zen Posted Wednesday at 06:50 PM Share Posted Wednesday at 06:50 PM (edited) At the ICC world cups, it has been a long time since we have had QFs, which create a unique challenge of having to win 3 consecutive KO games to win a title. Also too many good teams have missed out on KOs due to minor factors such as NRR, rain, an upset (associates are getting better), etc. Having QFs also mitigates the risk of lopsided groups (the group of death for e.g.) relatively. On the negative side, group games would lose some of their importance but usually, groups are about a key game here and there with a focus on factors such as NRR, etc. Groups should be about focusing and priming for the QFs. Weighing the pros and cons, QFs offer more to ICC World Cups! Edited Wednesday at 06:54 PM by zen Vk1 1 Link to comment
Chakdephatte Posted Wednesday at 08:55 PM Share Posted Wednesday at 08:55 PM For having quarter finals, we need 8 teams. For 8 teams to qualifying, we need to have atleast 16 teams to play. Joker ICC wants a 10 team mini event instead. Link to comment
Bigg Brother Posted Thursday at 09:08 AM Share Posted Thursday at 09:08 AM 2003 wc format was the best. 14 teams then Super Six and Semifinal. Also needs to have 2 matches on same day from 2 different groups. Also wc should get over in 4 weeks at maximum. 40-45 days are way too many. nitinbwj, Lord and Stan AF 2 1 Link to comment
R!TTER Posted Thursday at 09:16 AM Share Posted Thursday at 09:16 AM 12 hours ago, Chakdephatte said: For having quarter finals, we need 8 teams. For 8 teams to qualifying, we need to have atleast 16 teams to play. Joker ICC wants a 10 team mini event instead. Not really, 1996-2011 had QF's & we definitely did not have 16 teams then! The reason QF are gone because ICC wants India to play as many games as possible - another reason why I absolutely hate this fixing of the groups & just how BS the "ICC trophies" are now They're basically glorified multilateral tourneys like we had in the 80/90's just that the idea is to maximize revenues now from the Indian market 4/5 World trophies in 4 years, what a *ing joke nevada 1 Link to comment
Serpico Posted Thursday at 10:44 AM Share Posted Thursday at 10:44 AM 1 hour ago, R!TTER said: Not really, 1996-2011 had QF's & we definitely did not have 16 teams then! The reason QF are gone because ICC wants India to play as many games as possible - another reason why I absolutely hate this fixing of the groups & just how BS the "ICC trophies" are now They're basically glorified multilateral tourneys like we had in the 80/90's just that the idea is to maximize revenues now from the Indian market 4/5 World trophies in 4 years, what a *ing joke They can still schedule group games along with QFs Link to comment
Serpico Posted Thursday at 10:45 AM Share Posted Thursday at 10:45 AM To be fair, QFs are not necessary when only about 8 teams are competitive at any given time AuxiliA and Lord 1 1 Link to comment
R!TTER Posted Thursday at 10:52 AM Share Posted Thursday at 10:52 AM (edited) 7 minutes ago, Serpico said: They can still schedule group games along with QFs Yes but for that they'll need at least two groups, they want India to play at least 10-12 games & that's why they've done away with QF as far as I'm concerned. I'd prefer QF to come back, especially in WT20 but ICC's never been about growing the game or showcasing the best cricketing spectacle! If a team wins 3 KO's they deserve to lift the trophy but as we saw with Pak in 2017, Oz in 2021 or Pak again in 2022 a few lucky games can lead them to a final - that makes a mockery of these "ICC trophies" Edited Thursday at 10:54 AM by R!TTER Link to comment
Adamant Posted Thursday at 01:44 PM Share Posted Thursday at 01:44 PM Nah, round robin with two knockouts is way better, there shouldn't be a high chance of fluke in a well organised competition Link to comment
Lord Posted Thursday at 01:53 PM Share Posted Thursday at 01:53 PM 8 minutes ago, Adamant said: Nah, round robin with two knockouts is way better, there shouldn't be a high chance of fluke in a well organised competition yes even for knockouts I prefer IPL style playoffs putrevus, cricketfan28 and Adamant 1 2 Link to comment
R!TTER Posted Thursday at 01:56 PM Share Posted Thursday at 01:56 PM What do you mean? With 3 KO's the chances of fluke goes down massively, 2 wins in a row after some group games can be fluked but 3 is exponentially harder! Link to comment
cricketfan28 Posted Thursday at 05:52 PM Share Posted Thursday at 05:52 PM round robin top4 is better, as someone already mentioned the top 2 teams should get some advantage going into knockouts. nevada 1 Link to comment
putrevus Posted Thursday at 06:14 PM Share Posted Thursday at 06:14 PM 4 hours ago, Lord said: yes even for knockouts I prefer IPL style playoffs IPL style knockout is the way to go than useless quarter finals. That way being the best team during group stage is rewarded and flukey teams have to play more matches to win the whole thing. Lord 1 Link to comment
zen Posted Thursday at 07:49 PM Author Share Posted Thursday at 07:49 PM Terms like “fluke” should be avoided in sports (per some 1983 was a fluke but I think any team that wins a tournament deserves to win it). Big events are about knockouts, the more the better! 12-16-20 teams, divided into 2 or 4 groups (per the # of teams), QFs, SFs, & F. Super 6 or 8 is a way to increase the # of games to generate more revenues while adding an element of potential boredom to the tournament. sage 1 Link to comment
Need4Speed Posted yesterday at 03:50 AM Share Posted yesterday at 03:50 AM Then India wont even qualify for semis..haha Link to comment
Lord Posted yesterday at 04:11 PM Share Posted yesterday at 04:11 PM 20 hours ago, zen said: Terms like “fluke” should be avoided in sports (per some 1983 was a fluke but I think any team that wins a tournament deserves to win it). Big events are about knockouts, the more the better! 12-16-20 teams, divided into 2 or 4 groups (per the # of teams), QFs, SFs, & F. Super 6 or 8 is a way to increase the # of games to generate more revenues while adding an element of potential boredom to the tournament. QFs make group games boring as we pretty much know who top 8 teams will be. Its effectively a 7 match tournament Link to comment
zen Posted yesterday at 04:21 PM Author Share Posted yesterday at 04:21 PM (edited) 10 minutes ago, Lord said: QFs make group games boring as we pretty much know who top 8 teams will be. Its effectively a 7 match tournament There would a few interesting games as there would be upset, there would be some key games with teams wanting to finish in the top 2 to play the bottom 2 from the other group. ICC world cups are not annual league tournaments. Knockouts should ideally be the focus. Edited yesterday at 04:22 PM by zen Link to comment
maniac Posted yesterday at 04:22 PM Share Posted yesterday at 04:22 PM The day SA lost to WI in 1996, qf template died for me. argument can be made for india knocking out defending champs and pre tournament favs Pak too but at least india at home are always favorites so it’s not that surreal. however qf is a bigger lottery. Link to comment
Lord Posted yesterday at 04:23 PM Share Posted yesterday at 04:23 PM Just now, zen said: Not really as there would be upset, there would be some key games with teams wanting to finish in the top 2 to play the bottom 2 from the other group. one or two upsets won't change the top 8. Link to comment
maniac Posted yesterday at 04:26 PM Share Posted yesterday at 04:26 PM 2 minutes ago, Lord said: one or two upsets won't change the top 8. Qf should only happen if there are at least 32 teams. In cricket max you will get 16 teams at best out of which 10 make up numbers. So having a qf for 6 decent teams is foolish. Lord 1 Link to comment
zen Posted yesterday at 04:27 PM Author Share Posted yesterday at 04:27 PM 1 minute ago, Lord said: one or two upsets won't change the top 8. Top 8 depends upon groups. I would rather see top teams play KOs and take it from there! Link to comment