So the tournament's too long, eh???

[Chris Riddell]

Malcolm Speed has finally admitted that the tournament has gone for about a week too long. What should be done to make the tournament shorter? A new format? Less down time? More than 1 game per day?

Personally, I think a new format would be perfect.... I hate the super 8's format, it adds a lot of unnecessary games, and a lot of one-sided results. Even if India and Pakistan had qualified, there would have been just too many pointless games.

My idea is this....

Stage 1
3 pools of 5 teams, teams play the others in their pool. 10 games per pool = 30 games. Over in 2 weeks, tops.

Top 2 from each pool go through to the next stage.

Stage 2
Here, we split into two groups. Note, points do not carry over.

Group A: The top team from each pool.
Group B: The 2nd place team from each pool.

Group B play a quick, 3 game tri-series. The winner (and only the winner) of that tri-series joins the Group A teams in the next stage.

Group A also play a quick tri-series, with the winner of the tri-series gaining 1 bonus point to carry into Stage 3. It may not seem much, but read on.

These tri-series' also decide semi-final parings.

This stage has 6 games, which could be all over in 1 week.

Stage 3 - The Semi's

Here it is easy. The semi-finalists play to determine the finalists.

Group A2 v Group A3 - 3 game series.
Group A1 v Group B1 - 2 game series.

Remember that bonus point A1 got? That's the advantage of wining that tri-series. Now, they only have to win one game to make it through, B1 has to win 2.

Max. 5 games = again, over in one week.

Stage 4 - The final

Again, a three game series. First to two wins takes the cup.

Max. 3 games = Another week.

Total games: Max. 44
Total Time: No more than 5 weeks.

Advantages of this system?

- More games which actually have a meaning. Even if you finish top of your pool, you will try to win Group A, as that gives you a much easier run into the finals.
- More cut-throat games.
- The 'minnow' nations won't make it through based on one good performance, a serious flaw in the current system.
- You can't get through by getting lucky. You actually have to be good enough to win your semi-final and the final.


What do you think??? Too complex? What are your ideas?

 

[marc71178]

A bit too complex and also condenses the matches far too much when considering recovery time, rain days and travelling...

 

[James]

What's wrong with a Football World Cup type format? Knock-out pretty much the whole way through.

 

[pup11]

Yeah, i think the soccer WC format is a good one from a viewers point-of-view and the 96 cricket WC format was similar to the soccer WC because it had quarter-finals too.


But the current WC format has one very good thing that it gives a fair chance to every team that plays good cricket to qualify for the next round, obviously with PAK and IND not being in Super 8's it gave teams an easier run which made Super 8's stage boring.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Malcolm Speed has finally admitted that the tournament has gone for about a week too long. What should be done to make the tournament shorter? A new format? Less down time? More than 1 game per day?

Personally, I think a new format would be perfect.... I hate the super 8's format, it adds a lot of unnecessary games, and a lot of one-sided results. Even if India and Pakistan had qualified, there would have been just too many pointless games.

My idea is this....

Stage 1
3 pools of 5 teams, teams play the others in their pool. 10 games per pool = 30 games. Over in 2 weeks, tops.

Top 2 from each pool go through to the next stage.

Stage 2
Here, we split into two groups. Note, points do not carry over.

Group A: The top team from each pool.
Group B: The 2nd place team from each pool.

Group B play a quick, 3 game tri-series. The winner (and only the winner) of that tri-series joins the Group A teams in the next stage.

Group A also play a quick tri-series, with the winner of the tri-series gaining 1 bonus point to carry into Stage 3. It may not seem much, but read on.

These tri-series' also decide semi-final parings.

This stage has 6 games, which could be all over in 1 week.

Stage 3 - The Semi's

Here it is easy. The semi-finalists play to determine the finalists.

Group A2 v Group A3 - 3 game series.
Group A1 v Group B1 - 2 game series.

Remember that bonus point A1 got? That's the advantage of wining that tri-series. Now, they only have to win one game to make it through, B1 has to win 2.

Max. 5 games = again, over in one week.

Stage 4 - The final

Again, a three game series. First to two wins takes the cup.

Max. 3 games = Another week.

Total games: Max. 44
Total Time: No more than 5 weeks.

Advantages of this system?

- More games which actually have a meaning. Even if you finish top of your pool, you will try to win Group A, as that gives you a much easier run into the finals.
- More cut-throat games.
- The 'minnow' nations won't make it through based on one good performance, a serious flaw in the current system.
- You can't get through by getting lucky. You actually have to be good enough to win your semi-final and the final.


What do you think??? Too complex? What are your ideas?

too complex and even though it's 44 days at max, it sounds boring. The viewers always prefer knockouts than best of series. Also the one sided games doesn't have anything to do with the format. It could have one-sided games with a new format. Anyways Speed said it would keep the same format but would cut down on time by 7-10 days so I see nothing wrong with the format than.

 

[chaminda_00]

Quarter Finals are the only way to go IMO. The biggest problem was the Super 8s, Super 6s were managable but Super 8s was way too long.

 

[Jono]

The tournament's 'what' is too long?

 

[nightprowler10]

The tournament's 'what' is too long?

Haha, good spot.

 

[andyc]

The tournament's 'what' is too long?

Haha, good spot.

Don't see the problem. The apostrophe in this case is used to add 'is' at the end of tournament. So it would normally read 'so the tournament is too long' but instead it's 'so the tournament's too long'

 

[Prince EWS]

I may cop a bit of flak for this, but I actually don't think the length of the tournament is the problem.

It really only seems too long because the quality of cricket in the super 8 phase was just dire, IMO. Due to the poor matches we were seeing - often one-sided (eg. all matches involving Australia), inconcequential to the final standings (eg. West Indies v England), essentially ruined by annoying tactics (Sri Lanka v Australia) or just of a poor standard of cricket (eg. all matches not involving Australia (joking people )), the focus turned off just watching the cricket, and on to who would win the tournament. The cricket on show simply wasn't very good - the spectacle had been lost, so people just wanted it to be over already so we could see who won it and move on. If India, Pakistan, England, West Indies and, to some extent, South Africa, hadn't been so dire in the tournament, the standard of cricket would have been better, and we would have simply enjoyed watching it for what it was, rather than trying to find a reason for it to be meaningful and getting despondent when we couldn't.

The format IMO is a very good one, that would work brilliantly with a good standard of cricket. But given that England and West Indies simply aren't very good, South Africa found their worst cricket in over a year, Pakistan were severely understrength and India simply didn't show up in their first two (real) games, good cricket just didn't eventuate - and that made the tournament seem like it was dragging on and on. We pretty much knew who the semi finals would be after a game or two of the Super Eights, making the rest of the matches seem somewhat pointless - especially since a lot of them were against Bangladesh and Ireland

The format relies on the assumption that we have eight, competitive, reasonably even teams turn up. In reality, we only had four turn up (with one of those themselves being in dire form) which hurt the tournament tenfold. Theoretically, a team which is in as bad form as South Africa were in should not make the semi finals. Theoretically, a country that has as limited a talent pool as NZ, who also happens to open the bowling with James Franklin and play Craig McMillan should not make the semi finals. And hell I'll say it, with risk of looking stupid tomorrow, a team that fields the likes of Tharanga, Dilshan, Fernando and Arnold all in the one lineup should not make the final either. Sri Lanka and New Zealand have pretty good one day sides by comparison in world cricket, don't get me wrong - but the fact that they do really says a lot about the disgraceful mismanagement that is evident in India, Pakistan, England and, to some extent, South Africa currently.

 

[Jamee999]

The tournament's 'what' is too long?

The tournament is too long.

 

[Beleg]

Cricket world cup cannot be like the football world cup simply because there aren't enough teams.

I actually like the current format a lot. It's unfortunate that we got so many mis-matches in the super eight stage, but in theory its excellent.

As far as it being too long is concerned, just make it two matches everyday.

 

[pasag]

Agree with Prince that the tournament format is an excellent one, although it'll have to be altered because the group stages with Bangladesh in it aren't really fair. And if it was good cricket, 7 weeks wouldn't be a problem either.

 

[BoyBrumby]

IIRC the 1996 WC was criticised for basically giving a bye to the quarter finals for the big 8, thus rendering the group matches largely irrelevant. We (England) qualified by beating the might of the Netherlands (no offence meant) & the UAE. It was because of this that the "Super" stage was introduced in subsequent tournaments to give the group stage more meaning.

In my mind there's no doubt that the Super 8 was too long & I personally have never liked the idea of carrying results from earlier rounds forward. I'd just propose two groups of 4 teams in the second round instead with the top two teams progressing to the semis.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

In my mind there's no doubt that the Super 8 was too long & I personally have never liked the idea of carrying results from earlier rounds forward. I'd just propose two groups of 4 teams in the second round instead with the top two teams progressing to the semis.

But the Champions Trophy already patented that format.

(the easy solution: Get rid of the Champions Trophy and replace it with a Twenty20 WC. Everybody wins. Except those who like the middle overs, poor sods.)

 

[Mister Wright]

What I really liked about WC 2007 is the format. The Group stages meant something. Even when teams were playing minnows they had to play their best side, because if they lost, they had to win the other two. It also made the game between the 'competitive' nations all that much more import, because it gave you an incentive to win the game and have some extra points in the super stage.

.

 

[Dick Rockett]

10 teams, each plays the other once in a round-robin format. Top four into the semi's, and so on. That's 48 games. I personally have nothing against the minnows, but to be honest if the tournament left them out, would anyone complain?

 

[Fiery]

Theoretically, a country that has as limited a talent pool as NZ, who also happens to open the bowling with James Franklin and play Craig McMillan should not make the semi finals.

A bit harsh imo. Both those guys ended up with reasonably good stats for the tournament:
McMillan Ave 32.57 S/R 87.35 (and he smashed the Aussies with a 67 ball ton in the Chappell Hadlee and fully deserved his place in the WC squad). Franklin took 11 wickets and averaged 95 with the bat and was one of the only guys who actually played alright in the semi.

 

[Prince EWS]

A bit harsh imo. Both those uys ended up with reasonably good stats for the tournament:
McMillan Ave 32.57 S/R 87.35 (not to mention that fact he killed the Aussies in the Chappell Hadlee and fully deserved his place in the WC squad). Franklin took 11 wickets and averaged 95 with the bat and was one of the only guys who actually played alright in the semi.

Which highlights my point really. The standard of cricket on display was so poor that even McMillan and Franklin managed to do well.

 

[Fiery]

Which highlights my point really. The standard of cricket on display was so poor that even McMillan and Franklin managed to do well.

mmm condescending. There were far worse players (in all teams) on display than those two. (Haddin and Johnson for example )