The Dead-Rubber WC?

[Brook]

To be fair a lot of the better players all play First Class cricket in test countries, so it's not like they've come from nowhere.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

you know, there is another way to stop out the world cup from being boring from too much minnow bashing.

put all 16 teams in (this 14 plus scots and afghans) and just have 2 matches a day.

 

[sifter132]

^Exactly. 2 games a day I think is the way to go if you want more teams. Gets the games done quicker and it lets fans choose between potentially lame games and better ones. Papers over the cracks if you will.

Was looking at the 1983 WC format and they had 2 groups of 4, and played each other twice before the top 2 from each went to the semi finals. And it took just 17 days for the WHOLE thing!! They had FOUR games a day in the first rounds!! They all would have been at the same time too - as it was before day night cricket in England.

I saw someone on CW mention having 12 teams with groups of 2. That would be the best format to satisfy the downsides presented in this thread, as long as the 2 associate nations remain strong. Have the top 8 teams from this WC automatically qualify and the rest play in qualification matches. That gives the associates 4 spots they could grab with a guaranteed 2.

Yeah I think 12 teams would be a fair compromise. That's what they had in 1999, which is my personal favourite format. 12 teams playing 5 games each would take 30 days if there is 1 game per day, or 15 days if there are 2 per day. 2 games per day wouldn't be too bad IMHO, as teams would still only play every 3 days on average. That's a fairly typical ODI series these days. The 1999 WC took 18 days for the first round of matches, most days had 2 games.

Then you have your quarterfinals or a super six/eight type deal which would tack on another couple of weeks onto the tournament. I don't mind the super sixes type thing myself - in 1999 it was very good. In 2003 it got ruined by Kenya and Zimbabwe racking up points for forfeits and in 2007 it was silly to go to super 8s after just 3 games each - 5 games would be much better.

So while many say that 1992 was the 'best' format, I like 1999. The tournament ran from 14 May - 20 June, so not too long. And it produced some great games and the best teams made it to the semis. That's what you want. The only blemish was the slow batting Australia did against the West Indies to try and get them to qualify for the Super Sixes to get the carried forward points on offer. But it didn't work

 

[shravi]

That 1983 format sounds like crap. Sure I don't want it to drag but I want to actually be able to see as many games as possible, one-sided or not.

 

[aussie1st]

put all 16 teams in (this 14 plus scots and afghans) and just have 2 matches a day.

Two groups of 8? You would have to make sure there is a clash between the test nations along with them playing the associates. Still feels like there would be too many dead rubbers though. The best format for 16 teams is the one I mentioned earlier.

 

[ferg512]

Yeah I agree that 1999 format was best. I guess the major problem with this WC is the travel, but I still dont think you need 7 days between games, maybe four or five. You don't have to have 2 games everyday but I don't think there needs to be one day for games like Sri Lanka vs Kenya. When the test nations play each other it should be the only game that day, the other days should have two. The ICC really should have been able to figure this out themselves.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

Two groups of 8? You would have to make sure there is a clash between the test nations along with them playing the associates. Still feels like there would be too many dead rubbers though. The best format for 16 teams is the one I mentioned earlier.

i would probably say 4 groups of 4, similar to how the european championship in football is run. first round would take 24 games to complete, done in 12 days. we'd be ready to play the quarters by this weekend instead of another 3 weeks time with this format.

 

[aussie1st]

i would probably say 4 groups of 4, similar to how the european championship in football is run. first round would take 24 games to complete, done in 12 days. we'd be ready to play the quarters by this weekend instead of another 3 weeks time with this format.

Ah ok that is the format I was suggesting too. That format is the best for associates as it gives them the best chance to win the world cup.

 

[sohum]

I saw someone on CW mention having 12 teams with groups of 2. That would be the best format to satisfy the downsides presented in this thread, as long as the 2 associate nations remain strong. Have the top 8 teams from this WC automatically qualify and the rest play in qualification matches. That gives the associates 4 spots they could grab with a guaranteed 2.

You mean groups of 6, right? Would be a weird format otherwise.

 

[STLIndian]

Make it 16 teams. First round would be a best-of-3 knockout.

Next round, make it two groups of 4. Everyone plays each other in their group (So, 3 games). Top 3 teams from each group move on.

In the next round, the group toppers in the previous round get a direct berth into the semis, while the teams that placed 2nd and 3rd play each other for spots in the semis. After this, we just have the semis and the final.

This format, would, IMO, solve many problems.

-Gives minnows a taste of the world stage against the top teams, but it doesnt give them so many games that the tournament gets stale.

-No 'unimportant' matches. Every match means something. Even if you have already placed in top three in your group, you have to play to try and get the 1 spot so you can go straight to the semis.

-Not too many games, not too little. The shortest path to the cup would be 7 games, the longest would be 9. This ensures that it isn't too easy, but not too fatiguing.

 

[Brook]

The point of the WC is not to find the best team in the world. That's what the endless tours and rankings do. The point is to find the winner of the tournament and that's what the format has got wrong, again. It's going on wayyyyyy too long.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

The point of the WC is not to find the best team in the world. That's what the endless tours and rankings do. The point is to find the winner of the tournament and that's what the format has got wrong, again. It's going on wayyyyyy too long.

I agree, people seem to get obsessed with two things when suggesting formats. 1 that pakistan and india play each other, that only the top test sides have any sort of chance at winning it.

I was reading about the ICCs idea on WC 2015 and apparently they want to have a cut off point in the rankings and then a qualification round, the catch is the cut off point may be higher up than 8, so two of the established test sides will have to qualify along with bangladesh, zimbabwe, ireland.

All well and good, until we get an upset in the qualifiers and the west indies or pakistan end up not making it while everyone moans about some associate being involved in a tournament that is too concentrated.

that is IF the cut off point is higher than 8 in the rankings. hard to imagine the ICC being innovative or risky these days, they should let the MCC organise it, they're not even a proper cricket board and yet seem to be the only ones with imagination to try things (apart from lalit modi but yeah...)

 

[aussie1st]

The cut off point should be 8, if one of the test nations can't make the 8 in this format then they deserve whatever is coming to them.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

any idea what the format could be?

knowing the ICC it will be a 10 team round robin that lasts 6 months with the top 8 teams qualifying for the quarters

 

[icyman]

10 team round-robin World Cup could get over in a month. Do not count the qualifying tournament here. The 10 team WC will have 45 matches and we can have two games a day, with the Top4 directly entering the semi-finals.

Expecting the final to be in NZL next time round.