2015 World Cup: 10 teams and no associates

[abmk]

IMO, it should be 12 teams in the next WC, 6 teams each in two groups.

5 matches for each team in the league stage, so that makes it 30 matches in the league stage

best 6 teams qualify for the next round, play each other ... that makes it 15 matches in the super six stage

then the semis and the finals - 3 matches

total of 48

......

this WC had 42 ( league stage) + 4 QFs+2 SFs+1 final = 49 matches ...

So not much of a difference in the no of games ...

 

[turnstyle]

when I say I don't follow football much , is it too much to expect to not bring in football in reply ?

@ bold part: but how many losses ? If the minnows are really good enough, they should be able to beat the the other teams consistently to make it to the next stage, just one odd upset shouldn't be enough

Do you know how many times teh associates played full members between 2007 and 2011? It's only in the past 12 months they've been put on full time contracts thanks to being able to assure sponsors such as RSA of exposure during the WC. How on earth are they going to beat India 5 times out of ten when they only play amongst themselves .

Give them 4 years on contracts and see where they are then. A great example of putting these blokes on full time contracts paying off is the turn around of John Mooney. I wouldn't have even selected him in the 15 before the world cup.

 

[Howe_zat]

@abmk:

Yeah, I watch World Cups for the dead rubbers too. Dunno what it would be like without them.

 

[abmk]

Do you know how many times teh associates played full members between 2007 and 2011? It's only in the past 12 months they've been put on full time contracts thanks to being able to assure sponsors such as RSA of exposure during the WC. How on earth are they going to beat India 5 times out of ten when they only play amongst themselves .

Give them 4 years on contracts and see where they are then. A great example of putting these blokes on full time contracts paying off is the turn around of John Mooney. I wouldn't have even selected him in the 15 before the world cup.

that is a somewhat, though not entirely different issue. Yes,associate nations should get more exposure, but that should be through say bilateral series /tri-series b/w them and the other nations . Just one upset shouldn't be enough for them to go through to the next round in a WC ....They will grab the attention , if they do decently, even if they don't qualify for the next round. See Ireland at this year's WC for example

 

[abmk]

@ambk:

Yeah, I watch World Cups for the dead rubbers too. Dunno what it would be like without them.

sorry, I didn't get what exactly you meant. Can you elaborate ?

 

[Spikey]

i'm not sure how anyone can defend this tbh.

 

[Howe_zat]

sorry, I didn't get what exactly you meant. Can you elaborate ?

What I'm trying to say is that part of what makes World Cups special is that every game is suppose to matter, every game has meaning because every game has something really important riding on it. Massive group tables just diminish the overall weight behind each match by having more matches equal the same reward.

What's more, they lead to inevitable matches towards the end of the group stage where almost nothing is riding on them. Suddenly you've got a World Cup match that means no more than a practise match, or the back end of one of those rubbish 7-match series.

It's not the point of a World Cup to reward "consistency". If it were we'd just call the no.1 ranked side the champions and not bother. It's the point of a World Cup to be special.

 

[abmk]

i'm not sure how anyone can defend this tbh.

that refers to 10 teams in the next WC news or my criticism of the grouping in WC 2007 or the format I suggested for the next WC ?

 

[abmk]

What I'm trying to say is that part of what makes World Cups special is that every game is suppose to matter, every game has meaning because every game has something really important riding on it. Massive group tables just diminish the overall weight behind each match by having more matches equal the same reward.

What's more, they lead to inevitable matches towards the end of the group stage where almost nothing is riding on them. Suddenly you've got a World Cup match that means no more than a practise match, or the back end of one of those rubbish 7-match series.

It's not the point of a World Cup to reward "consistency". If it were we'd just call the no.1 ranked side the champions and not bother. It's the point of a World Cup to be special.

Well isn't that why I suggested it should be 12 teams for the next WC, not 14 like it was in this year's WC ?

Yes, point of the WC is to have the nations battle it out for the ultimate prize, but there should be a build-up for the showdowns in the end b/w the best teams in the WC

There should be a balance in awarding consistency and performance in key matches.

 

[Borges]

England try to gag Irish fury over exclusion

Not content with voting to bar Ireland from the 2015 World Cup, the England cricket authorities yesterday attempted to gag Irish players from talking about their shameful decision.
...
Free speech is not something the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) encourages and Ireland's county-contracted players were all warned by email yesterday against making any further comments.

Cricket: England try to gag Irish fury over exclusion - Other Sports, Sport - Independent.ie

Shame, shame!

 

[quytst0rm]

so that the best teams - allowing for a 'slow start' - can finally face off for the ultimate prize , that is the WC trophy. Just having a league won't have the same excitement

Yet you don't want a super 6 format because if a minnow beats a test team, even though thats an upset and exciting result, its not exciting for the supporter of that test team because they "deserved" to qualify.

If the minnows are really good enough, they should be able to beat the the other teams consistently to make it to the next stage, just one odd upset shouldn't be enough

If the test teams are really good enough, they should be able to beat the the other teams consistently to make it to the next stage, just one odd upset shouldn't be enough to stop them from qualifying to the next round.

Hypocrisy much?

 

[abmk]

Yet you don't want a super 6 format because if a minnow beats a test team, even though thats an upset and exciting result, its not exciting for the supporter of that test team because they "deserved" to qualify.

Oh god, can you even READ ?????? Bolded for you ......What I posted in the previous page

IMO, it should be 12 teams in the next WC, 6 teams each in two groups.

5 matches for each team in the league stage, so that makes it 30 matches in the league stage

best 6 teams qualify for the next round, play each other ... that makes it 15 matches in the super six stage

then the semis and the finals - 3 matches

total of 48

......

this WC had 42 ( league stage) + 4 QFs+2 SFs+1 final = 49 matches ...

So not much of a difference in the no of games ...

If the test teams are really good enough, they should be able to beat the the other teams consistently to make it to the next stage, just one odd upset shouldn't be enough to stop them from qualifying to the next round.

Hypocrisy much?

oh jeez, I didn't have a problem with the super 6, just with the way the groups were organised in WC 2007 ( that happened because there were 16 teams !!! ). There can't be a test of consistency with just 3 matches ( as it was in the group stage in 2007 ) .

 

[Borges]

I didn't have a problem with the super 6, just with the way the groups were organised in WC 2007 ( that happened because there were 16 teams !!! ). There can't be a test of consistency with just 3 matches ( as it was in the group stage in 2007 ) .

A World title is not a test of consistency. Spain or Brazil could have been knocked out of the FIFA world cup based on just three preliminary games. Usain Bolt could have out of the Olympic 100 metres on the basis of a single poor run.

The reward for consistency is the world ranking. Not an Olympic gold medal, not the World Cup.

Australia still are world number one in ODI rankings; they have been the most consistent ODI team. But India won the World Cup - totally unfairly, I might add. Oh! why are you people forgetting consistency? The WC should really have been presented to Australia.

 

[quytst0rm]

oh jeez, I didn't have a problem with the super 6, just with the way the groups were organised in WC 2007 ( that happened because there were 16 teams !!! ). There can't be a test of consistency with just 3 matches ( as it was in the group stage in 2007 ) .

To be fair there should be 4 groups of 3 or 4 depending on the number of teams and the top 2 should qualify for super 8 --> semis --> finals

If a test team loses to a minnow in the group stage and doesn't qualify, then thats how it should be. The minnows shouldn't be penalized because the test team had no momentum/consistency etc in the 2-3 group matches, after all the same can be said for the minnows yet if they beat a team they won plain and simple. No one makes any excuses for the minnows when they lose and they play a good team every 4 years. Also if the minnows are excluded because they dilute the tournament due to constant trashing then they should be beaten easily by the test play nations right?

 

[abmk]

A World title is not a test of consistency. Spain or Brazil could have been knocked out of the FIFA world cup based on just three preliminary games. Usain Bolt could have out of the Olympic 100 metres on the basis of a single poor run.

The reward for consistency is the world ranking. Not an Olympic gold medal, not the World Cup.

Australia still are world number one in ODI rankings; they have been the most consistent ODI team. But India won the World Cup - totally unfairly, I might add. Oh! why are you people forgetting consistency? The WC should really have been presented to Australia.

totally unfairly ? really ? And for heaven's sake , why don't people read properly before replying ?

Yes, point of the WC is to have the nations battle it out for the ultimate prize, but there should be a build-up for the showdowns in the end b/w the best teams in the WC

There should be a balance in awarding consistency and performance in key matches.

 

[abmk]

To be fair there should be 4 groups of 3 or 4 depending on the number of teams and the top 2 should qualify for super 8 --> semis --> finals

If a test team loses to a minnow in the group stage and doesn't qualify, then thats how it should be. The minnows shouldn't be penalized because the test team had no momentum/consistency etc in the 2-3 group matches, after all the same can be said for the minnows yet if they beat a team they won plain and simple. No one makes any excuses for the minnows when they lose and they play a good team every 4 years. Also if the minnows are excluded because they dilute the tournament due to constant trashing then they should be beaten easily by the test play nations right?

because upsets are possible in 50-50 cricket. Problem is minnows can't keep up the level consistently ( well for most part ) .

We want teams who can compete real well in the next stage of the WC to qualify , not a team that had an upset in the league stage ( & beat a lesser minnow ) , but can't keep up the level in the Super Six or Super Eight stage and keep getting thrashed in that stage

If a minnow can keep up a high level in the league stage, they should be able to qualify for the next stage ( in the format -> 12 teams, 6 teams in each group )

@ bold part, I really hope you meant 3 or 4 groups of 4 teams each !

 

[GIMH]

or maybe just maybe, it was because the format ( to be more precise the way groups were made ) in WC 2007 ( unlike in WC 1999 and WC 2003 ) was not proper ? One bad game against a minnow and you could be out of the tourney

What a load of total and utter bollocks.

How about the fact that England only had one bad game against any non-minnow which resulted in our removal from the tournament? Was that not proper either.

An initial group stage of three games is standard in many sporting competitions. And you can generally afford one loss in three games, just not two. You lose two out of three games, you deserve to go out.

It's how the tournament was booked later that was the problem, not the first round.

 

[GIMH]

BTW, does anyone think the format used for the T20 WC would work? Maybe with 16 teams a la 07 instead of 12 but the same from there?

 

[abmk]

What a load of total and utter bollocks.

How about the fact that England only had one bad game against any non-minnow which resulted in our removal from the tournament? Was that not proper either.

An initial group stage of three games is standard in many sporting competitions. And you can generally afford one loss in three games, just not two. You lose two out of three games, you deserve to go out.

Didn't England qualify for the next stage despite messing it up against Ireland and bangladesh !?

So we are equating a loss to a minnow ( and say another test nation ) , resulting in team getting knocked out in the early stages of a tournament ( playing just 3 games ) to getting knocked out in the later stages of the tournament in a KO match (playing 7 matches ) ? really ? Now that is BS !

@ bold part, we are talking mainly about cricket here, lets keep other sports out of it ...Was that format used in any world cup before ? What gives you the idea it would be successful ? It backfired in 2007, with India and Pak going out early + neither of Bangla or Ireland performing decently in the next stage

 

[Daemon]

Didn't England qualify for the next stage despite messing it up against Ireland and bangladesh !?

So we are equating a loss to a minnow ( and say another test nation ) , resulting in team getting knocked out in the early stages of a tournament ( playing just 3 games ) to getting knocked out in the later stages of the tournament in a KO match (playing 7 matches ) ? really ? Now that is BS !

@ bold part, we are talking mainly about cricket here, was that format used in any world cup before ? was it ?

Think he was saying they lost to only one non-minnow team, and that happened to be the match that they got knocked out in.