The ODI WC is one of the biggest events in world cricket, if not THE biggest. It comes by once in only 4 years. I am really looking forward to this year’s WC as well but there is one thing that I don’t like about the format.
QFs, SFs and Finals should not be a 1 off game. It should be a Best of 3. This would add a lot more credibility to the win and ensure or at least highly increase the chance that the better team wins. NHL, NBA etc etc.. they all do their playoff/knockout stages as a Best of something.. NHL does Best of 7!!!
WC being the most (or one of the most) premium cricketing events.. should do something similar. I’d be happy with a Best of 3 QF, SF and Final.
Of course one problem this would cause is stretching the already long tournament even longer. But how much longer would it be really? 10 days longer? I’m fine with that. If anything they could even shorten up the league stages or warm up games etc etc to make room. You could also have multiple QFs and SFs run on alternate days so you wouldnt add many days at all.. you would have games everyday and the teams would still get a day between games..
NHL, NBA etc are not world events. It is not teams from different states of two countries getting together and calling it 'world series'.
World cup soccer is much much more bigger event with games taking less time than an ODI, even less than T20. They don't do it. It is the drama of 'knockout' that keeps things interesting. Normally, it is not the 'best' team that wins a cup but the team that played better that day.
You could argue for best of 3 finals but other than that, it is over-doing it. Perhaps best of 3 for T20 might be an option, but that kills the purpose of shorter format altogether!
NHL, NBA etc are not world events. It is not teams from different states of two countries getting together and calling it 'world series'.
World cup soccer is much much more bigger event with games taking less time than an ODI, even less than T20. They don't do it. It is the drama of 'knockout' that keeps things interesting. Normally, it is not the 'best' team that wins a cup but the team that played better that day.
You could argue for best of 3 finals but other than that, it is over-doing it. Perhaps best of 3 for T20 might be an option, but that kills the purpose of shorter format altogether!
NHL NBA being truly global events or not is not relevant. I was just saying how they do it every year.. and it DOES add more credibility to the win.. and it also increases drama and adds another layer of excitement.. if anyone here watches NBA NHL you will know how it's awesome to watch the seriesplayoffs.. a bit like test cricket when any team could play better one 1 day but whoever plays better overall wins.. it just makes more sense.
Australia always did their CB ODI series finals as best of threes and I really enjoyed them.
Overdoing it? Man we have 7 game bilaterial ODI series between teams like 3-4 times a year. Then whats wrong with BO3 knockouts for the WC once in 4 years!
kakaballi.. why is that the idea? who said so? why should that be the idea?
do you agree that a B03 would be more fair and also more exciting? Did you ever watch the CB series BO3 finals? I am not sure if Pak ever played it. It really is fun to watch.
have you ever followed a NHL or NBA playoff series? it's so much fun!
Your suggestion is not a bad one although I disagree with BO3 at every KO stage. The Final perhaps should be a best of three affair
The only problem is the world cup w'd be just too long. You cannot have 6 minnows (incl. Bang) partcipating as well as BO3
Ideally the top 8 countries should play each other in a round robin competition with the top 4 qualifying for SF (cf 1992 WC minus the stupid rain rule!!) but then the cricket world cup will lose some of it's global appeal!
i.e. 7 games (for each team) + SF + Final (BO3)
What if in a BO3 Final, Team A beats Team B by < 10 runs or 1 wicket (hardly a convincing win) in the first game. The second game then becomes effectively a KO Final! And what if the second game is also a nail-biter?
Let's just accept that the best team does not always win the cricket world cup (cf. any major sport). The team that plays better and/or gets lucky (with 1 or 2 umpiring decisions) on the day wins. Let's not completely discount the latter factor :)
Your suggestion is not a bad one although I disagree with BO3 at every KO stage. The Final perhaps should be a best of three affair
The only problem is the world cup w'd be just too long. You cannot have 6 minnows (incl. Bang) partcipating as well as BO3
Ideally the top 8 countries should play each other in a round robin competition (cf 1992 WC minus the stupid rain rule!!) but then the cricket world cup will lose some of it's global appeal!
i.e. 7 games (for each team) + SF + Final (BO3)
What if in a BO3 Final, Team A beats Team B by < 10 runs or 1 wicket (hardly a convincing win) in the first game. The second game then becomes effectively a KO Final! And what if the second game is also a nail-biter?
Let's just accept that the best team does not always win the cricket world cup (cf. any major sport). The team that plays better and/or gets lucky (with 1 or 2 umpiring decisions) on the day wins. Let's not completely discount the latter factor :)
1) BO3 Finals only - Yes. this would be better than what we have right now. But we would still have the QFs and SFs where it's just about that one day. I completely agree with you that we will NEVER eradicate luck and it will always be a factor... who played better on that day.. how umpiring decisions went.. DL method.. rain timings etc etc.. yes.. luck will always be a part of it.. but.. the purpose/goal should be to minimize it as much as possible.. automatically increasing the credibility of the win.. winning a BO3 is more credible than winning 1 game.. even if luck can be a part of all those 3 games.. its all relative.
2) It will make the tournament longer - I briefly went over how we could do this in my original post. We could reduce the days between games, reduce the warm up games, or days between warm up games, or reduce the number of teams. Each will have its positives and negatives. Personally if the tournament gets stretched by 10 days (more days required for BO3s - days reduced because of any of the above mentioned changes).... I will take it.. it's once in 4 years.. and the increase in credibility of the win + the added excitement of the BO3s is worth it for me.
Again - does anyone here follow NBA or NHL? If yes then you would agree that the "best ofs" adds another layer of excitement and fun.. besides just making it more fair and adding credibility.
^ My backward crystal ball tells me India was getting stronger in the tournament - and would have won the tournament handily in a best of 3 format. And I have never been wrong in such predictions.
^ My backward crystal ball tells me India was getting stronger in the tournament - and would have won the tournament handily in a best of 3 format. And I have never been wrong in such predictions.
I watched that tournament and India would have not won the tournament if it was best of 3. Have a look at what windies did to India in India immediately after that tournament.
^ My backward crystal ball tells me India was getting stronger in the tournament - and would have won the tournament handily in a best of 3 format. And I have never been wrong in such predictions.
I watched that tournament and India would have not won the tournament if it was best of 3. Have a look at what windies did to India in India immediately after that tournament.
Oho ehsan bhai, he already said his crystal ball is backward :D
I watched that tournament and India would have not won the tournament if it was best of 3. Have a look at what windies did to India in India immediately after that tournament.
Hungama hai kyon Barpa, thodee see jho kah dee hain
Dakaa tho nahin dalaa, choree tho nahin kee hain
Apologies to Ghalib. Ehsan Bhai likes poetry - hope this appeases him :)