Best Format for ICC ODI World Cup

[CricketWise]

Has the ICC missed a trick by having just a 10 team ODI World Cup? 

 

I think ideally 14-16 teams should participate in the World Cup. Teams like West Indies, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Ireland, Scotland, Netherlands along with a few upcoming teams like Nepal and Oman can easily play the World Cup. 

 

Surely having these teams would result in some once sided contests but the overall experience of such a big event would be more wholesome. 

 

Can have two groups of 8 teams each (5 strong, 3 weak). With top 3 from each group progressing. Then the 6 play each other once. Then semi final and final. 

 

Thoughts? 

[Norman]

ICC don't give a fukk about giving chances to smaller nations. All they want is to maximize their revenues by having 9 confirmed India games and fill up the coffers. 

[Norman]

By the way, 2027 is going to see a change in format and will be played similar to the 2003 one. 14 teams divided into two groups of 7 with top 3 in each group qualifying for super 6. 

 

Another format that is made to ensure India plays a minimum of 9 games (6 in the group stage and 3 in the super 6s). It's all about money for these dickheads..

[CricketWise]

23 minutes ago, Norman said:

ICC don't give a fukk about giving chances to smaller nations. All they want is to maximize their revenues by having 9 confirmed India games and fill up the coffers. 

Can easily get more than 9 India games with how i see. 7 group games for India. 90% chance India goes through. 5 more games then.

[CricketWise]

22 minutes ago, Norman said:

By the way, 2027 is going to see a change in format and will be played similar to the 2003 one. 14 teams divided into two groups of 7 with top 3 in each group qualifying for super 6. 

 

Another format that is made to ensure India plays a minimum of 9 games (6 in the group stage and 3 in the super 6s). It's all about money for these dickheads..

Didn't know this! Great, thanks for sharing. Wish it was two groups of 8 them as i wrote in my thread. Maximise ganes and nations.

[Norman]

38 minutes ago, CricketWise said:

Can easily get more than 9 India games with how i see. 7 group games for India. 90% chance India goes through. 5 more games then.

 

Yes but it has the additional costs of accomodating a lot of extra teams and their games with minimal returns in terms of viewership.

[CricketWise]

4 hours ago, Norman said:

 

Yes but it has the additional costs of accomodating a lot of extra teams and their games with minimal returns in terms of viewership.

Big 1/2/3 can only sustain a game for so long. You need good competition to keep people interested.

 

Cost of accomodation/ logistics is nothing. The TV/ Digital/ AD rights easily take care of such stuff not to forget gate fees, etc.

 

Coming to viewership, i think it's decent even for qualifiers; actual WC games will always find takers.

[zen]

I prefer more KO games so 16 teams divided into 4 groups. If ICC wants some more games, it ca make teams play each other twice at the group stage. 
 

Top 2 teams from each group play the QF -> SF -> F. 
 

[CricketWise]

42 minutes ago, zen said:

I prefer more KO games so 16 teams divided into 4 groups. If ICC wants some more games, it ca make teams play each other twice at the group stage. 
 

Top 2 teams from each group play the QF -> SF -> F. 
 

Don't really have an issue with more knockouts but I would personally prefer teams getting tested against maximum other teams in the WC rather than play the same opposition twice. More variety. 

[bowl_out]

1 hour ago, zen said:

I prefer more KO games so 16 teams divided into 4 groups. If ICC wants some more games, it ca make teams play each other twice at the group stage. 
 

Top 2 teams from each group play the QF -> SF -> F. 
 

They tried 16 groups divided into 4 in the 2007 WC and it backfired massively when Pak and India had one bad game each

[zen]

6 minutes ago, bowl_out said:

They tried 16 groups divided into 4 in the 2007 WC and it backfired massively when Pak and India had one bad game each

 

I would not call it backfired (teams have to play well to make it to the next stage. A bad game, a bad hour, etc. is for all the teams). The issue, in terms of interest, was with the S8 stage, which just kept on going and going, and where 50% of the teams were not even playing that good cricket). 

[bowl_out]

59 minutes ago, zen said:

 

I would not call it backfired (teams have to play well to make it to the next stage. A bad game, a bad hour, etc. is for all the teams). The issue, in terms of interest, was with the S8 stage, which just kept on going and going, and where 50% of the teams were not even playing that good cricket). 

 

It is bad for business/viewership when stalwarts go out that early. Also, there was a lengthly super 8 where Bangladesh and Ireland looked totally out of place. So the league stage didn't really determine the best 8 teams. One bad game can happen to any team and it shouldn't decide the fate of their exit. You can always argue that India should have won against SL. But, those were evenly poised games between equally strong teams.

 

If there are 16 teams, then there could be a round robin among two groups of 8 and the best two from each go to the semis. But this format would mean that we would miss out on some big ticket clashes when the teams are in different groups.

 

[zen]

On 6/28/2023 at 12:49 PM, bowl_out said:

 

It is bad for business/viewership when stalwarts go out that early. Also, there was a lengthly super 8 where Bangladesh and Ireland looked totally out of place. So the league stage didn't really determine the best 8 teams. One bad game can happen to any team and it shouldn't decide the fate of their exit. You can always argue that India should have won against SL. But, those were evenly poised games between equally strong teams.

 

If there are 16 teams, then there could be a round robin among two groups of 8 and the best two from each go to the semis. But this format would mean that we would miss out on some big ticket clashes when the teams are in different groups.

 

 

I don't worry much about viewership. Tournaments should be designed with good and exciting cricket in mind.

 

Super whatever has been a problem as such a huge group is likely to have many teams not playing at the level of the top 2-3 teams in a particular tournament. In 1999, India and Zim were the weak teams.  In 2003, Kenya made it. In 2007, 3-4 teams were not playing good cricket (and a couple of relatively poor teams - Ind & Pak, did not even make it). 

 

Which is why I prefer - "more KO games so 16 teams divided into 4 groups. If ICC wants some more games, it can make teams play each other twice at the group stage. Top 2 teams from each group play the QF -> SF -> F. "

 

As I said, ICC can make teams play twice in the group stage to ensure the best inform teams (not necessarily the teams with more fans, who try to portray those teams as best), go to the next stage (and also adds more games). 

PS however, I would prefer teams play only 1 game each against other teams in the group stage to bring the KO qualities to group games too (and that also leads to a relatively shorter tournament)!

 

Edited June 29, 2023 by zen

[CricketWise]

11 hours ago, bowl_out said:

They tried 16 groups divided into 4 in the 2007 WC and it backfired massively when Pak and India had one bad game each

Yes, that's why two groups are better. Even with an upset, chances of a big team going out are less since you can bounce back.