Format ideas for future World Cups.

[Richard]

I'm still looking forward to when a "minnow" team DESERVES to be there.

TBH, that ain't really possible.

If a team deserves to be there, said team is no minnow.

 

[Prince EWS]

It wasn't a game against a substandard side.

It was still a chance to win though.

Once again, I say - it's not a case of Pakistan being a loss or not, it's a case of a team losing to a massively inferior team (Pakistan, even the shambles that they were, were still far better than Ireland than South Africa are to England) and that being just about it.

But them losing to an inferior team isn't really a loss to the WC in general IMO.

 

[Stefano]

I like this format, although it is far from perfect. The top 8 teams will play against each other, so in my opinion, the 2 semifinals will have the 4 best possible teams. Actually, I don't like KO games for three reasons.

1) It is not fair to send a team home (which maybe have had a good tournament so far) because of one loss.
2) All the games which are played in the previous rounds do not count anymore.

What will I change? Don't use the NRR to break a tie between two teams... Example: Let's say that New Zealand and England finish with the same points (4th place) in the Super Eight. Which team goes to the semis? New Zealand because they have defeated England in the tournament. And if more than 2 teams ends up with the same points, look at the victories and losses inside the match-ups. In my opinion this is the fairest method.

Then, these are my two fantasy ideas (don't take them too seriously).

1) The first four teams of the Super Eight goes to the semis. #1 vs #4 and #2 vs #3. The semifinals are a best of 3 series, so you have to win two games to go on. However, #1 and #2 will start from 1-0, so they will only need one victory to go on.

2) The final. It is a best of 3 series, so 2 victories needed to win the title. However, the team with the best position in the Super Eight starts from 1-0, so they will only need one victory to win the title.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Bermuda is a minnow, yes. Sri Lanka isn't.



Implying that the first two games were against minnows ? If a team loses to 2 minnow nations, they're definitely unworthy, but that is hardly the case under consideration.



India had two test sides in their group, didn't they?

Ok, if you're bad enough to lose to a substandard team- for a bad start...then you better be better for the next games...whats the talk about bad starts anyway? This is international cricket...they are pros...they had a lot of preparation leading up to the world cup...so there shouldn't be room for bad starts anyway...ok may be you cant perform from a given time because you generally start slow at stuff then there's the odi rankings go win that then...you have enough chances...a whole year long...here comes people who use stuff only when they need it...you guys(with some exceptions) never gave credit to bangladesh...before and oooo they are this and that so its not fair for india....

 

[LA ICE-E]

I like this format, although it is far from perfect. The top 8 teams will play against each other, so in my opinion, the 2 semifinals will have the 4 best possible teams. Actually, I don't like KO games for three reasons.

1) It is not fair to send a team home (which maybe have had a good tournament so far) because of one loss.
2) All the games which are played in the previous rounds do not count anymore.

What will I change? Don't use the NRR to break a tie between two teams... Example: Let's say that New Zealand and England finish with the same points (4th place) in the Super Eight. Which team goes to the semis? New Zealand because they have defeated England in the tournament. And if more than 2 teams ends up with the same points, look at the victories and losses inside the match-ups. In my opinion this is the fairest method.

Then, these are my two fantasy ideas (don't take them too seriously).

1) The first four teams of the Super Eight goes to the semis. #1 vs #4 and #2 vs #3. The semifinals are a best of 3 series, so you have to win two games to go on. However, #1 and #2 will start from 1-0, so they will only need one victory to go on.

2) The final. It is a best of 3 series, so 2 victories needed to win the title. However, the team with the best position in the Super Eight starts from 1-0, so they will only need one victory to win the title.

it would be way too long...plus knock out is the fun of the tournament...if you play a lot of games of course the better team will win most the time...but thats not what this is about....thats what the rankings about...this is about what team can win under the given circumstances and who can win it on the given day...

 

[Stefano]

I don't think it would be too long: at worst, there would only be 3 more games than the current format. And then, this is the World Cup. My idea is: the team which wins the world cup IS the best team in the world. A Knock-out format is perfect for the ICC Champions Trophy. And then... This is just my fantasy format, so don't take it too seriously.

What will I seriously change is the way to break the ties. Don't use the NRR! If two teams end with the same points, give the edge to the team which have won the match-up.

 

[LA ICE-E]

well for the semis and final the bowl-out is going to be used in case of a tie....may not be fair but its exciting...

 

[Hamilton B]

Ok, if you're bad enough to lose to a substandard team- for a bad start...then you better be better for the next games

A bit hard when theres basically just 1 more chance after that loss, as opposed to multiple chances in the previous format.

...whats the talk about bad starts anyway? This is international cricket...they are pros...they had a lot of preparation leading up to the world cup...so there shouldn't be room for bad starts anyway...ok may be you cant perform from a given time because you generally start slow at stuff then there's the odi rankings go win that then...you have enough chances...a whole year long

No one is excusing bad starts. Its about ensuring that the format most closely reflects the realities of the world game.

...here comes people who use stuff only when they need it...you guys(with some exceptions) never gave credit to bangladesh...before and oooo they are this and that so its not fair for india....

false. I'm the one saying that Bangladesh had shed the minnow tag coming into the World cup. You're the one consistently referring to them as minnows. Suffice to say I'm not the one denying them credit.

 

[LA ICE-E]

A bit hard when theres basically just 1 more chance after that loss, as opposed to multiple chances in the previous format.



No one is excusing bad starts. Its about ensuring that the format most closely reflects the realities of the world game.



false. I'm the one saying that Bangladesh had shed the minnow tag coming into the World cup. You're the one consistently referring to them as minnows. Suffice to say I'm not the one denying them credit.

why would a good team need multiple chances, if they are good they should be in the super 8...and then after that you have multiple chances to make it to the semis....

and whats the realities of the world game?

im never put down bd...i gave in and called em minnow cause most others would have it the other way...so i was trying to say it in their words...for the tournament to be a interesting now like this one is...it needs to be challenging for both the minnows and the test teams...for the minnows it the fact that they have to win two games and one must be against the test nations...and for the test teams its you cant lose to both a minnow and your fellow test nation...so either win against the test nation or dont lose against the minnows...so it seems pretty fair.

 

[Hamilton B]

why would a good team need multiple chances, if they are good they should be in the super 8...and then after that you have multiple chances to make it to the semis....

and whats the realities of the world game?

im never put down bd...i gave in and called em minnow cause most others would have it the other way...so i was trying to say it in their words...for the tournament to be a interesting now like this one is...it needs to be challenging for both the minnows and the test teams...for the minnows it the fact that they have to win two games and one must be against the test nations...and for the test teams its you cant lose to both a minnow and your fellow test nation...so either win against the test nation or dont lose against the minnows...so it seems pretty fair.

A format that allows one upset to become a millstone around the neck of a team is by no means totally 'fair'. Its as simple as that. Basically the ICC put the horse in front of the cart.

 

[LA ICE-E]

so for ireland wouldn't it be a milestone just to beat pakistan alone? i think it would...because for a assocaite team to be on the odi raking like kenya they need to beat a test teams twice to be on it...so i see it as a milestone for them alone...and it is fair because the minnows are all ametures while the test teams are pros...when bunch of amateurs beat full time pros i think thats a big milestone for them alone...and they didn't just have to get an upset...they had to win another game too....it is fair because all the teams had the same situation and india and pakistan just messed and they should pay for it...i dont think there would be much talk about the format had a test team like england been replaced with kenya in the super 8...but since big money is out...there's this talk about the format not being fair? how the hell is not fair? are we even talking about fairness in sports? its not fair that the associate players have to be amateurs and sometimes take unpaid work off to play cricket and then still have to hear they dont belong here...yeah thats not fair...and its not fair when still after they beat a full time pro team...they are not being credit to instead there talks about the format now...thats not fair....but life isn't always fair and sports isn't either...it doesn't have to be...still this format is fair enough!

 

[marc71178]

well for the semis and final the bowl-out is going to be used in case of a tie....may not be fair but its exciting...

Only the semis I believe.

In the final I think it's a shared trophy.

 

[LA ICE-E]

no if its a tie it will be a bowl out if its a no result it will a shared for the final while its bowl out for both in the semis

 

[Fusion]

Are England and New Zealand not Test nations anymore then?

Haha. I was just focusing on the two groups Pak and Ind were in because those were the two that got knocked out. Obviously my point about Test nations starting off with a loss applies to other groups as well.

 

[Beleg]

I absolutely love the current format, I think it's the best format possible, short of everybody playing against everybody.

Pakistan and India didn't deserve to reach the next round - they lost their matches fair and square. Simply put, if you win, you are good enough - if not....

 

[Hamilton B]

so for ireland wouldn't it be a milestone just to beat pakistan alone? i think it would...because for a assocaite team to be on the odi raking like kenya they need to beat a test teams twice to be on it...so i see it as a milestone for them alone...and it is fair because the minnows are all ametures while the test teams are pros...when bunch of amateurs beat full time pros i think thats a big milestone for them alone...and they didn't just have to get an upset...they had to win another game too....it is fair because all the teams had the same situation and india and pakistan just messed and they should pay for it...i dont think there would be much talk about the format had a test team like england been replaced with kenya in the super 8...but since big money is out...there's this talk about the format not being fair? how the hell is not fair? are we even talking about fairness in sports? its not fair that the associate players have to be amateurs and sometimes take unpaid work off to play cricket and then still have to hear they dont belong here...yeah thats not fair...and its not fair when still after they beat a full time pro team...they are not being credit to instead there talks about the format now...thats not fair....but life isn't always fair and sports isn't either...it doesn't have to be...still this format is fair enough!

Its a format that gives a single upset much more significance than it deserves. Hence it isn't fair compared to the earlier formats.

Glaring example - India lost to Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. They're out completely.

West Indies in 1996 lost to Kenya and India. Yet they made the next round. And the next.

India and Pakistan didn't get as many chances to make amends as West Indies did in 96. For a marquee event as the World Cup that comes every 4 years, to attach so much importance to an upset at such an early stage is myopic.

 

[LA ICE-E]

uh no it doesn't...even if there were the upsets and still india and pakistan won it wouldn't be a big deal to you and you wouldn't be here winging about it...so you like the '96 format then? huh? i bet you dont...you just bring things up when its up to your thoughts and dismiss it when you dont need it no more....you know why west indies made it to the second round? because they had a quater finals and out of 12...8 went to it...so thats the only reason they were in the next round...oh so its not fair for the teams because it comes every 4 years huh? well do they get to play international cricket in between those for years? its not fair that the associates dont get to play much in between then and now....it doesn't have to be fair...even though it is...ok there may not be as much room for **** ups as before but who cares...you knew the format...you had warm ups you should have selected a team who doesn't have bad starts....and you point from before that some teams start badly and then get better...well india last time had a good one...so no...you knew the format and so you should pick a team who wont have a bad start...its fair for all...india and pakistan still had a chance after losing the 1st game and they blew it...you might **** up one day and thats ok...but if you are that good you shouldn't lose again in the upcoming games...before you didn't have to pay for **** ups which isn't really exciting...now you have to pay for ****s and thats fair and exciting...you're given a situation and you have to cope with it...the team thats good all around not just in skills will win...thats world cup...skills and getting better after bad games thats more of the rankings...lets see if india or pakistan gets the #1 next april...

 

[Richard]

Jeys, this-'un must use the filter more than anyone else on this place...

 

[LA ICE-E]

well it happens...my bad...

 

[Richard]

It was still a chance to win though.

Yes, but I'm not on about wins against teams where you go in knowing you have a roughly equal chance - I'm on exclusively about games you should be winning in your sleep. The format used in this Cup meant that once that happened, the chances of recovery were slim.

But them losing to an inferior team isn't really a loss to the WC in general IMO.

Possibly not a massive loss, but it's undoubtedly a loss.

Pakistan vs England this Friday, I gurantee you, would be a far more interesting proposition than Ireland vs England is.