A competition without the competition is no competition at all.
Okay, that might be stretching it a bit too far, but the quickly approaching World Cup threatens to underwhelm when it should really be doing the polar opposite.
The 50-over game’s marquee event, a tournament that has provided more than its fair share of captivating entertainment over 10 instalments will do little in keeping the wolf that is Twenty20 cricket from the door.
Opinion, if it isn’t already firmly ground in the ‘two types of cricket is best’ camp, is getting close to it and that is where we’re heading.
It might not necessarily be a bad thing. After all, if that’s where the demand is lying then the supply will inevitably follow; yet if there no desire for the one-day international game it would’ve surely gone to the wall by now.
The problem, as was the case four years ago on the sub-continent, is a format seemingly designed with little or not thought whatsoever as to what a tournament requires to grab the public’s attention.
Reading a preview of England’s visit to the Millenium Stadium in Cardiff for their Six Nations opener on Friday evening, the journalist in question made reference to the Rugby World Cup in a few month’s time.
More specifically, he pointed to the group that contains England, Wales and Australia and the fact one of those heavyweights will not make it as far as the knockout stages.
A genius you do not need to be to work out that the group games will have something riding on them, an essential element of any tournament worth its salt.
Compare this to the cricketing equivalent and you’ll see exactly where I’m coming from.
One glance at Group A, inhabited by Australia, Bangladesh, England, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Scotland, and it’s very quickly apparent that the four quarter-finalists are more or less banged on.
In the other group there is the possibility that West Indies could have a fight on their hands to trump Ireland and Zimbabwe but I wouldn’t hold out any hope of that coming to pass.
So to all extents and purposes, of the 49 fixtures that will make up the schedule, barely 10 will have any real meaning.
If England – I’ll use them as the example to save any readers from pointing out their general one-day averageness – get the better of Afghanistan, Scotland and Bangladesh, and possibly only two of that trio, then they will be in the last eight.
Where’s the underlying peril in that set-up? If it was, say, only the top two advancing to the semi-finals then there would be a far greater edge to proceedings. But it’s not, and there are four weeks worth of games that might as well not happen.
Purely in terms of a balanced event, the 1992 World Cup, with every team playing each other, has been a high point yet to be emulated.
I’m not daft enough to expect this kind of purity of thinking on a consistent basis but there must be a better way of ensuring all those with an interest – players, spectators, sponsors, broadcasters – maintain just that.
The top three through to a ‘Super Six’ round, three groups of five with a couple from each progressing, eight or nine teams playing a round-robin; all would offer more competition.
I have nothing against the Associate nations qualifying the chance to dine at the top table but being cannon fodder in an elongated format is almost patronising.
If a greater number of teams are going to participate then split them up in such a way that an upset could do more damage than merely providing a short-lived embarrassment to the big boys.
Or go back to a smaller pool of nations, with a qualifying competition to prevent a complete fell of elitism, and go from there. It really shouldn’t be that difficult.
There will be plenty worth watching and writing about over the next month and a half, there always is, but it should be about so much much.
A trick is being missed. By a distance.
Higgik
Guest
I love this idea as it rewards finishing 1st in group, so put more emphasis on quality of win as well as winning. Also 1 of the top teams will miss out of play-offs. Maybe add a 2nd division at same time, with play offs for relegation for bottom 6 teams, using same process.
Wombat
Guest
I've heard this argument for every World Cup since the 1987 tournament and frankly it is just pointless. This statement "If a greater number of teams are going to participate then split them up in such a way that an upset could do more damage than merely providing a short-lived embarrassment to the big boys." That's exactly what happened in 2007 when India was knocked out at the group stage and we were then TOLD that it was the worst format ever! Unfortunately financial, rather than decisions that will actually benefit cricket and it's world cup in the long term, are what guides the ICC. The BCCI in particular are very guilty of this.
Glenn Innes
Guest
Eight teams in two pools of four,play each other once top two from each pool onto the semi finals and then the final.All run and won in a fortnight.There is an old showbiz saying "always leave the audience wanting more" Peeko I think the issue is sports like to use these tournaments as propaganda to try and con people into thinking their global reach is much bigger than it really is, so you get rubbish like a twenty team Rugby World Cup, or a Rugby League World cup with made up teams full of Australians or the current cricket format.Tournaments full of filler that drag on forever, then a couple of interesting games at the death. Lazza - I even think the Football World Cup was better when they only invited sixteen, the only advantage of thirty two is Australia get a gig.
VivGilchrist
Guest
I agree. The 4 groups of 4 is the best. Because you only have 3 games, every game counts. It's a "World Cup", a celebration of the game on a global scale, how can you only have 10 teams?
Conor
Guest
Cant believe cricket deviates from other sports in not having the pools of 4 then knockouts etc.... Rugby is a smaller sport overall but has a much more successful world cup. Cricket has a similar no of nations that can win it (actually a couple more) but has only 10 teams in the next edition? Rugby WC has 20 teams and goes from strength to strength as they recognise that growth is the way forward. This is reflected in the improvement of their "minnows", whereas we see little. Rugby does not debate the future of their world cup every edition like we do because it is so strong. Should we not learn?? Every sport should have the goal of a FIFA world cup, obviously the biggest and best, why are we going the other way? Oh thats right, to satisfy the BCCI. The ICC should be about expansion and eventual independence from the BCCI contribution, not pandering to it. Technically cricket is the 2nd biggest sport in the world, but is easily the most poorly run, it will fall down the list very quickly if we do not immediately focus on growth and expansion .
Renegade
Roar Guru
Yes, that's correct you carried over the points from the matches against the other two teams in your pool and only played 3 games against the top 3 from the opposite pool in the Super Six stage.... the top 4 teams then went through. This placed even more importance on every game as it was impossible to predict which 3 teams would make it through - you didn't want to be going into the super six with zero points. The 1999 and 2003 World Cup were the last great Cricket World Cups.... 2007 and 2011 were average.
fiddlesticks
Guest
why mus t the game be grown? how is having a team in the world cup growing the game?
Bobbo7
Guest
Agree Simon. And I don't mind watching and supporting the minnows but the ICC and the big three need to ensure enough funds are getting through to them
The Magic Man
Roar Rookie
But hang on.... this current format provides a guarantee that India makes the next stage. Simple Stuff!!!
Wylie McKinty
Guest
That was the format for the 2007 World Cup. But then Ireland knocked out Pakistan and Bangladesh did the same to India. That's why we have the idiotic 2015 version we have now as the BCCI insist on India playing at least 6 games.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
Good post. I find it insulting that the 2019 World Cup is so narrow.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
Every thing else is secondary but let's be thankful that at least some of the associates get to play the top nations. They hardly get to at all otherwise.
Peter
Roar Rookie
Couldn't agree more.
13th Man
Guest
you would still get the same 8 teams qualify through this system as you do now.
Pom in Oz
Roar Guru
HaHa..well done, Don. Antipodean politics isn't my strong point. Then again, politics isn't the antipodean's either...
Don Freo
Guest
Roger? What did Roger have to say? Who is Roger Muldoon? Any relation to the ex NZ PM, ROBERT Muldoon? I assume LMAO means something.
Pom in Oz
Roar Guru
..."almost a million Kiwis living in each Oz capital city"... Really, Don? It's guys like you that lend weight to Roger Muldoon's comment. LMAO
The Bush
Roar Guru
It was the best format and they were two great tournaments. I can't remember, did you carry over points from the group stages and only play the three teams from the other side of the draw in the Super 6?
Don Freo
Guest
I doubt Oz refuses. With almost a million Kiwis living in each Oz capital city, it would be a commercial bonanza. I suspect NZ loves not playing Oz because it let's them be optimistic for longer. I think the NZ national side should enter the Big Bash, Matador and Shield. This current team is quite good and could be quite competitive against some of the lesser performed sides.
IanW
Guest
It's actually the reverse problem. By refusing to play them, the Australian cricket board refuse to help minnows develop. Mind you, this isnt a change of policy - Australia pretty much refused to play New Zealand for the first fifty years or so of New Zealand being a cricketing country. Oh. Wait. Australia still pretty much refuses to play New Zealand.