Is it (WC) too much?

Top Contributors
Diamond Joe Quimby

Diamond Joe Quimby

Member
Is it (WC) too much?

In another thread, aussieman made this comment:
aussieman;152188 said:
didn't quite work for Ireland

all out for 134

Dan 'the man' Vettori taking 4 wickets.

it'll be a Australia - New Zealand final at this rate, the only other team to get close will be Sri Lanka

...and we've still got about 40 matches to be played in this tournament :p
Click to expand...

I really hadn't thought about it tell I read that. He's right, there is still a whole lotta cricket to finish this up. Anyone else think this tournament had way to many games to reach a decision? What would you change format wise for the next Cup? One "good" thing about this format though, was that we saw big teams struggle, and smaller teams surprise. On the one hand, it leads to matches in the Super 8's without much interest, on the other, it sends a wake up call to teams to not take their place/ positions for granted, which perhaps leads to improvement on the level of play as a whole. What say the rest of ye?
 
Re: Is it (WC) too much?

i didn't realize they had 40 more matches to play, that is a lot. I'm sure they can streamline the games a bit. I know this year because of the number of associate teams participating added to the number of games played. One way to reduce the number of games played but keep the same number of teams is let the top team of each group advance to the next stage instead of the top two teams. That will make it very interesting.
 
Re: Is it (WC) too much?

There are 11 more matches in the Super Eights, 2 semifinals, and 1 final.
A total of 14 matches left.
 
Re: Is it (WC) too much?

cleazer;152525 said:
There are 11 more matches in the Super Eights, 2 semifinals, and 1 final.
A total of 14 matches left.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction Cleazer i did think 40 was too many more games. Somebody got their math wrong!
 
Re: Is it (WC) too much?

Yes, it is too much. Even the most ardent cricket fanatic cannot keep track of such an absurdly long schedule, if they've other basic responsibilities such as job, education, family, whatever to take care of. A World Cup shouldn't go on for 2 months. 1 month total duration is acceptable.
 
Re: Is it (WC) too much?

i was being a bit dramatic marlyminks, but there is still an incredible amount of games to be played.

last world cup had the best system, with the 2 groups, then only the Super 6 and only games played in Super Six were from the other group.

It's just dragging out far too long now, and it's starting to become a yawn. We know 3 of the Semi-Finalists already, and we could have told you those after the first games of the Super Eight stage

*yawn*

i think if i had Foxtel i would be sick of cricket by now, i probably would have watched every game, every night. Because i don't have Foxtel i'm still looking at the TV guide for which games will be on FTA. :eek:
 
Re: Is it (WC) too much?

I was just trying to think then whether it had always been this long. But yes there was a different system.

Me and a mate were going to go over there for the tournament but then realised it went for so long and abandonded that idea
 
Re: Is it (WC) too much?

I have given some thought to the question of whether the World Cup is too long, and I think it is, both in terms of days and the number of games played. (This World Cup will stretch from March 13 to April 28 and consist of 51 total games, more if you include the warm-up matches.) So, assuming the number of teams involved stays at 16, I’d like to propose a somewhat different format.

The opening round group stage is fine the way it is, and I won’t argue the point unless anyone disagrees. This stage consists of 24 games.

The Super 8s stage also consists of 24 games. It seems too predictable and to make it too hard for the weaker teams to pull a few upsets and advance. Perhaps I judge it too harshly on that account, since it is only fair that the majority of the strong teams advance, and South Africa still has the possibility of losing the fourth qualifying spot either to England, West Indies, or Bangladesh. At any rate we have had to wait for that possibility for too long.

I would propose replacing the round-robin Super 8s stage with another group stage. If the two teams from Group A were paired with the two from Group B, and the two from Group C with the two from Group D, and each team only played the two in their group that they hadn’t played before, with the other result carrying over from the previous round, then this stage would consist of eight games. If the teams were paired ABCD, ABCD, and each plays three games, then this stage would consist of 12 games.

I have spent some time thinking about another group stage for the last four teams, but rather than take the time to elaborate on it I will say simply that two semi-finals and a final are probably still the best option here.

So, instead of 51 games, my format would take either 35 or 39 games.

Here's an interesting article that explains some of the formats used in past World Cups:

http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/WORLD_CUPS/WC_HISTORY/WC99_HISTORY.html
 
Re: Is it (WC) too much?

i've come to the thought that all they need to do is have a knock-out stage from the Quarter-Finals onwards.

It's quicker, easier to follow and it follows EVERY other major sporting tournament around the world.

Keep the current group stage, top 2 go through from each group, then Quarter-Finals, Semi-Finals and Final.

or is that too simple?
 
Re: Is it (WC) too much?

I found this piece in my local newspaper very interesting :

BARBADOS (Bloomberg)- Australian cricketers should stop moaning about the World Cup being too long and enjoy the money they'll make from the event, according to Malcolm Speed, chief executive officer of the sport's ruling body.

Ricky Ponting, captain of defending champions Australia, and opening batsman Matthew Hayden said last week that the seven-week tournament in the caribbean was dragging on and should be trimmed for the 2011 edition. Gaps between matches from some teams have been as long as nine days.

"If this world cup had happened at a deifferent time, the Australians would be in the West Indies playing four Test matches and seven one-dayers over a 10-week period," Speed said in an interview. There would be "minimal television coverage, minimal prize money and a very small proportion of the profile that this event is having," he said.

The 15-man Australian squad stand to earn $2.24 million in prize money if they win their third straight title or $1 million by finishing runners-up. For regular one-day games, players get match fees of $3,300 and compete for "much less" prize money than at the World Cup.

Of course there is more, sorry there is no link to this story as i copied it from our local newspaper. I've learned not to believe everything i read in our local newspapers. Maybe some of you can give some imput into this, have any of you heard about this?
 
Re: Is it (WC) too much?

Sorry, Malcolm Speed is wrong. This is not about the money Australian team is receiving.

Somewhere along the way, this World Cup lost the relevance for me and I just couldn't stay on top of it anymore. Not sure what that was, surely it wasn't just India going out. I can get interested in neutral cricket matches just fine. It's just that it feels like this World Cup started 1 year ago and is still going on.
 
Re: Is it (WC) too much?

So I just had an idea. I haven't thought it through at all, but I'm wondering what the rest of you think.

To avoid this 'dragging on' feeling, play some qualifying rounds BEFORE the tournament proper. For example, you could take the 4 groups of 4 from this tournament and make 4 mini-qualifiers to be played in the months before the world cup.

You could either play them as a mini-tournament at one site, OR do it in a soccer qualifying style of playing home-and-home against each team in your group. Then you take the top 2 from each and they progress to the Final tournament which could take the form of a Super 8 or two new 4 team groups.

This maintains the integrity of the tournament in the ICCs desire (correct in my opinion) to have each team play each other team at least once. But it avoids the game-every-day monotony that this tournament has become. You could even allow MORE teams into the tournament if desired.

Again, I've just thought of this and haven't considered any of the drawbacks. Anyone have any thoughts?
 
Re: Is it (WC) too much?

Wilbix;155963 said:
Again, I've just thought of this and haven't considered any of the drawbacks. Anyone have any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Maybe a ODI World Cup as we know it will become irrelevant 10 years from now, and the Twenty20 World Cup will become de-facto tournament of interest?

BTW, to come out clean: I've been on record on this forum criticizing Twenty20 cricket as mickey-mouse cricket not deserving any attention. That was about a year ago when I didn't really understand much about Twenty20. After having watched a bit of Twenty20 AND suffering from the insomnia known as ICC World Cup 2007, I've had a change of mind. I'm now open to the possibility that Twenty20 will make ODI format redundant. The biggest problems to solve are: How to keep the art of spin bowling relevant in Twenty20? And how not to turn it into a format in which bat always dominates the ball?

Of course, it is still possible that ICC will manage to ruin Twenty20 by over-saturating it too. I can never bet against ICC ruining anything.
 
Re: Is it (WC) too much?

i've said for many years that one-day cricket of the 50 over format has past its used by date. I like it, don't get me wrong. But 50 overs is far too long. i honestly believe it should 40 overs. but that's another topic altogether.

The World Cup was too long. Simple as that. i said it from the beginning. And it was my comment that started this topic. But Twenty20 will take over 50 Over cricket VERY shortly. Absolutely spot on Chandu. Absolutely spot on. Also, i think, very shortly that the amount of ODI's played will drop considerably. There is too much rubbish cricket being played. Who really cares about a SEVEN match head-to-head series? why not make it 3 or 5? I'm looking in your direction India: that's 2 games dropped already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top