Quarterfinals to return in 2011 ICC World Cup

[Jamee999]

2 groups of 7 = 21 games / group = 42 games

Top 3 qualify, A3 vs B2, A2 vs B3 = 2 games

A1 vs A3/B2, B1 vs A2/B3 = 2 games

Final = 1 game

= 47 games.

Simples.

 

[Richard]

A very strange format which would be exceedingly unlikely to be adopted under any circumstances.

Not that it'd not have its benefits from the POV of attaching meaning to games which are otherwise not particularly important. But it'd be much better to come from a two-groups-of-four thing than this current artiface.

 

[James]

Champions Trophy > World Cup

Shame to have so many minnow games this time around.

 

[brackenNY]

So four teams from each group advance to the quarter finals?

I like this, it pretty much guarantees no big teams get knocked out in the first round.

But then again, why even have minnows then?

 

[James]

Given the number of games, I hope the ICC allow for 18-20 man squads for the World Cup.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If 4 teams are going through then Group A is straight forward but England and the West Indies could be vulnerable in Group B.

 

[NUFAN]

Group B is the 'group of death'.

I'm putting big money on Bangladesh to go through the first round with the matches being played in Asia.

 

[marc71178]

Given the number of games, I hope the ICC allow for 18-20 man squads for the World Cup.

I'd have thought the gaps between games would mean that anything more than 16 will not be that useful to be honest - a lot of players wouldn't get a game for fear of players losing a bit of match fitness / sharpness IMO.

 

[Chemosit]

Bah Humbug to all the minnow bashers. you have had your boring comp without them in the champions trophy. This is a World Cup FFS. Much rather watch 2 teams that hardly play each other than the 1299000th game of the year between the 2 same old tired test teams.

Anyway, backing one of the minnows (Kenya of course )to go through from the group stage and to turn a few heads doing it too.

 

[Somerset]

Would probably be better with only two associates, and then go straight to the semis.

Absolutely. The Champions Trophy's highlighted how good a tournament with just the best nations competing can be - bringing in minnows only diminishes the quality. Also not 100% convinced about the top four teams in each group going through, as the first few weeks for the big four in group A should be a cakewalk, even if one of the minnows causes an upset.

Personally I'd have gone for the eight major teams, each facing each other, semis and a final. Its a world event and IMO that means it needs a standard of cricket that will draw the attention of the world and produce the highest quality. I don't buy into a world event requiring a handful of nations to be tagged onto the end to bump up the numbers.

 

[NUFAN]

I wish a couple more 'minnows' were added would love to see Afghanistan play.

I wouldn't mind:
1a Australia, Pakistan, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe - top 3 progress
2a India, South Africa, England, West Indies, Bangladesh - top 3 progress.

1b Canada, Kenya and Afghanistan - 1 progress
2b Ireland, Netherland and Scotland - 1 progress

So for arguments sake lets say:
1a Australia, Pakistan, New Zealand progress with Sri Lanka 4th.
2a India, South Africa, England progress with Bangladesh 4th.

1b - Canada progress
2b - Ireland progress

1b Canada plays Sri Lanka in a knock out match.
2b Bangladesh plays Ireland in a knock out match.

then

1a vs 2d
1b vs 2c
1c vs 2b
1d vs 2a

 

[Black_Warrior]

Ok I understand why most of you guys are criticising the format...The first round will surely have a lot of meaningless matches but whats the alternative? Not having minnows at all? Well then it just becomes the Champions Trophy....what they should have done instead is make the World Cup more competetive by selecting only the top 8 teams and allowing the minnows to play in the Champions Trophy instead..So that way the World Cup is much shorter, no useless matches, more competition.

 

[neutralguy]

Useless format by ICC. Some key teams to be knocked off before quarterfinals.

Ideally, they should have have another round called super 4 after the first round, where the top 4 members of group A will play with top 4 members of group B. The top 2 from each of this group after super 4 will proceed to semifinals.Eventhough there could be more matches, 2 matches per day can be played during group stages and super 4,considering the useless minnows.

Then it will amount to
42 group matches/2 match per day= 21 days

Super 4- 20 matches/2 match per day= 10 days

Semifinals and finals- 3 matches/1 match per day= 3 days

Total= 34 days with additional provision for rain matches from super 4 onwards (including this extra days its a total of 47 days only). This should be good. It will give a chance for best team to proceed at every stage, including teams which are late starters and rewards consistency also at every step.

 

[Black_Warrior]

When will they learn its the cricket that sells it and not the format, give us good matches and we will be entertained whether its a month long or 6.

so well said...

 

[James]

Threads merged.

 

[four_or_six]

Absolutely. The Champions Trophy's highlighted how good a tournament with just the best nations competing can be - bringing in minnows only diminishes the quality. Also not 100% convinced about the top four teams in each group going through, as the first few weeks for the big four in group A should be a cakewalk, even if one of the minnows causes an upset.

Personally I'd have gone for the eight major teams, each facing each other, semis and a final. Its a world event and IMO that means it needs a standard of cricket that will draw the attention of the world and produce the highest quality. I don't buy into a world event requiring a handful of nations to be tagged onto the end to bump up the numbers.

I definitely think there should be some none-test teams there. I think a world cup in any sport should be set up so that any country can win it, if they get through qualifying rounds and then the event itself.

 

[marc71178]

Bah Humbug to all the minnow bashers. you have had your boring comp without them in the champions trophy.

What, you mean the same competition that's been getting lots of plaudits for its quality?

 

[DingDong]

i think each team should play every other team and the top 2 teams will qualify for a 3 match finals series. this will definitely stop the minnows from getting through.

It'll take 94 matches but the tournament will be better for it.

 

[King_Shakib]

I think Group B will be very interesting, having "minnow" like nations and if anyone of them are able to cause an upset over the likes of India, SA and England the contest will become very close. Having said that I think the tournament is well structured and should be a success.

 

[Uppercut]

Absolutely. The Champions Trophy's highlighted how good a tournament with just the best nations competing can be - bringing in minnows only diminishes the quality. Also not 100% convinced about the top four teams in each group going through, as the first few weeks for the big four in group A should be a cakewalk, even if one of the minnows causes an upset.

Personally I'd have gone for the eight major teams, each facing each other, semis and a final. Its a world event and IMO that means it needs a standard of cricket that will draw the attention of the world and produce the highest quality. I don't buy into a world event requiring a handful of nations to be tagged onto the end to bump up the numbers.

We already have a tournament like that. It's called the Champions Trophy.

The minnow-bashing is ridiculous. I had a short rant about it just a few days ago:

Ireland's awkward position in relation to the test sides is what brings about the issue. We're no longer bad enough that test nations can count on beating us every time we play them, but we're not yet good enough to compete on a regular basis. Would cutting down the available spots for Associates at the World Cup really be an appropriate response to their ongoing improvement?

No one was complaining about Ireland and the Netherlands playing in 2003, because teams could count on beating us every time back then, and the tournament would progress to the next stage without any surprises. Suddenly, we're not pushovers anymore. We won't compete on a regular basis, but we've improved significantly so that teams can't count on beating us anymore.

The reaction of fans to this clear improvement in Associate-level cricket is to... kick us out of the tournament?

Bull****.