.857
2007: 51/16 = 3.188
2011: 45/14 = 3.214

So it seems like the distribution seems to have remained more or less consistent, peaking in 1992 and on a downward trend since.