Your preferred WC format

[ankitj]

1999 and 2003 formats were best!

 

[Spark]

FIFA WC is different though because there are many more contenders for the title - 8-10 usually can be called "contenders". Here we're all talking about how wonderfully open the WC is with 5ish contenders.

 

[marc71178]

FIFA's next world cup is going to protect brazil, germany and Italy, and they will get automactic entry up to the semi's ... because in the most recent world cup current champions Italy were kicked out first round and FIFA doesnt want that repeated.

Comparing the Cricket World Cup to the Football World Cup is completely pointless and irrelevant to this debate.

 

[laksh_01]

Pls Comment

If its 10 Nations Cricket World Cup: (GROUPS > SEMIS > FINAL = 15 Days)

Group A:
Australia
Sri Lanka
England
WCQs 2
WCQs 3

Group B:
India
South Africa
Pakistan
WCQs 1
WCQs 4

WCQs: (LEAGUE) (ODI STATUS)
1) New Zealand
2) W.Indies
3) B.Desh
4) I.Land
5) Div 1 W
6) Div 1 R.Up

Div 1: (ODI STATUS)
1) Zimbabwe
2) The Netherlands
3) Afghanistan
4) Canada
5) Div 2 W
6) Div 2 R.Up

Div 2:
1) Kenya
2) UAE
3) Namibia
4) Uganda
5) Div 3 W
6) Div 3 R.up

So on....

 

[GIMH]

I didn't actually mind the 07 format, but they needed more games each day. Would also do away with semis with that format, get the best two teams in the final

 

[BeeGee]

I loved the 92 format to be honest, would hate it though if they persisted with 1 game a day nearly every day. You have to play 2 games a day and 3 at weekends or it drags too much. Trouble is TV has too big a say.

'92 was the best format because every team played every other team at least once. You actually got to measure your team against every other team.
In this format the team that wins the world cup will have done so without playing every other nation, IMO that is a flawed system.

 

[turnstyle]

'92 was the best format because every team played every other team at least once. You actually got to measure your team against every other team.
In this format the team that wins the world cup will have done so without playing every other nation, IMO that is a flawed system.

There wouldn't be a world cup in any sport where everyone plays everyone. That would be called a World Championship.

 

[Howe_zat]

The problem with the current format, or any format with a stagnant massive-group-phase, is that you end up with all sorts of games that barely mean anything. This not only has the effect of losing interest in those games, but also makes the more memorable matches fade off into obscurity as they are drowned out by several predictable results in dull matches.

If you want to value consistency, fine. But that's not what event tournaments are about. You may as well make the no.1 ranked side champions and not bother with the tournament.

Every game should have as much riding on it as possible. That said, we can't have a straight knockout, partly because it wouldn't last long enough and party because a team going home after one match would be ridiculous. So a fair comprimise to me would be four groups of four, top two from each to progress to the knockouts.

 

[smash84]

1999 and 2003 formats were best!

awta

 

[Ausage]

You may as well make the no.1 ranked side champions and not bother with the tournament.

AWTA

Just on the frequency of matches, I quite like having no more than two per day. It reduces the possibility of conflict. Not to mention tv rights are where the money is these days, and they want to get the most out of the tournament. It's not changing any time soon.

 

[GIMH]

That's fair enough but it seems that most days have only had one

 

[Ausage]

That's fair enough but it seems that most days have only had one

The tv networks probably offered more money to have it turn out that way. On a weekday the early timeslot is a terrible viewing time for European viewers, and it's not great for Australian viewers either. On a weekend that changes, so they're probably reluctant to schedule too many early games for weekdays.

 

[GIMH]

Weekdays are just crap for Europeans full-stop, literally the whole game falls in working hours

 

[BeeGee]

1999 and 2003 formats were best!

The formats with the "Points Carried Forward" from the Group stages, were, quite frankly, ****ing ludicrous. The whole basis of that system is the assumption that if you beat a particular team in the group stage then it can be assumed that you would also beat that same team in the Super stages, so let's not bother playing that game and just give you the points now.
So a win in the Group stage actually counted as two wins (one win in the Group stage and one in the Super stage) if the team you beat also made the Super stage. Nuts.

 

[marc71178]

No, it still counted as one win, it just removed an extra load of games which would've made the concept of the better sides all facing all (which has been pretty much unanimously agreed as the bast format on here) too unwieldy to carry out.

 

[BeeGee]

No, it still counted as one win, it just removed an extra load of games which would've made the concept of the better sides all facing all (which has been pretty much unanimously agreed as the bast format on here) too unwieldy to carry out.

No, it counted as two wins. You got 2 points for it in the group stage and 2 points for it in the Super stage. That's 4 points, 2 wins worth of points.

If it only counted as one win, how did it remove an extra load of games? The way it removed those games is by counting one game twice instead of playing two games!!

 

[MattO]

I make two changes to the 2011 format. I play two games every day to compact it a bit more and the top team from each pool automatically advances to the semi final with the next two highest from each pool playing in semi final qualifiers. It only cuts off two games in the tournament and doesn't make it so drawn out and makes the pool games more worthwhile. Currently the top eight is ovbious with the Windies winning key games and England beating the Saffers plus Bangles beating Ireland. So all the games are meaningless til the lottery stages. The No.1 teams for each pool deserve an automatic place in the semi finals. Otherwise best format since 1999 and before that 1992.

Qualifying Finals
A2 v B3
B2 v A3

Semi Finals
A1 v Winner B2/A3
B1 v Winner A2/B3

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

If its 10 Nations Cricket World Cup: (GROUPS > SEMIS > FINAL = 15 Days)

Group A:
Australia
Sri Lanka
England
WCQs 2
WCQs 3

Group B:
India
South Africa
Pakistan
WCQs 1
WCQs 4

WCQs: (LEAGUE) (ODI STATUS)
1) New Zealand
2) W.Indies
3) B.Desh
4) I.Land
5) Div 1 W
6) Div 1 R.Up

Div 1: (ODI STATUS)
1) Zimbabwe
2) The Netherlands
3) Afghanistan
4) Canada
5) Div 2 W
6) Div 2 R.Up

Div 2:
1) Kenya
2) UAE
3) Namibia
4) Uganda
5) Div 3 W
6) Div 3 R.up

So on....

Why would NZ be in your WCQ League? They were ranked 5th ahead of England, Sri Lanka, and the West Indies when the groups for this WC were decided. And with the need for a qualifying tournament then rankings would need to be decided earlier, so NZ could have even been in the top 3. Please check facts.

kthxbye

 

[Shri]

My fav format:

4 groups - 3 teams in each group, then instead of the Super 6/8s, the knock out stage.

 

[ankitj]

The formats with the "Points Carried Forward" from the Group stages, were, quite frankly, ****ing ludicrous. The whole basis of that system is the assumption that if you beat a particular team in the group stage then it can be assumed that you would also beat that same team in the Super stages, so let's not bother playing that game and just give you the points now.
So a win in the Group stage actually counted as two wins (one win in the Group stage and one in the Super stage) if the team you beat also made the Super stage. Nuts.

No, it still counted as one win, it just removed an extra load of games which would've made the concept of the better sides all facing all (which has been pretty much unanimously agreed as the bast format on here) too unwieldy to carry out.

The problem I had with the carry over points was that the teams carried over only the points earned against the teams that made it to next stage. That certainly was ridiculous. In 99 for example, ZIM finished 3rd in its group, but because the two teams it beat - SA and Ind - it was ranked 1st or 2nd at the start of super six stage. So while ZIM could have made it to the semis with just one more win, India needed to win all 3! Complete nonsense. If there has to be carry over of points, all points against all oppositions should be carried over.