What's with the format?

[Owzat]

I see from wiki it's two groups so not really a "super eight" stage but second group stage Who dreamed up this format?!?!?

Better off having 16 teams, four groups of four with the group winners playing semis. Same number of games total, obviously they want the top eight sides to play as many of the rest of the top eight sides as possible.

I'm a bit surprised they didn't do an IPL on it and play a proper super duper eight in league format with 28 games which is only just over double what they're proposing. Play 2-3 games in a day and it won't take forever, allowing for the fact that every game is (duty) bound to be televised

Anyone else comments on the format, or suggestions of a better format? (aside from not playing T20 of course )

 

[barmyarmy]

I was wondering why SL and SA had qualified before most teams had even played a game?

 

[Skater]

I was wondering why SL and SA had qualified before most teams had even played a game?

Zimbabwe have played both SA and SL, and lost to them both, so Zimbabwe have played both their games with 0 points, meaning SA and SL are through before the two have played each other.

If England win today, we're through with India.

 

[barmyarmy]

Yeah, I didn't mean the technical aspects I meant the justification.

 

[Skater]

Gah. Halfway through that post I thought to myself 'I don't remember Colin being this stupid' but went ahead anyway.

 

[ferg512]

The organisers really have dropped the ball here. I think it could have been improved by giving the minnows a trophy to play for (once they are knocked out) and at minimum it would only add an extra 3 games, just something different and maybe finally some competitive games. Its going to be interesting how this tournament pans out in the end because its been nothing but an utter failure so far. Sri Lanka shouldn't be hosting it for starters, they had the world cup last year. Its beyond me how Australia don't host more major tournaments.

 

[Skater]

The organisers really have dropped the ball here. I think it could have been improved by giving the minnows a trophy to play for (once they are knocked out) and at minimum it would only add an extra 3 games, just something different and maybe finally some competitive games. Its going to be interesting how this tournament pans out in the end because its been nothing but an utter failure so far. Sri Lanka shouldn't be hosting it for starters, they had the world cup last year. Its beyond me how Australia don't host more major tournaments.

Well in 2014 there will be 16 teams.

 

[ferg512]

Well in 2014 there will be 16 teams.

Yeah I just mean for this tournament they could have had another 3 matches and give an award for 9th place or something. I mean why not? Every tournament the minnow play in they get hammered and go home having gained nothing.

I don't know how they are going to do a 16 team tournament though for the next one. I mean this one has been bad enough with the lopsided results. The only reason I could see for 16 teams is that they gave the tournament to Bangladesh and need to keep them in a while longer lol

 

[spooony]

Where is the Netherlands and Kenya? Rugby uses 7's to develop it in smaller playing nations why do the ICC omit teams which clearly should have been there

Yeah I just mean for this tournament they could have had another 3 matches and give an award for 9th place or something. I mean why not? Every tournament the minnow play in they get hammered and go home having gained nothing.

I don't know how they are going to do a 16 team tournament though for the next one. I mean this one has been bad enough with the lopsided results. The only reason I could see for 16 teams is that they gave the tournament to Bangladesh and need to keep them in a while longer lol

Well the minnows did beat teams like Australia and England in previous competitions.

 

[Skater]

Where is the Netherlands and Kenia? Rugby uses 7's to develop it in smaller playing nations why do the ICC omit teams which clearly sshould have been there

There was a qualifying tournament, from which the two finalists made it to the tournament. Ireland won it with Afghanistan losing the final.

 

[spooony]

There was a qualifying tournament, from which the two finalists made it to the tournament. Ireland won it with Afghanistan losing the final.

T20 is a coin toss already. On the day you can win or lose by just a bit of luck. How can they qualify by way of that especially in cricket?

 

[Skater]

T20 is a coin toss already. On the day you can win or lose by just a bit of luck. How can they qualify by way of that especially in cricket?

It worked like this. 16 teams took part in the qualifiers. All of them associates of the ICC. Ten of them had already qualified through regional tournaments (Africa, Asia, etc.). They were joined by the six who have full ODI or Twenty20 status.

These guys took part:

Afghanistan
Bermuda
Canada
Denmark
Hong Kong
Ireland
Italy
Kenya
Namibia
Nepal
Netherlands
Oman
Papua New Guinea
Scotland
Uganda
United States

Then they were separated into two groups of eight. The top two in each group after they had played each other once played each other (from the same group). The winners of these 'qualifying finals' played each other, and both were guaranteed a place in the World T20. Ireland beat Afghanistan, so Ireland and Afghanistan both qualified for the World T20.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

it's been terrible scheduling rather than the format.

well the format could be bad but it's been made impossible to tell. we've now got sri lanka v south africa to watch, but it will mean nothing. india v england will be similar.

why relegate all the important early games to meaningless status?

well, the answer is because it protects the big teams, even if they get beat they have a second bite at the cherry knowing they have to win against the other big team, but with the advantage that they will have likely already qualified (run rate usually helps the big teams as minnows tend to win games closely and get smashed when the lose)

so after the tournament we'll have the usual "the minnows shouldn't be there/were uncompetitive" line, despite the fact the tournament was geared up to make them as uncompetative as possible because if one of them did sneak through we'd have scores of whinging from the ICC about losing sponsorship (like the 2007 world cup) and fans not seeing their team in the last 8.

 

[spooony]

It worked like this. 16 teams took part in the qualifiers. All of them associates of the ICC. Ten of them had already qualified through regional tournaments (Africa, Asia, etc.). They were joined by the six who have full ODI or Twenty20 status.

These guys took part:

Afghanistan
Bermuda
Canada
Denmark
Hong Kong
Ireland
Italy
Kenya
Namibia
Nepal
Netherlands
Oman
Papua New Guinea
Scotland
Uganda
United States

Then they were separated into two groups of eight. The top two in each group after they had played each other once played each other (from the same group). The winners of these 'qualifying finals' played each other, and both were guaranteed a place in the World T20. Ireland beat Afghanistan, so Ireland and Afghanistan both qualified for the World T20.

I understand that part but how do the ICC try to develop cricket in the minnow countries by excluding them. In rugby the IRB have included them in every tournament. That is with the 7's format which is almost like crickets T20 and a team like Kenya already managed to beat Australia. When they started they lost like 49-0 in 14 minutes to the bigger teams. Now they give them a run for their money.

So you see exposure means a hell of a lot more than getting beaten to a pulp every time.

 

[ferg512]

it's been terrible scheduling rather than the format.

well the format could be bad but it's been made impossible to tell. we've now got sri lanka v south africa to watch, but it will mean nothing. india v england will be similar.

why relegate all the important early games to meaningless status?

well, the answer is because it protects the big teams, even if they get beat they have a second bite at the cherry knowing they have to win against the other big team, but with the advantage that they will have likely already qualified (run rate usually helps the big teams as minnows tend to win games closely and get smashed when the lose)

so after the tournament we'll have the usual "the minnows shouldn't be there/were uncompetitive" line, despite the fact the tournament was geared up to make them as uncompetative as possible because if one of them did sneak through we'd have scores of whinging from the ICC about losing sponsorship (like the 2007 world cup) and fans not seeing their team in the last 8.

Nice post, I guess this is just the way it will continue to be. But like I said it would be great for the minnows to at least have a playoff for 9th place or something. I agree with spooony I was thinking about the rugby sevens and they do a similar thing and sure enough a lot of the weaker teams give the top teams more close games because they are exposed to that level more often by playing more games.