-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
**Official** Group A Discussion
- Thread starter Cabinet96
- Start date
No.
The World Cup is for everyone.
16 teams in 4 groups of 4. Top 2 in eacb group go to the Super 8s, which then follows the same format as the Champions Trophy. Easy peasy.
uvelocity
Well-known member
The 2007 version of the Super 8s was ****.
I'd prefer quarter finals but realistically that's not going to happen, we need a million and one games to flog to broadcasters so making the last 8 onwards be the same format as the Champions Trophy is the only acceptable compromise. Anything is just too lomg and lacks intensity for me.
I want a 16 team World Cup, with 4 groups of 4. Quarter finals after that would never happen.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yep, me too. It'd then go into two groups of 4 after that - but each team would only have to play two games after that because they could just take the points forward from the first set of matches. You'd then have semis and a final.
8 teams would play 3 matches
4 teams would play 5 matches
2 teams would play 6 matches
2 teams would play 7 matches
35 games. Over relatively quickly. Each game means something. Minnows get a chance but are gone early.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Or failing that, just have the winner of each initial group go to the semis. That'd really make the group matches mean something.
Nah, no carrying points forward. I'd have group 1 be A1, B2, C1 and D2, everyone plays everyone else.
Therefore the teams that make the last 8 play 6 games, which is more than enough, and the group stages are short enough where all the games matter.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
It'd mean you'd play a team in the Super 8 that you already played in the initial group stages though, and I reckon it'd make the initial stage feel a bit like a waste of time if you were only just trying to make the top two.
If you don't want to carry points forward then I reckon you just scrap the Super 8. Don't have quarters either. Winner of each initial group of 4 straight to the semis.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't mean that at all. Two groups of four with a team from each initial group in either group means no repeated fixtures until the semis.
Highly possible I am missing something though given its 6.27
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Nah it was me that was missing something. Misinterpreted what the letters and numbers meant in Furball's example. Ignore me.
I like his system actually tbh.
Howe_zat
Well-known member
Yep. A good one if y'ask me.
Anything that gets rid of the huge groups is a plus in my book.
It's the whole "we want high quality cricket" argument, which is frankly bollocks. Yes, I'd love to see the top teams and top players go at it in classic matches but when does that ever happen? All 3 of Australia's final wins were one-sided (which is a testament to how good Australia were, but still), and in this tournament the semi finals have been non-events.
And wanting the best possible quality cricket isn't acceptable if the compromise is that we deny emerging nations their shot on the big stage IMO.
And wanting the best possible quality cricket isn't acceptable if the compromise is that we deny emerging nations their shot on the big stage IMO.