There was always the danger that the ICC’s shambolic scheduling for the 2019 World Cup would come back to bite it on the backside.
And as the tournament plays out – slowly – that danger has very much become real. The final two weeks of group games in cricket’s showpiece quadrennial event could, barring upsets that need to happen quick smart, contain a host of meaningless matches.
Bangladesh has to defeat Australia tonight in Nottingham to keep their slight semi-finals hopes alive. Barring that, the top four is likely to remain unmoved – a disastrous result for tournament organisers this early.
Perhaps it’s somewhat strong to described the games as ‘meaningless’. In a pride sense, each team desperately wants to win when playing for their country at an international event.
The games also mean a lot to fans, especially of nations who rarely have a global audience for their fixtures. But in the purely competitive sense of this World Cup and how the ensuing matches will shape the outcome of the tournament, there’s a whole lot of junk time ready to be served up.
And that’s not healthy, not for this nor any tournament. It puts the World Cup in an extended holding pattern before the finals, stagnating where it should be building. It also leaves commentators working overtime to search for narrative that just isn’t there. “The fight to determine places inside the top four” doesn’t have an overly captivating ring to it.
By implementing a single group of ten teams where each side plays each other once, the ICC were well aware of the danger they now find themselves in. They knew that if a group of four teams were to break away, games at the back-end of the tournament would have reduced relevance. And that, barring a host of upsets, is how it will likely play out.
Context, the most important factor in keeping bums on seats and eyes on screens, will be drained.
Take Bangladesh’s dominant chase against the West Indies on Monday. This was (for me) the best game of the World Cup – a stirring chase characterised by the brilliance, yet again, of Shakib Al Hasan.
But it was also brilliant because of its context. That is, it kept Bangladesh in the tournament.
The result was monumental for their outside chance at a semi-finals berth. But when this is gone – which, if beaten tonight against Australia, it will – Shakib’s ton suddenly gets far fewer headlines.
Shakib Al Hasan is in rare form at the World Cup. (Photo by Tharaka Basnayaka/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Sure, sporting administrators can’t read the future. No tournament can fully mitigate against encounters later in a tournament that, such is the way results have occurred, essentially don’t mean anything.
What they can do, however, is put in place a tournament structure that – should these games occur – are short-lived and over quickly. What the ICC has done is ensured these games will likely be front-and centre for over a week. This is a monumental blunder.
A better solution, quite obviously, was to have multiple groups. Or essentially, anything but one single group.
In the 2015 World Cup, there were two groups of seven teams. The top four of each group progressed to the quarter-finals, from which it was a knockout.
This made sense, and also allowed the inclusion of the ever-strengthening associate nations whose exclusion this World Cup is the biggest blunder of all.
Finally, the everyone-plays-everyone format (aside from the futile matches it throws up) has also taken away from the excitement of the biggest clashes.
Take Australia versus India for example. Australian fans watching their side get thoroughly beaten at The Oval 11 days ago were disappointed, sure. But the post-mortem was swift, and everyone moved on quickly.
Why?
The loss didn’t actually mean much. Australia picked themselves up knowing opportunities for redemption were vast. They even knew they could lose to both India and England and still skip into the top four, no worries.
World Cups in other sports are characterised by the distinct intensity of almost every single game. In the football World Cup, an early stumble leaves any team in immediate danger of being knocked out.
It’s all on the line from day one. But the opposite is true in this World Cup; that is, many matches have lacked real, edge-of-seats, heads-in-hands atmosphere that makes sport great. And in the next fortnight, don’t expect that to change.
At some point, somewhere down the line, we’ll get to the semi-finals.
Nuff
Guest
This article aged well... Pakistan could be in, England could be out, battle for 4th still alive and well. If England beat NZ and there is another upset then we could have a crazy finish...
Peter Warrington
Guest
Pros and cons of going doggo against england? Undisclose our form? Or beat them so can beat them again? For Option 1, I like: Carey Khawaja Stoinis Marsh Maxwell Smith Finch Coulter-Nile Richardson Lyon Behrendorff
Prez
Roar Rookie
Was disappointed when the number of teams was reduced. The world cup gives those associate teams a big incentive and in the past we have seen some great games involving them. With only the one group as others have noted the organizers should have scheduled stronger teams to play earlier and therefore the ladder would be closer. Or should have made it top 6, with top 2 straight through to semi finals and 3,4,5 and 6 play first elimination finals. Then semis This would have made finishing top 2 worth more.
Harvey Wilson
Roar Rookie
There is still a battle for top spot. India or NZ for me.
Shannon Johns
Guest
It’s a shame that a World Cup in the UK and Scotland and Ireland are not involved both decent sides,entertainment value etc
Shak
Guest
If teams can't win games on this level than you can't blame the structure. Look what's happening to S A for example they can't even win a game. So you can't completely blame the structure but rather blame the teams for not being competitive on this level.
Bunney
Roar Rookie
I think there is room for both ODI's and T20's, but I would lose the Champions trophy and just have a World Cup for each discipline every 4 years. In the two years leading up to an ODI WC hardly any T20's should be played, with the focus on 50-over cricket. Then the opposite occurs in the 2 years leading up to a T20 WC.
Neel
Roar Guru
Title.*
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Exactly. Star Sports was awarded rights to all ICC events from 2015-2023. At least the ICC was blatantly transparent about it (below)! "Star Sports, the sports broadcasting network owned by 21st Century Fox through its subsidiaries STAR TV and Fox International Channels, broadcasts primarily to India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka (India and Indian Sub-Continent) with further reach into East Asia on specific channels."
Bradds
Roar Rookie
Well said Roar Rookie. Sorry David but she makes a lot of sense. As a side note though, could the issue be 50 over cricket? I am a tragic/traditionalist and love watching a five day Test. But 20/20, while not pure, is very exciting and the future of the game. I love it. So Bunney, should 50 over cricket be moved to the scrap heap so we can enjoy the two extremes of this wonderful game?
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Yeah go figure. Only 200-ish years of professional cricket being played in England for them to get a trend line. I'm sure the Ashes do. They could have pushed the Ashes back to next year - it would have a created a bit of a disruption in the 4 year cycle - but the back to back Ashes in 2013 (10 Tests, 6 months) was a direct response to WC fixturing (indeed it would have resulted in back to back Ashes next year). It's a WC that is only held every 4 years, so it does deserve pre-eminence. ECB was awarded WC19 in....wait for it....2006!!! Limited time to work these things through I know!
matth
Roar Guru
You are completely missing the point. This tournament isn’t for you or me. It’s for English and more importantly Indian broadcasters. And to maximize the tv rights the ICC has to guarantee that India would play 9 pool matches. There will never be a repeat of India bombing out to Bangladesh in the pool matches in the World Cup held in the West Indies a while back. In that case the primary draw card for eyeballs on TV didn’t survive their first three matches. It was a deadset disaster for the broadcaster. This way, India get their guaranteed 9 matches and guaranteed high rating matches against Pakistan, England and Australia without having to put them all in the same pool. And this format also allows a Hugh rating team to have one or two stumbles but still survive to the business end.
badmanners
Roar Rookie
Hey pedrax, this is pretty much what I would have posted but the players in WI, Pakistan and the Saffers are better than they have shown at this WC, fielding has been abysmal and that can be coached, so WTF is going on? Is T20 making ordinary players too comfortable and national pride just ain't so important anymore? Whilst there are good games still to come this WC should have been so much better.
Paul
Roar Guru
how they could have thought they'd have perfect summer days with not a cloud in the sky in England in early June is completely beyond me. Jeff. Seems a shame they didn't look at what happened in that tournament and scheduled this one later - maybe the Ashes might have had something to do with that?
dat
Roar Rookie
To be honest,before the tournament began,i didn't think either South Africa or Pakistan had a decent shot to make the semis. Since the last edition of the WC, Ind and Eng had the highest win ratios in odis, so those two finishing in the top 4 was a no-brainer. Nz had the 4th highest win percentage at that time and you would think given their past record they be always contenders for the knockouts at least. Aust lost a lot of matches in that time period, but it was partly due to Starc,Cummins getting injured and the ball tampering duo's ban. Even if they didn't win as many games as in the past, that win ratio would still look much better had the regulars been present. Bangladesh meanwhile had a better win % than Aust ,with series wins against Pak,Lanka,South africa and India (early 2015,when shami was still injured,bumrah didn't make his debut and wrist spinners were not fancied ,though still had a strong batting lineup).They also reached the champions trophy semifinals by beating a decent nz team ,entered the finals of the previous 2 editions of the Asia cup ,won an odi vs eng and also set up a 4 match winning streak vs Pakistan,which is still ongoing. Even after India got better,there were still some close games against them, in the 2 shorter formats. I think the reason why most Australian fans would be surprised by Bangladesh's performance, has more so to do with them not playing against each other, often enough. On the other hand,South Africa might own the 3rd highest win ratio in that time but that was partly due to numerous wins against sri lanka(14) .While the more significant wins came when Amla was still in sublime form and their best batsman in De villers hadn't retired. They lost big time vs India in their last series there and only someone like Ngidi would have thought this current lineup with Duminy,Miller,Amla and Markram(yet to adjust to the format) would fare any better . Steyn's pre WC injury might have been a setback ,but given his history, i doubt he would have stayed fit through out the entire tournament,regardless of that injury. While Pakistan had issues since early 2015( they postponed a zimb tour which just so happened to save them from losing their spot in the Champions trophy & had to beat windies 2-1 so as not to play the qualifiers for the WC ) it worsened after their Ct win. They lost 24 of their last 42 odis and only won 4 matches against the top 8 teams(with others wins coming against lanka,afgan,zimb,hong kong). They keep losing odis and tests far too often these days and resorted to playing more t20 series to mask their issues, as alot of their fans and even some player haven't moved on from that win.Other factors like Domestic structure crumbling, selecting odi squads using psl form and fitness issues since Steve Rixon quit as the fielding coach(Among the top 10 teams ,they had the highest % of runouts created in odis, when he was in charge) all add to their growing list of concern.Before the wc began,their captain was more busy identifying parallels with the 92 wc win than focusing on the quality of their squad and area to improve upon. Both Windies and Pakistan can beat any team in the world on their day,but the structure of the current WC ensures that, only the more consistent teams would make it through and in theory eliminates any surprise entrants to the semis. I like this current structure for 2 reasons 1) It enables the teams that have faced off in the group stages, to prepare better when they meet in the semis 2) Even if you are a bit unlucky when it comes to the weather(Aussies in the Ct 17) you can still make the cut ,given the number of group games remaining.
Duncan Smith
Roar Guru
By the way, that's a great headline.
Diamond Jackie
Roar Rookie
The other thing is that where you finish in the top 4 isn’t that critical either due to the absence of winning a “home semi” or “home final”. This leads to even more Ho-hum lack of intensity.
Scotty P
Roar Rookie
We are not in yet. We only have nine points atm, need one more win or a tie. I think ten points will be enough to seal a spot, but nine is not enough.
Brian
Guest
Absolutely the last Ashes Test in 2005 and 2009 were the best I can recall because the urn was on the line.
Nick
Roar Guru
I think 9 is showing about 40 percent of the games. That's pretty good tbh. Plus the semis and the final.