2023 ODI World Cup Discussion

[TapsC2]

I think 14 is best for the ODIs and 20 for the T20s. I think adding the West Indies, Zim, Scotland and Ireland would be OK because these teams have a chance of not getting slaughtered by England for example. Not win per say but at least put up a fight. I wouldn't want to see a match like Australia against the USA in an ODI, ever.

We must not forget that in a World Cup scenario you will be playing teams at full strength most of the time. We will see the big 3 crossing 500 in an ODI against some of those weaker teams.

To be honest I don't think 10 teams is the problem. It's the format which creates a lot of dead rubbers that's the problem. In a way the qualifiers are a round robin format which cuts out a few dead rubbers by creating a "super 6" which effectively means the stronger teams don't have to play all the weaker teams. The qualifiers also had 10 teams but there were very few dead rubbers.

[sam_ahm]

14 is ideal for ODI WC I agree. Probably 16 for T20 WC would have been fine but 20 is not bad either... It'll be fun next year in the WI and USA. I might have to do night outs to watch the games though. WI is the worst timing for Indian fans.

This is the last World Cup with 10 teams folks, so relax, we aren't going to see this format again.

[secretzimbo]

Funnily enough whilst we are on this topic it looks like it is being heavily leaked that cricket is confirmed as being in the 2028 Olympics.

I would think olympic cricket would be restricted to maybe 6-8 teams at most.

For me that means you keep that as the elite event and expand the World Cup further to more teams instead.

[Kriterion_BD]

And you're having a dip at Republicans of colour when your democrats are leading your country down the toilet and the rest of us potentially to a nuclear winter. We'll be fine here, it's quite hot, a 30 degree drop will be most welcome.

Yes but at least the Dems try to help the least fortunate - may not always be successful. That counts for something in my book. It’s like if the PCB decided to stand up for the Associates in cricket. Might not get 16 of them included in the World Cup, but surely better than the BIG 3 trying to greedily keep all the goods for themselves.

[Kriterion_BD]

Well they shouldn't 'walk' in - that's why we have qualification series. Btw, the top 8 DO just 'walk in' and that is totally unfair. Every team should have to qualify including full members. Even if it is just a formality. They should still have to qualify.

The top 8 had to qualify via the Super League. And now it’s going to be based on the Rankings table like before. Not perfect, but it’s something of a qualifier.

I feel 12-14 is the ideal # for ODIs.

I would imagine that from 1996-2011, the lower seeded sides 11-14 didn’t win too many games except against each other (apart from Canada vs Bangladesh in 2003).

Like if you look at the top WC upsets by Associates - Kenya, Bangladesh, and Ireland - they were all the top or near the top qualifier. The 13th and 14th teams haven’t won any games at the WC I don’t think.

Another way of looking at it is Afghanistan are in the top 10 and they are struggling to compete. They now have lost 13 straight WC matches if I recall correctly.

[Crastle_cog]

Well they shouldn't 'walk' in - that's why we have qualification series. Btw, the top 8 DO just 'walk in' and that is totally unfair. Every team should have to qualify including full members. Even if it is just a formality. They should still have to qualify.

The top 8 had to qualify via the Super League. And now it’s going to be based on the Rankings table like before. Not perfect, but it’s something of a qualifier.

I feel 12-14 is the ideal # for ODIs.

I would imagine that from 1996-2011, the lower seeded sides 11-14 didn’t win too many games except against each other (apart from Canada vs Bangladesh in 2003).

Like if you look at the top WC upsets by Associates - Kenya, Bangladesh, and Ireland - they were all the top or near the top qualifier. The 13th and 14th teams haven’t won any games at the WC I don’t think.

Another way of looking at it is Afghanistan are in the top 10 and they are struggling to compete. They now have lost 13 straight WC matches if I recall correctly.

It's never a qualifier when you've an advantage from before the qualifier starts. A fair and square qualifier only happens when every single team starts from zero, no matter their previous exploits, even if they're the world cup winners. It's just elitism in cricket, which is never good for the growth of any sport. If Spain can play someone like San Marino twice in the span of four years in the football world cup qualifiers, I don't see a reason why the Indian cricket team can't play Singapore the same amount of times in 4 years. Having qualifiers for the best part of 4 years will also make sure that every single game has importance, nothing is a dead rubber. To me the bilaterals are what have destroyed cricket, it is actually boring when you play the same two-three nations every year. Talking about the competitiveness in the world cup. Every cricket world cup which has featured associates has seen at least 1 victory against a full member after the 1987 world cup. You can also count in the 2nd world cup as Zimbabwe was an associate back. It's the surprises that make the game interesting. Let's not forget Kenya's semi final run in the 2003 world cup. With the limitation of teams you will never write stories like that. Oman participated in the 2016 t20 wc out of nowhere. See how much their cricket has improved since then.In short if was given the option, I would rather have jersey, nigeria play in a world cup rather than not have Ireland and the West Indies. I would choose the former in a heartbeat. The only negative I can find is the economics behind this. However unless you grow and spread the game, economically you'll always be vulnerable and for growing the game expansion of the world cup remains at the forefront of activities.

[secretzimbo]

^ Great post!

[Kriterion_BD]

Actually a very good post with a lot of good points. I still prefer cricket to retain the format it’s got for 2027. With two hosts, I think only the “top 6” will qualify directly. Or I guess they will make it the hosts + next 8 to leave room for 4 qualifiers. And with ZIM hosting it effectively means 5 qualifier spots.

[Kriterion_BD]

Wow Pak complete a record WC chase! Bangladesh of course flounder disappointingly.

Kusal Mendis terrific innings…he’s finally gaining consistency to go with his tremendous talent. So perhaps there is still hope for the likes Madhevere and Marumani.

[sam_ahm]

Well they shouldn't 'walk' in - that's why we have qualification series. Btw, the top 8 DO just 'walk in' and that is totally unfair. Every team should have to qualify including full members. Even if it is just a formality. They should still have to qualify.

The top 8 had to qualify via the Super League. And now it’s going to be based on the Rankings table like before. Not perfect, but it’s something of a qualifier.

I feel 12-14 is the ideal # for ODIs.

I would imagine that from 1996-2011, the lower seeded sides 11-14 didn’t win too many games except against each other (apart from Canada vs Bangladesh in 2003).

Like if you look at the top WC upsets by Associates - Kenya, Bangladesh, and Ireland - they were all the top or near the top qualifier. The 13th and 14th teams haven’t won any games at the WC I don’t think.

Another way of looking at it is Afghanistan are in the top 10 and they are struggling to compete. They now have lost 13 straight WC matches if I recall correctly.

It's never a qualifier when you've an advantage from before the qualifier starts. A fair and square qualifier only happens when every single team starts from zero, no matter their previous exploits, even if they're the world cup winners. It's just elitism in cricket, which is never good for the growth of any sport. If Spain can play someone like San Marino twice in the span of four years in the football world cup qualifiers, I don't see a reason why the Indian cricket team can't play Singapore the same amount of times in 4 years. Having qualifiers for the best part of 4 years will also make sure that every single game has importance, nothing is a dead rubber. To me the bilaterals are what have destroyed cricket, it is actually boring when you play the same two-three nations every year. Talking about the competitiveness in the world cup. Every cricket world cup which has featured associates has seen at least 1 victory against a full member after the 1987 world cup. You can also count in the 2nd world cup as Zimbabwe was an associate back. It's the surprises that make the game interesting. Let's not forget Kenya's semi final run in the 2003 world cup. With the limitation of teams you will never write stories like that. Oman participated in the 2016 t20 wc out of nowhere. See how much their cricket has improved since then.In short if was given the option, I would rather have jersey, nigeria play in a world cup rather than not have Ireland and the West Indies. I would choose the former in a heartbeat. The only negative I can find is the economics behind this. However unless you grow and spread the game, economically you'll always be vulnerable and for growing the game expansion of the world cup remains at the forefront of activities.

Excellent post!