A better WC format?

[The Outsider]

Start with 12 teams in 4 groups each: Group A: ICC #1 ICC #8 ICC #9 Group B: ICC #2 ICC #7 ICC #10 Group C: ICC #3 ICC #6 ICC # 11 Group D: ICC #4 ICC #5 ICC #12 Each team plays the other two teams in its group twice and the best team from each group moves forward. Thats a total of 24 matches in the first round. We are left with 4 teams: A1 B1 C1 D1 Now each team plays the other three twice. Thats another 12 matches in the second round. Top two teams compete in a best of three finals. Total number of matches = 39. Total non minnow matches = 23. Cup can be EASILY wrapped up within one month. First round in 12 days with almost all days having a good match up. Gives lesser teams like Zim and BD to show their mettle and at the same time gets rid of rank minnows like Bermuda and Holland. Ensures 15 top quality matches between the top 4 teams. Any good?

[gs]

Re: A better WC format? Group E only India (2nd round entry guaranteed) :hic:

[kabira]

Re: A better WC format? I like the idea.. Shwetabh for ICC president..

[kabira]

Re: A better WC format? Based on current rating Group A Aus, WI, Ban Group B SA, Eng, IRL (Pakistan is saved) Group C NZL, Ind, Zim (Quite Yummy) Group D SL, Pak, Kenya

[kabira]

Re: A better WC format? Based on last two games between the sides Aus tops Group A SA tops Group B Tie between NZL and Ind..decided on NRR..India goes thru.. Pak tops Group D Wow much better Wc..

[King]

Re: A better WC format? I think the format of 2003 was just perfect. Don't know whey they tweaked it. As for your format Shwetabh, the team winning the world cup will have dodged playing against 5 test playing nation. That is simply not good enough IMO to decide the best in the world. The best in the World ideally had to defeat the top 8-10 teams in the world cup. Also commercially the format is simply not viable. You would rather see top teams clashing once than see the teams playing among themselves twice in the first round.

[jf1gp_1]

Re: A better WC format? I agree with is 12 teams in 4 with each playing each other twice but selecting only 1 team per pool for second round will throw the best team from the pool but maynot result in top 4 teams. Lets take the current WC if we followed this format top 4 teams would have been Aus, SL, NZ and WI. Now SA may not be good enough to beat Aus but they are better than WI and even NZ. Yes Ind performed horribly in WC 07 but they are also better than WI infact if Ind NZ were to play a 5 match ODI series today on a neutral ground Ind would most likly win 3-2. I would say select 8 teams play quarter final, if you want to eliminate luck factor then in quarter final teams play each other twice and then move to semi's and final.

[Bumper]

Re: A better WC format? Good thoughts Shwetabh, but the flaw in your format is that the WC winner need not have played 4 other possibly non minnow teams. That to me, is not acceptable I think super 8 has merits, prolly the best format. But the first round could have 2 games vs each opponent as opposed to the current format. To counter the no. of games, we simply restrict the no. of teams to 3 per group, with 4 groups. That will result in 6 prelim games as well.

[kabira]

Re: A better WC format? Make it simple 8 teams only play with each other.. 28 games Top 4 semis (Best of 3) maximum 6 games Final (Best of 3) maximum 2 games..

[Predator_05]

Re: A better WC format? The 1992 format was the best. A round-robin in the first stage which sees each and every side playing each other once. The 4 teams which amass the maximum # of points after that stage will advance to the semi-finals. Short and succint - just as tournaments ought to be. I reckon the shorter the better, as that way your audience won't lose interest and each and every match will be treated with the utmost importance. I'd also limit the # of minnows - Ireland and Kenya should be enough. Personally, if it were up to me - i'd abandon the entire World Cup thing altogether and use a "league" format for ODI's; played out over the course of a proper season (AUG-MAY). In addition to the Test playing sides, i'd also introduce Ireland, Kenya and one other wildcard for the sake of variety. Each team plays the other in 5 match bilateral series home and away at differing points of the season. A series win equates to 3 points, and an unassilable clean sweep (ie; a 3-0) allows the series winner to pick up 4 points. Whichever side amasses the most points at the end of the season wins the LG Hero Honda Pepsi Cola Hutch Bank Alfalah Fosters Coors Light Marlboro One Day International Championship for that season. I know this is merely a b'astardized version of the league format used in European football leagues, but i think it's far more interesting. It will certainly reduce the gap between the Australians and the rest as even the World Champs will need to sustain a high level of form throughout A SEASON rather than just a few weeks; which is far more difficult. With a format like this, a 3-0 defeat in New Zealand would pose a serious threat to their chances of winning the ODI Championship, instead of being some inconsequential series which no one will ever remember.

[The Outsider]

Re: A better WC format? Some very valid criticisms above. Gave it some more thought and came up with the following: Instead of teams playing each other twice in the first round they'll play just once with the top 2 teams advancing to the second round and a total of 12 games. So we have in group X: A1 C2 B1 D2 and in group Y: C1 A2 D1 B2 In each group X and Y teams will play each other once for a total of 12 games with top 2 teams from each group advancing to the third round: X1 X2 Y1 Y2 Now these 4 teams will play each other twice with the top 2 playing a best of 3 finals. The total matches still remains at 39 and non minnow matches increases to 31. With current rankings which Kabira posted: Group A Aus, WI, BD Group B SA, Eng, Ire Group C NZ, Ind, Zim Group D SL, Pak, Ken Now group X will have(based on top 2 teams qualifying which might not happen): Group X: Aus, SA, Ind, Pak Group Y: NZ, SL, WI, Eng Top 2 from each group of these will go through to the third round. The major advantage of this format over Super 8 is that even if there is an early round upset and say BD and Ire go through the public wont have to endure too many of their matches because they wil surely be found out in the second round if they came there by fluke. Plus the number of matches remains 39 which can easily be finished in a month.

[The Outsider]

Re: A better WC format?

The 1992 format was the best. A round-robin in the first stage which sees each and every side playing each other once. The 4 teams which amass the maximum # of points after that stage will advance to the semi-finals.

Predator, even with 10 teams the '92 WC format would end up with 55 preliminary matches and if you have 12 then you are looking at 78 prelim. matches. Hardly, short and succinct. And while I am not in favour of having too many minnows in a WC, but teams like Ireland and Kenya deserve a chance to play at the biggest stage once in 4 years.

[Predator_05]

Re: A better WC format?

The 1992 format was the best. A round-robin in the first stage which sees each and every side playing each other once. The 4 teams which amass the maximum # of points after that stage will advance to the semi-finals.

Predator, even with 10 teams the '92 WC format would end up with 55 preliminary matches and if you have 12 then you are looking at 78 prelim. matches. Hardly, short and succinct. And while I am not in favour of having too many minnows in a WC, but teams like Ireland and Kenya deserve a chance to play at the biggest stage once in 4 years.

I didn't say they would play each other twice (that was for the league thing, a completely different idea) but they play each other only once - which works out to a little less than 40 RR games if you got 10 teams. The '92 WC was played out in less time than the others when you don't account for the sh*tloads of rest days in between.

[King]

Re: A better WC format? I quite like the league format Pred suggested. Similar league should be adopted for test matches too. How can a team that wins the ODI format be called the World Champions??? This reminds me of the ODI triangular series WI, Aus and Pakistan played after the 1992 world cup. Pakistan was crowned the ODI champions and I think Pakistan won one ODI of all in the triseries that followed the 1992 world cup making mockery of the title "World Champions". West Indies that was found wanting in 1992 WC beat Pakistan so often it wasn't funny anymore.

[The Outsider]

Re: A better WC format? 10 teams is still 9+8+.....+1=45 games and I would like to see 12 teams because 10 teams would see the stronger minnows missing out.

[Guest BossBhai]

Re: A better WC format? -- Removed on request of the user --

[King]

Re: A better WC format? Why don't we have our own ratings and name the top teams in both formats? I know you did some ground work on this one S, perhaps we should revisit that.

[dhruvdeepak]

Re: A better WC format?

The 1992 format was the best. A round-robin in the first stage which sees each and every side playing each other once. The 4 teams which amass the maximum # of points after that stage will advance to the semi-finals. Short and succint - just as tournaments ought to be. I reckon the shorter the better, as that way your audience won't lose interest and each and every match will be treated with the utmost importance. I'd also limit the # of minnows - Ireland and Kenya should be enough. Personally, if it were up to me - i'd abandon the entire World Cup thing altogether and use a "league" format for ODI's; played out over the course of a proper season (AUG-MAY). In addition to the Test playing sides, i'd also introduce Ireland, Kenya and one other wildcard for the sake of variety. Each team plays the other in 5 match bilateral series home and away at differing points of the season. A series win equates to 3 points, and an unassilable clean sweep (ie; a 3-0) allows the series winner to pick up 4 points. Whichever side amasses the most points at the end of the season wins the LG Hero Honda Pepsi Cola Hutch Bank Alfalah Fosters Coors Light Marlboro One Day International Championship for that season. I know this is merely a b'astardized version of the league format used in European football leagues, but i think it's far more interesting. It will certainly reduce the gap between the Australians and the rest as even the World Champs will need to sustain a high level of form throughout A SEASON rather than just a few weeks; which is far more difficult. With a format like this, a 3-0 defeat in New Zealand would pose a serious threat to their chances of winning the ODI Championship, instead of being some inconsequential series which no one will ever remember.

100% agree with you. the same league format could be applied to Tests also, though could keep it a 2-year championship. at least there is a real WORLD TITLE up for grabs then, rather than some stupid points table saying ok, today SA beat BD, and hence become the #1 team in the world on points. such a league with playoffs etc will increase the interest in Cricket on the whole. frankly im sick and tired of bilateral odi series, with no real purpose or end to it. seriously, 7 ODI series with the same teams playing over and over and over? who cares? its just a matter of foresight and a little bit of planning, that's all it will take to arrange Test and even ODI series under some sort of a league format. You dont even need to change the scheduled ICC 10-year plan whatever that much. i guarantee if 2 or 3 of us sat down, even over a couple of beers and some brainstorming for a few hours we would be able to come up with something beautiful. shows that the ICC gives 2 hoots about cricket.

[dhruvdeepak]

Re: A better WC format? as for the WC format - this one was alright, but yes definitely it lost interest (maybe has to do with the teams themselves). i mean India and Pak only have themselves to blame for not being on the ball in the crucial early stages. we have to be realistic and realize minnow teams are going to be a part of cricket until the ICC wakes up and starts actually funding them. so 14 or 16 teams is going to be a reality and will have to be worked around. with these many teams, the 92 WC format is not possible. i would say have 14 teams (10 Test teams + 4 minnows). two groups of 7. top 4 from each qualify for the quarterfinals. simple. 49 matches. Fairly long, but i dont understand WHY you cant have 2 matches on the same day. you have 21 prelim matches in each group. why the heck cant it be organized to be completed in 21 days? each team can comfortably play 6 matches within the 21 days. even giving some rest days in the format the WC should last a MAXIMUM of 35 days. now the obvious questions come to mind - not everyone gets to play everyone else. but i beg to differ. Say a group has India, Australia, WI, SL, Zim, Ireland and Holland. (other group is NZ, Pak, SA, Eng, BD, Kenya, and North Korea). whatever. India plays: Aus, WI, SL, Zim, Ire, Holland. then quarters - SA semis - Pak finals - Aus basically India doesnt get to play 2 'main' teams. I think it is acceptable. and you skip all the meaningless matches in the 2nd round. such as SL vs Aus, NZ vs Aus, WI vs Eng. you gotta make it exciting - best way is to make things sudden death.

[Chandan]

Re: A better WC format? But guys, we're already stuck with 16 teams as ICC has has decided that 16teams will play in the next WC too. Link