Format ideas for future World Cups.

[silentstriker]

Sony weighs in:

Sony's Kunal Dasgupta now says the format of the tournament is flawed.

"In a 48-day tournament, if teams like India and Pakistan are out for playing bad cricket in two matches, there is something really wrong. We were against this format and even told the International Cricket Council to reconsider it," he said.

It's basically a hint to the ICC: You want money for your precious minnows? Don't do this again.


It's crap, I think the format is about as good as you can get it. But not if advertisers have their way.

 

[Hamilton B]

No it isn't. If anything it makes it more of a lottery compared to the previous formats.

 

[Fusion]

Pakistan and India deserved to lose, however, that doesn't necessarily mean that this format was right. Pakistan and India both started the tournament vs a test playing nation. Granted BD are considered to be on the minnow level, but nevertheless they're still a Test side. Now that means 2 of the 4 Test nations (Pak, WI, Ind, BD) would start with a loss. That immediately put them under immense pressure, almost a "must win every game from here on" situation. I don't like the prospect of losing one game and immediately being on the verge of elimination. I think a team should be allowed to have 2 bad games, yet still have hopes to recover and continue on. I'm not saying that either Pakistan or India would have done much in the next round, but I think they should've had a chance to see what happens.

 

[slugger]

The thing I dont like about the 1992 version is teams were not rewarded for their success through out the cup, nz won 7 in a row and lost to a team in the semi finals that had lost 3 matches one to Zim. had a no result match due to wheather and they were 70 something for 7 in that match chasing a 200 odd. this team would have never made the semis under the current wc systems.

but heres the thing the system from 1999 wc on wards have been designed so teams know how many mistakes (losers) they can make before they are out of the competition its not a lottery the 1992 system was a lottery and gave a team plenty of games to right the ship far to many if you ask me. if the dl system was around in 1992 pak. wouldnt have even been in the semis.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Before the tournament started the current format seemed to be just about the best compromise between the ICC's twin desires of spreading the cricketing gospel & preserving the overall quality of cricket played; I still think it probably is. I, as I suspect quite a few others did, saw the group stages as a glorified warm-up for the Super 8. It's unfortunate (for them) that India & Pakistan have chucked a spanner in the works by succumbing to quote-unquote lesser teams, but that's the nature of sport. As others have observed they did get a second chance too; you win two games out of three & you're fairly sure to go through.

 

[LA ICE-E]

So if it makes it easier for the minnows to make it to the next round it should make it even easier for the "strong" teams to make it to the next round. All they have to do is beat two minnows, they dont even have to beat a team their own class, unlike the minnows who have to beat another of their own class...People who are complaining, are complaining because India(big money) is out...If all the top 8 went throught they wouldn't have complained about the format, but instead complain about what the point of having the minnows here if they cant make a impact...and now when they do make an impact..they complain about the format...Last time West Indies, Pakistan, South Africa and England were out in the group stage and they all at least won 2-3 matches unlike india and pakistan this time around...people just have to blame something for india not making the second round...if you have to bitch than bitch about your team not the format...the format isn't the reason they went out...

 

[Richard]

Well, yes they do. Pakistan lost to West Indies - their second chance was their match against Ireland. They lost. India lost to Bangladesh - their second chance was their match against Sri Lanka - and again they lost it.

Ireland was Pakistan's lost first chance. Once they lost that, their chances were gone.

I'm not referring to chances to win, but chances to beat a team you should be beating.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Ireland was Pakistan's lost first chance. Once they lost that, their chances were gone.

I'm not referring to chances to win, but chances to beat a team you should be beating.

No pakistan had two chances to go to the super 8, either by beating WI and a minnow or beating the two minnows. same with india

uh you only got one chance to beat a team you "should" be beating in the group stage in all the wc except one so thats still the same

 

[Richard]

Wtf?

 

[LA ICE-E]

i was refering to you saying that you get one chance to beat a team you should be beating because thats always been the case anyway

 

[jemo27]

i just think the super 8 stage is to many teams, i reduce it to super 6 by having 3 groups of 5 and the top 2 in each group makes it through to super 6, then 1st place in super 6 goes straight to the final and 2nd and 3rd place in super 6 playoff for right to go throught to the final.

it is less games overall
30 games in group stage compare to 24 current format
12 games in super 6 compare to 24 in super 8
1 semi final compare to 2
1 final each
44games compared to 53

also it makes more groups more cutthroat, rather than group a where Australia and South Africa easily made it through

 

[Richard]

i was refering to you saying that you get one chance to beat a team you should be beating because thats always been the case anyway

But before now it's always been possible to make-up for a defeat in said match.

Here, it was always a case of lose-to-a-substandard-side-there's-a-very-good-chance-you're-out.

 

[LA ICE-E]

india had a match to make up for it but they didn't use it... pakistan had ireland to make up for the loss to WI but they didn't use it

 

[LA ICE-E]

i just think the super 8 stage is to many teams, i reduce it to super 6 by having 3 groups of 5 and the top 2 in each group makes it through to super 6, then 1st place in super 6 goes straight to the final and 2nd and 3rd place in super 6 playoff for right to go throught to the final.

it is less games overall
30 games in group stage compare to 24 current format
12 games in super 6 compare to 24 in super 8
1 semi final compare to 2
1 final each
44games compared to 53

also it makes more groups more cutthroat, rather than group a where Australia and South Africa easily made it through

you're missing the main point...in this format there's a total of 18 "useless" games against the minnows...where as you format would have a total of 23 "useless" games against the minnows...and less games in the super six which is the main deal where the business starts. and one semi-final is unfair because why not just do 1 vs 2 in the final and skip the semis altogether? And the current format has 51 games compare to 53 of the 2003. which more minnows in it but less "useless" games than last time too.

 

[Prince EWS]

Ireland was Pakistan's lost first chance.

Then what on Earth was the West Indies game?

Honestly, if you lose to the team ranked 8th and then an associate, I doubt you'll be having much effect on the WC anyway - there's no way Pakistan deserve to be there. Their team is an absolute shambles and I think they would have got an absolute drubbing in Super 8 if they played in it - much like Ireland will. Their showings indicated that they are quite clearly no genuine threat to the WC and they have been eliminated accordingly. As long as we don't have a situation where a team with any sort of chance of winning the Cup gets eliminated in the first round, then we don't really have a problem IMO - and Pakistan certainly were not that.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Then what on Earth was the West Indies game?

Honestly, if you lose to the team ranked 8th and then an associate, I doubt you'll be having much effect on the WC anyway - there's no way Pakistan deserve to be there. Their team is an absolute shambles and I think they would have got an absolute drubbing in Super 8 if they played in it - much like Ireland will. Their showings indicated that they are quite clearly no genuine threat to the WC and they have been eliminated accordingly. As long as we don't have a situation where a team with any sort of chance of winning the Cup gets eliminated in the first round, then we don't really have a problem IMO - and Pakistan certainly were not that.

and neither was india...

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm not referring to chances to win, but chances to beat a team you should be beating.

If a side loses to a team it should be though, we can't just wipe it away as if it didn't happen though, or we'd just give the trophy to South Africa right now. All Pakistan had to do was beat Ireland - and they knew that - and yet they still lost. Quite obviously they are no loss.

 

[pup11]

Why should we feel suprised at Pakistan losing to West Indies or Ireland because at the end of the day both matches are under the scanner with doubts that these games were fixed, Jamaican police and the ICC anti-corruption unit are gonna review the Pakistan games.

 

[pup11]

When a few year ago a committe was made by PCB to inquire into match-fixing scandals related to Pakistan loss to Bangladesh in 99 WC(or was that for some other fixing scandal, i am not sure), but anyways that committe then advised the PCB clearly that Inzamam-ul-haq or Mushtaq Ahmed should never be given any influential post in the Pakistan side (due to doubts over their linkage with some bookmakers).

 

[LA ICE-E]

uh, im yet to hear about match fixing relating to the world cup...the speculation about woolmers death is that he was going to write about match fixing related stuff in his book. It has nothing to do with match fixing in the WI or ireland game as far as i know...may be im wrong