The ICC has gone back to the future with its scheduling of the 2019 World Cup, which begs the question as to whether it is a better way to decide the best team than what has been used in recent editions?
Ten teams will make up the 2019 tournament, to be held in England. Each team will play the other participants once, before the top four will face off in semi-finals, with the winner playing off in the final at Lord’s on July 14.
The only time this format has been used before in a World Cup was in 1992, in Australia, when nine teams played each other team once, with the top four advancing to the finals.
Every other edition of the World Cup has used either quarter-finals into semi-finals, or a ‘super six’ into semi-finals.
By reverting to a competition where every team must play each other once, it gives the impression that the best teams should make it to the final four.
Should one of the top nations lose an early game against one of the minnows, they still have the chance to recover from that position. Also, with only one elimination game before the final, it leaves less chance for the best teams to fall short of the final matches because of one bad day. Less chance, but not zero chance.
[latest_videos_strip category=”cricket” name=”Cricket”]
Has this created a tournament that runs too long? Every team will play nine preliminary matches, which is a lot of cricket before you then hope to play two further matches. It means that the two finalists will be playing their 11th match over the six weeks, with 48 matches in total.
One of the complaints that came from the 2015 World Cup in Australia and New Zealand was that it ran too long and there were too many matches that ‘didn’t matter’. As it turns out, both the 2015 and 2011 editions had a total of 49 matches, but the finalists only played nine matches. Both tournaments ran over a similar length as next year’s will, so that disagreement hasn’t been solved at all.
As to the so-called problem with too many non-competitive matches, the matches involving the Associate nations proved to be some of the most exciting in the 2015 World Cup. Ireland defeating the West Indies, Bangladesh defeating England, Afghanistan defeating Scotland. These were some of my favourites three years ago.
AFP PHOTO / WAKIL KOHSAR
In favour of this, it’s worth bringing up again whether the reduction in teams, effectively leaving out the higher performing Associate nations, is good for the expansion of cricket. Yes, there was the playoffs in Zimbabwe to qualify for the main event, but surely it would have been better having these teams play in the real thing.
Is the ten-team format the fairest way for an eventual winner to be found? Or could the ICC have incorporated a 16-team World Cup, with four groups of four?
Teams could play everyone in their group once, with the top two going through to the quarter-finals. This way, the Associate nations who qualified would get world exposure against the best teams, and surely the best nation would still end up as winner.
The finalists would have a maximum of six games to play, and there would be only 31 matches required, shortening the tournament significantly.
Of course, this would reduce the revenue that the ICC would receive, which no doubt is the main consideration of how the tournament is being drafted and scheduled.
In the end, none of this matters. The draw is done, and in just over 12 months the tournament will begin. There is a lot of cricket to be played between now and then, but having watched almost every ball of the 2015 edition, I am again looking forward to seeing the world of cricket come together for this competition.
VRA Amsterdammer
Guest
It is ludicrous that the World Cup doesn’t have more associate nation involvement. The standard of Associate cricket has improved dramatically to a point where they will give most sides in the world a serious game. These countries now have full time set ups, excellent coaching and players who often pay their trade in tough competitions (like County cricket). The World Cup should be exactly that - W.O.R.L.D. Expand the game, don’t contract it.
KenoathCarnt
Guest
Warner Short Finch Smith Stoinis Maxwell Carey Agar Cummins Starc Tye
Dexter The Hamster
Guest
If the idea of the tournament is to grow the game, then no, this is not the best format. But the ICC have stated they see T20 as the best way to grow the game into non traditional cricket countries, and for once I agree with the ICC. I love this format. There will not be too many pointless matches, and I suggest semi final spots will be up for grabs until the last round of prelim matches. It is the best way to give the best teams a chance to win, with a bad loss on a bad day not killing the chances totally.
Tim Cutler
Guest
Yes it was a great, competitive tournament but that was in spite of the conditions. Only 10 matches were broadcast, when at least 20 were supposed to be, and not all matches were played under the full regulations that the main event will be. Matches involving Nepal and Netherlands were List A matches (including matches against Full Members) and the lack of DRS ultimately cost Scotland a place in the World Cup. There were no reserve days, and we saw the first ODI between test nations (a last over thriller between Afghanistan & Zimbabwe) that was not broadcast at all (stream or tv) this century during the group games. 10 teams will mean more dead rubbers than ever before and it is the only global sporting event that has reduced its number of teams. Even Kabaddi has more.
Sue
Guest
4x4 team groups with less total matches but more exposure for top performing associates would definitely be a better format for growing and showcasing the game of cricket. ICC need to answer a simple question- is the aim of the world cup just to make money or to be the showcase of world cricket?
Johnno
Guest
No
Kris
Guest
Yep. It is about having a viable tournament, not about deciding the best team (which will happen incidentally)
Bill Peters
Roar Guru
Absolutely agree Paul. Money talks. I've enjoyed watching Ireland and Scotland as well as Afghanistan in the last three years, and they need to be encouraged with a place at these big tournaments rather than being forced out because of other reasons. Watching Nepal at the qualifying tournament was terrific. Let's hope those nations continue to improve and get to see more international competition. I'll always remember Pakistan's run in the 1992 World Cup the last time this format was used. Pretty much came from nowhere to win it all. Great times. It could certainly happen again.
Bill Peters
Roar Guru
Agreed, I enjoyed the qualifying tournament, especially given the way that Afghanistan won it against all odds after their terrible start, Zimbabwe cracking under pressure against UAE and missing their chance and Afghanistan defeating West Indies twice. It's just a shame we won't see teams like Ireland and Scotland, who both did so well, playing in the main event, especially as the tournament is right on their doorstep.
Tlux
Guest
Whether you like the decision to reduce the amount of teams this time round, or not. I have to give full credit to the ICC for their efforts with the Qualifying tournament run earlier this year in Zimbabwe. It was a properly run comp with evenly matched teams battling it out for 3 weeks under full ODI tournament rules and regs. At the end of it, two very deserving teams made it through to the World Cup, the West Indies and Afghanistan.
matt h
Guest
Well this ensures India play 9 matches minimum (and on current form you would expect them to make the semi finals), as well as ensuring a match against Pakistan. I also ensure the hosts play 9 matches, so from a business perspective it's a winner.
BrainsTrust
Guest
The major driving force is one day cricket outside the world cup is not that popular compared to one day cricket inside the world cup being incredibly popular. So there is major financial pressure now to make the world cup go on as long as possible. Then the other problem the majority of the money is coming from India ,then the majority of the rest is coming from England and then beyond that Australia are providing the majority of the remaining. So in total I would estimate about 95% of the money is coming from those three nations. The ICC money basically it all comes from the one day world cup, and the T20 world cup. So as that money is then the basis for the ICC payments so then everyone is in on making this format for more money.
Basil 1 of 2
Guest
It doesn't matter. Cricket has lost its soul.
Paul
Roar Guru
Bill, there are pro's and cons for any system in a tournament and it doesn't matter how many games are played, there will always be people who whinge there are too many, not enough, etc. The publicly stated reason for hosting this tournament is to find the best ODI team in world cricket but the real reason, as you point out, is money. This has to come in the form of both bums in seats at games, as well as people switching on TV's, etc, to watch games. The ICC needs to maximise the number of quality games being played and they think this is the best format, but only time will tell. The nice thing is the "minnows" are making some significant improvements in their games, so playing more games where the competition is so much more even than in previous years, can only be good for the game as a whole. It wouldn't surprise for lesser ranked team to make the final 4.
Gurudoright
Guest
I like the everybody plays everyone system, but I hate the limited access for the minnows to play in the World Cup. A better idea than a 4 x 4 groups could be a 14 or 16 World Cup split into two groups with top two in each group qualifying. That way India is sure to have 6 or 7 games ( India is the only reason why we have the current set up). More minnows have meaningful game and a you have a system where a fluke win won’t upset the whole comp