The Dead-Rubber WC?

[Papa_Smurf]

I read an article in Page 2 the other day (can't find the link atm) that brought up a very good point - this WC halls all the marks of being boring. In all essence - it's only the last 7 matches that will have any real bearing to the outcome. The likelihood of any upset is very slim considering the length of the group stages, and all top 8 teams (except maybe Bang topping WI) should make it to the quarter finals without too much fuss.

This this means that majority of this tournament will be full of dead-rubbers. Except for form, and pride, their is no real incentive to top the group for each team. A better format would have been if the only the top 2 teams from each group qualify and we go straight to the semis. That would've given this extended, long group stage some real meaning.

Thoughts?

 

[shravi]

I read an article in Page 2 the other day (can't find the link atm) that brought up a very good point - this WC halls all the marks of being boring. In all essence - it's only the last 7 matches that will have any real bearing to the outcome. The likelihood of any upset is very slim considering the length of the group stages, and all top 8 teams (except maybe Bang topping WI) should make it to the quarter finals without too much fuss.

This this means that majority of this tournament will be full of dead-rubbers. Except for form, and pride, their is no real incentive to top the group for each team. A better format would have been if the only the top 2 teams from each group qualify and we go straight to the semis. That would've given this extended, long group stage some real meaning.

Thoughts?

Nah, I prefer it this way. This way the best teams will go through and not some teams who just get lucky one day.

 

[aussie1st]

Should have just stuck with the old format, groups of 4 then Super 8 if you don't want the boring stages.

 

[Papa_Smurf]

Nah, I prefer it this way. This way the best teams will go through and not some teams who just get lucky one day.

A better format would have been if the only the top 2 teams from each group qualify and we go straight to the semis. That would've given this extended, long group stage some real meaning.

Solves both problems.

----------

Should have just stuck with the old format, groups of 4 then Super 8 if you don't want the boring stages.

Exactly - as long as the Super 8 is in two groups (like in WT20's) instead of the super group in the last WC.

Or, just follow Fifa's format - groups of 4, then the knock-out. Makes for a much more exciting format and one of the reasons why the Fifa WC is always such a success. I mean, Holland upsetting Brazil? Makes it so much more exciting.

 

[ferg512]

Yeah, but you can't really win though as in the last one Bangladesh and Ireland made it through by fluking the odd group game. Then the super 8s were boring because there were so many crap games. I know its supposed to be a 'world' cup but it would be more ideal if it was just the test nations plus Zimbabwe plus a couple of associates. I reckon 12 is enough like 1999 world cup.

----------

Or, just follow Fifa's format - groups of 4, then the knock-out. Makes for a much more exciting format and one of the reasons why the Fifa WC is always such a success. I mean, Holland upsetting Brazil? Makes it so much more exciting.

Agree. This world cup is going to be a bit of a joke as it still goes for way too long (you thought ICC would've learned) and there are too many crap teams. I'd be more than happy to have the World cup finishing in 3 weeks.

And then if there is a couple of upsets like last time they get knocked out quickly so we don't have all those boring games. If one of the big teams stuff up like India or Pakistan did last time they probably deserve to go as they should have bet the minnow.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

There is an article with this exact name on Cricketweb.

Cricket Web - World Cup 2011 HQ: Dead Rubber World Cup


I think you were referring to that.

Anyways, yea, it's silly. It essentially boils it down to the best 8 teams (7 of whom are pretty much confirmed, only doubt being over WI and BD), and then makes them play a knockout tournament. Survive the group stages and all you need to do from there is win 3 games in a row. Any bit of bad luck and you're out.

Not really well thought out IMO.

 

[McLOVIN]

The whole thing has been very mellow, no hype at all. Can't believe it's only 15 days away.

I am just gonna wait for the next WC, which will be a TRUE WC. Even the one after that, in '19. Aus + NZ and Eng has the best cricket grounds in the world, good coverage. South Africa one will be very cultural '23

 

[Papa_Smurf]

There is an article with this exact name on Cricketweb.

Cricket Web - World Cup 2011 HQ: Dead Rubber World Cup


I think you were referring to that.

That's the one Don't know why I thought it was page 2. Think it had to with the last line - "on to the dead-rubber WC" or something like that.

----------

The whole thing has been very mellow, no hype at all. Can't believe it's only 15 days away.

I am just gonna wait for the next WC, which will be a TRUE WC. Even the one after that, in '19. Aus + NZ and Eng has the best cricket grounds in the world, good coverage. South Africa one will be very cultural '23

I agree McLovin. Stadiums like the MCG feel like they've been built for a WC final.

 

[Prithvi]

Nah, I prefer it this way. This way the best teams will go through and not some teams who just get lucky one day.

I partially agree with you here. The tournament should have been bit lengthy, in the current format, like after the group stage, the super eights would have been better (Like in Champions Trophy).

 

[War]

This this means that majority of this tournament will be full of dead-rubbers. Except for form, and pride, their is no real incentive to top the group for each team. A better format would have been if the only the top 2 teams from each group qualify and we go straight to the semis. That would've given this extended, long group stage some real meaning.

Thoughts?

Hmm this is not a bad idea, it would certainly make the group stage games more interesting & competitive. But at the same time i dont have a problem with the current format.

 

[shravi]

The whole thing has been very mellow, no hype at all. Can't believe it's only 15 days away.

I am just gonna wait for the next WC, which will be a TRUE WC. Even the one after that, in '19. Aus + NZ and Eng has the best cricket grounds in the world, good coverage. South Africa one will be very cultural '23

Do you only care about the non-cricketing aspects of cricket? All you talk about is ads, shoes, jerseys, caps, hats, hairstyles, bat stickers and whatnot... Maybe you should actually watch the actual match because while stadiums are important a good match is a good match no matter where it takes place. No lack or abundance of culture or architectural brilliance is going to take away from that.

 

[pcfan123]

tbf he does discuss Bangla matches. but yea Mac you care too much about weird stuff like when you were going on about bat stickers

 

[McLOVIN]

That's not true. May be I do care a lot about the "image", "vibe", "impression" of cricket more than other members, but how's that a bad thing...?

----------

And, I don't talk just about bangla matches. I follow SA, AUS, Eng. Gosh!

Bdesh is the only subcon team I follow.

 

[STLIndian]

Ya, the group stage is gonna suck. The only possible suspense is Bangladesh possible supplanting WI for the #4 spot in Group B.

The knockouts are gonna be awesome, though, mostly because there are 5 teams that are about equal in strength (India, SA, SL, England, Australia), and another (Pak) that can beat anyone on it's day. Throw in the fact that making the semis is basically NZ's birthright, and it's gonna be fun.

Unfortunately, the group stage is wayyyy longer than the knockouts.

 

[AngryPixel]

Bangalore got lucky with practice matches too. India vs Australia and Australia vs South Africa. Evern though these are just warm up matches, they would draw large crowd. Then they have Ind vs England match too.