-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Dead Rubber World Cup
- Thread starter gvenkat
- Start date
smash84
The Tiger King
well said
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Agreed - In fact I will be surprised if there are very many who disagree with you Ganesh
slugger
State Vice-Captain
I think the only fair way to address the problem of teams being thrashed by the big boy which is likely to happen a couple of times in this world cup, is to change the ODI fomat to split innings. therefore you only have to see a team get exposed and belittle in half the time. if a minor can compete they will need to push the game deep into the second stanza.
Last edited:
G.I.Joe
International Coach
Those games still have context now. If you're looking to play a weaker team in the quarterfinal (as you should), you'd want to thrash every weak team in your group so that you end up placed higher up your group on the basis of NRR.
You can spin it that way, we can agree to disagree though..
Since you asked, Any team would prefer to take on a weaker opposition. However weaker is just on paper. The top 8 sides on a given day can beat anyone.. So it's not like India would rather face Pakistan than New Zealand or Australia would rather Eng than WI.
The battle would be to avoid the top 2 teams from Each group. India, Aus, SL, SA. So the games against the minnows and these top teams would still be irreleavant.
G.I.Joe
International Coach
The 2 bolded statements again contradict each other.Since you asked, Any team would prefer to take on a weaker opposition. However weaker is just on paper. The top 8 sides on a given day can beat anyone.. So it's not like India would rather face Pakistan than New Zealand or Australia would rather Eng than WI.
The battle would be to avoid the top 2 teams from Each group. India, Aus, SL, SA. So the games against the minnows and these top teams would still be irreleavant.
No hate here man.
salman85
International Debutant
Sorry Ganesh,i don't agree.
People have been cribbing about how tedious the group stages will get for a while now.That part,is not wrong.What most people seem to be ignoring however,is the fact that after the 2007 edition,the ICC had to come up with a format to make sure that all 8 big teams advance to the knockout stage.I don't think what effected the last WC was the way minnows got smashed.I think what effected the torunament was that 2 big countries in India and Pakistan,never advanced to the knockout stages,and that automatically brought down the viewership.This is not to suggest that the ICC should format a tournament where teams from the subcontinent advance.My point is that whenever a big team goes out early,it will bring down the tournament ratings (if there is any such thing) and the vieweship,and also have an effect on the tournament itself.Now will all 8 teams virtually assured of a spot in the QFs due to the easy groups,the viewership won't go down.Plus i think interest in the tournament will persist,as comapred to a situation where a heavy weight is heading out as that particular team would take it's fanbase with it.Cricket is not a sport like football where the neutrals would have a lot of interest too,along with the regular hardcore team fans.The largest amount of vieweshhip and interest in cricket would be generated by the hardcore team fans,and as long as that is there,the tournament will be successful.
Just my two cents.
People have been cribbing about how tedious the group stages will get for a while now.That part,is not wrong.What most people seem to be ignoring however,is the fact that after the 2007 edition,the ICC had to come up with a format to make sure that all 8 big teams advance to the knockout stage.I don't think what effected the last WC was the way minnows got smashed.I think what effected the torunament was that 2 big countries in India and Pakistan,never advanced to the knockout stages,and that automatically brought down the viewership.This is not to suggest that the ICC should format a tournament where teams from the subcontinent advance.My point is that whenever a big team goes out early,it will bring down the tournament ratings (if there is any such thing) and the vieweship,and also have an effect on the tournament itself.Now will all 8 teams virtually assured of a spot in the QFs due to the easy groups,the viewership won't go down.Plus i think interest in the tournament will persist,as comapred to a situation where a heavy weight is heading out as that particular team would take it's fanbase with it.Cricket is not a sport like football where the neutrals would have a lot of interest too,along with the regular hardcore team fans.The largest amount of vieweshhip and interest in cricket would be generated by the hardcore team fans,and as long as that is there,the tournament will be successful.
Just my two cents.
Last edited:
Some valid points there and I agree that the main driver behind this format was $$. However to make the league stage a little bit more meaningful had they adopted the format I had suggested in the piece, the league games could have had more context. All in all still 6 teams would qualify. Of course this debate can go on for it's tough to design a format that is liked by everyone.
