Why the best team doesn't always win

Why the best team doesn't always win

Post by vash2.. » Mon, 25 Dec 2000 14:53:12


Regarding the situations where the best team has not always won the
world cup, the problem lies not in the staging of the tournament but in
its format.

I feel that the 1992 format was probably the best. Today we have at
least 12 teams participating (which could become 14 in WC 2003). It
would not be possible to have the 1992 format as that would entail too
many matches. However, we could have a mini tournament a year before
the World cup and take the top 10 teams. Or have a ranking system which
decides just a couple of months before the world cup who the top 10
teams are. (Based on the past 4 years performance).

Now each team plays the other once. The top 4 go into the semi finals.

To get a really accurate picture we could even have each semi final
based on a best of 3 system. And have the final a best of 5. This would
truly ensure which is the best one day international team in the world.

By my system you could have a maximum of 56 matches. (If both the semis
went all 3 matches and the final went all five matches.) By the WC 2003
with 14 teams participating you would have about 52 matches. And also
at least 22 matches would be quite boring ones. With my system you get
a more equitable structure and more interesting matches. And since a
maximum of only 4 more matches would take place it would at the most
take up an extra week. Since the world cup takes place once every four
years it is most definitely worth it.

Is the ICC interested in a fair system which is also more exciting for
the viewers or does it want to propagate a system which has built in
inadequacies in it. A system which encourages betting and (probably
match fixing) vs a system which is fairer and better to watch. Not to
mention a system which will reward the team that truly deserves to win.

Cheers

Vash

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

 
 
 

Why the best team doesn't always win

Post by John P Darc » Mon, 25 Dec 2000 16:05:10

Quote:

> Regarding the situations where the best team has not always won the
> world cup, the problem lies not in the staging of the tournament but in
> its format.

> I feel that the 1992 format was probably the best. Today we have at
> least 12 teams participating (which could become 14 in WC 2003). It
> would not be possible to have the 1992 format as that would entail too
> many matches. However, we could have a mini tournament a year before
> the World cup and take the top 10 teams.

Have a regional qualification system akin to the soccer World Cup.  A
qualifying tournament in each region structured according to need and
staged not less than 6 months nor more than 12 months prior to the
Finals.  12 teams qualify for the Finals -

- defending champion and runner-up automatically qualify
- 2 from Europe
- 2 from The Americas*
- 3 from Central Asia
- 2 from Africa
- 2 from SE Asia/Oceania*

Those regions marked * are allocated one less qualifying spot if the
champion or runner-up are from that region.  If champion and runner-up
are both from the same region (this applies to all regions), then the
qualifying spots from that region are reduced by exactly one from the
number shown.  If this system reduces both The Americas and Oceania to
one each, then the 2nd-place teams of those regions play-off for the
last qualifying spot.

To implement this for the next WC, it would mean the following -

- Australia and Pakistan automatically qualify
- 2 from Europe
- 2 from The Americas
- 3 from Asia (Pakistan exempt from qualifying)
- 2 from Africa
- 1 from SE Asia/Oceania

Quote:
> Is the ICC interested in a fair system which is also more exciting for
> the viewers or does it want to propagate a system which has built in
> inadequacies in it.

Er, the ICC is interested in television rights money.  More teams
involved in the tournament means that the TV coverage is taken up in
more countries.  The correct answer is therefore the latter.

--

Cheers

John
'tis the season to be jolly :)

 
 
 

Why the best team doesn't always win

Post by senthil s kuma » Tue, 26 Dec 2000 12:53:39

It is the fact of life isn't it. Teams are always fancied to win atleast in
paper by the pundits
but when push comes the shout, those fancied teams fail. Afterall, this makes
it more
interesting...isn't it.

senthil

Quote:


> > Regarding the situations where the best team has not always won the
> > world cup, the problem lies not in the staging of the tournament but in
> > its format.

> > I feel that the 1992 format was probably the best. Today we have at
> > least 12 teams participating (which could become 14 in WC 2003). It
> > would not be possible to have the 1992 format as that would entail too
> > many matches. However, we could have a mini tournament a year before
> > the World cup and take the top 10 teams.

> Have a regional qualification system akin to the soccer World Cup.  A
> qualifying tournament in each region structured according to need and
> staged not less than 6 months nor more than 12 months prior to the
> Finals.  12 teams qualify for the Finals -

> - defending champion and runner-up automatically qualify
> - 2 from Europe
> - 2 from The Americas*
> - 3 from Central Asia
> - 2 from Africa
> - 2 from SE Asia/Oceania*

> Those regions marked * are allocated one less qualifying spot if the
> champion or runner-up are from that region.  If champion and runner-up
> are both from the same region (this applies to all regions), then the
> qualifying spots from that region are reduced by exactly one from the
> number shown.  If this system reduces both The Americas and Oceania to
> one each, then the 2nd-place teams of those regions play-off for the
> last qualifying spot.

> To implement this for the next WC, it would mean the following -

> - Australia and Pakistan automatically qualify
> - 2 from Europe
> - 2 from The Americas
> - 3 from Asia (Pakistan exempt from qualifying)
> - 2 from Africa
> - 1 from SE Asia/Oceania

> > Is the ICC interested in a fair system which is also more exciting for
> > the viewers or does it want to propagate a system which has built in
> > inadequacies in it.

> Er, the ICC is interested in television rights money.  More teams
> involved in the tournament means that the TV coverage is taken up in
> more countries.  The correct answer is therefore the latter.