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
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.
Sent via Deja.com