The ICC seem to have learnt something from the 2007 World Cup fiasco by coming up with a new format for the 2011 World Cup. Last time, we had this 6-week marathon that was marred by the pre-mature departure of India and Pakistan. This time, there will be no such thing – the eliminations will happen late in the game and we will be guaranteed matches between the main cricket nations.
So here are the groups:
Group A: Australia, Pakistan, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Canada, Kenya
Group B: India, South Africa, England, West Indies, Bangladesh, Ireland, Netherlands
The top four in each group advance to the quarter-finals. So the final winner will have to win three consecutive knock-out matches which may help someone stop Australia this time. The only bad news is that one semi-final is supposed to be played at the R Premadasa Stadium, where winning the toss will be key, unless they come up with something. I really hope they fix it, because it could come back to bite them, if Sri Lanka reach the semis and is forced to chase.
Group A seems pretty harmless for the top teams. At this moment, it doesn’t seem that Zimbabwe, Canada or Kenya can do any serious damage to the other teams. However, there is always the danger of rain and an upset combining to take out one of the top 4.
Though that seems more likely to happen in Group B which seems to be the more exciting group. There is the potential for many upsets. Bangladesh definitely can win against one or more of the top teams at home. Ireland is always dangerous – we saw that in 2007 and this year’s T20 WC. Netherlands is also improving enough to give someone a scare.
Pity South Africa. Group B does seem like a choke-field for them. Two tough matches against India and England and a tricky one against the West Indies. A possible loss to Bangladesh at home. Rain washing out an Ireland or Holland match. And they are out once again!
Finally, I am glad that they did away with the Super Eights this time. It is nonsense to have two round-robin leagues in the same tournament. The soccer World Cup has a short set of group matches and then it is all knock-out. They have 64 matches and almost all of them are meaningful.
Are you serious? 42 games in the group stage to sort out which order the top four in each group finish, then the business end of the tournament done in 7 games!?
The group stage will be a borefest full of unimportant matches. Beat the three minnows and you’re probably through to the quarters. The interest near the end will be working out who your quarter-final opponent will be. That may have some impact on your chances to win the Cup (that’d be an interesting problem to model, actually), but it won’t look that way. You’re going to have to win three straight games anyway, so what does it matter if you finish third or first or fourth?
Super Sixes were good. It puts serious pressure on teams at the group stage (you need to beat more than minnows), and you don’t go straight to the lottery of quarter-finals.
David, Super Sixes may be okay than Quarter-Finals. I am just worried about what happened last time when India and Pakistan were knocked out. It was fun to see Bangladesh and Ireland in the second round, but they ended up not posing any threat to the remaining teams. Plus the group stage was too short – just 3 games each.
OK, So Super Sixes > Quarter Finals > Super Eights. How about that?
I sorta kinda agree with David. However, with just 12 odd teams playing meaningful cricket, we ‘d often have to choose between the red turd or the blue turd. Which one will it be Neo?
morethanjustagame.wordpress.com
I’m with DB. Which is not to say the super-six was a good idea either. Four groups of four and then quarters is the gold standard. We only look down on it because we see the top-8 and think it is a foregone conclusion. A myth, actually, given the past three world cups have all seen a so-called minnow make the second round at the expense of supposedly better teams. If you really want to make it interesting, you can seed only four teams, which is almost certain to create a group of death.
On a 14 team model, the better way would be to have a top 3 go to the quarters, with the top team getting a bye. That provides a big incentive to top the group, and drops a couple of the big names in the first round. Conversely though, it reduces the business end to just 5 games, which isn’t very many.
Russ, they should target the 4×4 -> Quarterfinals for the 2015 World Cup. If we cannot have 2 more teams playing the World Cup in another 5 years, that is a failure of the ICC in promoting cricket. We have 14 teams for 2011. I suppose Scotland, UAE, Namibia or even Afghanistan may make the cut.
Hard to say who would make it. It is the nature of competition, that the closer you get to the average side, the better the contests. The associate teams don’t play often enough to develop a workable rating scheme for, though that is changing. But any two of Uganda, Denmark, USA, Namibia, Afghanistan, Scotland, Nepal or the UAE could have played in this edition without diminishing the standard.
Ultimately, I’d like to see all teams go through a regional qualification process which gives the minnows a chance to mix it with the major teams without diminishing the main event. It is also a nice compromise between the difficulties of expanding beyond 16 teams and the need for developing teams to play at the top level occasionally.
You know, I just hope they don’t end up pre-seeding the quarters just for logistics sake.
That would make this format even more useless. You do really well, but you’re seeded 4th in the table, so you have to take on probably the best side in the other group.
Having pre-seeding for the Quarters would be the worst thing that the ICC could do. It would end up making an absolute mockery of the tournament.
And yet, I have a very bad feeling that pre-seeding is the way it will be.
I’d say to make the group stage more meaningful do away with the quarter finals….have the top 2 teams from each group qualify for the semi-finals.
Quater Finals sucks, gotta have a SUPER 6 stage to allow the best teams to win
You may be right, Faraz. Super Six may have been more meaningful.
Don’t think it will be pre seeded, a knock out stage can’t be pre seeded
I agree with David Barry. The 2011 tournament has all the hallmarks of the 1996 event when the cup was last hosted in the subcontinent. Seven teams in a group may guarantee six group games for the co-hosts but don’t be fooled by this. It’s easy to see this far out who the top four will be and, as in the case of 1996, you’ll see sparse crowds for the group games but jam-packed stadia for the knock-outs. I predict a repeat of 1996, with Sri Lanka defeating India in the semi due to crowd trouble! Why do the World Cup organisers perennially shift the tournament format each time? In football it’s the same each time because i suspect the governing body FIFA is much stronger than Cricket’s ICC who defer to the home boards, and we all know the BCCI is more powerful than the ICC. The 2011 tournament should have followed the 1992 format, of nine teams (with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe made to qualify for the ninth spot) in a league stage. Every game would be meaningful as there would be no ‘group’ favouritism. Bring on the 1992 format for when Australaisa next hosts in 2015!
Thanks for your comment, Neville. I am not sure if we could have the 1992 format in 2015 with more teams eligible/ready to participate in the tournament.
The best format would be such in which the team which tops the group automatically qualifies for the semifinals, so 2 teams would have reached semifinals by the end of the first round. The remaining 2 teams in each group then compete to get into the semis in quarter finals. So instead of 4 quarter final matches, we will need 2 quarter final matches and the 2 winners will meet the 2 who qualified for semis in the first round!