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

[flibbertyjibber]

I went for 14 as you could have 2 groups of 7 who all play each other then the top 4 in each group go straight into quarter finals with top playing 4th in opposite group and 2nd meeting 3rd. Enough smaller nations and not too long a drawn out competition.

 

[turnstyle]

It's pretty obvious why it's a 10 team world cup and it won't be anything other than a round robin tournament in the near future and 12 teams would make it too long.

It's the same dilemma with cricket in the UK. Gotta promote and fund grassroots cricket and the only way to do that is to hide it behind a paywall. At least in some countries you will get to watch it on FTA.

 

[sledger]

You will

Ok, so I took an interest in India failing. Got me there.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I was disappointed with the format prior to the WC, going to miss seeing the minnows, but with the benefit of actually seeing how it turns out this is better. Much better IMO. Most matches actually matter which is a change.

 

[stephen]

I wouldn't have minded so much if the qualifiers for the lower ranked sides were played as a warm up/ prelude to the cup.

 

[Bahnz]

I still reckon a 12 team tournament, with two groups of 6 and the top 3 in each advancing (whether it be to a modified super 6 phase or a repechage knock-out phase before semis) would be the best balance between giving the associates a go and ensuring an interesting and competitive group phase. But this world cup has been good - and the next one will be even better with the subcontinental conditions likely to make Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Afghanistan even more competitive.

 

[stephen]

Subcontinental conditions make nothing better.

 

[cnerd123]

Subcontinental conditions make nothing better.

Your face makes nothing better

 

[Howe_zat]

One thing that made the early part of the world cup ordinary (along with the rain) was South Africa not turning up. A lot of people thought they'd be very competitive and if they were, there'd be 6 or 7 sides making a decent run at the semi finals. That's probably more teams than in most world cups.

I don't mind the format, because at least the qualifiers exist. I still think it's too long though. The early games had an air of inconsequence, and the later games have no impact on NRR (and my brain loves NRR jiggery pokery).

 

[Borges]

I would like to see more teams; but there is no denying that this has turned out to be a very good World Cup; so much better than than the last two editions.
Play all future World Cups in England, I say.

 

[SJS]

I would like to see more teams; but there is no denying that this has turned out to be a very good World Cup; so much better than than the last two editions.
Play all future World Cups in England, I say.

Very good point about the quality of the matches as far as close versus one sided games is concerned.

However, without getting into the debate as to who should or who shouldn’t be at the WC let me make a few points if you please.

1. Test matches being a criteria for inclusion is dicey. Inclusion criteria are different for different games but by and large they consist of two parts.

a) teams that come in automatically based on a criteria of their standing and

b) 1-2 others who come in based on some qualifying tournament etc.

Getting into Test match category itself is something arbitrary decided earlier by MCC/ICC and now by the country that holds the key to the bank vaults- my fatherland.

India decided they wanted to run International cricket and did something like Trump is doing to the Supreme Court. Pack in those who will do your bidding.

The Test Club is worse than SCOTUS because in the latter you leave when you die. There is no similar criteria for nations

??? . . . I know . . . I know . . . I know???

 

[SJS]

2. The way limited overs game is kind of taking over what cricket is all about, why not link admission to the Test Club with the team’s standing in the shorter versions of the game . . . Not far fetched you know.

Money is all that talks in our beloved sport.

- If your country has a population more than the rest of the cricketing nations combined, you are bringing in the money so you run the game.

- Then you decide the rules
- DRS or no DRS
- colour of the ball
- who plays on Sundays
- who decides the make of the cricket ball to be used

You get the drift.

In India the game is controlled by membership to the First Class game , then proxies for running the firsts class teams cricket associations and so on.

The white countries - the emipire/the rulers did it to the rest for over a hundred years and now the ‘once ruled’ are calling in the chips.

It was wrong then - it is wrong now. Sadly those who run the game do not have a history with the game going back to its infancy so they do not bat an eyelid in making money the only mantra.

The rest eventually follow for money talks and talks and talks

 

[SJS]

So. To cut it short (you don’t believe I am going to do that do you ? ) the game will be played for money, by money, by rules made to maximise money, shown to the wide world for money, commented upon purely for money (in my fatherland at least) . . .

Academic discussions??

Of course. Be our guest ?

 

[91Jmay]

Very good point about the quality of the matches as far as close versus one sided games is concerned.

However, without getting into the debate as to who should or who shouldn’t be at the WC let me make a few points if you please.

1. Test matches being a criteria for inclusion is dicey. Inclusion criteria are different for different games but by and large they consist of two parts.

a) teams that come in automatically based on a criteria of their standing and

b) 1-2 others who come in based on some qualifying tournament etc.

Getting into Test match category itself is something arbitrary decided earlier by MCC/ICC and now by the country that holds the key to the bank vaults- my fatherland.

India decided they wanted to run International cricket and did something like Trump is doing to the Supreme Court. Pack in those who will do your bidding.

The Test Club is worse than SCOTUS because in the latter you leave when you die. There is no similar criteria for nations

������ . . . I know . . . I know . . . I know������

Test matches being a criteria was probably dreamt up a few years ago when England legitimately might not have qualified on ODI form, in order to protect the revenue from Sky.

 

[harsh.ag]

So. To cut it short (you don’t believe I am going to do that do you  ) the game will be played for money, by money, by rules made to maximise money, shown to the wide world for money, commented upon purely for money (in my fatherland at least) . . .

This isn't bad imo

 

[TheJediBrah]

Sure if you want cricket to be IPL all year round. Rest of the world (ie. non-Asia) generally prefer Test cricket (relatively speaking) because the appeal of its uniqueness as a sport. They have other sports that they follow, and are good at, ie. Football, soccer, rugby, tennis etc. that fill the role of a 2-3 hour romp.

Don't get me wrong, shorter forms have still been popular, Big Bash is huge in Aus but I don't know the longevity of that in the future without a focus on Test cricket as the main event

 

[quincywagstaff]

Think the format has worked extremely well. I know lots of cricket journos on Twitter have been doing lots of virtue signalling about how terrible it is that the competition was contracted and you need to grow the game but I think it's made for a better tournament than most have been this century.

An argument could be made that it should've been 12 teams but I'm fine with this format continuing on, especially with the qualification process coming in.

 

[Flem274*]

i've really enjoyed the 10 team world cup and think a 12 team round robin would be overkill but i also miss england losing to ireland and other shenanigans. my solution is:

-12 teams, 2 seeded pools of 6. have 1, 3, 5 etc in one group and 2, 4, 6 etc in the other.
-top team in each pool gets a game off, 2 and 3 play knockouts. team 2 from one pool will play team 3 from the other pool.
-winners of those play either the team 1 they have not already played or, if say both pool A sides win their knockout, semis are decided through random draw.
-final

the pools based on the rankings right now would be

england, aus, sa, bangers, windies, ireland
india, nz, pak, sri lanka, afghanistan, zim

 

[stephen]

That would be a good format but for fairness' sake you'd split the groups 1,4,5,8,9,12 and 2,3,6,7,10,11.

 

[Jezroy]

i've really enjoyed the 10 team world cup and think a 12 team round robin would be overkill but i also miss england losing to ireland and other shenanigans. my solution is:

-12 teams, 2 seeded pools of 6. have 1, 3, 5 etc in one group and 2, 4, 6 etc in the other.
-top team in each pool gets a game off, 2 and 3 play knockouts. team 2 from one pool will play team 3 from the other pool.
-winners of those play either the team 1 they have not already played or, if say both pool A sides win their knockout, semis are decided through random draw.
-final

the pools based on the rankings right now would be

england, aus, sa, bangers, windies, ireland
india, nz, pak, sri lanka, afghanistan, zim

YES. Things I like about this...

Playoffs - I think the best number of teams to get into a cricket play off system (and probably for the last 25 years) would be 6. 8 seems to easy, but 4 almost seems a bit rough. And having a 6 team playoff at this World Cup really would have left a great deal of interest into qualifying/positions over the last few days.

Imagine England vs SL and Pakistan vs NZ to see who would advance to the semi finals where Australia and India await...

12 teams - I think it opens up just that little bit more to the teams in the qualifier. Again imagine adding Zim and Scotland to this tournament (they were 3rd and 4th in the qualifier). Adds that bit more interest through the qualifiers to get 4 teams out of that tournament. But yes, you can’t have a 12 team round robin, so you’d have to have two pools of 6.

You’d really have to hit the ground running as well in this format. With only 5 games before play offs, you couldn’t afford a slow start. Plus multiple rain offs would be a pain.