"Exit of India and Pakistan from the '07 World Cup was a disaster" - Shetty

[The_Real_Deal]

NEW DELHI — The format of this month's cricket World Cup was tweaked to give India and other big teams a better chance of advancing in the tournament, a top organiser said on Wednesday.

Tournament director Ratnakar Shetty described the early exit of India and Pakistan from the last World Cup, played in the Caribbean, as a "disaster" for the event and said the format was altered to avoid a repeat.

The quarter-final format, first used in 1996 before being discarded, has been revived this time to ensure each team plays a minimum of six group-stage matches even if they do not make the next round.

In the 2007 World Cup, teams were divided into four groups of four each with the top two advancing to the Super-Eights league round before the semi-finals.

In the upcoming tournament, the 14 teams are in two groups with the top four in each qualifying for the knock-out rounds.

"I will not be honest if I say no," Shetty told the espnstar.com website when asked if the format had been designed to favour a top team like India.

"Economically, we all know that India is the financial powerhouse of cricket. The exit of India and Pakistan from the 2007 World Cup was a disaster for the tournament.

"The sponsors, broadcasters, tour operators, West Indies board -- all lost a lot of money. The format was changed in such a way that it gives all the top teams a chance to compete."

Shetty, who is also the chief administrative officer of the Indian cricket board, sought to allay security fears which usually dog high-profile tournaments in the sub-continent.

"The sub-continent has its own share of issues, with the biggest challenge being security," he said. "It is slightly different from how it would be if the tournament was to be staged in England or Australia.

"Things have changed in the last two years," he said. "The police have a mechanism of continuously monitoring the security issues.

"The threat perception varies from team to team, and that is an aspect that is being looked into by the central government."

Source: AFP (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jI2mMG6PuvKmB_coXT68S5auqSqQ?docId=CNG.3a889 39e09fdcb473b7bf04bea330d9d.e1)

[Amjid Javed]

Both teams deservedly went out in 1st round in 2007. Indeed with way format is now both teams should reach 1/4 finals atleast.

[The_Real_Deal]

no matter how much they keep pakistan quite, they have to admit that pakistan cricket for the world means so much financially to the icc - advertising, viewers, broadcasting etc

without pakistan, the tournament would fail, no matter how big influence india has in the cricketing world.

[mastermind_quad]

no matter how much they keep pakistan quite, they have to admit that pakistan cricket for the world means so much financially to the icc - advertising, viewers, broadcasting etc

without pakistan, the tournament would fail, no matter how big influence india has in the cricketing world.

Achha ji ....;-)

waise dono mein se ek ne hona tha udhar last tak ...then WC 2007 would have been a successful event ...:D

[The_Real_Deal]

Both teams deservedly went out in 1st round in 2007. Indeed with way format is now both teams should reach 1/4 finals atleast.

yes agree, this years format is much better, as it has been formatted exactly like the '96 world cup.

so there is a better chance of all the big names making it to the final if they lose a few at the beginning.

[The_Real_Deal]

Achha ji ....;-)

waise dono mein se ek ne hona tha udhar last tak ...then WC 2007 would have been a successful event ...:D

:D

mera mathlab ke india no doubt has a huge role financially in the cricketing world, but so has pakistan, as shetty pointed out. you cant ignore pakistan.

[mastermind_quad]

:D

mera mathlab ke india no doubt has a huge role financially in the cricketing world, but so has pakistan, as shetty pointed out. you cant ignore pakistan.

Definitely ...:)

[ace4rmspace]

Disappointing! I thought it was Shilpa Shetty.

[The_Real_Deal]

Disappointing! I thought it was Shilpa Shetty.

:)) :))

i think in '07 she was busy with the big brother fiasco, she wouldn't be interested in cricket until IPL came along :D

[mastermind_quad]

Shilpa Shetty's knowledge of cricket is IPL ....if u ask her who is Indian captain ..she will probably answer Shane Warne ...haha ..:D

she is extended cheer leader of IPL ...:)

[Ryankhan]

Well thats true, India n Pakistan attract lots of crowd and lots of money aswell and you cant keep them away. I hope we get to see PAK vs IND match in the upcoming WC which will be a treat to watch.

[Masterji]

what happens if these 2 lose in the quarters?

[Blistering Barnacle]

Instead of this dumb format where you practically guarantee the top 8 a quarter-final spot, only for the tournament to then resemble the champions trophy in that it becomes a knockout tournament, they should have made it a round robin between 10 teams max, with the top 4 going through - similar to the 92 world cup.

Almost every match would be meaningful, and the only teams advancing to the semis would be those that truly deserved it. If you lost 1-2 games in the beginning, you'd still have a chance of coming back, without filling the tournament with useless matches against minnows.

As it is right now, we might as well go straight to the quarter-finals and skip weeks of pretty much meaningless matches.

[Blistering Barnacle]

I remember in the 92 WC, it was really exciting to watch Pak scrape through to the semis - we were relying on beating NZ in our last round robin match, and willing another team to lose against the Aussies (WI I think it was).

[rsk]

what happens if these 2 lose in the quarters?

From next world cup. both teams will be given a direct entry to semifinals.

[NA]

The format truly is dumb. The only good thing I can think of is that you can watch the first 42 games with no pressure at all. Win or lose, the top eight teams will reach the quarter-finals, with only Bangladesh having a real chance to change that knock-out games lineup. In Pakistan's group, 15 of the 21 games will involve either Kenya, Zimbabwe or Canada.

I am not saying that the minnows can't cause upset, but that the tournament format is such that one or two upsets won't change anything for the majority of the tournament.

I understand the financial reasons of coming up with such format, but it's quite a disservice to the game.

ICC Champion's Trophy format is much better. You get top teams playing against each other, and almost every game is interesting.

[chacha kashmiri]

This tournament is a joke,

You doodle around for a month with 4/5 days between matches, playing half your match against minnows and the first meaningful match you play is a win or die situation

[acewings]

This tournament is a joke,

You doodle around for a month with 4/5 days between matches, playing half your match against minnows and the first meaningful match you play is a win or die situation

It suits pakistan, it really does.

Also, if i was an indian fan, i would be dying for the 2007 format, since the odds of having a bad day against a better team in a crunch game is significantly reduced

[chacha kashmiri]

It suits pakistan, it really does.

Also, if i was an indian fan, i would be dying for the 2007 format, since the odds of having a bad day against a better team in a crunch game is significantly reduced

I don't think 2007 is really the best tournament to go back to as an indian fan

But i wasn't on about team's chances but the whole spectacle.

It won't be interesting till the quarter finals and that too after a month and before you know it your team could be out

[Blistering Barnacle]

I don't think 2007 is really the best tournament to go back to as an indian fan

But i wasn't on about team's chances but the whole spectacle.

It won't be interesting till the quarter finals and that too after a month and before you know it your team could be out

Exactly.

Hopefully the next WC will go back to a similar format to '92. I think I read somewhere that the next WC will have a reduction in the number of teams.

[Blistering Barnacle]

It suits pakistan, it really does.



Setting aside the boringness of the tournament schedule, how does it suit Pak? Any team can get knocked out at the quarter final stage, including Pak. If we have to face the most dangerous team for instance, I'd rather we face them in the semis than the quarters.

We won the 92 WC, and that had a round robin format. We just scraped into the semis, but we got there. We got knocked out in the quarters in the 96 WC.

[acewings]

Setting aside the boringness of the tournament schedule, how does it suit Pak? Any team can get knocked out at the quarter final stage, including Pak. If we have to face the most dangerous team for instance, I'd rather we face them in the semis than the quarters.

We won the 92 WC, and that had a round robin format. We just scraped into the semis, but we got there. We got knocked out in the quarters in the 96 WC.

1) There is NOOOO way this time that Pakistan, in spite of fielding a team without three of their most important players (experience/talent wise) can get knocked out during the group stage i.e. I don't see how Pakistan can lose to Canada, Zimbabwe and Kenya. A spot in the quarter finals is virtually guaranteed.

2) If we had something like a super six. or super eight, I'd bet you that Pakistan would easily lose more games than win against respectable teams. That plus potential humiliations (which we always have at least ONCE in a major tournament) would really hurt our NRR. I dont see Pakistan making it past a super eight/super six with the current team they have, without taking anything away from the given lineup. It's just that we've had just too many disruptions off late.

3) Pakistan always start slow and pick up their game later. After playing six games, I think that Pakistan (hopefully) will have the momentum with them and play some good cricket. No NRR, no bonus points, no relying on other teams to win/lose for you. Just a plain crunch situation, and I would argue (and please feel free to disagree with me) that Pakistan is one of the BETTER teams right now in crunch situations. I feel that reducing the league-like format (for a lack of better terminology) and raising the stakes in knockout games would assist an unpredictable (aka Pakistan) team and undermine the favorites (India, SA) as just one bad day means end of the line.

[Sledger]

I think it suits Pakistan because it is a tournament dependant on form rather than long term skill. You can defeat the minnows and limp through the group stage and then all you need is a hattrick of wins and the cup is yours. A similar turnaround happened during the Super 8 game against NZ in the T20WC 09.

[cric]

They only changed format just because india went out in first round, not pakistan. if india made it to super 6 or higher in last world cup, the format wouldn't have changed regardless of whatever would have happened to Pakistan. so please stop making excuse mr shetty!

[Blistering Barnacle]

1) There is NOOOO way this time that Pakistan, in spite of fielding a team without three of their most important players (experience/talent wise) can get knocked out during the group stage i.e. I don't see how Pakistan can lose to Canada, Zimbabwe and Kenya. A spot in the quarter finals is virtually guaranteed.

2) If we had something like a super six. or super eight, I'd bet you that Pakistan would easily lose more games than win against respectable teams. That plus potential humiliations (which we always have at least ONCE in a major tournament) would really hurt our NRR. I dont see Pakistan making it past a super eight/super six with the current team they have, without taking anything away from the given lineup. It's just that we've had just too many disruptions off late.

3) Pakistan always start slow and pick up their game later. After playing six games, I think that Pakistan (hopefully) will have the momentum with them and play some good cricket. No NRR, no bonus points, no relying on other teams to win/lose for you. Just a plain crunch situation, and I would argue (and please feel free to disagree with me) that Pakistan is one of the BETTER teams right now in crunch situations. I feel that reducing the league-like format (for a lack of better terminology) and raising the stakes in knockout games would assist an unpredictable (aka Pakistan) team and undermine the favorites (India, SA) as just one bad day means end of the line.

The first reason above would be eliminated in a round robin format, which is what I prefer.

The second and third reasons I don't necessarily agree with.

I think Pak would have just as good a chance as getting into the semis based on a round robin format. This would mean getting into the semis above WI, NZ, Eng, Bangladesh, and one of SA, SL, Aus, and India.

I think this team is capable of that but if they're not, they don't deserve to win anyway and probably would not in the current format as well. You'd be basically relying on winning 3 straight in a row against the best teams, instead of 2 (semis and final), which would probably make it even harder for Pak.

As it stands right now, I think the teams most likely to make the semis are SA, SL, Aus, and Ind.

[acewings]

I think it suits Pakistan because it is a tournament dependant on form rather than long term skill. You can defeat the minnows and limp through the group stage and then all you need is a hattrick of wins and the cup is yours. A similar turnaround happened during the Super 8 game against NZ in the T20WC 09.

EXACTLY. EXACTLY what i was trying to say. Thanks for reinforcing my point :)

[OZGOD]

NEW DELHI — The format of this month's cricket World Cup was tweaked to give India and other big teams a better chance of advancing in the tournament, a top organiser said on Wednesday.



Lame. If that is the goal, then just stop inviting the smaller teams and have a series with India, OZ, SA etc. Who needs Ireland, BD, Kenya etc? Why waste time if you just want to see premium matches then?

One of the things about a knockout competition is that teams have to beat who is in front of them, whether they be a heavyweight or a minnow. It's part of what makes the FA Cup so watchable.

One of the most compelling matches to watch in 2007 was Pakistan vs. Ireland. You could cut the tension with a knife.

If India cannot beat lesser teams to make it to the final then they don't deserve to be there, end of.

[The_Real_Deal]

Lame. If that is the goal, then just stop inviting the smaller teams and have a series with India, OZ, SA etc. Who needs Ireland, BD, Kenya etc? Why waste time if you just want to see premium matches then?

One of the things about a knockout competition is that teams have to beat who is in front of them, whether they be a heavyweight or a minnow. It's part of what makes the FA Cup so watchable.

One of the most compelling matches to watch in 2007 was Pakistan vs. Ireland. You could cut the tension with a knife.

If India cannot beat lesser teams to make it to the final then they don't deserve to be there, end of.

agree with you there OZGOD. why have smaller nation competing if the competition is suited to bigger teams? but on the other hand you could say that these smaller teams have the capability now i think of beating any big teams on the day, even aus.

i think where it comes to suit the big teams is because the initial stages is organized in to 2 groups, with the top 4 teams advancing. so hopefully pak and india will be in the 4 teams advancing, leaving the smaller teams battling it out with he bigger teams.

its not like the '07 w/c where even the minnows were advancing, making the tournament boring and knocking out the bigger teams.

[OZGOD]

agree with you there OZGOD. why have smaller nation competing if the competition is suited to bigger teams? but on the other hand you could say that these smaller teams have the capability now i think of beating any big teams on the day, even aus.

i think where it comes to suit the big teams is because the initial stages is organized in to 2 groups, with the top 4 teams advancing. so hopefully pak and india will be in the 4 teams advancing, leaving the smaller teams battling it out with he bigger teams.

its not like the '07 w/c where even the minnows were advancing, making the tournament boring and knocking out the bigger teams.

I guess I'm one of those people that enjoy sport, particularly the concept of the underdog coming out victorious. I played schoolboy cricket and rugby for what was a small sporting school in Sydney but we punched above our weight in state competitions and upset a lot of "supposedly" bigger teams than us.

My personal preferences aside, my point is that if we don't want the minnows there, then they shouldn't be invited. Just invite the top 6 and make them play each other over and over again until someone wins. In other words, make it like your usual tri-nations competition, but double the teams. But that takes some of the beauty of sport out of the picture, the subtraction of fear by the underdog and the sudden hesitancy in the favourite when it gets pushed by a team it expected to roll over easily.

If the minnows are there, let's give them the respect they deserve. If we don't reckon they should be there, then boot them out. In any case, any top team that cannot beat a minnow doesn't deserve to progress.

[Legal Eye]

If this is true, why bother having the smaller nations in there? Make it like the 92 WC

[The_Real_Deal]

we say minnows but look closely at this years w/c: aus = not as strong anymore, can be beaten, india = not as strong, weak bowling line-up and can be lackluster against the minnows, pak = same, lackluster and can be beaten, n.z = really horrible form, eng = low in confidence after their 6-1 drubbing, w.i = enough said.

minnows have a chance to beat the so called 'big teams', so anythings possible.

[tendlya]

The tournament format has intentionally been set in such a way that India stays alive in the tournament for atleast 33 days off the 42 days. 2007 WC's greedy schedule was the reason for this debacle.

Perhaps the only saving grace to this world cup is that 1 of the teams among IND ,BAN,ENG,SA,WI in Group B would be kicked out and either ZIM / KEN can do some damage in Group A . Among test playing nations, no favourite for this WC. Any team can beat any team on a given day

The best format i saw in a given world cup was that off 1999. Super sixes with carry over points and WHO BEAT WHO made sure that no match can be taken lightly.1999 was my fave WC for its format and as well the quality of the teams that were around. SA, AUS, PAK and IND to a certain extent were in top form

[The_Real_Deal]

The tournament format has intentionally been set in such a way that India stays alive in the tournament for atleast 33 days off the 42 days. 2007 WC's greedy schedule was the reason for this debacle.

Perhaps the only saving grace to this world cup is that 1 of the teams among IND ,BAN,ENG,SA,WI in Group B would be kicked out and either ZIM / KEN can do some damage in Group A . Among test playing nations, no favourite for this WC. Any team can beat any team on a given day

The best format i saw in a given world cup was that off 1999. Super sixes with carry over points and WHO BEAT WHO made sure that no match can be taken lightly.1999 was my fave WC for its format and as well the quality of the teams that were around. SA, AUS, PAK and IND to a certain extent were in top form

hello tendlya, i can see that was your first post, welcome to pakpassion!!

yes agree with you, '99 w/c was the best in terms of format and the clever use of 'carrying over your points', so every game was crucial and every game mattered.

good point.

[ZenBowman]

This is a decent format, I agree with those who say a round-robin would be even better, but in general, the bigger the group, the more matches you get to see between good teams, and the more likely that the better teams will get through, which is desirable, both from the standpoint of filtering the best teams through, and from a financial standpoint. I would prefer a best of three finals as well, like they used to have in the tri-series in Australia a while ago.

[The_Real_Deal]

This is a decent format, I agree with those who say a round-robin would be even better, but in general, the bigger the group, the more matches you get to see between good teams, and the more likely that the better teams will get through, which is desirable, both from the standpoint of filtering the best teams through, and from a financial standpoint. I would prefer a best of three finals as well, like they used to have in the tri-series in Australia a while ago.

hello ZenBowman! welcome to pakpassion dude!!

yes agree, in terms of watching this is a better and far more exciting to watch, as like you said, bigger teams will play each other in the group stages..

[ZenBowman]

hello ZenBowman! welcome to pakpassion dude!!

yes agree, in terms of watching this is a better and far more exciting to watch, as like you said, bigger teams will play each other in the group stages..

Thanks!

[zulfiqar]

I think Round Robin is the best format, but then we don't get to see the minnows at the WC and that should be discouraged. 2007 WC format was lame only because after the first group stage, the teams basically went into a round robin. What was the point? It meant that if a weaker side DID manage to cause an upset (ala bangla & ireland) then they would get weeded out in the round robin. That's tough. It should either be all knockout, or round robin first followed by knockout (sf/f). If 2007 WC (with groups of 4) entered straight into Quarter Finals it would've made a LOT more sense (even though the maximum # of games would equal 6, which is 1 more than the FIFA WC). In that case, Bangla could just freak out & win 3 in a row, which would be one of the most romantic WC stories ever, and could inspire a nation into a golden era of cricket (remember SL after '96?).

So yes, I favor knockout type formats for world cups, but I guess cricket doesn't have enough teams to stage a FIFA type format. The current format is RIDICULOUS as there are basically 6 meaningless games before the actual tournament begins.

[zulfiqar]

And agree above with OZ, if a team like Pak or a team like IND lose out to minnows at the WORLD CUP, they don't deserve to progress.

[Blistering Barnacle]

The tournament format has intentionally been set in such a way that India stays alive in the tournament for atleast 33 days off the 42 days. 2007 WC's greedy schedule was the reason for this debacle.

Perhaps the only saving grace to this world cup is that 1 of the teams among IND ,BAN,ENG,SA,WI in Group B would be kicked out and either ZIM / KEN can do some damage in Group A . Among test playing nations, no favourite for this WC. Any team can beat any team on a given day

The best format i saw in a given world cup was that off 1999. Super sixes with carry over points and WHO BEAT WHO made sure that no match can be taken lightly.1999 was my fave WC for its format and as well the quality of the teams that were around. SA, AUS, PAK and IND to a certain extent were in top form

I agree. I probably like the 92 format the best, but the '99 format was also very good.

Don't know why they changed it.

It annoys the heck out of me that we basically have nearly a month of practically meaningless matches.

I thought the ICC should have learned their lesson from the last disastrously boring world cup.