Pick you favorite worldcup format

[Dinx - the Jinx]

Over the decades the cricket world cup has seen many different formats. some were interesting and some were utterly stupid. I'm not a big fan of having quarterfinals in a tournament where there are not more than 15 teams. It makes sense in a larger tournament like the football WC where there are 32 teams, but QFs in a cricket worldcup is not exactly a wise thing. We Indians are not complaining because the last time we had a QF in the WC, we had the best WC match in the tournament's history (as far as India is concerned). So we are not bothered. Had it been Pakistan who walked away with a win that day, we would be the first one to oppose QFs in worldcups. SA also had one bad day in that tournament against Brian Lara and they had to pack their bags (in hindsight, they would have choked anyway in the semi's against Aussies). My favorite WC format was the 1992 format where every team played all the others once in a round robin fashion with top 4 teams finishing as Semi finalists. We played against all the teams. Throughout he tournament the composition of the Top4 changed and it kept more teams engaged. Teams who performed consistently over the length of the tournament were rewarded with a SF spot. Pakistan who was down and out at the beginning managed to make it to the SFs through some good display in the latter part of the tournament. I felt it was a fair format. But now that the number of teams have increased it will be impossible to go back to that format. The second favorite format me was the 2003 WC, where again we payed against all major teams except South Africa may be. Unlike the 2007 format where a loss in a banana skin game will kick you out of the tournament, it provided a chance to clash with all the teams. To me,the 2007 format looked perfect to start with. It was under the premise that the minnows will get their share of 3 games and then bow out. the top 8 teams will all go through to Super 8s and then starts the real deal. But what happened is history :--D Those are my views. Pick your favorite format and why 1) 2 groups of 4. Round robin league. Top 2 from each group qualifying for SF (used in 1975, 1979, 1983, 1987 WCs) 2) Everyone plays everyone in Round robin league. Top 4 goto Semis - Used in 1992 3) 2 groups of 6. Round robin league. Top 4 from each group qualifying for QF. Knock outs thereafter (my least fav) 4) 2 groups. Round robin league. Top 3 quality for Super 6 with points carried forward. Top 4 from super 6, qualify for SF (used in 1999 and 2003) 5) 4 groups of 4. Round robin league. Top 2 from each group goto Super 8. Top 4 from super 8, qualify for SF (used in 2007) 6) 2 groups of 7. Round robin league. Top 4 from each group qualifying for QF. Knock outs thereafter (to be used in 2011)

[Sir john]

1999-2003 :yes:

[Dinx - the Jinx]

1999-2003 :yes:

and why?

[vvvslaxman]

and why?

1999 is last century's last world cup 2003 is this century's first world cup Is that why John? (it is John style stats) :winky:

[Dinx - the Jinx]

1999 is last century's last world cup 2003 is this century's first world cup Is that why John? (it is John style stats) :winky:

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: VVS - thu bhi na

[Zap_Brannigan]

QF is bad not because there are 16 teams, its bad because there are only 9 teams with realistic chance of reaching QF. So most of the games provide no excitement. 92 format, although technically superior in that all teams face all other teams, it has no clear direction till the last few games before the SF. Like in the IPL, with no clear directions on how many games to win, most of the 1st round games will not be that exciting. Sure, a win is great, but a loss doesn’t mean much. Until a clear picture emerges in the league table, the excitement maynot be there i.e. If India needs to win 3 off the last 4 games, then it becomes rather exciting over something like India needs 5 wins over 9 games. A good format will have to find the balance between both these formats. My ideal format would be to have a 3 stage tournament. 1st stage - 5 teams each in 2 groups. Top 2 from each group go to the next round. No points carried over. 1.5 stage – 3rd placed team from both groups face in a knockout game. Whoever wins goes to 2nd stage. 2nd stage - All 5 teams play each other once. The top 2 go to the finals. 3rd stage – Final 32 games WC.

[Dinx - the Jinx]

QF is bad not because there are 16 teams, its bad because there are only 9 teams with realistic chance of reaching QF. So most of the games provide no excitement. 92 format, although technically superior in that all teams face all other teams, it has no clear direction till the last few games before the SF. Like in the IPL, with no clear directions on how many games to win, most of the 1st round games will not be that exciting. Sure, a win is great, but a loss doesn’t mean much. Until a clear picture emerges in the league table, the excitement maynot be there i.e. If India needs to win 3 off the last 4 games, then it becomes rather exciting over something like India needs 5 wins over 9 games. A good format will have to find the balance between both these formats. My ideal format would be to have a 3 stage tournament. 1st stage - 5 teams each in 2 groups. Top 2 from each group go to the next round. No points carried over. 1.5 stage – 3rd placed team from both groups face in a knockout game. Whoever wins goes to 2nd stage. 2nd stage - All 5 teams play each other once. The top 2 go to the finals. 3rd stage – Final 32 games WC.

hmmm.. interesting format it is., but u r including only 10 teams. with associate members it will be atleast 12 or 14, so there will be more games

[Zap_Brannigan]

hmmm.. interesting format it is.' date=' but u r including only 10 teams. with associate members it will be atleast 12 or 14, so there will be more games[/quote'] IIRC,ICC already said there will only be 10 teams next WC.Or is it the one after?

[Shane]

1996, 2011 Love the knockouts. It also holds the upset factor. SA vs WI from 96.

[Dinx - the Jinx]

IIRC' date='ICC already said there will only be 10 teams next WC.Or is it the one after?[/quote'] is it confirmed? i thought they were only hinting at it. also a number of players have commented that its not fair to take it away from the associate members

[Sir john]

and why?

bcz kenya perform well in both world cup. :yay::yay: 99 kenya start rising 2003 they creates history .:eyedance:

1999 is last century's last world cup 2003 is this century's first world cup Is that why John? (it is John style stats) :winky:

nope i state my reason above read them.