With as many as 32 nations and a slick format, the FIFA World Cup is easily the most watched team sport event in the world.
I am not really into football, but the possibility of major upsets makes it a really attractive and truly international tournament.
Where does the cricket World Cup stand vis-a-vis the football World Cup? For starters, the format has been tinkered way too many times. Cricket’s premier ODI tournament has had three different formats in the last three editions.
The number of teams, matches and the group structure have all varied in recent times, with the ICC failing to zero down upon a suitable format.
1975 and 1979 had 8 teams and a single round-robin format. 1983 and 1987 had 8 teams and a double round-robin format. 1992 – due to South Africa’s late inclusion – saw each of the nine teams play every other once to decide the semifinalists. 1996 had 12 teams and quarter-finals. 1999 and 2003 had 12 and 14 teams respectively, with both having a Super Six round.
2007 saw 16 teams divided into four groups before a long-drawn Super Eight round to decide the final four. 2011 saw a reversion to the quarter-final concept, this time with 14 teams. 2015 will have the same format as that of 2011.
But the most ridiculous idea is the one proposed for 2019 – just ten teams in a round-robin format to decide the top four. With this level of callousness from the ICC, can the cricket World Cup ever aspire to be even remotely close to its football counterpart?
With the new governance structure in the ICC now implemented, the powers-that-be have time and again used the word ‘meritocracy’ in their press statements. If they really want to introduce meritocracy, the first step should be to rectify the hollowness of the 2019 World Cup format.
Otherwise, new chairman N. Srinivasan and his colleagues would again prove themselves to be money-minded hypocrites. How can one remove the world out of the World Cup?
The 2019 edition will apparently see the top eight ranked sides at a certain point to be given automatic qualification, leaving at least a dozen deserving Associates to scrap for the two final spots.
How will up and coming teams like Nepal and Papua New Guinea be able to develop themselves if the very chance of qualifying for the world stage is cruelly minimised?
What would be the best World Cup format then? I am not a fan of the one used currently (2011 and 2015). The fourteen teams each play as many as six games in the group stage and the top four from each of the two groups enter the quarter-finals where suddenly it is make-or-break.
Thus, consistency in the group stage is not rewarded. A team impressively topping their group can have one bad day in the knock-outs.
Further, with the bane of corruption in the game getting worrisome by the day, this format is likely to encourage bookies. Why so? Because any team can afford to drop a game in the league stage if it is sure of qualifying for the knockouts.
In my opinion, the 2007 World Cup format could have been the best, had it been organised systematically. That particular tournament, played in the West Indies had an admirable 4×4 group structure, i.e four teams in each of four groups and each team playing three matches, a la the FIFA World Cup, but halved.
However the plot was lost in the second round. Known as the Super Eight, this round involved each of the eight teams qualified facing every other qualifier not part of its group in the first round.
Thus we had each team playing six matches each in the second round. It gave the World Cup such a bloated look that the tournament was considered a big failure. There are people who say that the tournament ‘lost its sheen’ due to the ousters of India and Pakistan in the first round at the hands of Bangladesh and Ireland respectively, but this is an insult to the latter two who defied the odds.
The culprit was the extra-long second round.
The perfect structure in 2007 would have been to keep a condensed Super Eight stage. For any sports tournament to be a success, the second round should never have more matches per team than the first round. Thus, the eight teams could have been divided into two groups of four each in the second round. This would have given each team three matches in each of the first two rounds, i.e six games to prove their worth before the semi-finals.
2007 had the ingredients for cricket to show the world that it is slowly expanding as a sport. But unfortunately, in a bid to keep top teams – specifically India – for a prolonged time in the tournament, the format was tweaked completely in 2011. For sure, the number of games for Associates increased, but in 2007, there was a brighter chance of a full member slipping up in the group stage and that is exactly what happened when Ireland tripped up Pakistan.
Thus my dream format for the cricket World Cup would be a group stage of sixteen teams (divided into four groups of four each), a Super Eight round with eight teams (divided into two groups of four each) followed by semi-finals, a third-place playoff and the final.
A total of 40 matches, with a team playing a maximum of eight matches if it makes the final. Each match in each of the first rounds will assume importance if this structure is implemented, and cricket fans all over the world will undoubtedly be glued to the tournament.
The mindless decision of literally closing the door on Associates to take part in the World Cup from 2019 is a condemnable one, and the revamped ICC have to expand it if they are to really keep their oft-repeated word of meritocracy.
shahbaaz iqbal
Guest
The best way is to make each and every country in the world should start competing for 2019 icc world cup, like fifa world cup and all 32 teams should play for the semi final and final, first round must be of 30 over a side tournament and the semi final and the final should be of 50 overs a side.
Hari
Guest
I think the whole tournament could be made totally interesting with 2 more games with the current 2011, 2015 format itself. 14 teams split into 2 groups of 7. Top 4 team in each group qualifies for second round. In the second round, bottom two teams in each group will play each other for a wild card entry (Group A3 vs Group B4 and Group A4 vs Group B3). Similarly top two teams in each group will play each other (playoff 1 game) for a semifinal berth. The winners of wild card games and loser of playoff 1 game, plays for playoff 2 game, getting 2 more semifinal berth. This intelligent format is more or less prevalent in many advanced tournaments (NFL etc..) In fact highly hated IPL had some version of this format. Why not marquee ICC world cup. 1. For just 2 more additional games than todays format, it makes the entire group stages that much interesting. 2. It also ensures top teams play most of top teams in both the groups. 3. Also solves the problem of every team (financially stronger/weaker) gets many games guaranteed. 4. Only the best teams get to the semifinals (and of course after that its a knockout).
Sanak
Guest
Hi mate, I am definitely disgusted on the actions of the ICC to close the door on associates and affiliates. complete BS. If you want to grow the game you need to develop other countries. It is a "world cup" after all, not really much of it if there is only the 10 best teams. That's what the ICC championship is for innit? As good as the 07 world cup I have to say cricket doesnt have enough for 16 teams yet. I think the 14 team tournament is too dragged on as well. We should go back to 12 teams. 2 groups of 6 and then a super 6 then semis. Have the top 8 ranked teams gain automatic entry and then have qualifiers for the next 4 spots (as they do currently) (so Bangladesh and Zim will actually have to compete in these too as it stands). We don't want an overly dragged on tournament, but we don't want to dilute the quality of it either. but the lower ranked teams should also have a realistic shot at qualifying (4 spots and opposed to a lowly 2 spots).
Abubakr Mela
Roar Rookie
Spot on bro! wanna get in more teams? how about t20. more than 10 teams in ODI WC would surely fade the already slim chances of its survival.
timmy
Guest
10 teams playing each other at least means the games are really worth something. as it stands the 2015 edition will be a whole month to decide a predictable top 8. yawn. then all that counts for nothing as it's straight to elimination. 1999 and the super 6 format for me. no quarter. points carried forward...
Tim
Guest
It's simple. 16 teams. 4 groups. Every team bar the host must qualify for the tournament through 3 match home and away series, why should associate nations be disadvantaged. Yes it is unlikely for most of the test nations to fail to qualify, but it will provide interest and some meaning to bi-lateral series. Once the group stage is complete we move on to the quarters, the semis and the final. There is no point in elongating a showpiece event that already lacks interest from many markets because of the games time consuming nature. In reality each team should be able to play their three group matches within 10 days. Giving us two games per day on average, a day game and a day nighter. A couple days break after te completion of the group stage sees the first of the quarter finals tee off and the other three follow in consecutive days. After 16 days, we see another two day hiatus with the semis played on the same day, as per the two game group stage days. The final gets played on the 21st day of the tournament leaving us with 31 complete 50 over matches to enjoy over a three week period eliminating the unessecary 43-44 day tournaments we currently experience.
Glenn Innes
Guest
RA What if anything has that got to do with the Cricket World Cup?Australia have won ten of the last 11 Rugby League "World cups".Australia has not lost a rugby League test series since 1978 which is why they don't have them any more. Cricket may be small fry compared with football but it is a massive global game compared to Rugby League so it doesn't need a tournament full of phony teams stacked with Australian born players. which is the point I was making to Johnno. Try as I may I can't see how Tonga or Samoa are relevant to the Cricket World Cup ,,,didn't even realise they played the game!
Ra
Guest
Glenn, we'd love to be a nuisance to NSW on a regular basis, and show them how to kick the Maroons year-in-year-out. That way you'll pick more Blues players and we'll have more chance of kicking your Green n Golds. Sounds like a plan to me. That said, I think the Samoans and Tongan reading this could be thinking: you know what Kiwis, we reckon we could do that job for you(s) and be able to hold onto our international players too.
Paul Nicholls
Roar Guru
I have a great idea. Everyone plays each other 20 times & regardless of the results the final will be between India and another team nominated by the BCCI. Seriously with the World Cup, T20 World Cup and Champions Trophy seemingly happening every 6 months the credibility of these international tournaments is in tatters.
Ra
Guest
And on their day the Kiwis can kick all three of those nations, then get tripped up by the likes of Kenya on their day. That's the beauty of cricket.
Glenn Innes
Guest
By keeping it at eight nations you are not locking anyone out because like football everybody should be playing games to qualify for the tournament So if Kenya or Afghanistan or Holland or whoever are good enough to qualify then bingo....they get a spot at the big dance - if they are not they play for the plate.
Lachlan Doyle
Roar Pro
I love the cricket World Cup and probably always will do. It's a great competition of the game and like you've said, it deserves a better format. Sadly, I can't ever see this happening, 2019 may just be the last and the end of the tournament.
Rustom Deboo
Roar Guru
Well said Timmuh. Without any scope of qualifying for a World Cup, cricket will shrivel in these promising nations. We have already seen the sad case of Kenya.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
The Associates (and minor full members) need help between and during World Cups. They need a World Cup to aim at. The rest of the nations should be doing much more to help make the game more competitive outside the main six to eight nations. The biggest problem is the (television/financial) need not have overlapping matches. Other sports with world cups can fit multiple matches into a single day. 50 over cricket doesn't have that luxury if every game is to be televised live with no clashes, unless all workd cups are to be played in nations with multiple time zones.
sheek
Roar Guru
Rustom, I'm happy to keep it at eight nations to be honest. Bangladesh & Zimbabwe are a massive disappointment, to be honest. Afghanistan & Ireland don't excite me either. Kenya hasn't progressed significantly either. And the West Indies are in danger of slipping even further down the pole. I'm not interested in more nations purely as a numbers exercise. As much as I loathe T20, perhaps it's the only format that will save cricket.
Rustom Deboo
Roar Guru
Sheek, I feel Twenty20 is fine for the purpose of introducing cricket to far-flung countries. But nations like Ireland and Afghanistan - to name but two - are very serious about their ODI cricket, whatever little they get to play. Indeed, 50-overs cricket and first-class games with 'A' teams is what will measure an Associate's capability of rising to the Test level. That is how Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe (till 2003) flourished. And at least Ireland and Afghanistan deserve Test status in the next two years, because of the genuine ambition of the players in these two countries. Easier said than done though, keeping in mind the ICC's glass ceiling.
Rustom Deboo
Roar Guru
Wasim, I see what you are hinting at. The condensation of the World Cup is a worrying sign and few years down the line I might not be surprised if the 'Big Three' get automatic semi-final qualification as you have mentioned, leaving the others to scrap for the fourth spot. While that sounds a bit far-fetched, the truth is that without underdogs, the World Cup is no fun. Kenya in 1996 and 2003, Ireland in 2007 and 2011 are performances that are remembered for long. With ten teams, it is just another Champions Trophy with a different name.
sheek
Roar Guru
I'm not at all unhappy with a 10 nation world cup. And even finding 10 competent cricket nations is a stretch. The only format capable of attracting more participants is Twenty20, & only because the shorter the format, the greater the chance of upsets. As much as I love cricket, I just don't see five-day test & one-day limited overs cricket ever attracting more than the 'usual suspects.'
Rustom Deboo
Roar Guru
The 2x4 Super Eights add quality to the tournament. The each-one-plays-one Super Eight of 2007 was tedious, while suddenly entering quarterfinals will be a tad too short. I believe what I have suggested is the middle path - it makes all games crucial and at the same time, rewards consistency. Also, a 'top team' (if it makes the second round) will get at least six matches while the 'minnows' too will have an equal chance of making the grade. Keeps everyone happy - officials, players, viewers.
Glenn Innes
Guest
Johnno - Unlike Rugby League cricket does have some credibility as an international sport it has eight countries that can beat each other at odi especially (maybe less at test level). Rugby League has two and they are called QLD and NSW with New Zealand providing a bit of nuisance value when the Australians egos get the better of them, so it has no alternative but have teams that are really just a farce.Cricket is yet to decline to a point where it has to lower itself to that level.