ICC should bring back the Quarter-Finals!

[zen]

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

[Chakdephatte]

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.

[Bigg Brother]

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.

[R!TTER]

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 

[Serpico]

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

[Serpico]

To be fair, QFs are not necessary when only about 8 teams are competitive at any given time 

[R!TTER]

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

[Adamant]

Nah, round robin with two knockouts is way better, there shouldn't be a high chance of fluke in a well organised competition

[Lord]

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

[R!TTER]

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!

[cricketfan28]

round robin top4 is better, as someone already mentioned the top 2 teams should get some advantage going into knockouts.

[putrevus]

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.

[zen]

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. 
 

 

 

[Need4Speed]

Then India wont even qualify for semis..haha

[Lord]

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

[zen]

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

[maniac]

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.

[Lord]

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.

[maniac]

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.

[zen]

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!