-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
2015 World Cup: 10 teams and no associates
- Thread starter Flem274*
- Start date
I think this present format should be continued. It is very well suited
1. Gives chances to 4 Associate.
2. Ensure that top teams play many matches and easily qualify for next round
3. Chances are there for some surprises.
Only draw back is
1. The choking after round 1 is just 1 match, Eg:- South Africa
1. Gives chances to 4 Associate.
2. Ensure that top teams play many matches and easily qualify for next round
3. Chances are there for some surprises.
Only draw back is
1. The choking after round 1 is just 1 match, Eg:- South Africa
Another format that I really advocate is a 15 nation WC.
First 3 groups of 5 each.
Top 2 teams from each group get into the next round to play a League again
Then SF
And FINAL
Under the present ranking a 15 nation World Cup would look like this
Group A:-Aus,Pak,NZ,Neth,Can
Group B:-Ind,Eng,WI,Zim,Ken
Group C:-SL,SA,BD,Ire,Afg
This would ensure that decent no of matches are played by each team, and group stages is not a pushover. 2 teams from each group will have a fight to grab those spots as NZ, WI, BD, Ire will fight to get those spots.
First 3 groups of 5 each.
Top 2 teams from each group get into the next round to play a League again
Then SF
And FINAL
Under the present ranking a 15 nation World Cup would look like this
Group A:-Aus,Pak,NZ,Neth,Can
Group B:-Ind,Eng,WI,Zim,Ken
Group C:-SL,SA,BD,Ire,Afg
This would ensure that decent no of matches are played by each team, and group stages is not a pushover. 2 teams from each group will have a fight to grab those spots as NZ, WI, BD, Ire will fight to get those spots.
_Ed_
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'm not sure why you've mentioned NZ here - remember we're co-hosting, so I really don't think we'll be one of the lesser teams.
Athlai
Not Terrible
This world cup was fine tbh. Keep it 14.
Only Canada and Kenya didn't show up and I bet Afghanistan will be playing as well as the Ducth and Irish are right now or even better come the next world cup.
Kenya, Scotland, Canada and co. can fight it out for the 14th spot rather than having one (or all if ithey don't change it) of Ireland, Netherlands and Afghanistan miss out.
Only Canada and Kenya didn't show up and I bet Afghanistan will be playing as well as the Ducth and Irish are right now or even better come the next world cup.
Kenya, Scotland, Canada and co. can fight it out for the 14th spot rather than having one (or all if ithey don't change it) of Ireland, Netherlands and Afghanistan miss out.
Dissector
International Debutant
I guess I can live with 12 teams though 14 teams is a flat-out terrible idea. Games where the likes of Canada and Kenya are continuously flogged don't belong in the world cup.
Quarter finals are a terrible idea though since they make the huge number of preliminary games largely irrelevant.
If you have to have 12 teams, I would chose the 1999 format : two groups of six with everyone playing each other. The top three in each group go to the super 6 carrying points against other qualifiers from their group. Then they play the teams from the other group and the top four qualify to the semis.
There would be a total of 42 games, 7 fewer than this one, but every game would be meaningful. Each team would get a minimum of five games compared to three in the 2007 world cup.
Quarter finals are a terrible idea though since they make the huge number of preliminary games largely irrelevant.
If you have to have 12 teams, I would chose the 1999 format : two groups of six with everyone playing each other. The top three in each group go to the super 6 carrying points against other qualifiers from their group. Then they play the teams from the other group and the top four qualify to the semis.
There would be a total of 42 games, 7 fewer than this one, but every game would be meaningful. Each team would get a minimum of five games compared to three in the 2007 world cup.
biased indian
International Coach
12 teams and the 99 format is the way to go....
but love the 92 format though.... 9 teams and every one play each other ..but then that will be very few teams for a world cup
but love the 92 format though.... 9 teams and every one play each other ..but then that will be very few teams for a world cup
KiWiNiNjA
International Coach
Goldfish have 4 second memories.
Howe_zat
Audio File
Nothing is certain except New Zealand doing better than England at a World Cup.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
I think this WC was decent in spite of, rather than because of, the format. Changing it is fine by me, not sure 12 teams is the answer though.
A lot of people were dead against quarter-finals but, without contradicting myself too much, they were a success, producing pressure games where we separated the men from the boys. India hadn't impressed me at all in the group stage but really stepped it up when the pressure was on and I'm a believer that that is what a tournament is all about.
I don't know what solution I would give - I don't mind the super six idea - England would have benefitted from such a format this time out on the basis that none of the quarter-finalists from our group beat us. But it also seems like you are just delaying South Africa's exit until the semis and denying a team who can actually win knockout matches a place in the last four
A lot of people were dead against quarter-finals but, without contradicting myself too much, they were a success, producing pressure games where we separated the men from the boys. India hadn't impressed me at all in the group stage but really stepped it up when the pressure was on and I'm a believer that that is what a tournament is all about.
I don't know what solution I would give - I don't mind the super six idea - England would have benefitted from such a format this time out on the basis that none of the quarter-finalists from our group beat us. But it also seems like you are just delaying South Africa's exit until the semis and denying a team who can actually win knockout matches a place in the last four
Howe_zat
Audio File
I think Corrin's right on the format hindering rather than helping for 2011, in the sense that this World Cup had some great matches but the format only served to nullify some of the best ones. England-Ireland, England-SA and Englad-India were brilliant but had almost nothing riding on them.
The quarter-finals worked quite well I think. Take India-Australia. India were on top from about 1/3 of the way through and never really looked like losing from then in, but the finish was still as tense as hell because it was a knockout.
We need to avoid massive group tables, either during the first or second stage, I don't think there should be more than four sdes to a group. Past that, I'm really not that fussed about the format.
But it should include the mnnows - not just because it's so hard to say which sides will be the competitive ones, but because it's meant to be the world cup. 12 teams isn't great but at least it's something.
The quarter-finals worked quite well I think. Take India-Australia. India were on top from about 1/3 of the way through and never really looked like losing from then in, but the finish was still as tense as hell because it was a knockout.
We need to avoid massive group tables, either during the first or second stage, I don't think there should be more than four sdes to a group. Past that, I'm really not that fussed about the format.
But it should include the mnnows - not just because it's so hard to say which sides will be the competitive ones, but because it's meant to be the world cup. 12 teams isn't great but at least it's something.
Last edited:
Borges
International Regular
Well, two is better than zero.
Other than the host (or hosts - Australia and New Zealand for 2015), why shouldn't every other nation be required to qualify for a World Cup? Surely, a sequence of qualifying games in which every nation participates would give excellent exposure to the associates.
Other than the host (or hosts - Australia and New Zealand for 2015), why shouldn't every other nation be required to qualify for a World Cup? Surely, a sequence of qualifying games in which every nation participates would give excellent exposure to the associates.
four_or_six
Cricketer Of The Year
Given the teams likely to play, 12 teams seems the most sensible number. I'm sure they can make a good format out of that - either the one we had this time with two leagues of six, or just that with semi's removed.
James
Cricket Web Owner
I agree with GIMH as well, but I would add to it that I think there should be two matches a day every-day. To me, it doesn't matter how many matches there are, but how long the tournament actually goes for.
The group stage in this World Cup went from 19th Feb to 20th March, but if you had 2 games every day, it would have ended a lot faster and keep the momentum going a lot better.
Keep 14 teams or even expand to 15-16 teams if the likes of Afg, etc continue to improve is the way I would go.
The group stage in this World Cup went from 19th Feb to 20th March, but if you had 2 games every day, it would have ended a lot faster and keep the momentum going a lot better.
Keep 14 teams or even expand to 15-16 teams if the likes of Afg, etc continue to improve is the way I would go.
Last edited:
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
That argument for quarters is flawed though because the same amount of "pressure matches" will still exist in a 92 format (where each time plays each other once and then goes into the semis). It just happens earlier, during the group stage where matches will eventually become "knock outs" without that actual name.I think this WC was decent in spite of, rather than because of, the format. Changing it is fine by me, not sure 12 teams is the answer though.
A lot of people were dead against quarter-finals but, without contradicting myself too much, they were a success, producing pressure games where we separated the men from the boys. India hadn't impressed me at all in the group stage but really stepped it up when the pressure was on and I'm a believer that that is what a tournament is all about.
I don't know what solution I would give - I don't mind the super six idea - England would have benefitted from such a format this time out on the basis that none of the quarter-finalists from our group beat us. But it also seems like you are just delaying South Africa's exit until the semis and denying a team who can actually win knockout matches a place in the last four
This way there are the same amount of "knockout/pressure" matches, however there are no meaningless matches (e.g. India vs. West Indies).
_Ed_
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Extremely disappointing news.