Austin 3:!6 Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 I am not too sure if I am convinced about the way a team is crowned as 'World Champion'. Basically you need to win 3 KO games and win the tournament irrespective of how poorly you performed in group stages. Similarly, if a team played consistently throughout the tournament have one bad day in KO games you are knocked out. Example, England who is by no means the best team in the tournament and struggling to clear the group stages. If somehow they win the 3 KO games they become world champion. Similary, India who is playing so well and if gd forbid lose against BD in quarters, they are out. This is a joke. The best format to really say a team is the best in the world is by emulating the format Barclays Premier league follows. Each team play against each other in round robin league and the team tops the group is the winner. Discuss?
vijay50 Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 1992 format was thebest. I know rain rule helped Pakistan and stuff. But it rewarded consistency by placing the top 4 teams in semifinals. After that its anybodys game, those who can withstand pressure. On the other hand if WC is decided based on consistency alone , you may as well give it to the bottlers SA
goose Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Disagree. The format does not assign actual points for good/poor league performance but it tells in the final analysis regardless. The eventual winner will almost certainly have lost perhaps 1 game at most in the entire tournament.
MK55 Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Only the semis and obviously the final should be knock out games as there are just 8 strong teams in cricket. So probably 2 rounds before the semis. And there should not be 6 minnows out of 14. This percentage has to be less. May be 4 minnows and total 12 teams. One option can be 12 teams in 3 groups in first round. 6 progressing in second round with round-robin format for the final 4.
goose Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 One-day cricket has changed. There are fewer genuine upsets and less scope to ride the crest of a confidence wave. When was the last time someone got really unlucky in a 50 over game? Just like 5 days of test cricket tends to separate the men from the boys the same is now true of 50 overs. The winner of the WC will be very deserving winners.
Sid_SuhaiL Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 I think the 1999 & 2003 format was the best of two groups with 6 teams , then super six round where a top team can recover despite having one off day , then SF & the Final. It made the match b/w two top teams from a group much more interesting with the points carry forward rule in the next stage. They should bring it back.
Sonix768 Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 14 Team Triple Elimination bracket is the best format.. :om:
sensible-indian Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Knockouts should be there. You can play amazing all through Wimbledon but if you lose in SF, you are gone. Make everyone play against everyone, then have SF. IPLs format isn't bad either. In fact it rewards you for topping the tables.
MK55 Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Current format is frivolous. The tournament actually starts from the quarters. All previous matches simply act as decorated warm-ups. Quarters KOs will make sense when there are more number of competitive teams. Here we have 8 strong teams and then quarters.
adi B Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 This must be the 10the thread on this subject!! On topic,I think the 2003 format was the best
adi B Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Disagree. The format does not assign actual points for good/poor league performance but it tells in the final analysis regardless. The eventual winner will almost certainly have lost perhaps 1 game at most in the entire tournament. England can still win the tournament with 3 crushing defeats!!
prasadiyer Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 ICC had already solved this, using super six stage with carry over of points in 1st round. Don't know why they keep backsliding on this. Is it to accommodate India who were expected to barely scrape into the next round?
Austin 3:!6 Posted March 3, 2015 Author Posted March 3, 2015 Knockouts should be there. You can play amazing all through Wimbledon but if you lose in SF, you are gone. Make everyone play against everyone, then have SF. IPLs format isn't bad either. In fact it rewards you for topping the tables. Agree. IPL is a better format than World Cup. Only change they need to do in world cup if they adopt that format is each team play other only once.
Austin 3:!6 Posted March 3, 2015 Author Posted March 3, 2015 Alternative will be to have Super six followed by best of 3 semi finals/finals. 1 game elimination is a joke.
Donal Cozzie Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Alternative will be to have Super six followed by best of 3 semi finals/finals. 1 game elimination is a joke. Why is it that out of all the sports in the world cricket fans are literally the only ones with this mindset?? Best of 3 semi finals/final? Do you have any idea how ludicrous that sounds? Takes the entire purpose of a final (to decide the winner) away and drags it out needlessly over 3 games. In football a player can get sent off after 2 minutes and cost his team a final. Do football fans moan about a 1 game knockout?? No. Rugby? No. Just cricket for some infuriating reason. Best team on the day deserves to go through. Dont care if its Timbuktu in the final, if they beat anyone on any given day, its because they deserve it.
Austin 3:!6 Posted March 3, 2015 Author Posted March 3, 2015 Why is it that out of all the sports in the world cricket fans are literally the only ones with this mindset?? Best of 3 semi finals/final? Do you have any idea how ludicrous that sounds? Takes the entire purpose of a final (to decide the winner) away and drags it out needlessly over 3 games. In football a player can get sent off after 2 minutes and cost his team a final. Do football fans moan about a 1 game knockout?? No. Rugby? No. Just cricket for some infuriating reason. Best team on the day deserves to go through. Dont care if its Timbuktu in the final, if they beat anyone on any given day, its because they deserve it. First of all hello Donal..welcome to ICF. In theory I agree with you, one game final is more thrilling to watch but sometime it does not do justice to the best team in the tournament. Agree, FIFA is following the same principle but its a different proposition all together. Football WC comprises of 30+ teams and reaching final itself an achievent. In cricket with only 8 proper teams, reaching the knock out games is all but a formality. Few good days by a mediocre team and you are crowned champions. India won the World Cup in 83 but everyone knew West Indies was a better team than us by country mile. The next series WI demolish same Indian side in India. No way Pakistan was deserving winner of 92 when they could not even beat a weak Indian team in group stages. If not for that one silly mistake by Alan Donald in 99 semi final tied game, it was SA written all over the cup then. Bottomline is in cricket world cup many teams have won the title even though they are not the best team in the tournament. Deserving teams couldnt win due to one poor day/moment which we call as a choke. Best of 3 KO games will eliminate any such things IMO.
Donal Cozzie Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 First of all hello Donal..welcome to ICF. In theory I agree with you, one game final is more thrilling to watch but sometime it does not do justice to the best team in the tournament. Agree, FIFA is following the same principle but its a different proposition all together. Football WC comprises of 30+ teams and reaching final itself an achievent. In cricket with only 8 proper teams, reaching the knock out games is all buta formality. Few good days by a mediocre team and you are crowned champions. [*]India won the World Cup in 83 but everyone knew West Indies was a better team than us by country mile. The next series WI demolish same Indian side in India. [*]No way Pakistan was deserving winner of 92 when they could not even beat a weak Indian team in group stages. [*]If not for that one silly mistake by Alan Donald in 99 semi final tied game, it was SA written all over the cup then. Bottomline is in cricket world cup many teams have won the title even though they are not the best team in the tournament. Deserving teams couldnt win due to one poor day/moment which we call as a choke. Best of 3 KO games will eliminate any such things IMO. Moments like that are what make world cups world cups though. Ther best team winning every time gets boring, just look at Australias dominance of the noughties. The bolded moments are iconic because they were surprising, they capture everything a WC is about. Passion, skill, mistakes, drama, upsets. Everything. Imagine the Donald run out was only in the first of 3 and Aus went on to win the next two. It turns one of the great moments into a footnote. Being the best team isnt all thats needed for a WC win, its about attitude, performing when it counts and skill. One team can excell at one aspect but you need to do well in all 3 to win. Also, 3 game Semis and Finals are just another extension to the much loathed bilateral ODI formula we all hate, not to mention the scenario of lets say in 2011, India are 1-0, everyones hyped for the "final" only for SL to win and make it 1-1 with a decider a week later. It prolongs everything and sucks the life out of the knockout stages, the very thing that should be breath taking and quick, not to mention the ICC cant market it as a final as it could easily go on longer should the other team tie the series/final
veer Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 My format would be.. Instead of 14, we should have 10 or 12 teams in two sepearate groups. Round 1: Pool games Round 2: Super Sixes: only 3 teams qualify from each group and carry forward their points, and play against top 3 teams of opposite group Round 3: Semi Final Round 4: Final That's total of 42 games (or 32 games if we have only 10 teams) and we are done.. 70 to 80% of games games would be interesting. There gotta be a reserve day for weather etc.
brendan07 Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Would personally have a best of 3 'Final' but it is fine as it is.
Sidhoni Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Would personally have a best of 3 'Final' but it is fine as it is. Would take the charm out if it unless it goes to the third match in which case it will get even bigger.
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