Chances of a 12 team tournament in 2019?

[Sarun]

I believe 2015 format was changed to 14 (like in 2011) from 10 (like as planned for 2019) during or right after the tournament. What are the chances (due to momentum of Associates putting some neat performances) of 10 team tournament being changed to a 12 team tournament?

They could do hosts (England) + 8 best of the remaining ODI status countries. That still leaves 3 spots for others.

P.S.: Not sure whether this should be in World Cup subforum or Cricket Chat subforum.

 

[GotSpin]

Dont know what the chances of a change are but the associates are doing all the right moves while being assisted from full member nations who are struggling themselves to make a contest of their matches

 

[Furball]

I'll say it again, how the associates are being treated is an absolute disgrace.

The most uncompetitive matches have been between Test nations. We need some sort of proper 2nd tier structure to give associates more games because we've been dancing round them improving for a while now.

Of course, that wouldn't suit **** **** boards like Bangladesh and the West Indies who'd lose their slice of their ill deserved pie.

Never mind 12 teams, the next event should be expanded to 16.

 

[andmark]

It really does sum up the ICC doesn't it? They try for tournament after tournament to find the right structure, they find one which is great and they abandon it for the next tournament before this one even started.

 

[Prince EWS]

It's moments like this that make me think back to the days of Richard posting about the ICC trying to create the illusion of cricket being strong in more countries than it actually is. I wonder whether he'd be engaging in revisionism over those comments now or still frustratingly sticking by them now that it seems like the complete opposite is true.

 

[Howe_zat]

It's moments like this that make me think back to the days of Richard posting about the ICC trying to create the illusion of cricket being strong in more countries than it actually is. I wonder whether he'd be engaging in revisionism over those comments now or still frustratingly sticking by them now that it seems like the complete opposite is true.

What do you mean by 'strong' here? If it's watched and respected by a substantial portion of the populace, then it's more like cricket's just not particularly strong anywhere outside Asia. If I asked 100 people on the street here if they'd even seen a whole cricket match before, I'd be surprised if more than 10 people said yes.

Dominating the headlines and sports fields just doesn't seem to be what cricket is about, really.

 

[Prince EWS]

What do you mean by 'strong' here? If it's watched and respected by a substantial portion of the populace, then it's more like cricket's just not particularly strong anywhere outside Asia. If I asked 100 people on the street here if they'd even seen a whole cricket match before, I'd be surprised if more than 10 people said yes.

Dominating the headlines and sports fields just doesn't seem to be what cricket is about, really.

Strong as in 'have developed a competitive international cricket team'. Richard never would have argued for example that cricket wasn't strong in England which is what you're implying; he'd just argue that cricket basically didn't exist outside the full members and the ICC were trying to create teams out of thin air in order to create the illusion of growing the game.

 

[Furball]

Yeah but Richard was a ****wit.

 

[honestbharani]

I wont mind them bringing back the 12 team Cup and super 6 stage instead of the quarters.. But at the end of the day, we have the Champions Trophy where the top 8 lock heads in a short and swift tournament.. the WC should really be a world event.. I think the format right now is the best.. Of course, if the associates don do well it can seem like the tournament is going on forever too... It is hard to figure out the exact balance but I would rather see them err on the side of having more associates than less..

 

[James]

I'd agree with Furball in going to 16 teams, but have 2 matches every-day instead of with this tournament, you mostly just have 1 match per day. The event would probably last the same amount of days as it currently does if you did that.

Having never watched teams like Afghanistan play before, I've been really enjoying the minnow games. Would be a pretty silly decision for the ICC to stick to their original plan now.

 

[Furball]

I actually quite like the 14 team format as it gives the associates a lot of games. I'd maybe tweak it by having the group winners qualify directly for the semi finals and 2nd and 3rd play quarters to give the group games a bit more meaning but I think this is close to the best format.

 

[Sarun]

It seems from administrators and broadcasters' perspectives, they could be looking for a tournament with at least around 45 or more games with major (?) nations getting at least 5 or 6 games minimum.

 

[Howe_zat]

I actually quite like the 14 team format as it gives the associates a lot of games. I'd maybe tweak it by having the group winners qualify directly for the semi finals and 2nd and 3rd play quarters to give the group games a bit more meaning but I think this is close to the best format.

Good shout, like that.

 

[morgieb]

It's moments like this that make me think back to the days of Richard posting about the ICC trying to create the illusion of cricket being strong in more countries than it actually is. I wonder whether he'd be engaging in revisionism over those comments now or still frustratingly sticking by them now that it seems like the complete opposite is true.

Hint: It's Richard.

 

[Prince EWS]

I actually quite like the 14 team format as it gives the associates a lot of games. I'd maybe tweak it by having the group winners qualify directly for the semi finals and 2nd and 3rd play quarters to give the group games a bit more meaning but I think this is close to the best format.

Yeah I was thinking that yesterday actually. A nice compromise between what we have now and the "four groups of four, only the group winners qualify for the next round" format I keep advocating.

 

[cnerd123]

I like 4 groups of 4, with top 2 from each proceeding to quarter finals.

 

[Furball]

Yeah I was thinking that yesterday actually. A nice compromise between what we have now and the "four groups of four, only the group winners qualify for the next round" format I keep advocating.

Yeah as much as I think we should be going to at least 16 teams, this format has a lot going for it because the one thing the associates need is more games against the big boys, and this format delivers that. Groups of 8 might just be overkill, 3 games in a 4 groups of 4 (or 4 games in a group of 5) doesn't feel like enough.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I feel like the key part of the success of associates in this world cup isn't just that they're there; it's that they're actually consistently playing against each other. Previous world cups using the 4 groups of 4 structure resulted in each group having one or two associates who would unsurprisingly go home winless. This time around the two-group structure actually means every single team has a realistic chance of going home with a win. It's absolutely huge for morale and excitement having these new guys getting some points on the board in front of massive viewership.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I like 4 groups of 4, with top 2 from each proceeding to quarter finals.

The problem with that structure is that we get very few minnow vs minnow games, which have been without a doubt the highlight so far.

 

[Pratters]

I like a 12 team tournament. Two groups of 6 each, with the top 8 going to the quarters. Have 3 games a day and finish it off in half the time, ffs.