World Cup Format needs a re think!

[bowl_out]

Have 2 Eliminators, 2 QF, 2 Semis and a Final

[goose]

They won't though will they. My point is that the gap between a bad team having a good day and a good team having a bad day is getting wider in 50 over cricket and keep in mind this gap would need to be bridged not once but three times.

[jonas10]

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

How is 1992 the best? Pak lost 3 games had 1 NR and became champions! What a joke.

[flamy]

I liked Super Sixes

[aceofbase]

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?

As a famous proverb says: Excellence is not an act..it is a habit.. You cannot just have a good day by accident ..that too against good teams...So i think this format is a very good one..it rewards the excellent teams.. in other words teams that follow a process (dhoni's favourite ) are more likely to win

[Cricketics]

I loved the world cu 1999 format. The reason is simple. It had the super six stage. Top 3 teams from each group were put in a group group with top 3 teams of the other group in super six stage where eventually top 4 teams were picked for semis.

[goose]

You have to figure out what you want from a world cup... 1. Find out who the best in the world is. 2. Ensure teams don't go home after one or two bad days in the office. 3. Expand the game beyond the full members. 4. Create a festival of cricket. 5. Excitement. and last but not least... 6. India beats Pakistan anything i missed?

[Ram]

I’d like to disagree here. No team can win the ODI world cup by simply ‘winning 3 games in a row..’ If that were the case, then England, New Zealand, South Africa all would have been champions by now.. There’s a reason why most WC champions are the dominant ODI sides of the time. In fact, barring India’s win in 83, I’d say there’s never been an ‘upset’ in the world (I know some here may say Sri Lanka in 96 was also an upset.. I don’t think so.. Sri Lanka had already turned into a formidable limited overs side when they entered the 96 world cup.. It took the rest of the world some time to catch up with that reality..). If anything, 99 was the last time a decidedly non-contending team (Australia) won. But since then, 4 world cups have passed by and all the 4 have been won by the team ranked no.1/no.2 in the ODI rankings at that time. It takes a lot to three consecutive games against other dominant sides and lift this cup. Just remember who we had to go through to win ours in 2011 – Aus in the quarters, Pakistan in the semis and then we had to chase down 270 after being 11/2 in the finals. This format works in that the team winning it can truly lay claim to be the best team in the world. If there’s one complaint about this format, it more to do with the scheduling. This tournament already feels like it’s been on forever and we are barely halfway through. :headshake:

[goose]

I’d like to disagree here. No team can win the ODI world cup by simply ‘winning 3 games in a row..’ If that were the case, then England, New Zealand, South Africa all would have been champions by now.. There’s a reason why most WC champions are the dominant ODI sides of the time. In fact, barring India’s win in 83, I’d say there’s never been an ‘upset’ in the world (I know some here may say Sri Lanka in 96 was also an upset.. I don’t think so.. Sri Lanka had already turned into a formidable limited overs side when they entered the 96 world cup.. It took the rest of the world some time to catch up with that reality..). If anything, 99 was the last time a decidedly non-contending team (Australia) won. But since then, 4 world cups have passed by and all the 4 have been won by the team ranked no.1/no.2 in the ODI rankings at that time. It takes a lot to three consecutive games against other dominant sides and lift this cup. Just remember who we had to go through to win ours in 2011 – Aus in the quarters, Pakistan in the semis and then we had to chase down 270 after being 11/2 in the finals. This format works in that the team winning it can truly lay claim to be the best team in the world. If there’s one complaint about this format, it more to do with the scheduling. This tournament already feels like it’s been on forever and we are barely halfway through. :headshake:

+1 Finally someone agrees with me! Barring a slip up against the Windies, should India win this whole thing they will have beaten just about every full member team on the the way there!