My World Cup idea

[chris.hinton]

Now the last world cup was a bit Predictable and match were one-sided. But i think i got an idea that would be controvsial but a lot better for the better teams and the Minnows...

I would have 16 teams take part in the World cup


Then i would have the last 8 in the First Round this will be two groups of 4 and match will last for a week the top two in each group qualify so it would be reduced to just 12 teams and they remaining 4 who lost out will go into a Plate competition

the 8 teams based on the last 2 world cup will be

West Indies, England, Bangladesh, Nambia, Canada, Holland, Usa and Scotland

the other 8 would go though to the first round Proper, with the best 4 from the Qualifying round so then i would have 2 groups of six and they Super sixes and then the Knockout stage


What do you think of it ?

 

[Richard]

Personally I think 4 groups of 4 (which ICC did hint they're considering) is the best idea.
And every 2 years instead of every 4 would be nice, too...

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

And every 2 years instead of every 4 would be nice, too...

Well the World Cup is crickets ultimate jewel in the crown. By making it happen every two years would sort of devalue its status/prestigue as being the ultimate tornament to win.

Also how are you going to fit it in considering the ICC has the ten year plan in which nations have to play each other.

 

[Richard]

This is precisely the point. The World Cup is cricket's most glittering showpiece. It needs to be on display. Once every four years is insufficient IMO. Planning four years down the line is just too far.
The ten-year plan is already too packed; a twelve or fourteen year plan would IMO be much better.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Personally I think 4 groups of 4 (which ICC did hint they're considering) is the best idea.

Not considering, confirmed.

4x4 - top 2 qualify for the super eight - semis - final.

Perfect in my book

 

[tooextracool]

i think the format for the 92 wc was the best and fairest out of all the wcs so far where each team played all the other teams. however with 16 teams it would be impractical as there would be too many matches.
personally id like to see a pool of the 8 best teams all playing each other once and then the top 4 go on to play the semi finals and the finals. now whether that means having a knockout stage at the start of the tournament to determine these 8 teams so be it but i think most people would wanna see some good cricket matches instead of too many minnow vs minnow or minnow vs goliath matches.
the last 8 could have a little knockout competition of their own if required to determine the winner of the 2nd league

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

This is precisely the point. The World Cup is cricket's most glittering showpiece. It needs to be on display. Once every four years is insufficient IMO. Planning four years down the line is just too far.

Well I reckon perhaps say three years would be good.

Two years IMO is too short a time frame & four years is a little long.

The ten-year plan is already too packed; a twelve or fourteen year plan would IMO be much better.

Agreed on this one.

It does need to be longer than ten years considering you got to factor in possibly more countries attaining test status in the not to distant future. Which would mean more matches need to be played.

 

[raju]

Not considering, confirmed.

4x4 - top 2 qualify for the super eight - semis - final.

Perfect in my book

Looks a good format to me as well. The minnows get a shot at the big boys. And all the contenders should face one another at one stage.

 

[marc71178]

This is precisely the point. The World Cup is cricket's most glittering showpiece. It needs to be on display. Once every four years is insufficient IMO.

Works for Football...

 

[marc71178]

Personally I think 4 groups of 4 (which ICC did hint they're considering) is the best idea.

I thought that was now confirmed?

 

[Armadillo]

Very risky IMO, I'm fine with what we have now

 

[Neil Pickup]

Very risky IMO, I'm fine with what we have now

The 2003 format, universally condemned as too long and too full of meaningless games?

 

[thehellraiser]

the world cup should be held every 4 years

the diea of 2 years is ridiculous

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Agreed. No one would suggest the same for the Olympics...

 

[Tom Halsey]

Very risky IMO, I'm fine with what we have now

Nah, I reckon the new one sounds miles better.

 

[age_master]

This is precisely the point. The World Cup is cricket's most glittering showpiece. It needs to be on display. Once every four years is insufficient IMO. Planning four years down the line is just too far.

no, having the world cup every 2 years would devalue it far to much.

 

[Richard]

i think the format for the 92 wc was the best and fairest out of all the wcs so far where each team played all the other teams. however with 16 teams it would be impractical as there would be too many matches.

The 1992 format was easily the best IMO. Sadly it's now impractical given the number of teams.
I don't think it's possible to recreate that. And a knockout from the start is very, very risky.

 

[Richard]

Works for Football...

No, a football World Cup lasts two years, because all teams bar two have to qualify.
Cricket is bedevilled with these wrong-headed analogies. Every two years would certainly not be devaluing in any way. It doesn't happen enough as it is.

 

[marc71178]

I'd rather it was less frequent - makes it more of a show!

 

[Linda]

Definately. If it had been every two years, Australia would've won the last 3 and maybe win another next year. Giving it more time allows teams to get better, makes changes and give it another go. They need time for that.
Works for Rugby too, and the English dont complain about that!