When it comes to fairness, it’s hard to beat the format of the 2019 World Cup.
Each team plays each other once, the top four out of ten advance to the finals.
Not only is it fair, but there are no ‘easy groups’ or ‘groups of death’ to borrow a footballing term. All matches are meaningful, and all wins valuable, as they should be.
The ICC did a great job with this. The talk about reserve days because matches are lost to rain can be considered in the future, but by and large are unnecessary.
Bad weather will happen, and if you win your matches you will get through. Nobody is going to go through undeservingly.
You need to turn up and play when its your time. Looking for excuses because of the weather would only paper over the cracks that those teams didn’t turn up when it was their turn.
You can’t be having off days when others are having on days.
However there was one area they ICC got it totally wrong – the format of the finals.
The two semi-finals are first versus fourth and second versus third. The winners advance to the final.
With this format, there is almost no difference in coming first and fourth. The benefit of finishing first are simply if there is an unlikely tie, or if both the match and reserve day gets washed out, you will advance to the final.
This means that your advantage comes down to chance. The chance of it raining. There is no reward set in stone for the most consistent and best team over five and a half weeks of cricket.
You are simply treated the same as the fourth team, who may have lost four more matches than you, but if it rains you will be looked after.
The IPL uses a far better format. They also have a top four format but they have a one v two semi final and a three v four semi final. The winner of one v two goes into the final. The loser plays the winner of three v four.
If it rains you also look after the higher ranked team, but this system doesn’t only give rewards to the top teams in the event of rain.
It is a far better system. Although one and two are treated as equals in the first semi final, the best two teams are rewarded for their consistency. Quite frankly, as they should be.
For first and fourth to be treated the same, especially if it’s a warm sunny day, then the reward for playing excellent cricket over nine matches is far too minimal. The system does not reward the team that should be most rewarded.
The other problem is if the top four break away, as they threaten to do, there is not the need to finish in those top two places as there should be or would have been if the IPL system was used.
There is no doubt the top four sides will be trying to win and finish as high as they can, but the consequences for losing are not as bad as what it would have been if the IPL system was in place.
Why the ICC opted for an inferior system is anyone’s guess. It would have meant just one more game being played, and at the business end of the tournament no team will mind that. An extra game means more TV revenue and a fairer format would suit all fans.
However on this occasion the ICC dropped the ball. The format they went with is not the better of the two options available.
zozza
Guest
What a crock. NZ gave the 'Flat Track Bollys' a hiding in the warmup. Just a smidge of movement in the air or off the seam, and the India batting lineup is woeful, bar Kholi. Given a road, yeah they can knock up 350. But roads are not a given in this world cup.
Zozza
Guest
"The IPL uses a far better format. They also have a top four format but they have a one v two semi final and a three v four semi final. The winner of one v two goes into the final. The loser plays the winner of three v four." 100% agreed. Who are the boof heads in the ICC that decided to give no reward for finishing first or second on the table? Utterly ridiculous.
CubRoar
Roar Rookie
How about just ditching the finals altogether? Barring matches abandoned due to rain the group stage is a fair evaluation of who the best side was over the whole tournament. Whereas all it is now is a contest to see who manages to go through to a completely different tournament, one where a bad day or some poor luck sees you gone.
ChrisH
Roar Rookie
But it doesn't reward the best teams. Fourth gets the same reward as first. How is that fair? As the author also points out, giving reward to first and second adds more intensity and purpose to the regular games as well, keeping fans interested for longer too, with not only competition for a spot in the finals, but competition for the top 2 spots too.
Nick
Guest
Worth pointing out that the ICC haven't chosen a different system for settling the semi-finalists and finalists in this WC. As far as I'm aware it's the same one they've used at every edition of the WC since it began in 1975. Personally it's one I favour. The knockout stage of any sporting event should be just that with no second chances.
Camo McD
Roar Guru
When it comes to fairness, it’s hard to beat the format of the 2019 World Cup. Tell that to Ireland, Zimbabwe, Netherlands, Nepal and UAE, not to mention Scotland who probably would've been there if there had been DRS in the qualifying tournament. Would contend that less games are actually meaningful since the group stage is so long.
Cricket Buffet
Roar Guru
Absolutely Chris... all spot on. It's such an obvious thing too, that the 1 v 2 and 3 v 4 system is much fairer and simply better. It was even used 2 months ago in the IPL... so there is no excuse for picking an inferior system imo.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Certainly if this week results in three upsets and the weaker teams remain in the hunt, my point has less umpf, but there’s a lot of ifs there. As for the point about consistency, remember this is a tournament, not a league or even a five match test series. It should be about knocking teams out and moving forward. But hey; each to their own.
Cricket Buffet
Roar Guru
1) you’ve assumed the team that finishes top does so because it’s played better than the other sides, when it may have gotten there on points differential only. In other words, the margin between teams is virtually nil. CB: I think the team that finishes first is simply that. Whether they have played the best can be debated, but the fact is they are first. And the chanaces are the team that finished first deserve to have done so. 2) The top team may also have gotten there by ONLY playing the weaker teams and not played the stronger teams thanks to rain ( look at India & New Zealand). CB: Perhaps, but again its unlikely rain will be a bigger factor than good cricket. 3) you’re suggesting this finals format is unfair. Unfair to whom? The preliminary rounds is where the “fairness” occurs, with each side (hopefully) playing each other. Once past there it’s a straight knockout event, where 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3. CB: Its unfair to the team who comes first. The play the 4th team. If you finish 4th, its practically no different to finishing 1st (barring two days of rain or a tie). 4) If England or India don’t play another game through weather, they are still going to make the knockout stage, but in 3rd or 4th spot, while Australia & New Zealand are 1 & 2. In your format, one of India or England get’s knocked out simply because of weather, when they are clearly the two form sides of the tournament and rightly the favourites to win it. In the current format of 1 play 4, 2 plays 3, both sides are still a chance to make the final. CB: All that is highly unlikely.
Cricket Buffet
Roar Guru
Yes its a good point. 9 minimum and 11 max games of cricket for TV. Get India and Pakistan on a Sunday and its great for advertising $$$.
Cricket Buffet
Roar Guru
Yes once you hear the words 'mathematical chance', you know you are goneskies!
Cricket Buffet
Roar Guru
Your argument carries weight if the top 4 do break away. Last time in 1992 5th vs 6th was the final match, and the 5th place Windies team could have still made it if they won it. This format is fair but it doesnt mean that there could be dead rubbers. But there is nothing like rewarding consistency and this format does that in the group stage. Its only boring i think if you dont appreciate the things you should appreciate in sport, and consistency is definitely one of them.
ChrisH
Roar Rookie
Totally agree. Wrote about exactly this just today in comments on another site. The preliminary games lose their intensity when there's no competition for positions in the top 4, especially once the top 4 becomes clear, which has already happened. So it becomes, "Bring on the finals". The ICC will realise their blunder if India and England play off in one of the semis. Conceivably they are the two best teams, and certainly the two best drawcards, but one would be knocked out. The WC2019 system means one bad day for first or second in the semi, one bit of bad luck, can mean they miss the final. The IPL style finals gives the teams finishing first and second a second chance (if they lose their first semi), meaning the much greater chance of the two best teams competing in the final. The daft thing is the model the IPL uses has been around for 100 years. The AFL (as the VFL) used it for decades. The ICC can't say it's too new a system. It's been proven over and over again to be the fairest system, and the system most preferred by competitors.
Paul
Roar Guru
I'm agreeing with you Spruce. My point about this comparison is simple; if they can get through a 32 team tournament in a shortish period of time, this tournament could also be reduced for sure, assuming they stopped a lot of the travel and had 2 day gaps instead of 3 or more, ie play on Sunday, 2 day spell, play on Wednesday, etc.
Nick
Roar Guru
You’d get a refund on your $60 ticket though. Maybe not open entry, but at least tickets at the gate then. “And what about the people on tours who have paid big bucks.” That’s the risk you take. But to be honest, the big bucks are on things that aren’t cricket. The actual cricket tickets feature almost as an afterthought when payment is required. They had reserve days in the past, this isn’t an insurmountable suggestion. It’s being hosted in a country that is geographically able to cope with reserve days as well. The FA cup (arguably the largest competition in the world) has reserve days, replay days etc and has to schedule those in and around standard EPL, Championship, Champions League, Europa League schedules. And has replay opportunities for abandoned games because of weather. Baseball, the competition where each team plays 162 times a year has reserve/catch-up days. It’s disappointing to see cricket during it’s premier tournament take a pretty cowardice way out. It’s not reinventing the wheel.
Nick
Roar Guru
about the same length of time as this one The FIFA world cup is 2 weeks shorter. 31 days, 64 games. FIFA seem to be ok with lost potential revenue by having 3 games a day, (plus concurrent games on the final round).
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Pretty much agree with all of that. In finals that come out of something like a football season, it's nice to have more reward for being more dominant through the whole rest of the season. Not sure it's such an issue here. And like you, I think the thing he dismisses - the effect of washouts - is a much bigger issue than the thing he's making a big deal of, the semi's. Australia lost to India, New Zealand had a washout. If those two teams are neck and neck, that one point in a game they were favoured to lose could become the difference quite easily. Lots of permutations thrown up by the excessive number of rained out matches, already half-way through the tournament twice as many as any tournament prior to this.
matth
Roar Guru
It just meant that India, the biggest television market, are guaranteed their 9 pool games. They will never put themselves in the situation again like they were a few Cups ago when India were out after only three games and viewing numbers dropped like a stone for the rest of the tournament.
Paul
Roar Guru
It's interesting the soccer World Cup with 32 teams goes for about the same length of time as this one. Once again, it coms back to your comment about playing more games on the same days.
Paul
Roar Guru
The following are some of the things that would need to be covered, insurance for the additional days, vendors for food and drink, security arrangements, traffic control, transport for the teams, changes in accommodation if the sides have to stay an additional day, etc. Open entry for all - That would cause more trouble than it's worth and I would be really angry if the ticket I'd paid $60 for a washed out day, was suddenly worthless because everyone gets in for free. And what about the people on tours who have paid big bucks. Not only don't they see the game because it's been washed out, most likely they don' see the reserve day either because they've probably travelled on to their next destination.