A world cup with anything less than 14 teams is not a world cup My suggestion is to have a 20 team world cup followed by a super 10 stage Round 1: 20 teams divided into 5 groups of 4 teams each. This gives the associates a chance to show what they can do with hopefully 1-2 of them qualifying to the next stage The groups will look something like Group A - Australia (1), Zimbabwe (10), Afghanistan (11), Kenya (20) Group B - India (2), Bangladesh (9), Ireland (12), Canada (19) Group C - South Africa (3), West Indies (8), Scotland (13), PNG (18) Group D - Pakistan (4), New Zealand (7), Netherlands (14), Hong Kong (17) Group E - Sri Lanka (5), England (6), UAE (15), Nepal (16) Total matches = 5 x 6 = 30 Matches Round 2: Super 10 stage. This involves the big teams playing against each other, ensuring loads of money for the ICC Group F = A1, B2, C1, D2, E1 - Most likely AUS, IRE, SA, NZ, SL Group G = A2, B1, C2, D1, E2 - Most likely AFG, IND, WI, PAK, SL Total matches = 10 x 2 = 20 Then after super 10 stage, we have semis & final, giving 3 more matches Total matches = 30 + 20 + 2 + 1 = 53. And only 53 ODIs with 20 teams playing, with atleast 28 guaranteed matches between top teams & also all 53 matches being meaningful In Round 1, 1 team will have to slip up against the associate, besides losing to the other big team in their group to miss out for super 10 stage. In groups A & B, its unlikely that Australia & India will lose to both of ZIM/BAN & AFG/IRE, given that 1 of the 2 will be easily beaten even if 1 slip up occurs, besides the lower ranked Kenya/Canada
Posted on: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 17:51:24 +0000