Scarves Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 I don't understand why ICC kept repeating this stupid format.group stages win nothing . 1992 format was best , I don't understand why they never repeated it. 75-87 format were also very excellent , even matches with minnows were important . I'm not sitting through 94 matches with 14 teams. I like 4 groups of 4 and then have knockouts.
Scarves Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 and fans really need to stop moaning. Dont compare it to FIFA world cup. There is so much depth in football. Cricket with effectively 8 officially (on paper) strong teams cannot be compared in the same bracket. Compare cricket to another game like rugby union. That too has about 8-9 strong teams. 20 teams with 4 groups. 5 teams per group. Top 2 from each group into a Knockout. Too easy. Cricket needs more teams at least 16 or 20.
bulbul Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 20 teams with 4 groups. 5 teams per group. Top 2 from each group into a Knockout. Too easy. Cricket needs more teams at least 16 or 20. No
adi B Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 when a wc comprises of 14 nations(very less) u have to ensure that each match has its value. 99,2003 was the most logical format where top 3 from each group qualifies for the super 6 and then the semis,92 was not a WC format,its more like an ipl format where the table topper might easily get knocked out on a bad day(sf) despite defeating all the teams in the GS. the present format is clearly not good because the top teams will most likely qualify for the qf because they'll get plenty of chances in the GS,basically u are playing 42 matches to eliminate the minnows lol. fifa wc has 32 teams so its KO format is the most logical and shortest one,it shouldnt be applied in a cricket wc
bulbul Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 From next world cup it will be 10 teams only. 8 Auto qualification , next 2 will be from a pool of 4 qualification tourney.
adi B Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 This is certainly true. The first day you have NZ vs SRI followed by AUS vs ENG. It should have been 2 strong team vs 2 weak teams. Makes the format more interesting to watch. Today you had Bang Vs AFG and then followed by Zim vs Uae not the best crowd pulling day. i was exactly saying the same,even in the last world cup we had useless all minnow affair like kenya vs canada on the weekdays rather than a double header where these useless matches could be accomodated
G_B_ Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 20 teams with 4 groups. 5 teams per group. Top 2 from each group into a Knockout. Too easy. Cricket needs more teams at least 16 or 20. 10 teams in a knockout? How would that work?
Precambrian Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 For me the best format was the one when every team played everyone. Then top 4 goes to semi and then top 2 to final. That's the best way to know who is the best team around. All these first round matches are super useless. We can argue this both ways. I'd say 1992 WC format doesn't test the teams' crunch time performance - since there are only two knockouts. Also see case of Pakistan which barely managed to make the last 4 and then won two games consecutively - lo and presto they were the World Cup winners. The total number of games won by Pakistan was not more than NZ and Eng in the whole tournament. Heck, NZ actually won more games than Pakistan. Hence there is absolutely no way one can Pakistan was the most dominant team. I think the IPL format is the best. It rewards teams for performing well in the league stages and when it comes to knockouts, make the 3rd and 4th teams to slog it out a wee little more to test whether they are really final-worthy (by having the two eliminators).
Chalks Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 10 teams in a knockout? How would that work? Four groups of five teams, top two from each group progress to knockouts = 8 teams. Just like Rugby WC.
NareshK Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 I like the Super Six format. 14 teams is an overkill because there is not much quality. Better to have 12 teams in 2 groups of 6 which means only 3 teams from each group qualify. It makes every game important. Minnows also get to play against big teams. Each qualifying team takes points forward. In Super Six round, each team plays the team from other group which means no team gets an easy draw. Finally, the top 4 teams by points get to Semis which means the best teams get a shot at winning the tournament. This business of winning against minnows and qualifying for QFs and then having one good day and getting into Semis is ridiculous. What's the difference between them and the most consistent side ? This is the World Cup. Let the best and most consistent side win. I dont like the 2007 format because if a team has one bad day, they will be out of the tournament. You need to give a team a chance to bounce back at least in first round. That's why the above format is much better because every team gets to play 5 games in first round.
bowl_out Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 For me the best format was the one when every team played everyone. Then top 4 goes to semi and then top 2 to final. That's the best way to know who is the best team around. All these first round matches are super useless. How do you play this format with 14 or more teams?
G_B_ Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Four groups of five teams' date= top two from each group progress to knockouts = 8 teams. Just like Rugby WC. i stand corrected... sorry read it as 5 groups of 4.
Scarves Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 How do you play this format with 14 or more teams? That's 92 matches just for 14 teams. It is way too long.
adi B Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 I like the Super Six format. 14 teams is an overkill because there is not much quality. Better to have 12 teams in 2 groups of 6 which means only 3 teams from each group qualify. It makes every game important. Minnows also get to play against big teams. Each qualifying team takes points forward. In Super Six round, each team plays the team from other group which means no team gets an easy draw. Finally, the top 4 teams by points get to Semis which means the best teams get a shot at winning the tournament. This business of winning against minnows and qualifying for QFs and then having one good day and getting into Semis is ridiculous. What's the difference between them and the most consistent side ? This is the World Cup. Let the best and most consistent side win. I dont like the 2007 format because if a team has one bad day, they will be out of the tournament. You need to give a team a chance to bounce back at least in first round. That's why the above format is much better because every team gets to play 5 games in first round. +1
vvvslaxman Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Agreed. After watching so much cricket in recent times (from all countries. India vs oz then India,England, oz, NZ vs SL, SA vs WI , ), seeing any cricket is overdose let alone minnow clashes. To make matter worse gap between matches of your interest is too much that you actually lose interest.
bowl_out Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 14 teams - 2 groups - 4 from each qualify for Playoffs ELIMINATOR : A3 vs B4 - E1 (Winner) B3 vs A4 - E2 (Winner) QUARTER FINAL : A2 vs E1 - QFW1 (Winner) B2 vs E2 - QFW2 (Winner) SEMI FINAL : A1 vs QFW1 - F1 (Winner) A2 vs QFW2 - F2 (Winner) FINAL : F1 vs F2 - Winner (Champions) This still looks the best solution for me. Right mix of including Associate teams, making Group Stage relevant and ensuring top teams don't get knocked out before semis.
Scarves Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 I like the Super Six format. 14 teams is an overkill because there is not much quality. Better to have 12 teams in 2 groups of 6 which means only 3 teams from each group qualify. It makes every game important. Minnows also get to play against big teams. Each qualifying team takes points forward. In Super Six round, each team plays the team from other group which means no team gets an easy draw. Finally, the top 4 teams by points get to Semis which means the best teams get a shot at winning the tournament. This business of winning against minnows and qualifying for QFs and then having one good day and getting into Semis is ridiculous. What's the difference between them and the most consistent side ? This is the World Cup. Let the best and most consistent side win. I dont like the 2007 format because if a team has one bad day, they will be out of the tournament. You need to give a team a chance to bounce back at least in first round. That's why the above format is much better because every team gets to play 5 games in first round. The World Cup isn't always about consistency. It is also about showing up on the right day at the right time. To win you have to able to do that. I mean it happens in the FIFA WC. One bad game could cost you like England or Spain.
bowl_out Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 The World Cup isn't always about consistency. It is also about showing up on the right day at the right time. To win you have to able to do that. I mean it happens in the FIFA WC. One bad game could cost you like England or Spain. It needs to be a mix of consistency and performing on the Big day
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now