ICC to reconsider Cricket World Cup format

Sad to see the penny pinching CA behind the move to keep the world cup to 10 teams. Now they want it to be the best 10. Zimbabwe easily beat Canada and Kenya in Group A this past world Cup. Bangladesh beat Ireland and finished higher in Group B but Ireland did score a win against England. Cricket Australia are such money grubbing bastards that I'm ashamed of them. So most likely the 10 test countries will be the 10 teams in the 2015 world cup. But no sport other than football has enough depth to have a completely competitive world cup. Australia made the quarters of the Olympics mens basketball where we were absolutely thrashed by the USA. Looking at the results of the 2010 world championships, which was EXPANDED to 24 teams there were MANY lopsided matches even in the group of 16. Turkey 95 Slovenia 68 that was a QUARTER FINAL. That must have been an exciting match. The rugby world cup has 20 places. Right now the 20th ranked team is Portugal. Portugal??? And cricket is bitching about countries like Kenya, where cricket is actually a popular sport, being in the cricket world cup? While Portugal isn't in the 2011 world cup teams like Namibia, Georgia, Russia and the USA are. Do you think those teams wont be slaughtered in lopsided matches? So rugby and basketball can accommodate 20 and 24 teams in their world cup/championships yet cricket can only support 10? Ridiculous. As I said only football can run a world cup and not have a bunch of lopsided games in early rounds.

4 groups of 4 doesn't add up to enough games unless you have a super-8 (and that was god-awful in 2007). But here's the other thing: if you are doubling up fixtures, then there is no difference in available quality between 4 groups of 4, and 4 groups of 5 with the 16 (of 40) fixtures the 5th team plays being played simultaneously. Looked at another way, there are 20 likely mismatches with big teams playing (1v345, 2v45) and 20 potentially close games (1v2, 3v245, 4v5). One of each over 20 days would be interesting enough. It is only the group stages after all.

As you state below, its not quite the rugby format, but its not a bad idea. 20 might be too many, but four groups of four with group winners straight to quarter-finals and only fourth eliminated could work. The minnows are guaranteed three games, with a chance of four for some. The problem is how often TV will be willing to have two games a day in the group stages. If any of the big nations play on the day, broadcasters don't seem keen to have any clashing games - hence the length of tournaments.

Marees, sorry, a correction to my comment, rugby has 20 teams but goes straight to the q/f. Mine is a modification to that, to give the smaller teams more to play for. They couldn't have an extra round in rugby because they only play once per week. Cricket can get away with a game every 3 days.

I dont follow rugby, so I was unaware of that format, but that sounds interesting. Thanks for the explanation.

Marees, I'm probably not the person to ask that. I've argued, elsewhere and here, and at ridiculous length that the quality of the contest is not compromised by having more teams: the end result is the weak teams end up playing each other a lot, which are good contests (albeit not popular ones). The only issue with 3 groups is you have to resolve to semi-finals at some point, and that means a secondary group stage (which noone seems to like). Personally, I think cricket ought to follow rugby, 20 teams, 4 groups of 5, 1st directly to the q/f, 2nd and 3rd to second round play-offs. It plays enough games, there is a strong incentive to win the group, it has no more minnow vs test team matches than the 14 team tournament did, there is something for every competitor because even the 20th ranked team is good enough to come third in a group, it can be completed in 5 weeks, it has 15 must-win knockout games, and (it's only weak-point) the major test teams will play at least 5, but up to 8 games.

why cant we invite everybody to the party and still ensure that the quality is not compromised. We can have a midway elimination of weaker teams from the league/group, like what I proposed here http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/04/14/restoring-cheer-to-the-cricket-world-cup/ That way we can accommodate 3 groups of 5/6 teams each yet still have each game meaningful and total tournament length not more than 5 weeks

it felt like the whole tournament was designed to make sure India got as far as it could. otherwise i don't get massive group stages with four qualifying spots.

I could not agree more. 4 pools of 4, 2 games a day. It doesn't take a freaking genius to expand the WC and make the group stages more compact. I can't possibly see what is being achieved by putting the Associates in the wilderness. The stupidest part of this World Cup was the ICCs attempt to ensure that no minnows went through, as if that was a bad thing?! Essentially, it was just a way of ensuring India didn't get bungled out early again.

Brilliant to see the ICC may (MAY) change their minds here. The Associates must push for at least a 12-team Cup (2 groups of 6 then QF, SF, F) - 14 would be a pipe dream I guess, or if it is 10 then a minimum of a bottom-two versus top 6 Associates qualifying round. I maintain that 12 teams would be reasonable enough, with IRE/HOL/KEN/CAN/AFG/SCO and perhaps one of the Division Two sides (e.g. UAE, PNG) getting a go in there as well to fight for the last two spots. Please do it, ICC!!!!! For the good of the game itself!!!

Chris, not really. The ICC has a 48 game broadcast deal, so a 10 team world cup will have a single group, will run for at least 5 or 6 weeks (far longer than a cup with more teams and doubled-up fixtures would have), loads of mismatches against the bottom couple of teams, almost no way the bottom 4 teams to qualify, and a grand total of three fixtures with progress riding on that game alone. Qualification always carries the risk too, that certain teams, important teams, will miss out. FIFA solves this by having a mega-tournament which is easy to qualify for, and easy to get out of the group stages in, but has very few fixtures between the big sides (maybe 6 of 64 games in 2010). 14 teams was a poor format because the group stages lasted too long, but was good for broadcasters because India played 9 games. 10 teams is a worse format for the same reason and better for the broadcasters because India might play as many as 11 games. And no offence to the '92 brigade, but it isn't '92 anymore - cricket is bigger, more global, and has a hundred times as much money riding on it. You think we'll stage India vs Sri Lanka in Mackay in 2015? Or not broadcast the minnow games (which is the main reason you don't remember them)?

Gosh this could be so easy to fix... Keep the number of teams participating in the World Cup at 10 (that's the good bit of the ICC's decision). But then have some sort of qualifying process that is open to all teams - the highest ranked 10 teams go through to the World Cup regardless of whether they're a full or Associate country. Problem solved.

The punters voted with their feet and overwhelmingly said NO to this long style of format with minnows. Why not just run the thing like in the soccer and have qualifiers. It gives the minnows year in, year out quality, high stakes matches and an end to the never ending pointless one dayer circuit we have now. I am a massive cricket nut and I just could not be bothered with the World Cup. It was the WORST tournament ever staged, it needs to be hacked back to the best of the best with the same format as the 1992 edition. The first month of the recently held one and the last couple of Cups was pointless.

Toby, you're right, the biggest hindrence to the length of the CWC is the group stages. The pools are too big and the broadcasters want to show every game, so the only solution can be to go to smaller pools. 3 or 4 groups of 4 seems about right, then straight into the knockout stages. That all said, it's refreshing to see some common sense arising from out of ICC HQ, let's hope the Associates can still have a place in 2015 in Australia & NZ..

I've no idea why they feel they need a two-group competition? Surely a four-group comp (with up to 16 teams) would make for a more compact schedule, and allow a genuine chance for the "minnows" to get into the quarter finals? There are the ten full members, plus the 6 Top Associate/Affiliate Members, making for 4 groups of 4, with 2 top8 teams and 2 bottom8 teams per group. In theory an associate/affiliate team may only need to beat one of the top teams to go through.