ICC World Cup 2015 Discussion Thread

[aditya123]

Well it's just a matter of when you want your upsets to occur. ICC ideally wants to keep all the big teams in til the quarterfinals, and then they don't mind upsets. Fair enough I guess, it just makes the first month not very interesting in my book. The other extreme was 2007, when you only got 3 games in the group stage and if you lost 1 you were in deep trouble - India and Pakistan suffered that year. That was a bad idea too.
That's why I like somewhere in the middle, more group games but less teams going to the finals to make the group matches a bit more important. It's easier to do this without finding games for all the minnows though...I think T20 World Cup should be for minnows, keep only the best 10, maybe 12 teams in 50 over World Cup.

For me, the 1999 and 2003 formats had nailed it. It gave minnows the matches and allowed only 6 teams to go through to round 2 making the group games important. It also meant that you carried points to the super six stage and the semi final chances also depended on how you fared in round 1 and 2 put together. That was a much fairer format than 2007,2011 and 2015. All this without sidelining the minnows. Kenya beating SL, Zim beating Ind/SA in 1999 were all golden memories of those 2 WCs.

 

[Ohm]

I'm not happy to see only the 14 teams in world cup.In Euro Cup 2020 UEFA is going to give the chance to 24 teams for participating in championship.I'm not sure if it is 2020.It may be 2016.But ICC is still loves to decrease the number of teams in world cups.What are they doing?????? I think they want to save their money and wants to create their saving accounts

 

[IanG]

Just a little disappointed that the matches in Australia are only in the major centres.

If grouping wasn't determined by world rankings then you'd think they would've had the 2 host nations in opposite pools.

The final at the MCG means sanity prevailed.

In regards to ticket prices though I hope they don't put prices out of reach of the real fans. Also hope they don't use that bloody stupid ballot system they used for the Olympic Games

I'm not happy to see only the 14 teams in world cup.In Euro Cup 2020 UEFA is going to give the chance to 24 teams for participating in championship.I'm not sure if it is 2020.It may be 2016.But ICC is still loves to decrease the number of teams in world cups.What are they doing?????? I think they want to save their money and wants to create their saving accounts

Yeah but you can't compare cricket with soccer. It's Apples and Oranges

For me, the 1999 and 2003 formats had nailed it. It gave minnows the matches and allowed only 6 teams to go through to round 2 making the group games important. It also meant that you carried points to the super six stage and the semi final chances also depended on how you fared in round 1 and 2 put together. That was a much fairer format than 2007,2011 and 2015. All this without sidelining the minnows. Kenya beating SL, Zim beating Ind/SA in 1999 were all golden memories of those 2 WCs.

Exactly where as with the 2011 which was more or less the format from 1996 it was virtually a fete accompli who was going to make the Quarter Finals. All the Group matches did was decide who played who, which could have had the same outcome achieved by drawing them out of a hat.

2007 I believed had merrit but relied on the 8 usual suspects going through but there were a couple of upsets so it came back to bight them on the backside. Not that I had any sympathy for India or Pakistan mind you who were sent packing

 

[CG123]

I think ICC could have opted for matches in the Basin Reserve too. One of my favourite stadium, more like a park though, but it is beautiful. Such a shame we wouldn't have even a single game there
So they were like only one stadium from the state, and obviously, Westpac wins the race in Wellington!

The problem with the Basin is that a lot of it is outdated. The changing rooms and practice facilities are now below international standard, and one of the stands is no longer able to be used because it isn't earthquake proof. To use it a lot of money would've had to of got pumped in, which for one or two games would be a bit of a waste when the Stadium has over three times its capacity, and it's now the only oval "stadium" in the country with Eden Park and McLean Park being rectangles, and the other four grounds chosen all much smaller cricket ovals (like the Basin).

 

[Rehan_24]

My amazing memories of 1992 World Cup have made a return after seeing this thread. The Best Ever Cricket World Cup to date. Boy! That was 1992 and this is 2013, Hoping that the preparations and innovations were even greater this time. Australia has always been pioneer in innovations in World Cricket to my observation.

One can say that some fans have long been waiting to see another World Cup in Australia. My Country Pakistan won that 92 One and I wish that the dream will come true once again in the same very Country.

 

[War]

Well it's just a matter of when you want your upsets to occur. ICC ideally wants to keep all the big teams in til the quarterfinals, and then they don't mind upsets. Fair enough I guess, it just makes the first month not very interesting in my book. The other extreme was 2007, when you only got 3 games in the group stage and if you lost 1 you were in deep trouble - India and Pakistan suffered that year. That was a bad idea too.
That's why I like somewhere in the middle, more group games but less teams going to the finals to make the group matches a bit more important. It's easier to do this without finding games for all the minnows though...I think T20 World Cup should be for minnows, keep only the best 10, maybe 12 teams in 50 over World Cup.

It really should be and lets not forget the ICC did after the 2011 decide leave minnows out of the 2015 W-Cup and leave the T20 W-Cup for the minnows. But as usual the ICC which has no backbone collapsed to pressure when the minnows started complaining.

After 36 years of world cup except for the odd upset (zim vs aus 83, ken vs wi 96, bang vs pak 99, ken vs sri 2003, ken in 03 semi's, ire vs eng 2011 etc) - the minnows haven't made a serious impact.

The 50 over world cup should follow the 1992 world cup format the 9 teams in one group. Play 8 games. Teams 4 with the most points qualifies for finals. It would be like a advanced version of the champions trophy. Competitive games basically every day.

Second option would be add Zimbabwe make in 10 teams. Two groups of 5. 3 qualify for super 6, 2 eliminated. Top 4 qualify for semi's.

The T20 world cup could & should involve as much minnows as possible (16 teams, 4 groups) since that format & upset is more likely. the ICC should market the T20 world cup as such.

 

[sifter132]

^Preach it brother, I'm right with you

Will all that said, I'm really hoping that Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Ireland in particular play well in this 2015 edition. If they can show some improvement over the next 2 years and front up with confidence, it will really enhance the tournament.

 

[aditya123]

It really should be and lets not forget the ICC did after the 2011 decide leave minnows out of the 2015 W-Cup and leave the T20 W-Cup for the minnows. But as usual the ICC which has no backbone collapsed to pressure when the minnows started complaining.

After 36 years of world cup except for the odd upset (zim vs aus 83, ken vs wi 96, bang vs pak 99, ken vs sri 2003, ken in 03 semi's, ire vs eng 2011 etc) - the minnows haven't made a serious impact.

The 50 over world cup should follow the 1992 world cup format the 9 teams in one group. Play 8 games. Teams 4 with the most points qualifies for finals. It would be like a advanced version of the champions trophy. Competitive games basically every day.

Second option would be add Zimbabwe make in 10 teams. Two groups of 5. 3 qualify for super 6, 2 eliminated. Top 4 qualify for semi's.

The T20 world cup could & should involve as much minnows as possible (16 teams, 4 groups) since that format & upset is more likely. the ICC should market the T20 world cup as such.

I don`t necessarily aggree with that. If you restrict the minnow nations to the T20 stuff, you are essentially leaving them with nothing bigger to aspire for. The current format is flawed, not with regards to the number of teams that are in it but the way the tournament is structured. Q/Fs in cricket are absolutely nonsensical, at least currently with all of us being able to predict the Q/F lineup years in advance, unlike in football. Secondly, with the second round directly being the knockouts, there is hardly a difference between finishing first or fourth in the group, making the next round equally a lottery inspite of having a good 4 weeks in the tournament.

The 1999/2003 formats had hit the right note. It gave minnows the chance to cause upsets and also had a long enough first round to allow the best sides to go through. The fact that only three from a group qualified and the idea of carrying points forward ensured that every game meant something. You would want a format like this as it ensures everything that a governing body would want, i) Give minnows the exposure and chance to upset big teams which would also add to the fun in the group standings ii) HAve the possibility of a major team exiting in the early round thus making every game important iii) Carrying forward points would mean the first stage really sets the tone for the rest of the tournament and you get rewarded for consistency till you hit the knockouts which are the semis.

----------

^Preach it brother, I'm right with you

Will all that said, I'm really hoping that Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Ireland in particular play well in this 2015 edition. If they can show some improvement over the next 2 years and front up with confidence, it will really enhance the tournament.

The ICC again has to step up here. If they really feel they want a competitive tournament, they should organize mandatory games for these teams over the next year and a half in those very conditions to season them towards 2015.

 

[vaibhavtewatia]

The problem with the Basin is that a lot of it is outdated. The changing rooms and practice facilities are now below international standard, and one of the stands is no longer able to be used because it isn't earthquake proof. To use it a lot of money would've had to of got pumped in, which for one or two games would be a bit of a waste when the Stadium has over three times its capacity, and it's now the only oval "stadium" in the country with Eden Park and McLean Park being rectangles, and the other four grounds chosen all much smaller cricket ovals (like the Basin).

I also read/heard that it has a low seating capacity along with that it is below International standards. Most of the stadiums as I read on Wiki have a seating capacity of somewhere 6000-10000, which again is a concern if they host some important matches. So is it that the stadiums are currently in the process of redevelopment, or they have already done enough?

 

[War]

I don`t necessarily aggree with that. If you restrict the minnow nations to the T20 stuff, you are essentially leaving them with nothing bigger to aspire for. The current format is flawed, not with regards to the number of teams that are in it but the way the tournament is structured. Q/Fs in cricket are absolutely nonsensical, at least currently with all of us being able to predict the Q/F lineup years in advance, unlike in football. Secondly, with the second round directly being the knockouts, there is hardly a difference between finishing first or fourth in the group, making the next round equally a lottery inspite of having a good 4 weeks in the tournament.

The 1999/2003 formats had hit the right note. It gave minnows the chance to cause upsets and also had a long enough first round to allow the best sides to go through. The fact that only three from a group qualified and the idea of carrying points forward ensured that every game meant something. You would want a format like this as it ensures everything that a governing body would want, i) Give minnows the exposure and chance to upset big teams which would also add to the fun in the group standings ii) HAve the possibility of a major team exiting in the early round thus making every game important iii) Carrying forward points would mean the first stage really sets the tone for the rest of the tournament and you get rewarded for consistency till you hit the knockouts which are the semis.

Well no the lesser nations can aspire to be in the 50 overs cup one day & maybe test - but they have to prove they worth in T20 W-Cup competitions & A-team first tours vs the top 8 nations before they graduate up.

One thing we have learnt & seen is as i mentioned the lesser nations barring the upset every other world cup haven't really made a serious impact. In football in a 32 team world cup their is basically know easy games now - in cricket 50 overs cup as you said, the world cup is essentially irrelevant in the group stage until the final 8 teams meet in the QF's.

Cricket is a very hard game to master for these new nations, especially the 50 & test format. They need need to prove themselves first in 20 cricket, their country has to fall in love with the sport currently in a society that lives for fast sports that finish in 3 hours, they have to get the right infrastructure - then they can move up the formats.

Because as i always say, the sanctity & tradition of what makes a good test/ODI team must be preserved. If associates like ireland, scotland, afghanistan can'T successfully complete this progression then they should never play ODI W-Cups - and certainly not ever be given test status. If its has to be they are only proven to be good @ one or both of the limited overs formats then so be it. No team however must even be given the free ride into tests like bangladesh did or a easy place in a 50 over W-Cup.

 

[Haarithan]

The 50 over world cup should follow the 1992 world cup format the 9 teams in one group. Play 8 games. Teams 4 with the most points qualifies for finals. It would be like a advanced version of the champions trophy. Competitive games basically every day.

Second option would be add Zimbabwe make in 10 teams. Two groups of 5. 3 qualify for super 6, 2 eliminated. Top 4 qualify for semi's.

Love both these suggestions. Don't mind the 1999/2003 WC format either.

 

[zeustrojanstark]

I dont want to say much.All i want is Australia,the MIGHTY Aussies to win the cup.They have won the World Cup everywhere except in their own backyard.C'mon Ausssies.TRASH anyone and everyone who come in your way.Ausssssie Aussssie Ausssssie Ausssssie....The MIGHTY AUSSIES are the Champions of the 2015 World Cup.

 

[SaiSrini]

I dont want to say much.All i want is Australia,the MIGHTY Aussies to win the cup.They have won the World Cup everywhere except in their own backyard.C'mon Ausssies.TRASH anyone and everyone who come in your way.Ausssssie Aussssie Ausssssie Ausssssie....The MIGHTY AUSSIES are the Champions of the 2015 World Cup.

I won't placing Australia in my favorites list. My favorites list for this tournament are 4 teams in this particular order:

1. India (Best ODI team in the world right now - I am so happy saying this and its not just becoz of patriotism)
2. South Africa (they will always be favorites for any title; more so when not in the subcontinent)
3. England (they look a lot better now in ODI cricket and conditions here will suit them)
4. Pakistan (the unpredictables; their fast bowlers can make them a fierce competitor, more so if Ameer returns by that time).

With just 1.5 years to go for this World Cup, I don't expect my favorites list to change big.

I am betting on two of these teams to be in the finals of 2015. I have a sneaky feeling that South Africa might finally break their hoodoo in 2015. Though I would love it if India doesn't allow that to happen and they become the third team after WI and Australia to defend a World Cup title.

 

[War]

Love both these suggestions. Don't mind the 1999/2003 WC format either.

Suggestion two is basically the 99/03 formats just less teams.

 

[CG123]

I also read/heard that it has a low seating capacity along with that it is below International standards. Most of the stadiums as I read on Wiki have a seating capacity of somewhere 6000-10000, which again is a concern if they host some important matches. So is it that the stadiums are currently in the process of redevelopment, or they have already done enough?

Eden Park and Westpac Stadium definitely won't be undergoinging any development, same probably with Seddon Park, McLean Park, and the University Oval. The Park in Nelson might get a slight upgrade and the Park in Christchurch isn't really built yet, but there's not really any point in increasing the capacity when getting 6000-10000 people to a random match will be a stretch here.

Playing cricket growing up is very much in the culture here, but spending 7+ hours watching an ODI or Test cricket just isn't. It's the opposite with Rugby where it's not massively played at a junior level (football has much higher numbers), but in terms of watching Rugby far exceeds both of them for example the average attendance during the Rugby World Cup was 30,777 with all 48 matches having a crowd of at least 10,000 (and that was with 12 venues in 11 towns/cities).