Meandering, passionless, and pointless

[gaurav92]

^Well cant really say that. They were lucky alright, but the did play well when it mattered and hence the result. Under Imran's captaincy, the team was fired up, and they were pumped up to perform. I heard Imran saying in an interview "We were the cornered tigers, we had no way to go but to fight" And fight they did, and won the cup. So they had the rub of the green alright, but they used their luck to good effect.

[kabira]

^they wouldn't have qualified had England game was not washed off, they got shot out for lowest total by any test team in the WC. 92 format was good, but rain rules were terrible. We could have won against Aussies and would have made it ot Semis.

[Zap_Brannigan]

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

When people say that, they mean that every team got equal and ample opportunity. There was no rule in the format to give points twice or getting out of the tournament due to 1 loss. Rain was the main culprit in 92. Pak, Aus and WI were tied on the same number of wins. Rain spoiled the Eng Vs pak game when Pak were 74 all out and Eng were 24/1 in 8 overs. That extra points gave Pak the SF berth, which should have belonged to Aus (which was also lucky against India) due to superior RR. Even India, if its game against SL wasnt rained out or if they hadnt lost 3 overs due to rain (and stupid rain rules) against Aus, would probably have had the same number of wins as Pak. The legitimate concern for this format is what happened to NZ. NZ cruised to the SF, with just 1 loss. But 1 loss against a lucky Pak, kicked them out of the WC. Pak won the WC by winning just 6 games and losing 3, while NZ had 7 wins with just 2 losses. Also SA were kicked out in SF due to the damn rain rule.

[kabira]

^so lol, in short no format is good LOL..

[vvvslaxman]

Any format that eliminates minnows very early is good. But the idea seems to be they want to get rid of minnow matches first before contests between big teams. I think they should have had cracker of an opening match like Australia vs Pakistan or Pakistan vs SL or India vs SA.

[Zap_Brannigan]

^so lol' date=' in short no format is good LOL..[/quote'] That is the hard part. According to me, i've never liked WC formats since 92. On paper, i could see that the 1st 4 WC formats were good but i was too young to follow them to really know whether it was fair or exciting. A lot of people like 92 because it gave equal chances to everyone. I don't like it because i couldn't find much stake during the beginning of the tournament. Every loss was met with, "we can win the next game, no big deal" and towards the latter half it became an improbable odd that it didn't matter. Some like 96 format because it was exciting. But that was the cricket and not the format. 99 and 03 were also liked and shunned by very few because of the quality of cricket. So super six was always liked except the confusion of carrying points. 07 was seen as the ideal format to get rid of the minnows present in the 03 and 99 format quickly and have a longer tournament with good teams. But we all know what happened. The current format is due the debacle that was 07. Due to ICC's greed, and at TV companies request that India should be in the game atleast till the last week, they made sure that even if India was in the worst form in the WC, they would technically only miss out on the last 5 days of the WC. ICC is trying to balance quality and its greed. They cannot have both with minnows. So they removed the minnows, which was easier than making less than the 400 million $ from TV companies which feared India's loss and subsequent loss of ad revenues.

[The Outsider]

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

^they wouldn't have qualified had England game was not washed off, they got shot out for lowest total by any test team in the WC.

How were they least deserving? They got a lucky break against England with the rain rule, but were screwed by the same rain rule against South Africa. If you are talking about 'deserving' then one could say Australia getting to the '99 final on the back of a tie and just because they had won the previous encounter between the two sides was least 'deserving'.

92 format was good, but rain rules were terrible. We could have won against Aussies and would have made it ot Semis.

Made it to the semis? WTF! We were hammered by all teams in the NZ leg of the tour - WI, NZ, SA. We also had lost to England and one could argue rain saved us from a humiliating defeat against Zimbabwe.

When people say that, they mean that every team got equal and ample opportunity. There was no rule in the format to give points twice or getting out of the tournament due to 1 loss.

Carrying over points is a good system. Just like a good performance leading up to the knockouts results in an easier draw for the one who does better, similarly a good first round performance gives a head start in the super 6. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, unless the other option is to replay those matches again in the Super 6.

Rain was the main culprit in 92. Pak, Aus and WI were tied on the same number of wins. Rain spoiled the Eng Vs pak game when Pak were 74 all out and Eng were 24/1 in 8 overs. That extra points gave Pak the SF berth, which should have belonged to Aus (which was also lucky against India) due to superior RR. Even India, if its game against SL wasnt rained out or if they hadnt lost 3 overs due to rain (and stupid rain rules) against Aus, would probably have had the same number of wins as Pak.

One eyed views. Pakistan lost out on a victory opportunity against South Africa when they needed 130 odd from 30 overs with 8 wickets in hand. Similarly, India could have lost out to Zimbabwe who needed 90 odd in 13 overs with 9 wickets in hand.

The legitimate concern for this format is what happened to NZ. NZ cruised to the SF, with just 1 loss. But 1 loss against a lucky Pak, kicked them out of the WC. Pak won the WC by winning just 6 games and losing 3, while NZ had 7 wins with just 2 losses. Also SA were kicked out in SF due to the damn rain rule.

A one win differential is not enough to be a 'concern' specially since knockout matches obviously bear greater importance in every tournament of every sport. NZ lost because they lost Martin Crowe. Rain rule kicked out South Africa? LOL! That's got to be one of those urban legends! 22 to get from 13 balls with 4 wickets in hand is not an easy task. 90% of the times I would back the bowling side. Look at the batting to come - Snell, Pringle, Donald.

[coffee_rules]

99, 2003 were the best..I think they should have continued the Super-Sixes format. What was wrong in that format. THis is same as 1996 has the World Cup starting from QFs - World Cup of 7 Games. The Super Sixes gave more games among non-minnows.

[Ultimate_Game]

92 world cup format was good but was held at the wrong time. Rain played a crucial role throughout the tournament and the rule of "minimum scoring overs taken off from the target" was ridiculous. India lost points against SL (who were minnows at the time) and Aus. pakistan were bundled out for 74 and saved by the rain and that one point took them to the semis. SA were robbed in the semis as 22 off 13 balls became 22 off 1. Such a format (where everyone plays everyone else) requires additional/reserve day in case of rain and can't be played during rainy/monsoon season. Let's say Ind has a game against B'desh and it rains. In this case Ind would lose a point and will have to make up for it against stronger opponents. This format would be perfect for subcontinent as it doesn't generally rain much other than monsoon season and with a reserve day there shouldn't be an issue.

[coffee_rules]

Have a round robin of Top 10 nations. Pick top six and have a super-six of 2 groups drawn in the beginning itself. Pick top 4 and play semis and finals.

[Ultimate_Game]

Have a round robin of Top 10 nations. Pick top six and have a super-six of 2 groups drawn in the beginning itself. Pick top 4 and play semis and finals.

Why would you have super-six after round-robin with 10 teams? I would assume that top 4 after the round-robin stage where everyone plays against everyone else is good enough to decide the semi-finalists.

[The Outsider]

99, 2003 were the best..I think they should have continued the Super-Sixes format. What was wrong in that format.

Yeah, Super Six was good. People don't like it because India did not carry forward any points in '99. If India had carried forward 4 points, no one would be complaining. There is a consistent logic behind carrying forward the points - once in Super 6 the contest becomes amongst those 6 teams. If you've already played and beaten some of them why shouldn't you hold points against them? Moreover, what advantage do you get of doing good in the first round if everyone start from a clean slate again in Super 6. '03 got messed up because of forfeitures and not the format. '92 and Super 6 are the best formats.

[coffee_rules]

Why would you have super-six after round-robin with 10 teams? I would assume that top 4 after the round-robin stage where everyone plays against everyone else is good enough to decide the semi-finalists.

I thought so, but we could get more good games than just 3 (2 semis and 1 final) after the round robin. The round robin is advantageous for teams that play later and they can adjust their performances. So, top 6 will give another shot for 5th and 6th places who were faulted by the round robin can now get another chance to get to semis.

[Ultimate_Game]

I thought so' date=' but we could get more good games than just 3 (2 semis and 1 final) after the round robin. The round robin is advantageous for teams that play later and they can adjust their performances. So, top 6 will give another shot for 5th and 6th places who were faulted by the round robin can now get another chance to get to semis.[/quote'] But in that case the length and number of games would become unweildy. A round robin league with 10 teams means 9 games per team which will be followed by semi and final for the finalsist. This means 11 games for the finalists, which is enough. If you add super 6 to the round robin it would add 5 more games per team, resulting in a whopping 16 games for the finalists!!! That's more than what some teams play in a whole year!

[Zero_Unit]

Good points. It's true what you said about why they are playing the knockout games; just to see out of 9 test nations, which 8 qualifies (assuming no associates will be a threat except ireland at most but then again to go to that stage they need to surprise people by winning atleast 3/6). I think it boils down to the final question: is it going to be WI or BD that will go through? The rest of the top 7 are well set to qualify in my opinion.

[gult]

all the guys playing various fantasy leagues and betting on ICF are surely not as bored as the other guys.

Absolutely true. I'm playing cricinfo fantasy cricket and joined a small private league. I can say that I am greatly enjoying it :yay: I can understand PoV of those people who don't play these fantasy leagues though. And all minnows are not playing bad (netherlands vs england)

[Ranvir]

There's no need to spread cricket. Cricket is just like rugby in that a lot of people watch it but there are only 8 - 10 decent sides. Apart from football there's no team sport that is truly global.

[Zap_Brannigan]

Carrying over points is a good system. Just like a good performance leading up to the knockouts results in an easier draw for the one who does better, similarly a good first round performance gives a head start in the super 6. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, unless the other option is to replay those matches again in the Super 6.

I think carrying points is not fair since it counts as 2 wins. The 1st actual win in the 1st round and the 2nd freebie win in the 2nd round. In 03 India carried the points over and still you think that people have problem with it only because India didnt carry points over in 99?

One eyed views. Pakistan lost out on a victory opportunity against South Africa when they needed 130 odd from 30 overs with 8 wickets in hand. Similarly' date=' India could have lost out to Zimbabwe who needed 90 odd in 13 overs with 9 wickets in hand. [/quote'] Losing an opportunity is not the same as getting saved. Pak would have in all probability lost against England. Eng just needed 50 odd in 40 overs. India too would have won against Aus if it wasnt for the rain rules.We lost by 1 run. Zim VS India is a lost opportunity. Sure, if you think that Zim would have chased down the last 100 runs at 7.8 RPO in the last 13 when they were going at 5.4 RPO in the 1st 19 overs. In 2010, the batting team would have had the upper-hand. But in 92, I dont think many teams would have been able to do that. Similarly Pak Vs SA, although unfair to pak , they lost by quiet a decent margin in the end that it could have gone either way.

A one win differential is not enough to be a 'concern' specially since knockout matches obviously bear greater importance in every tournament of every sport. NZ lost because they lost Martin Crowe. Rain rule kicked out South Africa? LOL! That's got to be one of those urban legends! 22 to get from 13 balls with 4 wickets in hand is not an easy task. 90% of the times I would back the bowling side. Look at the batting to come - Snell, Pringle, Donald.

Knockout is more important as it should be. Although in 92, it was just a 2 win differential(NZ +5 wins, Pak +3 wins ), it could have been much worse. Theoretically, a team could have won all its 8 league games and then lose in the SF. Atleast in the super 6 format or other 3~4 layer format, the differential couldn't be that bad in each round. Didn't everyone feel bad for SA in 96 when a struggling WI beat the SA in the QF. 22 off 13 was hard. Just a bit of nostalgia mixed in with wishful thinking since SA was the new team back then and the jonty running out Inzi was legendary. The rain rule only made the improbable impossible. Nothing taken away from Englands victory. They did deserve to be in the finals.

[vvvslaxman]

Format should be such that most of the matches that are played should not be a foregone conclusion and have some significance. You should never know who advances to next round. In this case it is all a foregone conclusion except may be there is a contest between BD and Windies.

[Lord]

pathetic format is what is killing it.u cant expect the crowd to turn up for Australia v Zimbabwe.we all know who the 7 Q/Fs are gonna be,n then there would be just 7 games to decide the winner,have 3 good games n lift the cup,wtf. IMO there should be 10 teams only.in two groups,each playing other 4 of the group once,so thats 20 games,then a super six instead of super 8,where qualifying teams(top 3 from each group) play 3 of other group,thats 9 games ,then S/F n finals,thats 32 games n most of them exciting.have best of 3 for semis n finals to enure its not decided by the toss,still it would be only 36 games.