ICC Cricket World Cup, 2014/15

[GGAS]

I to am quite happy with our group. We should qualify if we play to our best.

The biggest problem with the whole format is that the top 8 seeds are highly likely to qualify, meaning there are 42 matches to work out who-plays-who in the QFs!

Even if one of the big 4 in each group lose a match to a minnow, then are still 2 good chances for them to go through at the expense of the team that they lost to:

1. Beat one of the other seeds themselves.
2. The team they lost to get beaten by another of the minnows.

IMO, not very satisfactory at all

wait until 2019.

with the ECB/BCCI/CA triumvirate in charge, there will probably be 5 groups of 3

A) Eng/Zim/minnow
B) Aus/minnow/minnow
C) India/minnow/minnow
D) SA/WI/Pak
E) SL/NZ/Bang

Top 2 teams in pools A-C plus top team in pools D and E to go through to Q/Fs

A1/B2
B1/C2
C1/A2
D1/E1

England will still probably end up meeting India in the Q/F's by virtue of finishing second in their group after losing their opening group game against Afghanistan trying to keep wickets in hand in a match that is later shortened to 10 overs after a terrible downpour

[ianp1970]

The format for the World Cup is not a new discussion

http://www.cricket-match-special.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3922&hilit=world+cup+format

and I will wager a pound to a penny that after next year we will be just as annoyed!

[Durhamfootman]

Of course, people who's teams are successful tend to be more sanguine about how long these tournaments are, than those of us who's teams routinely get knocked out early.

[shankycricket]

Despite the shambolic performance in NZ, hard to see us finishing below 2nd in the group. We always beat Pak in WCs and WI are crap (sorry Mike). Will probably face NZ or more likely, Eng in the quarters and thats probably as far as we will go.

[alfie]

Every time a world cup comes round, the same issues crop up: Too many matches. mismatches and inclusion.

Personally I'd like to see four groups of four into quarter and semi finals.

Well so would I . But it still ends up the same eight making up the quarters which is the main problem with any draw you come up with ...too predictable.
Even if a Zimbabwe or an Ireland pull off an upset they are still likely to miss out unless other matches get rained off or someone boycotts one of the hosts...
But yes , much better in that it allows games for "outsiders" without too many pointless first round mismatches. 24 instead of the ridiculous 42 with this system , yet two more teams compete.

Tell me again why they settled on 14 teams ?

[ianp1970]

If we accept that the same 8 teams are likely to qualify whatever the qualification system, then maybe there should be an advantage for those finishing highest in the group stage tables:

How about something as simple as deciding on bat/bowl first in the knock-out games?

[Alviro Patterson]

If only it was that simple to suggest 4 groups of 4 or 3 groups of 5, hosting prestige tournaments cost money and the host nation(s) themselves should not occur financial losses.

Fewer group games means the TV, sponsorship and ticket revenues go down, therefore less money for the ICC to distribute at Association, Affiliate, Womens and Grassroots level.

2 groups of 7 = 49 games
-----------------------------
3 groups of 5 = 37 games
4 groups of 4 = 31 games

The minimum optimum number is 18 teams with 3 groups of 6, top 2 and 2 best 3rd place sides through to the knockout rounds (52 games). Next challenge is to find 18 nations who can play cricket at a professional level. Until Associate Nation level cricket is up to the level of County Cricket standard, there will always be a low team/high group stage game format.

[from_the_stands]

If only it was that simple to suggest 4 groups of 4 or 3 groups of 5, hosting prestige tournaments cost money and the host nation(s) themselves should not occur financial losses.

Fewer group games means the TV, sponsorship and ticket revenues go down, therefore less money for the ICC to distribute at Association, Affiliate, Womens and Grassroots level.

2 groups of 7 = 49 games
-----------------------------
3 groups of 5 = 37 games
4 groups of 4 = 31 games

The minimum optimum number is 18 teams with 3 groups of 6, top 2 and 2 best 3rd place sides through to the knockout rounds (52 games). Next challenge is to find 18 nations who can play cricket at a professional level. Until Associate Nation level cricket is up to the level of County Cricket standard, there will always be a low team/high group stage game format.

If the ICC want to have a greater number of games, have 16 teams in one group, with everyone playing each other once, and the top eight advancing to the knock-outs, which are best of 3 for the quarter finals, best of 5 for the semis, and best of 7 for the final! 15 x 8 (120), 4 x 3 (12), 2 x 5 (10), 1 x 7 (7) = 149 games... that should keep the coffers full!

[meninblue]

Whatever format ICC comes up with, there will be support for it from many fans as well as criticism from others. Not all fans are going to be satisfied with any format.No chance.