First of All...Heartfelt wishes to all on HOLI!! have a colorful blast...
back to business...
Recently ICC seems to OKed the return of Quarter final format in world cup 2011...apparently in their bid to shorten the duration of tournament....
my fellow blogger Aashrey of Long Hop (actually his post inspired this post) has given his own arguments in its favor...
but i have my doubts whether its a good move...
we should not forget why quarters format was dropped in first place...
team could win all matches comprehensively in league stage...one bad game...you pack your bags and go back home...no chance to redeem yourself...no chance to regain lost ground...it can happen to any team...
while super6 gives you THAT chance...
the guard against that one possible bad day...
...after all one want to see cracker of games competed by bests...(not fortunates)...
i think we are over-reacting to the boringly long last world cup by putting blame on super6 format...
do you agree with me?
back to business...
Recently ICC seems to OKed the return of Quarter final format in world cup 2011...apparently in their bid to shorten the duration of tournament....
my fellow blogger Aashrey of Long Hop (actually his post inspired this post) has given his own arguments in its favor...
but i have my doubts whether its a good move...
we should not forget why quarters format was dropped in first place...
team could win all matches comprehensively in league stage...one bad game...you pack your bags and go back home...no chance to redeem yourself...no chance to regain lost ground...it can happen to any team...
while super6 gives you THAT chance...
the guard against that one possible bad day...
...after all one want to see cracker of games competed by bests...(not fortunates)...
i think we are over-reacting to the boringly long last world cup by putting blame on super6 format...
do you agree with me?
22 comments:
I'm in favor of the quarter final format SP. Having seen all the different formats in the WC from WC 1 to date, I think the old format was the best.
Let the leagues be the place where the teams are sorted out and their form etc.
The last two steps before the finals must mean something...they must have that edge...lose..go home...to ensure a higher level of play in the last three matches.
The thing is one bad day can send you home even in a super 6 format...it could send India home in a super 8 format as well!...and before they could even make it to the last 8.
So I may not agree with that reason...the league matches should warm you up and iron out the kinks. To stretch it out after that, to me, is diminishing the tournament.
Whether Q/Fs are good will be decided if India makes the semis in 2011. Personally, I prefer the super 6s - but then I liked the best of 3 finals down under. And that's scrapped too!
Happy Holi!
I'm for the QF's. I think that that one possible bad day should be enough to knock any team out. Its the World Cup, you shouldn't have a bad day. If you do, then OUT.Its all about pressure and the team that handles it better is the better team.
One possible bad day can happen in a semi-final or a final as well.We could have a league stage then as well :D. Fantasic Fours and the Thrilling Twos.
I prefer the Super 6s / Super 8s over the Quarters.
Cricket is unlike football and thus QFs don't make sense to me. Criket is way more unpredictable and if the best team in the tournament has a bad day in the QF, its unfair I feel for some reason.
Take for example South Africa and Pakistan - after winning all their group games in 96, they lost the QFs. It just seemed unfair.
I think the best format was the 1992 world cup. Not cos Pakistan won but cos it allowed for each team to play the other before the semis.
Maybe there's a case for only the top 9 (the Big 8 and Bangladesh)teams to contest the ODI World Cup with the Champions Trophy and 20-20 World Cups being used to promote the minnows.
The older format was nice... yes, like you said, it is unfair to a team having one bad day... if that is the case, then the finals should also be a best of three... I would suggest that we have quarterfinals, burn the super 6 format and have a best of three finals.
SB
you have a point there...
but i did not raised this point for team india only...it can happen to team...
yea NC!! all good things comes to an end i guess...
aashrey, first warm welcome and thanks for dropping by...
yea this could happen in SF and final...but seriously do you want this to happen to say best team so early in tournament??
q
you captured the essence and my worry beautifully...
if couple of best teams have bad day (which can happen) so early in tournament...will that tournament will be succesfull??
i can not agree more with you on 92 wc format...that was the best format according to me till date...where team get chance to show its class with every other team...no notion of easy or difficult group...
i don't know why it got scrapped and not tried again...
scorpy...
may be we will see the best of three finals in wc too...you never know...
:-)
Well it got scrapped cos ICC increased the number of teams participating in the WC. In 1996 there were 12 - 3 more than the 9 in 92. 12 again in 1999, 14 in 2003, and 16 in 2007!
Having a round robin with so many teams is not feasible.
Which is why i suggest a WC to be played between 10 teams at the max. Ideally 8 but 2 out of Bangladesh, Kenya, and Zimbabwe probably deserve to be there. Have the 92 format.
The arguement against "but we want to give exposure to minnows" is that it can be given in lesser tournaments - i.e. champs trophy and 20-20 where minnows may even stand a chance of winning major matches.
Kenya got to the semis in 2003. What did the ICC do for them after that? Not much. So even if the ICC say that they want to spread the game and develop it in other regions, they don't actually do that.
thanks Q
you are right let them earn their spot in WC by good performances in lesser tournaments like you said in 20-20, champions trophy...
and this globalisation in world stage (WC) is nothing but hogwash...as you rightly pointed out...
I still stand by the quarters.
I agree that the 92 format was first-class, but the fact of the matter is that if the ICC reduces the WC to such few teams, there's bound to be a huge amount of pressure on them for all quarters, whatever assurances they might give of the minnows playing T20, and the Champions Trophy.
And how are the quarter-finals related to the difference in cricket and football?
Plus, upsets add charm to the game. I know I'll be the one wailing the loudest if India gets knocked out by Bangladesh or something, but it's true.
"And how are the quarter-finals related to the difference in cricket and football?"
For me football is a more predictable game than cricket. Usually the higher seeds in football win the matches so 16 top teams from 32 qualifying for a knock out makes sense.
8 teams qualifying out of 14 for a knock out makes no sense. And due to the unpredictability of the game the knockout stage should only come when the last 4 are left. How u determine the last 4 - there are 1,000s of ways better than the quarters...
U c where im coming from?
8 teams qualifying out of 14 for a knock out makes all the more sense, actually.
Isn't the focus on making the World Cup shorter? If so, eight teams playing each other in a round-robin phase matches definitely does not help the cause. Especially when not more than 2 games are played on a single day.
First we have two groups of 7 each playing a league phase, then another league phase of 8 teams playing each other. Sure, that'll ensure team plays against the other. It'll also ensure the world cup meanders along, with plenty of matches of no consequence.
I think Cricinfo aptly puts it when they say that the 92 world cup was one that thought it was a league. A world cup with minimal knock-outs is not a world cup at all.
http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/
ci-icc/content/story/264386.html
I can see what you're saying is reducing the number of teams, but we have to keep in mind that the ICC faces huge pressure from the minnows. That is just not done for them.
In the current scenario, the quarter finals are definitely the way to go.
And I do see where you're coming from. :D
I am in favor of 2003 WC format with super six group instead of round robin....remember SA in 1996 WC one bad day and they were eliminated from tournament....:). I agree with best of 3 finals in WC. It would help the best team from having one bad day.
Ok lets take a look at this.
2 pools. 7 teams each. 4 big teams and 3 minnows.
That means that each pool will have 21 matches - i.e. a total of 42 league games.
Out of the 21 in each pool, 3 matches will be between minnows and another 12 matches will be between a strong side and a minnow. This means a total of 15 meaningless matches out of 21 in each pool.
So out of the 42 league games, 30 are pointless. Only 12 games involving the big ones. Followed by 4 QFs, 2 SFs, and a Final.
So 30 meaningless matches and 19 meaningful matches - that in my opinion does not make a world cup.
A super six round or a super eight one instead of the QFs will provide more meaningful matches between strong teams.
But that makes the tournament longer.
So the ideal scenario is a world cup involving only the top 1- countries.
Give the associates and minnows more ODI tours, 3-way competitions, etc during a year. Let them prove themselvs there and in champion trophies and 20-20... then maybe in 10 yrs or so we could have a larger scale ODI world cup when all teams are stronger.
Not top 1, but top 10 countries ..
Q have given very good arguments backed up with facts that make sense...
the problem with last WC (to me) was that there were lots of meaningless matches that made it appeared long and boring...
i am also in agreement with Q that WC is not the stage to blood minnows in the name of globalisation...it comes once in four years and in between those four years ICC gets enough time and chances to promote minnows...
WC should like mecca of best teams...let minnows earn their places to fight against best...only then it will have meaning...and will truly represent cricket bests...
Even if the arguments are valid, it is a very unrealistic situation that the ICC reduces the tournament to a 10 team tournament.
In the present scenario with 14 teams, super eight should definitely be ruled out.
They already are, that's a different matter.
But yeah, top 6 teams of 10 seems a better plan.
And one thing the quarter finals will always have is more needle.
Dear SP
Waiting for your new post.
Post a Comment