The International Cricket Council’s showpiece event, the Cricket World Cup, recently got off to a flying start in Australia and New Zealand, with strong performances and big crowds on display in the first week of matches.
However, despite the tournament’s positive start, many critics have questioned the length of the tournament – 47 days in total – and one has to wonder whether the current momentum can last all the way through to the end of March for the MCG final.
Forty-nine matches are played across the 47 days of the World Cup, roughly one per day. In a tournament with 14 participating teams, being hosted by two cricket-mad countries with plenty of suitable cricket venues, this seems awfully drawn out.
Given cricket games can be played during the day and at night, there’s no reason at least two matches can’t be played per day, which is one way to shorten the length of the tournament significantly and maintain interest.
Another issue with the current format is the number of teams who advance through the group stages. Currently, the World Cup teams are pooled into two groups of seven. Four teams in each group advance to the knockout stages, which means that more than half the teams in the tournament advance.
The problem with this is that the group stage matches become less meaningful. If a team loses a game or two unexpectedly, they can still make it through with two or three wins out of six games. For me, this sets a very low standard in a tournament that is supposed to be cut throat.
The ICC seem to have heeded the calls for a shortened tournament, with the 2019 World Cup to be reduced to 10 teams and to last for about a month. This is a move in the right direction in terms of length, but reducing the number of teams competing is a backwards move that could hurt the development of cricket.
One of the highlights of the World Cup is watching smaller cricketing countries we wouldn’t normally get to see mixing it with the big boys. For many, the most exciting part of this year’s tournament so far was Ireland’s shock win over the much more fancied Test side in the West Indies. Reducing the tournament to 10 teams drastically hinders the opportunities for developing cricket nations.
So how do we fix the problem and make the World Cup shorter and more interesting?
I suggest we increase the amount of teams taking part from 14 to 16. We could have 16 teams pooled into four groups of four teams, with the top two from each advancing to a quarter-finals knockout stage. Each side would play just three games in the group stage, meaning each match is vital to a team’s chances of progressing. Thirty matches would be played in total, and the tournament could easily wrap up inside a month.
The only barrier to getting this format approved would be that it creates the possibility of a big team like India or England being eliminated after just three games. The ICC would be strongly opposed to this, as they receive a lot of advertising money through strong TV viewership from these countries. So the ICC wants to see them play as many games as possible, hence the current format where teams play six group stage matches.
At the end of the day it’s going to come down to what the ICC value more, the integrity of the game, or the almighty dollar. Unfortunately, some would say they’ve already made that decision.
VivGilchrist
Guest
The ICC shoud change it's name to ACC - Anti-Critic Council. They are incredibly short-sited and seem adamant on destroying the game. The game is prospering in spite of the ICC. This World Cup is too long. Australia by the time they play NZ would've gone 2 weeks without a game. Yes, there was a wash-out, but surely with a seven day break until Australia's next game and Bangladesh not playing a game until Thursday, is a reserve day out of the question? Yes, we know it all revolves around Indian TV audiences and therefore realistically giving India 7 games minimum is a massive money spinner. But let's grow this game, more teams not less, and maybe a game every 3 or 4 days for teams rather than this bloated format.
Abubakr Mela
Roar Rookie
1999 format! no-brainer really!
Johnno
Guest
the ICC are so short-sighted and so Indian-centric. It's all about what india wants. This long group phase, doesn't the ICC realise less is more maybe e.g. 4 groups of 4 teams each team plays 3 matches per group. This long format of group matches is a fizzer. TV Ratings have been low. Why keep having a long format if no one is watching. Maybe Indian cricket fans love ODI cricket so much they will tolerate masses of boredom. I mean they seem to love a good best of 7 ODI series vs NZ/Australia/England, so they must be easy to please. ODI TV ratings have been on the decline in OZ much lower than the 90's, no V ODI records of late broken in OZ. ODI cricket is on it's last legs if changes don't happen. Aussie cricket fans haven't been to ODI cricket in years, outside of this world cup. And the India V Pakistan game in Adelaide was full of Indians and Pakistanis, not locals anyway. Having more teams is good to expand the game too, but India don't seem to want that either. For cricket to move forward Indian bandwagon fans need to stop watching meaningless games, until that happens the rest of the cricket World and associate nations will have to tolerate India's nonsense.
Alex L
Roar Rookie
The assumption you're making is that there's a big gap between the top 8 and the rest. You might be right if we spoke only about the top 3-4, but the lower half of the current top 8 (Sri Lanka, Pakistan, West Indies, and England) can all be knocked off by nations 9-12 on any given day. Or to put this another way, England vs Bangladesh is a lot more exciting than England vs New Zealand right now.
Jack
Guest
Unfortunately the short term dollar will win out over making it a proper spectacle. It's very hard to get enthusiastic about it right now with so little cricket happening, not to mention the fact that we have a very good idea of who will be going through to the quarters. Even when there is an upset it doesn't have many implications which is not a good way to run a competition.
Kimbeth
Roar Rookie
Four groups of 4 would be a massive fail. Each group would comprise of two of the top 8 teams meaning that there would only be one 'blockbuster' match in each group. Each of the top 8 would play play 2 of their three games against either Bangladesh, Zimbabwe or an associate. Pretty unexciting really.
Ryan
Guest
The format you suggest was used during the 2007 World Cup in the west indies. That world cup saw local crowds priced out of attending matches which hurt the already falling interest in the region. Also India and Pakistan both failed to make it past the group stages severely reducing the world cups final figures as the sub continent delivers the most interest. The ICC won't want this to occur ever again.
Jarrod
Guest
I don't like your format. 3 pool games and then straight the quarterfinals seems a bit too harsh on team. The 1999 and 2003 World Cups had great formats. You have a pool stage and give the minnows the chance to shine but then you have the serious teams playing against each other in a Super Six stage.
JimmyB
Guest
How to improve the Cricket World Cup format - Don't invite England.
Stan McCan
Guest
So... Who else would rather watch Faith No More today?
Slane
Guest
Everything you have written is too logical, meaning the ICC won't have a bar of it.
Gurudoright
Guest
There is no reason why there shouldn't be a game in NZ and in Oz every day in the group stage. With a 3 hour time difference in the summer time, given if both games are day-nighters you will still able able to watch 3 of the 4 innings live. If NZ had a day match and Oz a day-nighter a viewer would be able to watch virtually every ball of both matches