The disappointment of the 2019 Cricket World Cup being a 10 team World Cup

[Jack1]

Watching the football World Cup and the sheer competitiveness of it is a stark reminder that expanding the World Cup would only be good for cricket, not bad for it. International football is more competitive than ever and has announced it is expanding to 48 teams for the 2026 World Cup. In my opinion this is justified with the competitiveness of the teams in the 2018 Fifa World Cup.

Looking at the competitiveness of the 2018 Cricket World Cup Qualifier in my view the 2019 Cricket World Cup should in fact be 16 teams, not 10. The sheer competitiveness in the qualifiers, along with England beating Australia 5-0 after a loss to Scotland at the Grange highlights without a doubt that 10 teams is not enough. The lack of underdog games is taking away from the magic of the competition.

For me the Cricket World Cup format would be as follows:

All test playing nations get Automatic qualification. To not have 2 of the test playing nations in the World Cup is ludicrous in my view. The 12 test status nations automatically qualify

4 more teams have the chance to qualify to complete the 16 team World Cup.

I would then like 4 groups of 4. Each team plays each other once. Then a quarter finals stage, semi finals, final.

10 teams is simply not good enough from the ICC and in my opinion this sort of attitude is killing cricket's popularity worldwide.

Please vote in poll your opinion.

 

[ankitj]

We now have 12 test playing nations. So we should have minimum 12 teams in world cup.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah having 12 Test nations and only a 10 team World Cup makes no sense.

Should be at least 16 IMO

 

[jimmy101]

The WCQ was an incredible tournament though. Definitely needs a higher profile.

 

[Starfighter]

Wait, one person voted for eig... oh, hi Gnske!

 

[vcs]

I'm all for more inclusivity in the World Cup, but the comparison to football doesn't really work.

Football is a low-scoring game that always gives the underdog a decent chance if they can defend well, England vs. Panama scorelines are rare. In cricket, you are much more likely to see 200 run/10 wicket wins in a lopsided encounter.

 

[trundler]

I'm all for more inclusivity in the World Cup, but the comparison to football doesn't really work.

Football is a low-scoring game that always gives the underdog a decent chance if they can defend well, England vs. Panama scorelines are rare. In cricket, you are much more likely to see 200 run/10 wicket wins in a lopsided encounter.

Aside from the fact that football is an inferior sport and doesn't merit comparison with cricket.

 

[Borges]

My idea of a good World cup is a thirty two team straight knock out tournament with random draws. I've voted for 20+

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I'm all for more inclusivity in the World Cup, but the comparison to football doesn't really work.

Football is a low-scoring game that always gives the underdog a decent chance if they can defend well, England vs. Panama scorelines are rare. In cricket, you are much more likely to see 200 run/10 wicket wins in a lopsided encounter.

3rd ODI (D/N), Australia tour of England at Nottingham, Jun 19 2018 | Match Summary | ESPNCricinfo

Yeah - we possibly need a top 5 pool billateral champions for ODI in between World Cups.

 

[cnerd123]

I'm all for more inclusivity in the World Cup, but the comparison to football doesn't really work.

Football is a low-scoring game that always gives the underdog a decent chance if they can defend well, England vs. Panama scorelines are rare. In cricket, you are much more likely to see 200 run/10 wicket wins in a lopsided encounter.

Actually if you study the margins of victory/defeat between Associates and Full Members they show the same spread as they do when comparing Full Members Vs Full Members in the past 5 years or so. This 'mismatch theory' doesn't hold up and Associates have actually won more ODIs than most people think (something like a 40% win rate against Full Members)

Of course this doesn't mean Germany or Israel should be playing the next World Cup, but if you could do a decent 20+ team World Cup quite comfortably I feel. Just take all the teams from the WCQ and make them a part of the main tournament - maybe just have the WCQ be stage one of the full WC and promote it accordingly. Let the Top 6-8 ODI nations get direct entry and have the remaining 12-14 compete for the last sports.

 

[Jack1]

Actually if you study the margins of victory/defeat between Associates and Full Members they show the same spread as they do when comparing Full Members Vs Full Members in the past 5 years or so. This 'mismatch theory' doesn't hold up and Associates have actually won more ODIs than most people think (something like a 40% win rate against Full Members)

Of course this doesn't mean Germany or Israel should be playing the next World Cup, but if you could do a decent 20+ team World Cup quite comfortably I feel. Just take all the teams from the WCQ and make them a part of the main tournament - maybe just have the WCQ be stage one of the full WC and promote it accordingly. Let the Top 6-8 ODI nations get direct entry and have the remaining 12-14 compete for the last sports.

I went for 16 for now. With a look to building to a bigger tournament in the coming years, hoping to eventually get up to 32 teams (8 groups of 4, then a last 16 knockout phase). I find it poor form from the ICC to reduce to 10 teams. Like you say the Associates are stronger and more competitive than ever.

 

[Jack1]

The WCQ was an incredible tournament though. Definitely needs a higher profile.

Definitely. I followed that tournament very closely. Very competitive and the highest standard we have ever seen from Associate nations.

 

[Indipper]

If you go back to 10, what is the point? You got 12 full members now. What's that worth if they don't get in? And of course there should be 4 additional qualifying Associates. So... 16. Anything lower just makes no sense at this point.

 

[fredfertang]

I'd like to see more teams in it, but as an Englishman I want us to win it, so wouldn't want Scotland in - would much rather we play the likes of Australia

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Aussies are going to this wc as minnows

 

[54321]

The WCQ was an incredible tournament though. Definitely needs a higher profile.

That was a bloody great tournament, very competitive. Sikander Raza's MOM interview was brilliant too, no BS pointing out the challenges that these associate nations face.

One thing is for sure, the tournament next year is a Champions Trophy and that's all. I really hope the ICC pulls their heads out of their arses and sorts it out for the 2023 World Cup. At least they haven't cut the number of teams in the World T20, yet

 

[S.Kennedy]

***** has voted 20+ because it increases the amount of teams he can support.

 

[_Ed_]

maybe just have the WCQ be stage one of the full WC and promote it accordingly.

This works quite well in the World T20. There were some really fun games in the first round in 2016 - Oman's wild celebrations after a tight win over Ireland were a highlight.

Although I'd like to see more than two teams progress to the second round in that format too.

 

[Lokomotiv]

How about changing 1 50-over innings game to 2 20-over innings game?

 

[jimmy101]

How about changing 1 50-over innings game to 2 20-over innings game?

I actually don't mind that format. They tried that out in the Australian List-A comp a few years ago and I found myself enjoying it. Adds a fresh dynamic to the game.

Although it should be two 25-over innings each.