I hate this format of the world cup... and seeding

[bharat297]

I dont like the idea of splitting the teams into 4 groups of 4. It eliminates too many of the big countries (due to 1 bad loss, like what happened to us in WC2007), and can allow a minnow to fluke their way into the top8, where they will only proceed to be smashed by the big names. I think they should use a format similar to that of WC2003. They have 2 groups of 8, and the top 3 from each group go into a super 6 format. Then the top 4 from that play in semi's (points carry over from the group stages) and then the final.

[someone]

I dont like the idea of splitting the teams into 4 groups of 4. It eliminates too many of the big countries (due to 1 bad loss, like what happened to us in WC2007), and can allow a minnow to fluke their way into the top8, where they will only proceed to be smashed by the big names. I think they should use a format similar to that of WC2007. They have 2 groups of 8, and the top 3 from each group go into a super 6 format. Then the top 4 from that play in semi's (points carry over from the group stages) and then the final.

Well, then what else do you want, Cricket is not a sport where many teams play so we can afford many groups so we can only have 2 teams out of three, and the chances of each team going in is 0.33 which is decent WC2007 Format was also like that 4 teams in the initial group

[bharat297]

Sorry I meant WC2003 ... the format used in WC2003, that was better. Thats what I want.

[King]

I think you have a point. What's the point in having a super 8s consisting Bangladesh and Netherlands. It's one thing if they are good enough but these two teams in the next round means easy for few other teams. Bangladesh is berable as they are capable of producing result on their day but Netherlands going through on the basis of a single game doesn't augur well for a world cup. You want the top 8 teams (I'd like to see test playing nations) in the next round so that every game is gripping and there's more competition making it better to follow the games. I think one or two or three among Australia, Sri Lanka, West Indies, Bangladesh and Pakistan missing out isn't great advertisement for the world cup. As long as the followers/countrymen from minnow nations take up cricket I wouldn't have a problem but if nations such as Ireland, Scotland and the likes are not going to inspire their country's public to follow cricket then it's a waste of time as these will not go on to compete well with the rest of the test playing nations.

[Ram]

WC '03 is decidedly better for sure. The only reason that could have prompted the organizers have the current format is probably the time factor. I think in this format, the league format gets over much faster, cutting down on the overall duration of the tournament.

[Zap_Brannigan]

This is T20. Any format will be bad as there are too many flukes to be had because of the short format. Look at the IPL. Each played each other twice and we could easily see that 2 teams outshone everyone else in the leagues (even when they lost, they lost narrowly and not by huge margin). They both got knocked off in the semifinals. How about SA in 92,96 and 99 WC. It can be seen in all sports. If only the better team won, then it will not be exciting.

[Ram]

This is T20. Any format will be bad as there are too many flukes to be had because of the short format. Look at the IPL. Each played each other twice and we could easily see that 2 teams outshone everyone else in the leagues (even when they lost, they lost narrowly and not by huge margin). They both got knocked off in the semifinals. How about SA in 92,96 and 99 WC. It can be seen in all sports. If only the better team won, then it will not be exciting.

That is incorrect. World over, tournaments with seeded players/teams are designed in such a way that the top players/teams have as easy a route as possible, to the knockout stages.

[bharat297]

This is T20. Any format will be bad as there are too many flukes to be had because of the short format. Look at the IPL. Each played each other twice and we could easily see that 2 teams outshone everyone else in the leagues (even when they lost, they lost narrowly and not by huge margin). They both got knocked off in the semifinals. How about SA in 92,96 and 99 WC. It can be seen in all sports. If only the better team won, then it will not be exciting.

Thats precisely the reason why we need the format used in WC2003. This way teams need to win consistently just to make it to the top 3 of their group.

[abhinav_super]

Well I hate that format which 2007 50 over World cup had. Yeah , but this is the shortest format of 20-20.

[cowboysfan]

not a good way to promote cricket in the t20 format if you design competitions where the associates and minnows have no chance of advancing.

[vipin]

World cup 2011 format has 2 groups of 7 each followed by a 3 tier knockout system. 4 teams from each group qualify for the quarterfinals. As for this world cup , this is the best chance the minnows have of proceeding to the next round and unless they have a chance to make it through it shall be poor advertisement for cricket in those nations. I am not defending the structure but just providing a different viewpoint.

[Shane]

Keeping in mind this event takes place every two years, seems like the ICC are keen to keep it down to a two-weeker, the format is good, the chances of every team making is equal, there might be the odd upset, but whats sport without upsets ? If Pakistan beat Nedz by a good margin and Bangles topples Ireland, we would have teams going through on form book. Having lost the first game to the Netherlands the English had a do or die against Pakistan, which they won (there was a chance of a comeback), do you think if they had lost both their games, they would still deserve to be in the tournament ? Regarding the ODI format of the WC, its once in four years, so the longitivity can be compromised, so either have 1. Two groups of Six, then quarters/semis/finals or semis/finals 2. Two groups of Sis, the Super sixes, the semis and finals (WC 2003) 3. Or like the last WC which i am in favour of, coz the no. of Associate Teams playing in each WC would only increase and in a case where there are more than 12 teams, this formats suits the best, it also generally means we have the Top 8 teams going through to the next round of the Super Eights

[Don Sharma]

The WC 2011 format really sux. What's the point in holding 42 games to decide the top eight teams in the world and then play just seven more games to decide the best team in the world. Ridiculous. Either they should have played 42 games to decide top four teams or gone with 4*4 or 3*4 round robin intial stage followed by Super six(no super eight please, that was too long). In case of 4x4, top one team qualifies along with two teams with better run rate.

[fineleg]

WC2003 format is indeed better. The goal of T20 WC should not be to "maximize minnow chances". Neverthless, I'm happy to have read that Eng got beaten by Nedz Now, lets hope Hollies can beat the Paks also! PS: (Didnt watch the T20 matches incl the Ind match since I was travelling - will start following again now).

[DomainK]

Keeping in mind this event takes place every two years, seems like the ICC are keen to keep it down to a two-weeker, the format is good, the chances of every team making is equal, there might be the odd upset, but whats sport without upsets ? If Pakistan beat Nedz by a good margin and Bangles topples Ireland, we would have teams going through on form book. Having lost the first game to the Netherlands the English had a do or die against Pakistan, which they won (there was a chance of a comeback), do you think if they had lost both their games, they would still deserve to be in the tournament ? Regarding the ODI format of the WC, its once in four years, so the longitivity can be compromised, so either have 1. Two groups of Six, then quarters/semis/finals or semis/finals 2. Two groups of Sis, the Super sixes, the semis and finals (WC 2003) 3. Or like the last WC which i am in favour of, coz the no. of Associate Teams playing in each WC would only increase and in a case where there are more than 12 teams, this formats suits the best, it also generally means we have the Top 8 teams going through to the next round of the Super Eights

Right. I agree with you. And besides, no team should take round1 matches as warm up matches. There should be no freebies. Come prepared and its game on from game one. If the minnows are making it to the next level, its because the big teams are taking them for granted. And if they are winning, they deserve a place in the next level. That encourages them.

[DomainK]

WC2003 format is indeed better. The goal of T20 WC should not be to "maximize minnow chances". Neverthless, I'm happy to have read that Eng got beaten by Nedz Now, lets hope Hollies can beat the Paks also! PS: (Didnt watch the T20 matches incl the Ind match since I was travelling - will start following again now).

Hope so.....but they dont have to. They just have to lose by a smaller margin. So if I was the Holland captain and Pakistan sets a target of 160, In would tell my team to take it easy and score 100 runs with some wickets intact.

[flamy]

PS: (Didnt watch the T20 matches incl the Ind match since I was travelling - will start following again now).

:nervous:

[fineleg]

Hope so.....but they dont have to. They just have to lose by a smaller margin. So if I was the Holland captain and Pakistan sets a target of 160' date=' In would tell my team to take it easy and score 100 runs with some wickets intact.[/quote'] Ah, ok. I was just catching up on the Net Run Rate equation on cricinfo. You are right. Thats what they should do - wow, Pak is so close to getting eliminated - that'd be awesome if they get kicked out.

[bharat297]

WC2003 format is indeed better. The goal of T20 WC should not be to "maximize minnow chances". Neverthless, I'm happy to have read that Eng got beaten by Nedz Now, lets hope Hollies can beat the Paks also! PS: (Didnt watch the T20 matches incl the Ind match since I was travelling - will start following again now).

Exactly ... that should be the goal for any WC. If minnows are to step up they need to win several games which was encouraged in WC2003, but not in WC2007.

[Tapioca]

Hope so.....but they dont have to. They just have to lose by a smaller margin. So if I was the Holland captain and Pakistan sets a target of 160' date=' In would tell my team to take it easy and score 100 runs with some wickets intact.[/quote'] Where does the Cricinfo's "Pakistan needs to win by 60 runs" come from ? Without doing the actual calculations - Netherland's NRR is practically 0, while Pakistan's loss margin was 48 runs. So if both teams play 20 overs tomorrow and Pakistan wins by 24-25 runs, the NRRs of the two teams should meet. ie, winning by 25-26 runs should be sufficient for Pakistan. Is there any more complicated maths involved here ? PS : Well..... As per Don Sharma's post below, ThX1138 has already mentioned it in some other thread :(