• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

World cup format

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

ProfessionalMackem

Striker
I'm torn.

In light of recent comments to the icc by Scotlands captain coetzer.

Is he right?

Should the world cup be more inclusive of lesser nations? Could we not have a pre world cup the week or two before the main event? Or a proper qualifying stage?

Personally I liked the 92 world cup in Australia and it's format round robin of all nations. But it's 10 teams now not 8. So not sure it'll be the same buzz.
 

ProfessionalMackem said:
I'm torn.

In light of recent comments to the icc by Scotlands captain coetzer.

Is he right?

Should the world cup be more inclusive of lesser nations? Could we not have a pre world cup the week or two before the main event? Or a proper qualifying stage?

Personally I liked the 92 world cup in Australia and it's format round robin of all nations. But it's 10 teams now not 8. So not sure it'll be the same buzz.
Click to expand...
Of course it should be more inclusive.

The aim of all administrators of cricket should be to grow the game across all countries of the world and the way to do this is to get more countries involved.

I'm not sure what world the likes of the ECB etc live in where they think that by being less inclusive is helping :rolleyes: seriously i wonder what goes through their stupid thick heads at times.

Scotland beating England is brilliant for the "lesser" sides imo and gives them hope that they can compete.
 
SAFC2403 said:
Of course it should be more inclusive.

The aim of all administrators of cricket should be to grow the game across all countries of the world and the way to do this is to get more countries involved.

I'm not sure what world the likes of the ECB etc live in where they think that by being less inclusive is helping :rolleyes: seriously i wonder what goes through their stupid thick heads at times.

Scotland beating England is brilliant for the "lesser" sides imo and gives them hope that they can compete.
Click to expand...

Wholeheartedly agree with you mate. The great game needs more countries playing it. I'm astounded by the number of association members playing. Problem is to get them playing competitively. How we do this is the million dollar question. Surely a good starting point is to help them set up national leagues. Not just tokenism but building actual infrastructure etc. That surely must be high on the agenda of the icc in appropriating monies earned?

The round robin format has come about because of people saying they liked aussie 92 and wanted shorter tournaments. So they caved in.

I'm with you though should be a tournament of 32 with seeded top 8 coming in later the tournament.
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
Wholeheartedly agree with you mate. The great game needs more countries playing it. I'm astounded by the number of association members playing. Problem is to get them playing competitively. How we do this is the million dollar question. Surely a good starting point is to help them set up national leagues. Not just tokenism but building actual infrastructure etc. That surely must be high on the agenda of the icc in appropriating monies earned?

The round robin format has come about because of people saying they liked aussie 92 and wanted shorter tournaments. So they caved in.

I'm with you though should be a tournament of 32 with seeded top 8 coming in later the tournament.
Click to expand...
Thing is cricket is a much longer game than football so i can imagine a 32 team tournament taking a f***ing age to complete.

For me i'd have a smaller tournament that still allows a number of associates to play - maybe even have a qualifying tournament before the real thing and have a number of them qualify from that for the real thing.

Unfortunately FTECB, cricket Australia & India are busy hoovering up all the cash and letting everyone else rot - the game needs to change imo.

Death of a Gentleman is a brilliant watch that highlights the way the game is going but if you love cricket you'll be pissed right off watching it.
 
SAFC2403 said:
Thing is cricket is a much longer game than football so i can imagine a 32 team tournament taking a f***ing age to complete.

For me i'd have a smaller tournament that still allows a number of associates to play - maybe even have a qualifying tournament before the real thing and have a number of them qualify from that for the real thing.

Unfortunately FTECB, cricket Australia & India are busy hoovering up all the cash and letting everyone else rot - the game needs to change imo.

Death of a Gentleman is a brilliant watch that highlights the way the game is going but if you love cricket you'll be pissed right off watching it.
Click to expand...

Spot on with bold bit.

Death of a gentleman? Sounds good. What channel was it on?

Unfortunately I can't seeing any change in the status qou with the big three. You're right they're looking after themselves whilst understandable (to a certain extent to safeguard their own interests). Surely they must realise not bleed the golden goose too much and to let others have a suckle too.


Not a bad shout regarding format mind. Dunno how we're going to get more teams less games though. Unless we go the way of footy and rugby that is. With seeded groups of four going straight into a knock out.
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
Spot on with bold bit.

Death of a gentleman? Sounds good. What channel was it on?

Unfortunately I can't seeing any change in the status qou with the big three. You're right they're looking after themselves whilst understandable (to a certain extent to safeguard their own interests). Surely they must realise not bleed the golden goose too much and to let others have a suckle too.


Not a bad shout regarding format mind. Dunno how we're going to get more teams less games though. Unless we go the way of footy and rugby that is. With seeded groups of four going straight into a knock out.
Click to expand...

You must be logged on to see external links
 
16 teams.

4 groups of 4, everyone plays once. Top 2 from each group advance to the 2nd group stage (2 groups of 4) then semis and the final.

The 8 teams who don't advance should also fall into Bowl and Shield tournament's like they do in Rugby 7's.
 
Struts said:
16 teams.

4 groups of 4, everyone plays once. Top 2 from each group advance to the 2nd group stage (2 groups of 4) then semis and the final.

The 8 teams who don't advance should also fall into Bowl and Shield tournament's like they do in Rugby 7's.
Click to expand...

I like that idea actually - but I'm not sure whether it would sicken people off a bit by the end.

Suppose it could have a bearing on the next competition though, so say the best two out of the elimination pot would book their place for the next WC - all others would have to qualify.
 
Struts said:
16 teams.

4 groups of 4, everyone plays once. Top 2 from each group advance to the 2nd group stage (2 groups of 4) then semis and the final.

The 8 teams who don't advance should also fall into Bowl and Shield tournament's like they do in Rugby 7's.
Click to expand...

Not a bad shout mate. Havent they done something like that before? Super 8 stage?

Plus you be happy with the first group stage being just a warm up for the best 8 teams? A bit like the rugby world cup and to the lesser extent the footy.

brandon said:
Should be 16 teams IMO. 4 groups of 4, top two into the quarters.

That isn't as lucrative as the ICC need it to be though, so it won't happen.
Click to expand...

Simple but effective mate. I like it. But when you say ICC you mean bcci don't you? lol.

SAFC2403 said:
You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...

Thanks mate. I'll give it a watch later.
 
Last edited:
ProfessionalMackem said:
Not a bad shout mate. Havent they done something like that before? Super 8 stage?

Plus you be happy with the first group stage being just a warm up for the best 8 teams? A bit like the rugby world cup and to the lesser extent the footy.
Click to expand...
They did in the 2007 World Cup but it was all just one group so it dragged forever IIRC.
 
In a non-BCCI dominated world, the World Cup should consist of the number of teams that would make it a credible, developmental and competitive tournament. Currently, that appears to be more than 10. Probably 12 would do.
 
Struts said:
They did in the 2007 World Cup but it was all just one group so it dragged forever IIRC.
Click to expand...

Ahhh right, fair play. Gotta be a middle ground somewhere like Ageing trundler says.

Seems barmy that in a sport dying for more competitive members "they" are being this snobby.

Just look at the list of 93 associates members. Yes loads will not be ready but you cant tell me that we cant have a world cup with the likes of Scotland, etc. Of which most of them have t20 or odi status.

So we have........

England
West Indies
Pakistan
India
New Zealand
Austrailia
South Africa
Zimbawe
Ireland
Afghanistan
Sri Lanka
Bangladesh
Scotland
Papa new guine
Nepal
Netherlands
UAE
Canada
USA
Malaysia
Oman
China/HK
Nabia
Kenya



We have 21-24 teams ready to go and compete in a tournament. Bout time we had a proper test 1st and 2nd division with promotions and relegation too.

Group A
England
West Indies
Scotland
Netherlands

Group B
Austrailia
Sri Lanka
Canada
Nepal

Group C
India
Afghanistan
Papa New Gueni
USA

Group D
South Africa
Zimbabwe
Malayisa
Nabia

Group E
Pakistan
UAE
Ireland
China/HK


Group F
New Zealand
Bangladesh
Oman
Kenya


Only the top team progresses with two best runners up. Giving us 8. Either a straight knockout or keep the bcci happy with another group before semis then final.

Look at the group of death man. We always get it :cool:

That tournament would excite me no end. Seeing all those countries playing our beautiful game.

brandon said:
Should be 16 teams IMO. 4 groups of 4, top two into the quarters.

That isn't as lucrative as the ICC need it to be though, so it won't happen.
Click to expand...

How about 6 groups of 4 mate?

SAFC2403 said:
You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...

Trailer looks class like.
 
Last edited:
It would have increased the profile of the game in Scotland/Ireland/Holland had they been in next year's World Cup and one of their games been played there.
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
People say that was the last tine we'll see a truly inclusive world cup though.........
Click to expand...
Maybe, but it was fukcing dull. It went on for weeks and weeks and weeks....

I'm all for inclusion, but just because you play cricket doesn't mean you should be able to play the top tournament. Bermuda and Canada were there FFS. I'd say there should be 2 spaces for associate members but make it a short and snappy tournament
 
Liverpool Beachball said:
World Cup- 16 teams
World T20- 32 teams
Click to expand...

Hope that's the way they heading.

Unfortunately the big three simply don't give a fuck about anyone else. They just want to play each other non stop raking it in. Bastaardising the game in the process. Unfortunately the ones in power simply are too selfish to think long term. They just want to kine their own pockets.

TopCat said:
Maybe, but it was fukcing dull. It went on for weeks and weeks and weeks....

I'm all for inclusion, but just because you play cricket doesn't mean you should be able to play the top tournament. Bermuda and Canada were there FFS. I'd say there should be 2 spaces for associate members but make it a short and snappy tournament
Click to expand...

Fair enough shout tbf. Only the best associates should participate. But more competitive games should be made available to them. Like a pre tournament.

Cos you know yourself that you only get better at stuff if you play against better opponents.
 
Last edited:
brandon said:
Should be 16 teams IMO. 4 groups of 4, top two into the quarters.

That isn't as lucrative as the ICC need it to be though, so it won't happen.
Click to expand...
You are spot on there mate.

For example, on whatever format they insist we play Australia and India play Pakistan as guaranteed fixtures
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top