World Cup 2015 Format?

Top Contributors
futureblackcap

futureblackcap

Well-Known Member
I've been working on the format for the 2015 World Cup in Australia and New Zealand. At first, I had two groups and everybody played everyone, then straight to the semis. It was too long and too many associate matches to contend with, which I'm fine with myself but the masses would get bored, especially if some of the "bigger" matches were flops or rained off.

The format I came up with was within the two groups, every team plays four matches, then its straight to the semis. The problem with this, is that there are fourteen teams in the tournament so two teams from each group would have to play three games instead. I solved this by giving every Associate Nation an effective win to start with, giving them only three group matches.

Format:
4 matches a day on the weekends - (2 in Aus, 2 in NZ) - twelve group matches each weekend
- the group matches would be finished in two weeks and the tournament would be complete in a month.
The two Associate nations in each group would start with enough points to compensate for one less match (effectively a win to start with)
Each full member team would play 3 matches against other full members and one match against an Associate or (Zimbabwe/Bangladesh) in their group
Each Associate nation would play two matches against full member teams and once against themselves
Semi finals's to be played at the MCG and Eden Park
Final to be played at the MCG

If I was making the groups, they'd look like this:

Group 1
Australia
India
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
Zimbabwe
Afghanistan
Netherlands (Canada)

Group 2
New Zealand
South Africa
West Indies
England
Bangladesh
Ireland
Scotland (Namibia)

Stadiums (Group 2): (only doing NZ cause I don't know Australia's grounds that well)

Eden Park: 3 of the Blackcap's group matches + semi-final
Westpac Stadium: The Blackcap's other group match + Two full member matches
Basin Reserve: 1 match
McLeans Park: 1 match
Seddon Park: 2 matches
Hagley Park (if finished): 1 match
University Oval: 1 match

This way, the whole country would have access to at least one match. It'd be nice for the South Island to have a Blackcap's group match but both the University Oval and Hagley Park, simply wouldn't have the capacity.

Thoughts?
 
Geez, the Kenyans have really fallen off the face of the earth.

This is the first World Cup I can remember not having Kenya in it.
 
Sharkman84 said:
Geez, the Kenyans have really fallen off the face of the earth.

This is the first World Cup I can remember not having Kenya in it.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Kenya are fifth in the Intercontinental Cup atm. They still have an outsiders chance of making it to the WC. The teams above ^ are my predictions as only Ireland have qualified so far.
 
Sharkman84 said:
Geez, the Kenyans have really fallen off the face of the earth.

This is the first World Cup I can remember not having Kenya in it.
Click to expand...
Board/contract issues. There was a mass walkout in mid-2011 where a few top players didn't get or refused to sign contracts. The ship has steadied since then, but the level of depth and experience to the national squad took a big hit. They're doing alright nowadays, but even on their best day they don't look like the formidable force they could have once been.


futureblackcap said:
I've been working on the format for the 2015 World Cup in Australia and New Zealand.
...
Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Placeholder. I'll respond in needless detail later.
 
shashivardhan said:
what about netherlands?
Click to expand...
The top two teams of the WCL Division 1 competition automatically qualify for the 2015 World Cup, and Ireland have guaranteed themselves to finish in the top two with two games to spare. You can see the table here, but Scotland (currently in second), the Netherlands (equal on points), Afghanistan and the UAE (each have two extra games still to play) are all in the running to finish second. All the teams in Division 1 that don't finish in the top two will then play in a global ten-team World Cup Qualifier tournament from which two more teams will qualify for the World Cup.

shashivardhan said:
i hope the final should be played at brisbane,hobart[a large and huge stadium compared to mcg]
Click to expand...
Nooooooooo no no no. After the Sydney Olympics in 2000, the MCG is once again the biggest stadium in Australia. I still haven't finished my megapost yet :eek: , but here's one of the tables that I made:

P1zcpHE.png
 
shashivardhan said:
i hope the final should be played at brisbane,hobart[a large and huge stadium compared to mcg]
Click to expand...


While I am from Sydney and I'd love the final to be at the SCG or Stadium Australia, the final has to be at the Melbourne Cricket Ground.

It is the biggest cricket stadium in the country and would have to be absolute certainties to host the final.
 
Great thread.

I'd have a 2v3 in a playoff for the semi spot against the group winners. Provides extra interest in the group stage with top spot being valuable, 2 extra finals but still doesn't let too many teams through like quarter finals. They made the group stage of the last WC boring as batshit with it being obvious which 8 teams would go through.
 
Kram81 said:
Great thread.

I'd have a 2v3 in a playoff for the semi spot against the group winners. Provides extra interest in the group stage with top spot being valuable, 2 extra finals but still doesn't let too many teams through like quarter finals. They made the group stage of the last WC boring as batshit with it being obvious which 8 teams would go through.
Click to expand...

Thank you. :)

I like your idea as it avoids the semi finals possibly being too predictable too early on in the tournament.
 
It will being interesting where they decide to play the finals

Could be wrong but from memory there was a silly situation in 1992 where if NZ won their final round-robin game they would've had to go and play Australia at the MCG, but losing meant Pakistan would go above Australia and the game would be played at Eden Park.
 
Kram81 said:
It will being interesting where they decide to play the finals

Could be wrong but from memory there was a silly situation in 1992 where if NZ won their final round-robin game they would've had to go and play Australia at the MCG, but losing meant Pakistan would go above Australia and the game would be played at Eden Park.
Click to expand...


That seems backwards.... :confused:
 
Kram81 said:
Great thread.

I'd have a 2v3 in a playoff for the semi spot against the group winners.
Click to expand...
Ah! Like this:
uIdY1kg.jpg


I really like the concision of your idea, and it makes sense mathematically: it effectively means that a team has to win more games than lose to progress -- finishing the group stage with three wins and three losses won't cut it. If nothing else, those Exhibitions games that I've sneakily included need to happen. You have Members and Associates in the same place -- make the most of it!

My only real concern is that if there are only three teams per group that progress, the Test members may use the Associates as whipping boys to secure a higher Net Run Rate. The widespread mindset is still that of Ireland et al being "minnows", and it's the ICC's prerogative to encourage parity between the Members and Associates. I fear that that might not happen with only three qualifying places per group.

For the last several days, I've tried to look at this mathematically (and I have the paperwork to prove it), but 14 is a difficult number of teams with which to work. I've concluded that there have to be two groups because there is no other way to keep the tournament balanced. Honestly, the format of the 2011 World Cup worked pretty well:
gV1scP8.jpg


...but having looked at Kram's suggestion again (and actually drawn it out), I honestly wouldn't mind either.

**NOTE: The World Cup groups haven't been finalised by the ICC. The groups listed in the above graphics are fictional.**
 
troll3y said:
For the last several days, I've tried to look at this mathematically (and I have the paperwork to prove it), but 14 is a difficult number of teams with which to work. I've concluded that there have to be two groups because there is no other way to keep the tournament balanced. Honestly, the format of the 2011 World Cup worked pretty well:
gV1scP8.jpg


...but having looked at Kram's suggestion again (and actually drawn it out), I honestly wouldn't mind either.

**NOTE: The World Cup groups haven't been finalised by the ICC. The groups listed in the above graphics are fictional.**
Click to expand...

This one is clearly the best model and worked very well last time.

I'd go even further and expand the World Cup to 16 teams with four groups of four teams with the top two from each group progressing to the quarter finals.
 
The ICC are officially announcing the World Cup groups and fixtures on Tuesday afternoon. I'm scared.

It's worth noting that there are three places still up for grabs -- the teams haven't even been finalised, and won't be until next February!



Hagley Park (if finished)
Click to expand...
I didn't recognise this name, so with the Test match on in the background, I've just had a fascinating read about this proposed work. Going only by rare highlights I get to see from Crusaders games, I had no idea that AMI Stadium was so badly damaged. It's wonderful that the Council, NZC, and all those involved have seen the need to keep the Park green and accessible, and I do hope they're able to solve any issues with traffic accessibility to the nearby hospital. It's a bold yet highly respectable decision by the developers and NZC to effectively sacrifice a bit of profit and grandeur for the sake of simplicity and community wishes.


Venues:
Games in the 2011 World Cup were played in Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Kolkata, Nagpur, Mohali, Mumbai, New Delhi; Colombo, Hambantota, Pallekele; Chittagong, and Dhaka -- that's 49 games over 13 venues in three countries. Remember, this is after Pakistan lost hosting rights to host fourteen matches including a semi-final, so there would have been at least sixteen stadia in four different countries. Australia and New Zealand apparently "supported a shorter, sharper format" when the ICC first announced that the tournament would consist of only ten teams. I'm not sure on what their stance is now. Wikipedia tells me that as part of the joint Trans-Tasman bid, there will be a 50-50 split of games between Australia and New Zealand with the location of the final still undecided. If the format will be the same as the 2011 World Cup, there'll be 24 games in each country.

The former Chairman of the Local Organising Committee has also said that they want "to make this event the most fan-friendly event of its kind and will take cricket to a wide-range of communities throughout Australia and New Zealand". The gesture of taking games to smaller, non-cricketing Australian towns was really nice in 1992, but we're in a place now where we have eleven established ICC-approved grounds across Australia without taking Cup games to non-traditional places like Berri and Mackay. I of all people are in favour of taking cricket to non-Test cities, but not for 2015 World Cup games. I really hope the LOC Chairman is talking about warm-up games and travelling cricket roadshows.

I reckon each of the major grounds should host no more than three matches for the tournament. There are several grounds in Australia and several grounds in New Zealand that can host warm-up games, so long as they're up to ICC pitch standards and can cater for the crowd. There are broadcasting issues that come into play if these same venues want to host a Cup match, however.


Warm-Ups:
With the exception of England and New Zealand, each team played at least two warm-up matches before the Champions Trophy (aside from South Africa, who only played one). There were only two recorded warm-up games in 1992, both played at the North Sydney Oval, but everyone warmed up for the 2011 World Cup with FOURTEEN warm-ups across eight cities, where each team played exactly two games. (Add to that another six warm-ups when Zimbabwe joined the Associate teams in the UAE the week prior, which also counted as World Cup warm-up games.) Fourteen warm-up games is ideal, and it would be great if they were played at non-Test venues off the beaten path in each country. I should add that the non-Test venues that I've selected are ones that have hosted significant cricketing fixtures before (Youth Test, women's fixtures, U-19s internationals, Sheffield Shield games, and/or domestic List A/T20 fixtures).

Here's my map:
NnjtpBQ.png


...which is based on the compiled list of stadia capacities, as I've posted before.
P1zcpHE.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top