Chances of a 12 team tournament in 2019?

[Howe_zat]

128 teams, 7 rounds of knockout

It works for Wimbledon it'll work here.

 

[Viscount Tom]

If its only going to be 10 teams or whatever at least make it so all the teams have to qualify to take part, might actually give some context to the endless one day series that just seem meaningless atm; it'd also give the Associates some more games and help them too.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Football games do not overlap when played on the same day. ODIs do.

 

[Pratters]

128 teams, 7 rounds of knockout

It works for Wimbledon it'll work here.

Football games do not overlap when played on the same day. ODIs do.

These are not acceptable responses. The solution required is a 30 day tournament as a 45 day one is bull **** way to just try to squeeze as much money out of the suckers that fans are. If FIFA had a 2 month tournament, they would make more money too, but they don't do that. Bloody cricket administrators.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

What I don't understand is that, when football can have a tournament in a month with 32 teams, so can other sports, why cricket has to want a 45 or so day tournament with just 12-14 teams. Have 2 games a day, or 3, or reorganise the groups to have less total games. Having so many games over such a long time is just taking very boring and tiresome.

I'm not sure why this needs to be pointed out, but football takes less than two hours to play. Cricket takes a whole day.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Are you the only one

But seriously. How would you like a 125 day tournament?

Not sure about 125 days haha. Perhaps for a Test CWC?

 

[GotSpin]

Pratters conveníantly ignoring all these comments on previous threads about this.

Id schedule two ODIs per day except for the heavy weight clashes that really deserve their own day. Solves all the problems really.

 

[Pratters]

I'm not sure why this needs to be pointed out, but football takes less than two hours to play. Cricket takes a whole day.

But that's still one game a day for a given team, same as football. So this argument doesn't hold good for me. Grandslams have more than one match at a time in the first half of their tournament. I like GotSpin's idea of having at least two games on more days.

 

[marc71178]

These are not acceptable responses.

No, they are. It's you refusing to see sense.

 

[Sarun]

FIFA WC usually got 3 games per day. Not financially smart to have 3 games in ICC WC atm. Two games per day is possible depending on broadcasters and via manipulating game start times.

 

[Pratters]

No, they are. It's you refusing to see sense.

Or maybe it is you who is refusing to see sense.

 

[Athlai]

You can't equate how a two hour game tournament is run to cricket. Two games a day should be happening more often but anything more than that would be a farce.

 

[marc71178]

Lots of people saying something suggests that maybe there's some truth in what they're saying?

 

[Pratters]

Wimbledon in the first week has multiple games each day. Having more games per day would also solve the broadcaster's needs to make a million bucks out of every game and the issue with minnows being 'non marketeable', as it's put.

While one has a Federer playing, one can also have two lesser ranked players play in round 2 of Wimbledon. A tighter shorter tournament basically gives more space to have minnows in it.

If 3 games is too tight maybe 2 per day could possibly shorten the tournament to a month.

6 teams in a group and each team having 5 games ensures the groups are over in 16 or so days and then we can have the knock outs in the last two weeks.

 

[Bahnz]

They're moving to a 10-team league format because the ICC wants a tournament that pretty much guarantees India 9 matches. So if you want to change the format then realistically you have to keep this in mind. I guess one possible option that could do this but still involve the associates would be a tournament with two pools of 6, where the top 4 from each pool go through to a Super 8 stage, followed by semi's and a final. That would result in almost exactly the same number of games (49 vs 48), but still give the associates a sniff.

 

[Pratters]

Lots of people saying something suggests that maybe there's some truth in what they're saying?

People have mentioned they would like the tournament shorter too. So which side is acceptable really depends on which side you are on.

 

[marc71178]

5 games in 15 days Is too tight a schedule by far.

 

[Athlai]

...how would it help the broadcasters at all? Cricket has approximately 10 viewing markets and only a couple that are actually worth money. The more games, the more you spread the eyeballs over the same time slot.

 

[Pratters]

They're moving to a 10-team league format because the ICC wants a tournament that pretty much guarantees India 9 matches. So if you want to change the format then realistically you have to keep this in mind. I guess one possible option that could do this but still involve the associates would be a tournament with two pools of 6, where the top 4 from each pool go through to a Super 8 stage, followed by semi's and a final. That would result in almost exactly the same number of games (49 vs 48), but still give the associates a sniff.

India just screws it up trying to make too much money. Wanting 9 high paying games in a world cup for sure is obviously going to screw up with things, whether it is minnows being there or the length of the tournament. They just look at it as a goose laying eggs and have no interest in the game. Hate these administrators.

 

[Teja.]

Pratters, ffs, do you not like watching more of each game?

Don't get the whinging about a 45 day cup at all. It's the only time ever where the beautiful format of ODI cricket is actually relevant every game. I'd like to see as many games with as little overlap as possible.

Don't give a **** if greedy broadcasters are making money from it.