yes, that is because it was at a knockout stage ... that is what happens in a KO stage ! Now if you are saying there should be super six instead of elimination QF, I already agreed. Just that I'd prefer groupings to be - 2 groups of 6 instead of 3 groups of 4 ( in case of of a total of 12 teams )
-
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
Howe_zat
Audio File
I think it would. As I've said before, I'm not at all fussy about the format so long as it avoids having loads of teams per group, hence returning a load of matches you can "afford to lose" at the start and dead rubbers at the end.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Yes, we qualified despite losing to two minnows, which was silly and we never deserved those lives.
It's not like India's one off-day in 07, or Pakistan's, cost them outright. Both, IIRC, also lost to Sri Lanka/West Indies respectively. So if you wanted to compare to England in this tournament, then we made up for losing to the minnows by being the best of the 'non-minnows' in our group in purely non-minnow contests.
I don't actually think it was unfair that we went out when we did, far from it. I think any team who whinges about going out after losing fair and square needs to STFU.
I want tournaments where losing games matters. They are the tournaments that produce exciting cricket. Hence why I have enjoyed each and every T20 WC.
So you'd risk the possibility of minnows qualifying based on odd upsets and put up sh*t performances in the super six/eight stage ? ( ex: Ireland in WC 2007 and to a lesser extent Bangla ? ) ... If a minnow was really ready to compete at the top level in a WC, they should be able to prove it in a group where there are more teams ( > 4 ) to get to the business end of the tournament
Firstly, T-20 bridges the gap b/w the teams even more, so that's a different issue. @ bold part, because they had more chances to do so , more chances to recover . I don't agree that it was silly that England qualified at all ....
Read my reply to Howe_Zat as well .
Last edited:
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Tough ****.
IrishOpener
U19 Debutant
Yes this sounds fair, like GeraintIsMyHero said every game should matter. Having 2 groups of 6-7 teams would allow test nations to take a day or two off which goes against your "every match should be exciting" logic.
If minnows aren't allowed to partake in the WC against stronger competition, how can they make progress at the top level? If India weren't allowed to play in the 75 and 79 WC would they have won the 83 tournament since they only won 1 match in 6 games before 83. What about Sri Lanka excluded from all WC until 96 as they had only won 4 and lost 20 matches, would they have won 96?
The ICC got it right with the 10 team format. However the problem seems to lie with them not giving a fair chance for the likes of Ireland to go through a qualifying phase.
Bangladesh, Zim, WI and Three other associates should play a qualifying tourney ahead of the WC and three should go through. That is the wrong part.
This WC was boring with respect to Group A. Group B, The knockouts, England and India kept it exciting to an extent.
Bangladesh, Zim, WI and Three other associates should play a qualifying tourney ahead of the WC and three should go through. That is the wrong part.
This WC was boring with respect to Group A. Group B, The knockouts, England and India kept it exciting to an extent.
Howe_zat
Audio File
Fair enough, Neil. Cleaner version:
ICC Changes Name to Invitational Cricket Council | Cricket News | ESPN Cricinfo
ICC Changes Name to Invitational Cricket Council | Cricket News | ESPN Cricinfo
Last edited:
Furball
Evil Scotsman
So in other words the majority of games produced good, exciting cricket? Surely that's what you want from the premier limited overs event? Have we forgotten how utterly dire the 2007 version was?
I really don't get why the format needs changed. Yes, there's a lot of meaningless group games, but how else do you propose the associates improve unless they get more games against top opposition?
Super 6s/8s are a ****ing dire thing to have in a tournament, because it pretty much removes any pressure from the vast majority of games. Let's look at India in this tournament - they were unconvincing in the group stages, and they ought to have won the two games they failed to win comfortably, and chucked both games away. However, they were more than worthy winners, because they won the games that mattered. A comfortable quarter final chase against Australia, who have been there and done that when it comes to winning pressure games in tournaments. A semi final win against a Pakistan side that looked to me to be the tournament dark horses, and a comfortable chase against a Sri Lanka side who had set a stiff target and reduced India to 31/2. In pressure situations, when it mattered most, the Indian side stepped up to the plate on 3 occasions. Go back to a farcical round robin system and you get a boring tournament.
Jacknife
International Captain
I haven't got the full picture why they've chosen this format, except for making it shorter, but I do wonder, if it is anything to do with the amount of viewers, around the world that were watching the Associate games, especially when they played each other and even when they played one of the Test nations. Like many have said the ICC seems to run the game purely as a business entity, rather than whats best for the game and it may have come down to revenue streams, why they limited the WC to 10 teams. Which if it is the reason, is sad state of affairs for the governing body.
Personally, I think it would of been a excellent idea, to have something like home and away qualifying games for the Associates, in the lead up to the WC. It could be played, a year or two before the event and the best two qualify, like a competition within a competition. This would give the respective teams, something to plan for and give the players something to aim for, otherwise it gives a rather barren landscape, over the next few years for players both present and up and coming.
Personally, I think it would of been a excellent idea, to have something like home and away qualifying games for the Associates, in the lead up to the WC. It could be played, a year or two before the event and the best two qualify, like a competition within a competition. This would give the respective teams, something to plan for and give the players something to aim for, otherwise it gives a rather barren landscape, over the next few years for players both present and up and coming.
Howe_zat
Audio File
The proposed format has one fewer match. One.
They're doing it solely for the money, they just won't admit it.
So why have a group games at all? Just pick a hat and draw the QF lineups and get it over with.
The 2007 Version was dire because of the presence of Bangladesh and Ireland in place of Pakistan and India.
The best format I would still have is 12 teams with two groups each and top 4 go to a Super 8's and SF. It would be a total of 49 games and that is what we had this WC.
Last edited:
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Because the lesser nations have earned the right to be on the big stage.
Ireland beating Pakistan in 2007 was a huge shot in the arm for Irish cricket and IMO it's no coincidence that they've gone on to dominate the Associate scene since (and as a Scot, I'm pretty bitter about that, given that Scotland actually won the qualifying tournament for 2007 and were "rewarded" for our success by being put in a group with Australia and South Africa, whereas Ireland arguably reaped a huge benefit by losing the final to us). The associates need the exposure that playing in the premier event in world cricket gives them. The format used in this WC was perfect for that - it gives the associates 6 games in a relatively short space of time. It's a World Cup, not a Champions Trophy. It's bull**** to claim to be expanding the game yet at the same time denying minnow nations their place at the top table.
It's completely unfair to blame Ireland and Bangladesh for the last tournament being crap. With the exception of the England-West Indies game, I don't recall one Super 8 game being a remotely close, interesting contest (and no, while South Africa v Sri Lanka had a fantastic finish, it wasn't a close contest until Malinga started performing miracles.) The West Indies got slaughtered by all and sundry and Australia absolutely battered everyone that got in their way.
Super 8s is a **** format and it utterly baffles me as to why so many people support it.
juro
U19 12th Man
I wasn't having a go at Sachin. What he has said is wonderful. It is just that the bloody ICC have denied many aspiring cricketers the chance to achieve their dreams!and how are sachin's tweets even remotely relevant to the thread , which is about 2015 WC ?
_Ed_
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Intriguing.
juro
U19 12th Man
My preferred format is a 16 team world cup.
First round: 4 pools of 4 with top 2 of each pool progressing = 24 games
Second round: 2 pools of 4 with top 2 progressing = 12 games
Semi finals: 2 games
Final : 1 game
This is a total of 39 games. Since the pools are small, results of individual games are very important, and each round doesn't drag on for weeks and weeks. If there were no upsets, teams 9-16 play 3 games, teams 5-8 play 6 games, teams 3-4 play 7 games and teams 1-2 play 8 games.
If a weaker team flukes into the second round, they win the right to another 3 games. This is much better than going into a larger pool such as super 6 or 8. They need to keep the balance right throughout the tournament.
If top teams get knocked out in the first round (ie they are not good enough to beat the weaker teams), too bad! This is sport we are talking about. You need to perform on the day to stay alive!
First round: 4 pools of 4 with top 2 of each pool progressing = 24 games
Second round: 2 pools of 4 with top 2 progressing = 12 games
Semi finals: 2 games
Final : 1 game
This is a total of 39 games. Since the pools are small, results of individual games are very important, and each round doesn't drag on for weeks and weeks. If there were no upsets, teams 9-16 play 3 games, teams 5-8 play 6 games, teams 3-4 play 7 games and teams 1-2 play 8 games.
If a weaker team flukes into the second round, they win the right to another 3 games. This is much better than going into a larger pool such as super 6 or 8. They need to keep the balance right throughout the tournament.
If top teams get knocked out in the first round (ie they are not good enough to beat the weaker teams), too bad! This is sport we are talking about. You need to perform on the day to stay alive!
slugger
State Vice-Captain
i like it.