From the iSport Cricket Pavilion: iSporter Aswath pens a thought provoking piece on the on-going ICC Cricket World Cup 2011. Do you also feel the same? To know more read this!
If you had a look at the draw this World Cup; you could easily confirm atleast seven out of the eight teams in the Quarter Finals. Then when does the real interest kick in? Is this format really good for the biggest event in the sport given that there are only a few good contests in the league stages? Are there too many 'minnows'?
How does this format compare to the one in the 1996 and the 1999 World Cup? There are just far too many questions that can be asked.
As much as it is good for the so called 'minnows' to get exposure on the World stage, it is equally good for a tournament like the World Cup to ignore them. By this does not mean ignoring them completely. They can be given opportunities in a format like the T20 where they have a higher chance of competing. However, in a tournament like the 2011 World Cup, given the format, I am sorry, there is practically no chance.
Looking at a few earlier formats, World cup 1999 allowed sides to use earlier results in the group stage to their advantage. All of us are aware of the South Africa versus Zimbabwe game. India had already lost to Zimbabwe and South Africa had beaten India. The fact that teams were carrying points into the next stage (Super Six) could have well had an impact on the result of the game in which the two African nations clashed. In the current format however, the upsets too, are insignificant.
The 1996 World Cup had a similar format to the current one but it had only 12 teams; 6 in each group. Group A had Kenya and Zimbabwe apart from India, Australia, Sri Lanka and West Indies and Group B had UAE and the Netherlands alongside South Africa, England, New Zealand and Pakistan. The only real upset came from the Kenya versus West Indies game where the former got the better of the latter. This however had no impact on the 4 teams that went into the Quarter finals from Group A. Such was the format.
The 2011 World Cup follows a similar format with the only difference being in the structure ie. the Group Stages having 14 teams instead of 12 in the 1996 edition of the tournament. However, the extra teams are on the weaker side. We have Ireland, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Canada and Netherlands playing; sides that will really struggle against good sides. This does not help the tournament in any way. It is only making the World Cup more boring if anything.
The ICC to its credit has considered this very fact and has announced that the next Cricket World Cup would have only 10 teams. But what about this one? The format is good, but the draws are bad purely due to the number of teams and their strengths. However, quarter final day onwards, get ready to have your pulse rates going berserk; until then take it easy.
If you had a look at the draw this World Cup; you could easily confirm atleast seven out of the eight teams in the Quarter Finals. Then when does the real interest kick in? Is this format really good for the biggest event in the sport given that there are only a few good contests in the league stages? Are there too many 'minnows'?
How does this format compare to the one in the 1996 and the 1999 World Cup? There are just far too many questions that can be asked.
As much as it is good for the so called 'minnows' to get exposure on the World stage, it is equally good for a tournament like the World Cup to ignore them. By this does not mean ignoring them completely. They can be given opportunities in a format like the T20 where they have a higher chance of competing. However, in a tournament like the 2011 World Cup, given the format, I am sorry, there is practically no chance.
Looking at a few earlier formats, World cup 1999 allowed sides to use earlier results in the group stage to their advantage. All of us are aware of the South Africa versus Zimbabwe game. India had already lost to Zimbabwe and South Africa had beaten India. The fact that teams were carrying points into the next stage (Super Six) could have well had an impact on the result of the game in which the two African nations clashed. In the current format however, the upsets too, are insignificant.
The 1996 World Cup had a similar format to the current one but it had only 12 teams; 6 in each group. Group A had Kenya and Zimbabwe apart from India, Australia, Sri Lanka and West Indies and Group B had UAE and the Netherlands alongside South Africa, England, New Zealand and Pakistan. The only real upset came from the Kenya versus West Indies game where the former got the better of the latter. This however had no impact on the 4 teams that went into the Quarter finals from Group A. Such was the format.
The 2011 World Cup follows a similar format with the only difference being in the structure ie. the Group Stages having 14 teams instead of 12 in the 1996 edition of the tournament. However, the extra teams are on the weaker side. We have Ireland, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Canada and Netherlands playing; sides that will really struggle against good sides. This does not help the tournament in any way. It is only making the World Cup more boring if anything.
The ICC to its credit has considered this very fact and has announced that the next Cricket World Cup would have only 10 teams. But what about this one? The format is good, but the draws are bad purely due to the number of teams and their strengths. However, quarter final day onwards, get ready to have your pulse rates going berserk; until then take it easy.
