As the cricket World Cup unhurriedly meanders towards the knockout phase, it’s hard not to feel that the finalists have been a foregone conclusion since the middle of June.
New Zealand and India are both consistent and have largely performed well throughout. Australia has been pushed hard by the West Indies and Bangladesh, but have both found a way of winning the key moments.
England though looking far less assured, sit comfortably in fourth position, albeit with matches against the top three teams remaining. The other teams have all had moments of brilliance, but have lacked the consistency throughout the tournament and have been sharing victories among themselves.
Despite the statements about Australia still being shell-shocked after sandpaper gate, the question marks over the sustainability of England’s hyper-aggressive batting approach and the quadrennial uncertainties regarding which Pakistan or West Indies team will show up on a given day, the top four teams, possibly with the exception of a workmanlike New Zealand in the place of a woeful South African outfit, are largely as expected.
New Zealand have surprised at this World Cup. (Photo by Alex Davidson/Getty Images)
The fact is this cricket World Cup has been purposely configured to reduce the likelihood of unwanted surprises. The qualification process has been hermetically sealed to ensure that unwanted parties don’t disturb the finely balanced equilibrium that the ICC desires.
The pathway for lesser cricketing nations to qualify has been drastically cut back, because heaven forbid they have the temerity to cause an early upset and eliminate a nation whose sponsors have paid top dollar to advertise the latest phone or a ride-sharing app all over stadiums and to millions of fans during commercial breaks.
By ensuring that all teams play each other, the format is more akin to a football season than the World Cups of most other sports.
Consistency is paramount and rewarded. The ability to pull off a few surprise upsets is no longer enough to ensure qualification to the knockout stages of the tournament.
As exciting as it was, if Afghanistan had pulled off a remarkable victory against India, the table would have remained largely unchanged.
India would still be in the top four and Afghanistan still languishing in last place. The same can be said for New Zealand and the West Indies, if Carlos Brathwaite had done just a few more bicep curls at the gym.
The end result is that, with a third of the pool matches still remaining, three of the semi-finalists are all but determined.
The fourth finalist position will, despite all the hubbub following their loss to Sri Lanka, almost certainly be England. Betting agencies place the probability of the current four teams qualifying for the finals at over 90 per cent.
Indeed, there is the very real possibility that the final dozen matches of the pool stage will be superfluous with the matches purely acting as an opportunity to give all the squad members some match time.
This is all not to say that this World Cup has not been without its fair share of unexpected and brilliant moments. Bangladesh has been competitive throughout and thoroughly deserved to beat both South Africa and the West Indies.
A dad-bodied Lasith Malinga turning back the clock to bowl Sri Lanka to a most unlikely victory against England will be remembered by all who watched it, as will Afghanistan taking India to the brink only to have their hopes quashed by a Mohammad Shami hat-trick.
However, by creating a World Cup where pool games make up more than nine-tenths of all matches and minnows are ostracised some of the unexpected magic that makes World Cups (of all sports) so special is lost.
Under this format Ireland would never have had the opportunity to chase down England’s 327 in Mohali, Kenya would never have miraculously defeated the West Indies on a rank turner in Pune and Dwayne Leverock would never have moved like a gazelle to snare Robin Uthappa one-handed to the utter amazement of all.
More importantly, cricketing nations like Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Ireland would have never had the opportunity to prove themselves and grow on the world stage.
Afghanistan’s Hazratullah Zazai. (STR/AFP/Getty Images)
When the trophy is raised at Lord’s on 14 July no-one will doubt that the winner deserves to be standing there. The quality throughout the tournament compared to previous editions will also be higher and the number of one-sided matches reduced.
Of course, the same could be said about a World Cup from any sport if it is only played by the select (best) few. The price paid for this, however, is a World Cup that has been sadly lacking in character and is high in predictability.
The ICC would do well to reconsider the format when the World Cup comes around again in 2023.
Riccardo
Roar Rookie
India almost lost, sure. South Africa are out. West Indies are teetering. Pakistan are looking to spoil everyone's path to claim a semi of their own; it's feasible they may knock out the hosts. Sri Lanka are resurgent. Bangladesh are the tournament "darlings" and, like Pakistan, hold the paths of "bigger" teams in their hands. I get that the tournament is long but the next 2 weeks, described by another author as boring are coming alive with potential knock out games or at least games that will change the pay-out of the finals. We are also seeing a tournament with ful stadiums being dominated by the ball, and it's the quicks. That redressing of the balance between bat an ball has thrown the cat amongst the pigeons, adding drama and excitement, well for me, at least. Thanks for the article mate...
The Bush
Roar Guru
Fully agree, it’s like playing a league instead of a tournament. If we’d gone with four groups of four, quarters, semis and final, we’d be playing the final now (game 7). Instead we’re playing an almost meaningless game before we play two more almost as meaningless games (or absolutely pointless if we win this one). I always want Australia to win, more so against England, but now there’s a further emphasis as it’s pretty close to the only way to keep the tournament alive in the group stages.
Greg Howe
Roar Rookie
But at least England do hold one record - highest number of times as the losing finalist (3) behind Australia and Sri Lanka (2 each) and NZ, Pakistan, India and West Indies (1 each). Note that poor old South Africa have never made a final of course, so are in the company of the other Test nations Bangladesh and Ireland there!
Greg Howe
Roar Rookie
Hey Roar Guru. You're not quite right. There is one of the current contenders that has never won the WC. And that's England!!! They have, of course, made three finals and won the silver medal in all of them. It would be a terrible shame, after all their (self) tyre pumping, if they lost two or maybe all of their last three matches and didn't qualify....
XI
Roar Guru
I really have been disappointed by this tournament. NZ winning (because they're the one contender that hasn't won before) would make it somewhat interesting. I'm really annoyed Ireland aren't in this tournament because it's the closest neighbour and they finally have Test status. It would have been so good to see them there. 10 teams is too few for a world cup.
Neel
Roar Guru
Congrats on your first article mate. Good luck in the future. Well, if the last week of cricket saved the World Cup from being a bit drawn out. 4 brilliant games in 5 days. This includes NZ vs RSA, SL vs ENG, Afghanistan vs India and NZ vs West Indies. Otherwise, the tournament really looked a bit drawn out before those games. The top 4 most likely will remain the same BUT you just never know mate. It’s still open. The two games over the next week or so will give a better indicator of who will qualify or not.
Peter Warrington
Guest
I also think odi is not interesting enough to sustain 75 games I think they should trial a seeded 16 team knock out. Win 4 games and you win. Every game elimination. The lead up tournaments suddenly relevant because they influence who gets seeded where. So Australia might have to beat Kenya, windies, nz, India to win
Peter Warrington
Guest
All the teams playing England should prioritise knocking england out even if that means losing to a team that might jump England ?
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
I don't mind the format tbh. Every team plays every other team once and that's very fair imo. In previous editions where there have been more teams arranged in groups soccer WC style it always felt artificial and contrived to me. It lead to accusations of imbalance between the groups and when a lesser light played one of the top teams the result was usually carnage. Having 4 groups of 8 is fine for soccer but cricket just doesn't have 200 or so countries playing the game seriously. With cricket it's a dozen at most and I think a WC with 10 participants is just about right.
Matt
Roar Rookie
Hi Paul, thanks for that - Good to be here! I agree that a 12 team tournament is probably a happy medium for now. I think if Ireland, Zimbabwe or Scotland were in the tournament the quality wouldn't be diluted too much and they'd be a clear pathway for the minnow nations to qualify. I'd say that 2 pools of 6 may be an option to reduce the total number of games slightly, followed by quarter finals, but I definitely see the merit in your idea too if the ICC was happy to have multiple games each day.
Paul
Roar Guru
First of all, many thanks for submitting your first piece, hughem, it's always great to see what others have to say about issues, especially cricket. If you cast your mind back 4 years, when there were two pools, consisting of genuine WC hopes mixed with teams best described as minnows, there were calls world wide to change the format because the lesser teams were consistently hammered. There were also remarks made about the inequality within the pools and the same would have happened this time round if we had Pool A consisting of sides 1,3,5 & 7 (England, New Zealand, Australia & West Indies) versus 2,4,6,8 (India, South Africa, Pakistan, Bangladesh). Cricket in this format is probably 2 World Cups away from an exciting tournament where 6 or more sides could genuinely contend for the title. There should have been more than 4 sides in contention but who could have foreseen the problems South Africa faced, or the indifferent form of Pakistan. I'd like to see a 12 team tournament with the two best performed lesser teams, eg Ireland & Scotland, invited to play. All sides play each other once, but doing so with only 2 rest days between games. Increasing the number of teams means playing quarter finals, which should add interest at the back end of the tournament. Squad numbers would also increase from 15 to 17 to cope with any injury niggles and teams would have to play a minimum number of games, to account for abandoned matches. In saying all of that, I've thoroughly enjoyed this World Cup. Prior to battle commencing, I was afraid flat track bullies would dominate, but that hasn't been the case and there have been some terrific matches and some surprising results.
VivGilchrist
Roar Rookie
A World Cup should be a celebration of the sport. Think of the Olympics. The best still win, but it’s the involvement of all that makes it special.
Bobbo7
Guest
I think the WC has been great to date. Put simply, teams like Bangladesh, SL, SA and the West Indies have had thier chances to win. You can't blame the organisers for some teams playing well and others underperforming. And there have been some close games as well. Both games on Saturday were excellent. In any WC the best teams win. Despite 32 teams only a handful of nations have won the football WC. I like the minnows in there but this format has been excellent and there is still scope for surprise.