Was the format wrong?

[roseboy64]

It is not uncalled for at all. This is thread from a South African fan looking for excuses after their world cup loss. You wouldn't have opened this thread If SA were still around.

Psychic are we?

 

[BoyBrumby]

The nature of group stages is that there is always the chance that two or more teams will finish on the same number of points. Any method one chooses to separate them might be more or less arbitrary, but net RR seems less so than, say, sixes scored or wickets taken.

The obvious answer would be to have had straight quarter-finals rather than the super 8 stage, but that would've meant an even shorter tournament. Not that that would necessarily be a bad thing, one of the strengths of this tournament has been its hit-and-run brevity, especially when compared with the interminable ODI WC.

&, I may've turned two pages over at once, but has the ICC decided this isn't the 20/20 world cup? I was under the impression that that's exactly what it was.

 

[Scaly piscine]

This one isn't an official World Cup no, the inaugural Twenty20 World Cup is going to be held in two years time.

 

[silentstriker]

Eh? Really? I thought that's what it was too.

 

[Perm]

This one isn't an official World Cup no, the inaugural Twenty20 World Cup is going to be held in two years time.

Really? Always thought this was the first World Cup. Don't tell me this is the Champions Trophy of Twenty20.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I don't know why the ICC didn't call it an official World Cup really, there are mixed messages as to whether the one in England in 2009 will be a World Cup or another 'ICC World Twenty20' - the bit on Cricinfo must have changed from the former to the latter over these last few days.

 

[Richard]

Really, WTF does it matter what the stupid thing's called? It's a global Twenty20 tournament - nothing else matters in the slightest. I$C$C can call it whatever they think will do them most help.

 

[ColdSnow]

Oh and I have already given intelligent reason which you seemed to have ignored.

Sanz, I think your dig at Jot was uncalled for. He just made a point that the format might be flawed.

Anyway...Jot, I think the "best" format to ensure that the best team goes forward is obviously have each team play against each other and then the two best play the final.

But such a format will run too long. This format was very entertaining for me.

 

[silentstriker]

Really, WTF does it matter what the stupid thing's called? It's a global Twenty20 tournament - nothing else matters in the slightest. I$C$C can call it whatever they think will do them most help.

It matters in the same way it matters whether you are playing in a ODI World Cup or ODI Champions Trophy. Big difference in terms of the prestige.

 

[Scaly piscine]

It matters in the same way it matters whether you are playing in a ODI World Cup or ODI Champions Trophy. Big difference in terms of the prestige.

Well World Championships is just another name for a World Cup really and it basically is the Twenty20 equivalent of the ODI World Cup, even tho this isn't officially called a World Cup. ICC are just confusing the issue with their branding.

Like I said earlier I think the reason for calling it something else was negative association on the 'World Cup' name in cricket if this event failed (or to possibly differentiate it generally speaking). But anyway don't worry it.

 

[Perm]

Really, WTF does it matter what the stupid thing's called? It's a global Twenty20 tournament - nothing else matters in the slightest. I$C$C can call it whatever they think will do them most help.

It matters a great deal, and yes, there are things that matter other than the name of the tournament. Open your eyes about Richard and push past your hate of Twenty20, if this is the World Cup then obviously it'll be more important and prestigious than just a tournament, much in the same way the World Cup is in relation to the Champions Trophy.

 

[anoop4real]

Really? Always thought this was the first World Cup. Don't tell me this is the Champions Trophy of Twenty20.

 

[Richard]

Sanz, I think your dig at Jot was uncalled for. He just made a point that the format might be flawed.

 

[Richard]

It matters in the same way it matters whether you are playing in a ODI World Cup or ODI Champions Trophy. Big difference in terms of the prestige.

Prestige and Twenty20 don't go together.

 

[Perm]

Prestige and Twenty20 don't go together.

In your rather biased opinion.

 

[Richard]

Well Manan slags-off ODIs in his own inimitably biased way, so I thought I'd return the compliment.

 

[Perm]

Well Manan slags-off ODIs in his own inimitably biased way, so I thought I'd return the compliment.

Not as you are doing here. silentstriker can see why people think ODI's are important and why people enjoy them, however you seem intent on slagging-off Twenty20 cricket and claiming it can't be prestigious, which it very obviously can be.

 

[Richard]

I've never seen Manan say so much as a single positive word about one-day cricket, even the 60-over stuff.

So I like to ape him when Twenty20 is the subject between us.

 

[jot1]

Sanz, I think your dig at Jot was uncalled for. He just made a point that the format might be flawed.

Anyway...Jot, I think the "best" format to ensure that the best team goes forward is obviously have each team play against each other and then the two best play the final.

But such a format will run too long. This format was very entertaining for me.

In view of the fact that we now know this isn't a World Cup and that the event was mainly staged to put it on the world map, so to speak, the format definitely worked.
It generated a lot of attention, got a lot of people who've never watched cricket, watching, and turned out to have some of the most exciting matches in a long time.
So, obviously, this format was the best for this particular competition, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
All teams playing each other and the two with the most wins playing the final, still does it for me as to determining the champion.
FTR I am a she.

 

[Scaly piscine]

In view of the fact that we now know this isn't a World Cup and that the event was mainly staged to put it on the world map, so to speak, the format definitely worked.
It generated a lot of attention, got a lot of people who've never watched cricket, watching, and turned out to have some of the most exciting matches in a long time.
So, obviously, this format was the best for this particular competition, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
All teams playing each other and the two with the most wins playing the final, still does it for me as to determining the champion.
FTR I am a she.

It's a bit difficult to find a format that's sort of in-between two extremes I think. As an organiser you want the 8 best teams to go through to the next stage and compete against each other a few times. So you've then got a situation where those 8 teams play a big round robin in some shape or form like in the ODI World Cup which is overkill really, or you have two groups of 4 and you get what happened in this competition where it could do with being a tad longer.

I think in Twenty20 you could possibly stretch to two groups of 5/6 before the semis and final. But that would then complicate the earlier stage.