OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
What happened?
-
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 compared to other World Cups
- Thread starter CricAddict
- Start date
Spark
Global Moderator
post above m8
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
The super sixes was the best format, IMO.
- reduced the impact of a single game; let's face it sometimes cricket can be a bit too much of a lottery. Find the 4 best teams rather than the 8 best, and go from there, IMO.
- At the same time, increased the value of each match due to the fact that points were carried over
- 6 teams meant that 2 of the better sides would be knocked out, which made things more interesting.
- reduced the impact of a single game; let's face it sometimes cricket can be a bit too much of a lottery. Find the 4 best teams rather than the 8 best, and go from there, IMO.
- At the same time, increased the value of each match due to the fact that points were carried over
- 6 teams meant that 2 of the better sides would be knocked out, which made things more interesting.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Three actually, as Zimbabwe were quite capable of beating good sides on their day when the Super Sixes were a thing. So much so that they actually qualified for them in practice; not just in theory.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Less Shoaib Malik though.
Xuhaib
International Coach
yeah this still can't understand why ICC got rid off it.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
Oh I can understand it...
They don't want to risk India being knocked out early - there goes 1.2 billion in spectators.
G.I.Joe
International Coach
DWTA. The stupid carry over system where you only carried over points from matches against fellow qualifiers made it even more of a lottery. It devalued the standings from the group stage when Zimbabwe went into the super six with more points than the table toppers South Africa.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
The 2015 format sucks but I don't see any reason to think the teams aren't good. There aren't that many presiding "legends" of the game playing their last or even second last WC. Maybe like Dhoni, Clarke, Sangakkara, maybe Steyn... but for the most part it's a transitional time in international cricket. That's not a bad thing though, would definitely make for a better tournament than the 1992 model where a lot of the "stars" are past their best or the 2007 one where there's one completely dominant, unstoppable team.
Besides I actually think the raw quality of some of the teams is pretty high. Australia's team is better than 2011 for sure, would say the same about SA and NZ too.
Main problem with the 2015 format is there's just too many games before people can get eliminated. I'm pro-minnows in the WC but there needs to be two group stages or something. Some smaller groups (6 groups of 3 maybe, or 4 groups of 4) feeding into a smaller league format, basically like the 1999 version but with more teams involved in total. Or failing that, just groups into QFs. Like 90% of the games in this WC will have no impact on who actually wins.
Besides I actually think the raw quality of some of the teams is pretty high. Australia's team is better than 2011 for sure, would say the same about SA and NZ too.
Main problem with the 2015 format is there's just too many games before people can get eliminated. I'm pro-minnows in the WC but there needs to be two group stages or something. Some smaller groups (6 groups of 3 maybe, or 4 groups of 4) feeding into a smaller league format, basically like the 1999 version but with more teams involved in total. Or failing that, just groups into QFs. Like 90% of the games in this WC will have no impact on who actually wins.
Last edited:
smash84
The Tiger King
how did carrying over the points against only the fellow qualifiers make it even more of a lottery?
G.I.Joe
International Coach
Because being group topper is no guarantee of entering the super six stage with an advantage over your fellow qualifiers.
smash84
The Tiger King
Yeah but the chances are good that you might carry over some points. In a QF knockout round it doesn't really matter what you did in the previous round. Once you are in the knockout round previous matches don't matter one iota.
So no, super 6s don't make it even more of a lottery
G.I.Joe
International Coach
They do. The group rankings can be made an absolute mockery of with super six carry over points system. Quarterfinals pay heed to the group rankings by pairing up stronger teams with weaker ones. If Aus or SL want to avoid a rampaging AB in the QF, they had better make sure they end up at the top of their group. That's incentive. (jk, lol. As if SA aren't going to choke again).
The obvious solution, if super sixes are preferred, is to advance the qualifying teams with points that reflect their standing at the end of the group stage. The carry over points system reeks of an
Last edited:
smash84
The Tiger King
This sounds like an the BCCI argument on why they don't choose the DRS
