In future world cups...

[I6MTW]

1 minute ago, Tattieboy said:

You are living in dream world !!! Top teams won't play associate teams , has India ever played Scotland when in UK?

Just incase you are unaware , fixtures for next 5 years are in place . Scotland have 3 fixtures allocated by ICC  for this summer , now already played . 

Well now the FTP is already in place I know. But in the future a possible tour programme where top ranked teams play associate teams would do good. But , like you said , it all depends on the ICC and the willingness of top cricket boards.

[Franco Vazquez]

Just now, I6MTW said:

Well now the FTP is already in place I know. But in the future a possible tour programme where top ranked teams play associate teams would do good. But , like you said , it all depends on the ICC and the willingness of top cricket boards.

Watch Hasan Minhaj's Patriot Act latest episode where he explains how BCCI bullies ICC and nothing ICC can do without BCCI's approval.

[Tattieboy]

Just now, I6MTW said:

Well now the FTP is already in place I know. But in the future a possible tour programme where top ranked teams play associate teams would do good. But , like you said , it all depends on the ICC and the willingness of top cricket boards.

Sorry but you live in the world of make believe of,  if only , they should do, in future it would be a great idea , I live in the real world of its not  happening and top 4 nations only care about themselves , but enjoy your WORLD CUP of best of three played between 4 nations with of course it best of three because heaven forbid India might have a bad day in a knock out competition 

[I6MTW]

10 minutes ago, Tattieboy said:

Sorry but you live in the world of make believe of,  if only , they should do, in future it would be a great idea , I live in the real world of its not  happening and top 4 nations only care about themselves , but enjoy your WORLD CUP of best of three played between 4 nations with of course it best of three because heaven forbid India might have a bad day in a knock out competition 

Since Cricket is controlled by ECB, CA, and BCCI and they clearly don't want minnows competing at the top and developing then what could would they do in the WC then? A one off performance and then bam, vanish for the next couple of years because of lack of backing , funding , and development? 

Since the problem lies in the administration, there is nothing you and I can do to change that. Minnows will continue to be minnows then. Or do you know of ways in which associate nations such as Scotland  can actually develop? Without support  from the top teams it is difficult.

[Tattieboy]

Your idea of yes you want bigger world cup looks somewhat illogical when top nations don't even want all test teams in a world cup .

12 Test Nations but want a 10 team WORLD CUP , then rig the qualifiers to make sure test nations get through . Great policy of wanting cricket to expand and please don't say "ICC " because it's a committee in which your country has two representatives on it with two votes same as  other top four nations that decide World Cup format 

[chewy]

Associates should be part of world cup but the ones made up of predominately born in that country, not bloody ringers like in UAE and Oman.

 

[Sachinism]

3 hours ago, I6MTW said:

I like this format. 10 teams each team plays each other once. There is no point in having 14-16 teams and 6-7 minnows getting thrashed by top sides, awarding easy points to them. Here, the best teams will face each other directly and competition will be tough.

Now as for the knockout format, I suggest we bring in a best of 3 format for the semi finals and finals. 

 

That way the best team if they falter after having a bad day, can still comeback in the next match. That way, sides with lesser strength and talent than others will not fluke there way to a final or championship if they have a good day.

LOL - The reason minnows are not there is because top teams are concerned about getting turned over by one of the 'minnows'

[Gollum]

I will suggest something radical but should work in giving associates a chance and also maintaining quality. Unpopular opinion but I don't think 2007 WC format was bad, just needed one small tweak.

 

1. 4 pools of 4 teams each, as per rankings 1 year prior to WC. Ranks 1, 8, 9, 16 in 1st pool, 2, 7, 10, 15 in 2nd pool and so on and so forth.

 

Something like this (basing on latest ranking)

Pool 1: England, West Indies, Sri Lanka, Papua New Guinea

Pool 2: India, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, UAE

Pool 3: South Africa, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Nepal

Pool 4: Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Scotland

 

Just like WC 2007 but have a double round robin in each pool, all teams facing each other twice instead of once. It eliminate flukes and the associates will have to play out of their skins to qualify to the next round. If England or India fail to qualify even after this relaxation they can't blame the format, only themselves. Hence their boards should have no problem in okaying this 16 team WC.

 

Total: 12x4=48 matches 

But run this stage parallelly so that there are 4 matches per day (1 from each pool). Within a fortnight get this stage done with.  

 

2. 2 from each pool qualify to super 8s. Points from 1st stage don't carry over, everything starts afresh...28 matches, maybe have double headers on weekends and single match the other days. 3 weeks duration. I don't like QF/SF/F KO because unlike football, cricket has so few teams and moreover fans deserve more quality matches. 

 

3. SF, F. No best of 3 and all that, teams need to show mental mettle in KOs, that is an integral part of champions. Don't shield the favorites, moreover best of 3 will kill off the tension to a great extent, more to play for if it is just one match. And if an upset happens great (1983 anyone?), 8 best teams make it to 2nd stage, 4 best to SF and all have done exceedingly well to make it so far, any one of them will be a deserving winner IMO. 

 

Total 3 matches here.

 

All in all 79 matches but via smart scheduling the tournament can be finished in slightly over a month and a half and nobody will have reasons to complain, neither the associates, nor the big dogs. It will also lend a unique global character to the event. 

 

To win a WC a team will have to play 15 (6+7+2) matches (if no washout), up from present 11. One can reasonably assume that anywhere between 2-4 of them will be soft fixtures. Allow teams to announce 20 member squads, up from 15 so that more rotation is possible thus preserving the players. 

 

Also get rid off the bloody warm up fixtures, let teams make their own arrangements to adjust. That way the event will not be a drag. 

Edited May 30, 2019 by Gollum

[I6MTW]

14 minutes ago, Gollum said:

I will suggest something radical but should work in giving associates a chance and also maintaining quality. Unpopular opinion but I don't think 2007 WC format was bad, just needed one small tweak.

 

1. 4 pools of 4 teams each, as per rankings 1 year prior to WC. Ranks 1, 8, 9, 16 in 1st pool, 2, 7, 10, 15 in 2nd pool and so on and so forth.

 

Something like this (basing on latest ranking)

Pool 1: England, West Indies, Sri Lanka, Papua New Guinea

Pool 2: India, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, UAE

Pool 3: South Africa, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Nepal

Pool 4: Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Scotland

 

Just like WC 2007 but have a double round robin in each pool, all teams facing each other twice instead of once. It eliminate flukes and the associates will have to play out of their skins to qualify to the next round. If England or India fail to qualify even after this relaxation they can't blame the format, only themselves. Hence their boards should have no problem in okaying this 16 team WC.

 

Total: 12x4=48 matches 

But run this stage parallelly so that there are 4 matches per day (1 from each pool). Within a fortnight get this stage done with.  

 

2. 2 from each pool qualify to super 8s. Points from 1st stage don't carry over, everything starts afresh...28 matches, maybe have double headers on weekends and single match the other days. 3 weeks duration. I don't like QF/SF/F KO because unlike football, cricket has so few teams and moreover fans deserve more quality matches. 

 

3. SF, F. No best of 3 and all that, teams need to show mental mettle in KOs, that is an integral part of champions. Don't shield the favorites, moreover best of 3 will kill off the tension to a great extent, more to play for if it is just one match. And if an upset happens great (1983 anyone?), 8 best teams make it to 2nd stage, 4 best to SF and all have done exceedingly well to make it so far, any one of them will be a deserving winner IMO. 

 

Total 3 matches here.

 

All in all 79 matches but via smart scheduling the tournament can be finished in slightly over a month and a half and nobody will have reasons to complain, neither the associates, nor the big dogs. It will also lend a unique global character to the event. 

 

To win a WC a team will have to play 15 (6+7+2) matches (if no washout), up from present 11. One can reasonably assume that anywhere between 2-4 of them will be soft fixtures. Allow teams to announce 20 member squads, up from 15 so that more rotation is possible thus preserving the players. 

 

Also get rid off the bloody warm up fixtures, let teams make their own arrangements to adjust. That way the event will not be a drag. 

This format is very good. If only the ICC thinks of this in future WCs. But they will persist with this format or revert back to one of the older formats.

[bowl_out]

6 hours ago, Lannister said:

Yes, there shouldn't be knockouts in a game like Cricket. Consistent performances should be used to identify the champion. 

Best of 3 is BS. 

This format rewards consistency to take the teams to SF..

After that, it is teams that hold their nerve at the big stage (SF and Finals) that win the tournament..

Makes perfect sense to me.

[putrevus]

10 minutes ago, bowl_out said:

Best of 3 is BS. 

This format rewards consistency to take the teams to SF..

After that, it is teams that hold their nerve at the big stage (SF and Finals) that win the tournament..

Makes perfect sense to me.

No , how is it fair for team which wins all their league games and has one bad day NZ in 1992 are out of cup.Pakistan which lucked to be im semis becuase of rainout end up champions.NZ had more wins in cup then eventual champion how is it fair.

 

IPL is best format for knock outs.Best teams during league phase should get a second chance  in league formats.

 

[GeeGaw]

4 hours ago, chewy said:

Associates should be part of world cup but the ones made up of predominately born in that country, not bloody ringers like in UAE and Oman.

 

England won't like your criteria.

[putrevus]

Associate teams should play world cup.How will they learn if they are not playing in these big events, what is the point of this round robin format.

[Lannister]

54 minutes ago, bowl_out said:

Best of 3 is BS. 

This format rewards consistency to take the teams to SF..

After that, it is teams that hold their nerve at the big stage (SF and Finals) that win the tournament..

Makes perfect sense to me.

Round robin is the correct way to decide the champion, especially in a sport like Cricket. Pak won 2017 CT, but do you really believe it was the best team around that period. Lot of flukes can happen in Knock out games and it doesn't really reflect the true winner. It's like a lottery. 

[bowl_out]

1 hour ago, putrevus said:

No , how is it fair for team which wins all their league games and has one bad day NZ in 1992 are out of cup.Pakistan which lucked to be im semis becuase of rainout end up champions.NZ had more wins in cup then eventual champion how is it fair.

 

IPL is best format for knock outs.Best teams during league phase should get a second chance  in league formats.

 

I like the IPL format for semi finals.. But surely not a best of 3 model.

 

Also, finals should be only one game.. IPL too uses only one final.. A bad game on that simply means that the team is not able to handle pressure of the big stage.

[putrevus]

5 minutes ago, bowl_out said:

I like the IPL format for semi finals.. But surely not a best of 3 model.

 

Also, finals should be only one game.. IPL too uses only one final.. A bad game on that simply means that the team is not able to handle pressure of the big stage.

Finals should always be one match.But if round robin format is used, you need to reward the teams which finish top two like IPL.Or you will end up having fraud champions like Pakistan in 1992.

[bowl_out]

10 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Finals should always be one match.But if round robin format is used, you need to reward the teams which finish top two like IPL.Or you will end up having fraud champions like Pakistan in 1992.

Agree. IPL kind of playoffs, so there is incentive to finish in the top 2.

And one finals which will be a proof that the teams that are consistent can also perform at the big stage

[Vilander]

6 hours ago, chewy said:

Associates should be part of world cup but the ones made up of predominately born in that country, not bloody ringers like in UAE and Oman.

 

this.

 

Would love to see Scotland/Nepal/Zim progress.

 

Dislike UAE/OMAN/Canada/US full of Ind/pak/WI/SL domestic rejects and weekend players.

[Vilander]

1 hour ago, GeeGaw said:

England won't like your criteria.

everyone grudgingly will look the other way since it is England in end anyway. 

[I6MTW]

12 minutes ago, bowl_out said:

Agree. IPL kind of playoffs, so there is incentive to finish in the top 2.

And one finals which will be a proof that the teams that are consistent can also perform at the big stage

The thing I dislike about the IPL format is that it doesn't matter if you finish first or second. Both teams get rewarded the same. Which I think doesn't make sense. The first place team is the best team in the tournament , why should a secondly placed team share the same benefits?