Meandering, passionless, and pointless

[Hindustani]

I already know who the quarterfinalists will be. Whats up with these meaningless games for more than a month. The WC starts March 23 when the quarter finals begin. Rest is just BS.

Exactly, it should have had only 10 teams, 5 each in a group, the top 4 making into super 4 with points carrying and best of 3 final. 20 + 4 + 3 = 27 matches and we are done, no meaningless matches.

[nballa]

they should have had these one sided matches at the back end of the tournament.

[Raghav_12]

This is probably the worst worldcup in the history of the game...even worse than the windies wc.

We had almost same farce in 96 world cup as well. Only difference was that instead of 7 teams in each group, we had 6 teams in each group and 4 out these 6 had progressed to QF's. People were able to guess Quaarter Finalists years before tournament started... To have QF when total number of teams is 12 or 14 is joke.

[panesarv]

I feel the format is fine. In the end, the best team will come up on top. You guys are impatient. World Cup is just warming up. We're going to get good games soon :D :D

[Bumper]

The 1996 format is not that bad if you think about it. 1999 format was bad (with teams carrying points into super 6 stage) - it impacted teams like India and only Australia could have done it from the position they found themselves in. 2003 was bad too, with the likes of Kenya in the semis. 2007 saw India & Pak have one bad day & exit from the world cup. The main issue in this format is that the quality games in the first round are inconsequential, as long as the bigger teams beat the minnows. I think the 1992 format is the best. If all teams play each other, only the most consistent teams go thru. I dont know why ICC cannot simply follow a format that worked for them in the past.

[The Outsider]

The 1996 format is not that bad if you think about it. 1999 format was bad (with teams carrying points into super 6 stage) - it impacted teams like India and only Australia could have done it from the position they found themselves in. 2003 was bad too, with the likes of Kenya in the semis. 2007 saw India & Pak have one bad day & exit from the world cup.

Don't think '99 and '03 WC formats were bad. Not as good as '92, but much better than '96 and '11. I don't see anything wrong with points being carried to the Super 6. League matches should hold importance against teams you are not playing in the next round. And let's face it, Zimbabwe beat India and South Africa. Why shouldn't they deserve an advantage over India? And, '03 was not the format's fault. It was the forfeitures which led to Kenya making the semi final and not the the format.

The main issue in this format is that the quality games in the first round are inconsequential, as long as the bigger teams beat the minnows. I think the 1992 format is the best. If all teams play each other, only the most consistent teams go thru. I dont know why ICC cannot simply follow a format that worked for them in the past.

'92 format is possible only with a maximum of 10 teams, which ICC is doing for the next edition. With 11 teams you are looking at 58 matches and 69 matches with 12 teams. That's simply too many.

[putrevus]

I prefer super 6s or the format in the 92 world cup. If there was a super 6 round or a round-robin league' date=' every match would count and we would be spared these irrelevant games the first month or so.[/quote'] round robin is worst it helps team who starts slow in tournament to keep going and what added incentive a team has to win all its matches and face a team who wins just 50% of its games and both make semis and one bad day that top team is out.. One bad day and that team is out even though it has won most matches than any other team. Like NZ in 1992 , it got hosed.Team like Pakistan who lost half of it matches ends up in finals just on having one good day. Super sixes was the best and points carry over from group can be tinkered around a little.

[Ram]

Completely agree with the sentiments expressed in the OP. But, I think we’re barking at the wrong tree here. I think the ICC/BCCI are totally helpless and are at the complete mercy of their corporate overlords, who must have made clear in no uncertain terms that they will not have a situation whereby they invest millions of dollars in copporate sponsorships only to see India get knocked out early and the interest of the Indian audience plummet alarmingly. ICC must have had no option BUT to have a meaningless and protracted league phase which ensures India is in the tournament at least until the last week and a half. Contrast this to the 2007 edition, when we were knocked out within the first 2 weeks, which pretty rang the deathknell interms of Indian viewer interest. And one way to ensure India does qualify for the knockouts is to have healthy dose of minnow teams who are essentially free points for the mainstream teams.

[kabira]

^well it can come to bite them back, ppl get bored, viewership goes down. so there should be balance.

[Bumper]

Don't think '99 and '03 WC formats were bad. Not as good as '92' date=' but much better than '96 and '11. I don't see anything wrong with points being carried to the Super 6. League matches should hold importance against teams you are not playing in the next round. And let's face it, Zimbabwe beat India [b']and South Africa. Why shouldn't they deserve an advantage over India? And, '03 was not the format's fault. It was the forfeitures which led to Kenya making the semi final and not the the format. '92 format is possible only with a maximum of 10 teams, which ICC is doing for the next edition. With 11 teams you are looking at 58 matches and 69 matches with 12 teams. That's simply too many.

I think 99 format was bad because the points you carried forward depended on who you beat. Ind did not get any credit for beating England, simply because England did not qualify. I'd think a fair format should reward teams for their consistency. That could mean, teams should be allowed to carry their total points from the previous round. I think 2007 format was an improvement, but since one bad day can send you out of the tournament, it led to bizzare results. Overall the 1992 format is the best, i believe with just 10 teams, we'll see that again in 2015.

[gaurav92]

Great Post Shwetabh. Some reasons for lack luster are : 1) Too many teams, too many one sided games (No. of teams should be limited to 10.) 2) On game per day which means the tourney is stretched. 3) Poor scheduling, which makes side travel more and more for a month hand a half long tourney, which affects their performance. 4) Long gap after a game, I know that teams need rest, but this could have easily been reduced to say a 3-4 day gap instead of a 7-8 days gap. 5) The real competition will start in the QFs, so the initial month's dullness will have a major impact on the game, as many of the nation may get bored of watching and will quit. So the popularity of the game, will stay put.

[kabira]

I think 99 format was bad because the points you carried forward depended on who you beat. Ind did not get any credit for beating England, simply because England did not qualify. I'd think a fair format should reward teams for their consistency. That could mean, teams should be allowed to carry their total points from the previous round. I think 2007 format was an improvement, but since one bad day can send you out of the tournament, it led to bizzare results. Overall the 1992 format is the best, i believe with just 10 teams, we'll see that again in 2015.

No 99 format was not that bad. Just imagine super six as a league of 6 teams playing each other. Ind SA, Zim, Pak, Aus and NZL. SA already beat India, Zim already beat Ind and SA, so they deserver 4 points and SA 2 points. Another way is to play those games again, but then stage 1 games become worthless. So it was quite a fair system

[Ranjha]

What a big YAWN FEST!!!!! Not even one interesting game...I hate minnows.

[Ranjha]

Great Post Shwetabh. Some reasons for lack luster are : 1) Too many teams, too many one sided games (No. of teams should be limited to 10.) 2) On game per day which means the tourney is stretched. 3) Poor scheduling, which makes side travel more and more for a month hand a half long tourney, which affects their performance. 4) Long gap after a game, I know that teams need rest, but this could have easily been reduced to say a 3-4 day gap instead of a 7-8 days gap. 5) The real competition will start in the QFs, so the initial month's dullness will have a major impact on the game, as many of the nation may get bored of watching and will quit. So the popularity of the game, will stay put.

Not even 10..They should be limited to 8 teams and only one of Bangladesh or Windies should qualify.

[Ranjha]

We need 3 games per day..There are 3 host nations. Get these minnow games out quickly. What we get is one full day of minnow bashing and then REPEAT..for the entire week. What a bloody joke! Such a big tournament and only 1 week matters. REST OF MORE THAN A MONTH IS A BIG JOKE. This is the biggest flop ever. Advertisers want to make money and keep all the big teams till the last week so they played a smart one here but screwed all the fans...I hope no one buys their product and whoever is advertising in thie worldcup loses money.

[Ranjha]

What a big torture this worldcup..I am pissed.

[gaurav92]

Not even 10..They should be limited to 8 teams and only one of Bangladesh or Windies should qualify.

It would be a tad harsh on Bangladesh, Zimboks and other associates, who have played good Cricket and wants to get a global reckoning in the 50 over format. So I think Bangladesh are pretty much capable of this format and so are the Zimboks, and Holland who showed great character. I d back 2 associates to bag this opportunity and get a rub of international exposure. So 10 teams at max.

[gaurav92]

What a big YAWN FEST!!!!! Not even one interesting game...I hate minnows.

Not even 10..They should be limited to 8 teams and only one of Bangladesh or Windies should qualify.

We need 3 games per day..There are 3 host nations. Get these minnow games out quickly. What we get is one full day of minnow bashing and then REPEAT..for the entire week. What a bloody joke! Such a big tournament and only 1 week matters. REST OF MORE THAN A MONTH IS A BIG JOKE. This is the biggest flop ever. Advertisers want to make money and keep all the big teams till the last week so they played a smart one here but screwed all the fans...I hope no one buys their product and whoever is advertising in thie worldcup loses money.

What a big torture this worldcup..I am pissed.

Resorted to spamming ? :P :icflove:

[Zap_Brannigan]

4 posts in 4 minutes and just 1 line in 3 of those. Maybe you could use the edit button. IMO, all the formats since and including 92 are bad. 92 - No clear pictures in the 1st 70% of league. Only when clear picture emerges, tournament gets exciting. Think IPL but smaller. 96 - Only 8 good teams. League was useless. 99,03 - Teams shouldn't carry the points forward. Zim beating India in 1st round carried over to the next round as well. So in effect, it acted like Zim beat India twice. It helped kenya a lot in 2003. No points carrying over. Besides, in this format since the 2 groups never meet, lop sided grouping wouldnt be fair. Take this WC grouping. If we choose only 3 teams from group A, thats kinda easy as only its has only 3 good teams and 1 ok team. But group B with 3 good teams, 2 ok teams and probably the best minnow, its not fair that group A gets to go to the next round. 07 - obviously bad as 1 upset against a minnow meant the end of the team. I suggested a format earlier, 2 groups of 5. Top 2 teams from each group goes to Next round. 3rd placed team from both groups play for the 5th spot in round 2. In round 2, all teams play against each other. Top 2 go to the finals.

[kabira]

you guys are saying 92 was best in terms of format. But least deserving team won it.