2015 World Cup compared to other World Cups

[GIMH]

No way it was horrible. **** pitches, and the final wasn't even a 50 over match and ended in the worst way ever.

It was great, India only stank it up for the first week or two and then we were spared them and their trash

 

[G.I.Joe]

It is its own tournament.

You need to respect the fact that the rankings in the first round are purely to pick the top 3 teams into the super six stage. Why should there be an incentive to top the group? The incentive is to win the world cup, not top the group stage.

That's a fundamental disagreement.

 

[vic_orthdox]

How can anyone be advocating for a system that was actually (at least attempted to be) rorted at the time, and have a disincentive to play in the best manner possible.

 

[Burgey]

Super 6s wasn't that great. I remember the Aussie's trying to manipulate WI's runrate by blocking a few overs to try and knock out NZ. NZ had beaten them so they wanted to get the windies through so they could gain an advantage. I don't like the manipulation im glad its gone tbh.

Yeah I remember that. Didn't sit well with me either.

 

[Furball]

Let's move on and discuss the merits of my proposed format

I've advocated it for years.

 

[gvenkat]

The best format if they wanted knock outs was to let the group winners go directly to the Semis, and 2 vs 3 play a knock out to decide the other two places. This format is dragged out and unless some team does what England did last world cup the league stage will be absolutely boring.

2007 world cup had the format good in paper, But they did not care for the rainy day scenario, Where teams tend to start slow like Pakistan did in 92, Aus did in 99. India lost a game they should have won and they did not have a chance to come back.

 

[vic_orthdox]

It's definitely going to be the most recent.

 

[SuperMurali]

It depends on which team wins it. If you like them, then the tournament will have been a success. But if you don't like the winners, then everything about the Cup was crap

 

[Daemon]

Err no.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah that's a terrible attitude that not many on CW would subscribe to, I don't think.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah that's a terrible attitude and not one many on CW would subscribe to, I don't think.

It's spot on tbh. There has never been a good World Cup.

 

[cnerd123]

It's spot on tbh. There has never been a good World Cup.

IDK about that. I really enjoyed 2011.

 

[GIMH]

Presume you mean the T20 World Cup in 2010, but I was only referring to ODIs

 

[ankitj]

The best format if they wanted knock outs was to let the group winners go directly to the Semis, and 2 vs 3 play a knock out to decide the other two places. This format is dragged out and unless some team does what England did last world cup the league stage will be absolutely boring.

Really like this proposal. Also like what they do with qualifier and 2 eliminators in IPL. Innovative and gives a bigger incentive to be in top 2 than in 3rd or 4th position. FWIW, I had invented that approach in my mind much before IPL stole it from my mind secretly

EDIT: That's also the only thing I like about IPL ftr.

 

[gvenkat]

It depends on which team wins it. If you like them, then the tournament will have been a success. But if you don't like the winners, then everything about the Cup was crap

Not really. I liked 92 world cup despite both my favorites getting knocked out. India and WI. But the interest was there till the last game where WI had a chance and Even India had an outside chance to qualify when they played against SA I think. 1999 I still had interest, Even after India were thumped by Aus in the first game. All these associates Tend to do is drag out this crap. Unless you have an upset, The format is boring and predictable.

 

[gvenkat]

The IPL format is OK, but it tends to have too many games for the bottom ranked teams while the top ranked teams are sitting idle. I propose my format since these ICC morons want a knock out and that gives teams the incentive to finish first in their group that takes them directly to semis.

I did a little bit of reverse engineering to see how it works and in most cases, The semifinalists were the same or almost the same.

1996, If they used my format

SL and SA would have qualified directly. Ind vs Pak - QF1 and NZL vs Aus- QF2

Semis - India ,SL, Aus ,SA, But WI upset them that tournament.

1999

SA and PAK would have qualified direct

ZIM vs NZL and IND vs AUS - Would have been Nzl and Aus qualifying

SA, Aus,NZL and Pak were the semi-finalists.

2003

Aus and SL qualify Directly

Ind vs NZL and Kenya vs ZIm

Ind, Kenya, SL and Aus would have been the semi-finalists
and that is what happened

2011

SA and PAK qualify direct

India vs Aus and SL vs Eng.

SA,Pak,Ind,SL would have been Semi-fianlists, But NZL upset SA>

THe common thread is SA tend to choke lol

 

[Adders]

It's spot on tbh. There has never been a good World Cup.

So much this.......... There has never been a good world cup and there has been 4 rank horrible ones ('87, '99, '03 and '07)

 

[cnerd123]

So much this.......... There has never been a good world cup and there has been 4 rank horrible ones ('87, '99, '03 and '07)

Should just scratch those WCs from the record books IMO

Infact, I don't think any WC since 1983 until 2011 should be considered 'proper' WCs.

 

[CricAddict]

Exactly. Plus, performance is relative in cricket. The teams being closer together doesn't necessarily mean the quality is lower. It's possible but CricAddict hasn't really made a coherent argument for it.

I'd argue that the more individuals are able to stand out above the pack, the more likely it is that the overall quality is actually lower; not the other way around.

Yes Pews. No data to support with. I just felt on first look that this WC had fewer big names than the last few World cups. Probably, I am still overawed by Sachin, Lara, Kallis and Ponting.

 

[CricAddict]

Also, going by the warm up scores, this world cup could also be the highest scoring one of all World cups, probably by a distance.