ICC news April 4, 2011

ICC considers 12-team World Cup for 2015

  shares 106

Twelve teams may contest the 2015 World Cup as the ICC is considering a compromise between the 14 teams of 2011 and a tight 10-team model currently on the table for the tournament's next edition.

The ICC's executive council is meeting in Mumbai on Monday and on the agenda is the format for the next World Cup, to be hosted by Australia and New Zealand, following the rousing success of this year's edition, which was won by India.

Following much discussion of the 10-team tournament favoured by organisers, and an outcry by Associate nations given their likely exclusion, the ICC may now be leaning towards a 12-team event, possibly with two pools of six teams followed by quarter-finals, semis and the final.

"At the moment it is still 10 teams but we are discussing the 12-team option," an ICC official told ESPNcricinfo.

The same format was used in the 1996 tournament, co-hosted by India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka and won by the Sri Lankans. Another path is to choose a round-robin model where each team plays each other once before the semi-finals, as was the case when Australia and New Zealand hosted in 1992.

Prior to his team's departure for Bangladesh, new Australian captain Michael Clarke reiterated the desire of most international players to see Associate nations given their chance on the limited-overs game's biggest stage.

"I really enjoy seeing the minnow teams getting an opportunity to be honest, I guess it's up to the ICC to work out whatever they think is for the betterment of the game, that's obviously their priority," Clarke said in Sydney.

"For me I think the two World Cups I've been involved in have been fantastic, it certainly does feel between games like you have a long period, when you've got six and seven days between games, but I've enjoyed seeing some of the minnow teams or all of the minnow teams play.

"I think we've seen throughout this World Cup that there were a few upsets and some great cricket played, so I just hope and am certain that the ICC are looking to improve the game of cricket."

Haroon Lorgat, the ICC chief executive, said the executive council meeting would finalise much of the discussions surrounding the next event, plans for which are already being mapped out by the Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket."The length of 50 overs will find certain teams out but I think there are 10 teams that can seriously compete in that format," Lorgat told Sky Sports News. "That's a debate we are still finalising; in fact the board meeting over the next two days will consider that and will determine which teams will play in the 2015 World Cup."

Ireland were the best Associate nation at each of the past two tournaments, and their chief executive Warren Deutrom had said the deferral of a decision on the tournament format until after the 2011 event was a sensible one.

"I think that is the right decision," Deutrom said. "What it does is allow the ICC board to make a decision based on all the evidence, rather than no evidence whatsoever. We are pleased because if two or three teams do perform well during the group stages, that does provide an option to look favourably on qualification, and to see if the number of teams is quite right."

Daniel Brettig and Nagraj Gollapudi are assistant editors at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY Meety on | April 5, 2011, 0:59 GMT

    The rug's been pulled out of that dream! @world_champion - yes! I've been championing that idea for a while now. You would get on average 2 top sides & 2 minnows in each division, so the minnows have a chance of winning at least one game, the good sides should all still advance. I would have the Groups based on Rankings with a bias to the top 2 sides. The Final 8 would be ranked on performance in the Pool matches so that the highest ranked losers in the QTR Finals get a 2nd chance against the lowest ranked winners for the right to play in the Semi Final. Had this system been used in the 2011 W/Cup we would of had a semi-final play off between SL v SA & NZ v Oz for the right to play India & Pakistan in the Semis, with Eng & W Indies having been eliminated.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 17:18 GMT

    The 1992 format with 10 teams, each playing against each other is the best in my opinion. If 12 nations are to compete, then the super-six format of 1999 and 2003 is an ideal one. The quarter-final format becomes a 7-match tournament effectively, and all the 8 top test teams are virtually assured a place in the next round, where there is a matter of one big day. To be honest, West Indies in 1996 and New Zealand in 2011 were not worthy of being in the semifinals, given their performance in the group stages.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 14:26 GMT

    I think 12 nations is fine. But more importantly I think the bottom two of the Test playing nations should also go thru playoffs. Just because ur team got into the Test doesnt mean they should automatically be a part of the WC. Bangladesh and WI for example in this edition were definitely lack lustre and with a bit more of encouragement the other associates might just fancy a chance against them. This will also make them more competitive during the season.

  • POSTED BY Rakesh_Sharma on | April 4, 2011, 14:16 GMT

    Cricket must not have quarter finals. It makes a joke of league matches. Quarter final make sense as in football where there are more than 25 strong teams. There must be league robin round in each group A and B and semifinals or super six. At present everyone knows that barring Bangladesh and Zimbabwe all other 8 teams will qualify for quarters. so quarters takes of the unpredictability and makes the league matches not important.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 14:09 GMT

    The new Format of the ICC for the next world cup 2015 should be Afghanistan and Iresh team these two team done well in the last five years Afghanistan must play with the top teams also they have one day stutus as well ICC must get a few team of the top of there accosscited group and afflitied group Irsh is the top on Accossted and Afghanistan also the top 10 teams is not good to play for next world cup

  • POSTED BY yohandf1984 on | April 4, 2011, 14:05 GMT

    A format i feel good . 16 teams will play Group A,B,C,D . Top 2 teams of each will emerge to Group E,F . Then semi finals and finale. Participation of 16 teams will assist in popularizing cricket among world giving more oppertunities. Associates will play only 3 games each unles they win against Test nations (comparing to 6 @2011) No of Total matches are 39 and event can be concluded within a month .( 49 maches in 44 days @2011) Top 8 teams will get 3 oppertunities b4 Qualifying to Semi s (Give another chance to teams like SA ). And no of mismatches are less (Only 14 mismatches comparing to 18 @2011) . Hope Cricinfo will foraward to ICC for consideration. Gus plz comment

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 14:05 GMT

    1992 format was best.. Get to see more good games

  • POSTED BY s4052404 on | April 4, 2011, 14:03 GMT

    Why is cricket the only sport to not follow the traditional and extremely successful pools/qf/sf/f format?? Look at rugby - about the same number of competitive teams (about 8), but 20 teams in the world cup!! AND rugby world cup is much much more successful and higher profile than the cricket wc. Cricket wc should be much bigger but isnt, mainly because of continuing with these bizarre formats. Super 8s or 6s are Terrible! Why? Because if an associate team makes it thru - like Ire in the last, instead of having one big game to celebrate as an achievement and maybe cause an upset, you have 5! Which decreases the chance of progression and causes more lopsided matches. Please ICC, regain 16 teams, 4 pools of 4. Then straight to QF etc. The minnows will only have 3 each unless they win which is rewarded by a qf (a big event) Spread the game with a conventional and exciting format like EVERY other sport! I cant for the life of me understand why this option isnt considered.

  • POSTED BY raman22feb1988 on | April 4, 2011, 14:01 GMT

    >> Another path is to choose a round-robin model where each team plays each other once before the semi-finals, as was the case when Australia and New Zealand hosted in 1992.

    There were only nine teams during that 1992 world cup, am I right? Do you actually mean within the 1999 world cup?

  • POSTED BY muski on | April 4, 2011, 13:56 GMT

    All this talk of associate nations being given a chance at World Cups does not make sense if they do not get opportunity to play stronger nations like India, Sri Lanka or South Africa on regular basis. Most of their sides are NOT made of cricketing professionals and guys may get back to being Police Officers or farmers. Unless the ICC makes a schedule for such teams in the cricketing calendar, nothing much is going to change for these teams. A Kevin O Brien here and a Ten Deoschate there will not help their cricketing cause. Maybe India could take a lead and invite these guys to play a three off series-maybe by resting some of the seniors like the last years trip to Zimbabwe. That way we can starting grooming youngsters for for the 2015 world cup.

  • POSTED BY Meety on | April 5, 2011, 0:59 GMT

    The rug's been pulled out of that dream! @world_champion - yes! I've been championing that idea for a while now. You would get on average 2 top sides & 2 minnows in each division, so the minnows have a chance of winning at least one game, the good sides should all still advance. I would have the Groups based on Rankings with a bias to the top 2 sides. The Final 8 would be ranked on performance in the Pool matches so that the highest ranked losers in the QTR Finals get a 2nd chance against the lowest ranked winners for the right to play in the Semi Final. Had this system been used in the 2011 W/Cup we would of had a semi-final play off between SL v SA & NZ v Oz for the right to play India & Pakistan in the Semis, with Eng & W Indies having been eliminated.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 17:18 GMT

    The 1992 format with 10 teams, each playing against each other is the best in my opinion. If 12 nations are to compete, then the super-six format of 1999 and 2003 is an ideal one. The quarter-final format becomes a 7-match tournament effectively, and all the 8 top test teams are virtually assured a place in the next round, where there is a matter of one big day. To be honest, West Indies in 1996 and New Zealand in 2011 were not worthy of being in the semifinals, given their performance in the group stages.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 14:26 GMT

    I think 12 nations is fine. But more importantly I think the bottom two of the Test playing nations should also go thru playoffs. Just because ur team got into the Test doesnt mean they should automatically be a part of the WC. Bangladesh and WI for example in this edition were definitely lack lustre and with a bit more of encouragement the other associates might just fancy a chance against them. This will also make them more competitive during the season.

  • POSTED BY Rakesh_Sharma on | April 4, 2011, 14:16 GMT

    Cricket must not have quarter finals. It makes a joke of league matches. Quarter final make sense as in football where there are more than 25 strong teams. There must be league robin round in each group A and B and semifinals or super six. At present everyone knows that barring Bangladesh and Zimbabwe all other 8 teams will qualify for quarters. so quarters takes of the unpredictability and makes the league matches not important.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 14:09 GMT

    The new Format of the ICC for the next world cup 2015 should be Afghanistan and Iresh team these two team done well in the last five years Afghanistan must play with the top teams also they have one day stutus as well ICC must get a few team of the top of there accosscited group and afflitied group Irsh is the top on Accossted and Afghanistan also the top 10 teams is not good to play for next world cup

  • POSTED BY yohandf1984 on | April 4, 2011, 14:05 GMT

    A format i feel good . 16 teams will play Group A,B,C,D . Top 2 teams of each will emerge to Group E,F . Then semi finals and finale. Participation of 16 teams will assist in popularizing cricket among world giving more oppertunities. Associates will play only 3 games each unles they win against Test nations (comparing to 6 @2011) No of Total matches are 39 and event can be concluded within a month .( 49 maches in 44 days @2011) Top 8 teams will get 3 oppertunities b4 Qualifying to Semi s (Give another chance to teams like SA ). And no of mismatches are less (Only 14 mismatches comparing to 18 @2011) . Hope Cricinfo will foraward to ICC for consideration. Gus plz comment

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 14:05 GMT

    1992 format was best.. Get to see more good games

  • POSTED BY s4052404 on | April 4, 2011, 14:03 GMT

    Why is cricket the only sport to not follow the traditional and extremely successful pools/qf/sf/f format?? Look at rugby - about the same number of competitive teams (about 8), but 20 teams in the world cup!! AND rugby world cup is much much more successful and higher profile than the cricket wc. Cricket wc should be much bigger but isnt, mainly because of continuing with these bizarre formats. Super 8s or 6s are Terrible! Why? Because if an associate team makes it thru - like Ire in the last, instead of having one big game to celebrate as an achievement and maybe cause an upset, you have 5! Which decreases the chance of progression and causes more lopsided matches. Please ICC, regain 16 teams, 4 pools of 4. Then straight to QF etc. The minnows will only have 3 each unless they win which is rewarded by a qf (a big event) Spread the game with a conventional and exciting format like EVERY other sport! I cant for the life of me understand why this option isnt considered.

  • POSTED BY raman22feb1988 on | April 4, 2011, 14:01 GMT

    >> Another path is to choose a round-robin model where each team plays each other once before the semi-finals, as was the case when Australia and New Zealand hosted in 1992.

    There were only nine teams during that 1992 world cup, am I right? Do you actually mean within the 1999 world cup?

  • POSTED BY muski on | April 4, 2011, 13:56 GMT

    All this talk of associate nations being given a chance at World Cups does not make sense if they do not get opportunity to play stronger nations like India, Sri Lanka or South Africa on regular basis. Most of their sides are NOT made of cricketing professionals and guys may get back to being Police Officers or farmers. Unless the ICC makes a schedule for such teams in the cricketing calendar, nothing much is going to change for these teams. A Kevin O Brien here and a Ten Deoschate there will not help their cricketing cause. Maybe India could take a lead and invite these guys to play a three off series-maybe by resting some of the seniors like the last years trip to Zimbabwe. That way we can starting grooming youngsters for for the 2015 world cup.

  • POSTED BY ilovcricket on | April 4, 2011, 13:56 GMT

    2 groups - and the top 4 in each qualify for FINALS, yes - why not use the MINTYRE FINALS SYSTEM??? ,This system is used in Australian Football leagues the AFL and the NRL...It is a very competitive format..ICC PLEASE consider this !

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 13:50 GMT

    As long as many matches have interesting finishes as it was during this 2011 edition, the format has little significance. Pitches and small grounds in NZ might pose interesting questions to teams. Where as big grounds in Australia are all together different. So the 2015 edition would be really challenging one for the Asian teams.

  • POSTED BY Gilys_Heroes on | April 4, 2011, 13:35 GMT

    I agree with L Pearce. 12 teams, 2 "weak" associate teams (even though every world cup since 1996 an associate has won a game against a major team). Same format as this world cup. Its logical as well because you start with 12, knockout the worst 4 teams leaving 8, and then in the next stage knock out the worst 4 teams again keaving 4 to play it out.

    As a side issue. Should the World cup Final be 3 games? Big revenue raiser and would prolong the finals (only 7 finals games under the current format).

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 13:34 GMT

    1999 world cup format is best for 2015 WC (12 teams with super 6 format).Q/F format is boring. WC should complete with in 5 week..2 match in a day.pls ICC dont oversell cricket.

  • POSTED BY nataraajds on | April 4, 2011, 13:33 GMT

    It's better top 10 ODI ranking teams should play WC in 2 groups each play twice in group stage & top 2 teams from each group play semifinal. associate teams like Ireland ,netherlands should be allowed to play ODI regularly with 10 regular members to get a place in top 10. i

  • POSTED BY themightyfenoughtys on | April 4, 2011, 13:33 GMT

    Key is that there is a clear route by which the associates can qualify. A closed shop for the 10 full nations is not in anyone's long term interest. Create a qualifying tournament that allows the associates to be portrayed as a success story in their own country by winning qualification in a televised event. Such a tournament might even include the 10th or 9th and 10th ranked full members.

  • POSTED BY cric_follower on | April 4, 2011, 13:32 GMT

    PLEASE STOP THIS RIGHT NOW. NO MORE THAN 10 TEAMS. WE NEED MORE COMPETITION!!!!! ASSOCIATE NATIONS FIRST NEED TO PROVE THEMSELVES IN T20.

  • POSTED BY NBRADEE on | April 4, 2011, 13:31 GMT

    The World Cup of cricket should bring the world to the big time, so there is no need to axe poor, underdeveloped teams, especially if they follow the soccer model of seeding the teams into groups. This way, there most certainly will not be the long six week period for games to be completed. Absolutely boring and drawn out, that method! Let's have four groups of four teams, seeding teams with the best records over the two years before the next WC into each group, from one through eight. The next eight teams should get placed randomly, forming round robin tables. Next, play two games a day in the preliminary round - one day game, and the other a day/night fixture so that there is always an option of what look at on a daily basis. Last, best team only from each of the groups goes through to knockout semis and then finals, giving each team a minimum of three matches and a maximum of five. Anything else is farcical, and just meant to stretch television revenue with ho-hum games!

  • POSTED BY HatsforBats on | April 4, 2011, 13:29 GMT

    The problem with the World Cup is not the number of teams playing; it is the length of the tournament. By increasing the team squad sizes from 15 to 19 will allow teams to rotate playeres through the tournament and reduce the risk of injury whilst allowing teams to play more frequently (2-3 games per week). Increasing the number of games played per team per week will produce a more streamlined and higher energy tournament.

  • POSTED BY JustAGame on | April 4, 2011, 13:20 GMT

    There is one radically different format I'd like to suggest, probably not everyone would agree tho: To make associate teams & weak test playing nations more competitive, ICC should put teams finishing at bottom of the previous world cup in WC qualifiers tournament. e.g. Bangladesh and Zimbabwe would play along with associate nations to qualify fro 2015 WC.---There is nothing wrong in giving chance to associate teams-that's how cricket is going to spread. 10 team-round robin just doesn't work. It'd be same in length without giving fare share to associate nations and with mentioned format BD and Zim would have to fight for their places and at the same time minnows will get chance to play with test playing nations.

  • POSTED BY world_champion on | April 4, 2011, 13:20 GMT

    I have a great idea for the world cup.

    16 teams. 4 groups of 4-top 2 from each group advance(24 games) 2 groups of 4-top 2 from each group advance(8 games) semi-finals finals

    very short(35 games only) with everyone getting a chance without messing up the next stage

  • POSTED BY Sulaimaan91 on | April 4, 2011, 13:17 GMT

    The 10 team format should remain with each team playing the other and top 4 qualifying. But only the 1st 8 teams on the ICC ODI rankings should be selected, by a specific date.The next two (9&10) should play a qualifying round with the two Associate teams that qualify for this through the Division One tournament

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 13:16 GMT

    It's quite amazing how we just alternate between inefficient options -

    Option 1 - 10 teams round-robin will have a total of 48 matches of very high quality, with semi-finals, which leaves little to chance, but most of the minnows will not get a chance.

    Option 2 - 14 teams (like in the current format) will have a total of 49 matches with too many inconsequential matches and leaves a lot to chance with the quarter-final format

    Option 3 - 12 teams will be a good nice solution, but then 6 teams in 2 pools with a quarter-final play-off is also sub-optimal. Only 37 matches with too much of a chance in quarter-finals.

    THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION - 12 teams in 2 pools with the top 4 in each pool progressing to a super 8 (with results carried forward). We can have a semi-final option or better still, have a straight final between the top 2 teams of Super 8. This will have a total number of 47 matches with a lot of high quality matches and leaves very little to chance! Is ICC listening?

  • POSTED BY bala-chala on | April 4, 2011, 13:14 GMT

    The round robin is the most competitive format. At the same time the best associates need to be given a fair chance to prove that they belong in the top 10. The top 8 in the rankings should be allowed to qualify directly to the round robin stage. The next 4 in the rankings (2 top associates + 2 bottom full members) can have a qualifying stage in the first week of the WC to determine which 2 make the round robins. Ensures that the best 10 play the business end of the tournament.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 13:11 GMT

    I support what @anshuman mahanty has said.... the super sixes (or super eights) format that was followed in the 1999 and 2003 world cups is the best way to go about!!

  • POSTED BY rvn4159 on | April 4, 2011, 13:08 GMT

    We have to add not delete teams if we want to see cricket prosper and improve. Soccer starts with 32 countries, they have a method, we need to come up with one too. Sri Lanka and Bangladesh were minnows at one stage, look where they are today. ICC needs to spend money and promote cricket in the minnow and even more countries. T20 should be made part of olympics too, cricket is the 2nd more popular sport in the world after Soccer.

  • POSTED BY sandeep.kalepu on | April 4, 2011, 13:08 GMT

    I disagree with 10, 12, or 14 teams. I am a cricket fan, but also a soccer fan. A contributing factor to soccer's global popularity is that there is an involvement of many nations. There are 208 countries/territories that play soccer. Of these countries they compete with each other for four years to be in the top 32 teams. These 32 teams then compete in the FIFA World Cup. True, there are very good teams and very bad teams, but the point is that most countries are in some way involved. And there are more teams competing for the world cup as there are 32 teams in 8 groups of 4. I personally believe that the ICC should adopt this system because it would increase cricket's popularity to the western world (U.S. etc). With 32 teams in the ICC cricket world cup, there would be more participating countries, more countries generating teams, and ultimately increased popularity. This may not be the best policy because I'm obviously not an expert, but I believe it is a policy to consider.

  • POSTED BY Canvey26 on | April 4, 2011, 12:52 GMT

    8 teams, 10 teams, 12 teams, 14 teams If you are still going to have Quarter Finals then its too predictable with the top 8 as good as set in stone. Let the Associate Countries get to the Host country a week before it starts and play for the right then at least they get to play intense Cricket and the chance to play with the so called big boys then 2 groups of 6 then straight to Semi Finals all over in 4 weeks...lovely jubbly.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 12:44 GMT

    Netherlands and Ireland are not minnow teams anymore. They have played a very matured game in world cup. Hope they give good fight in the next world cup. Let them play more international matches to improve their confidence.

  • POSTED BY kochirover on | April 4, 2011, 12:42 GMT

    50-over WC 12 teams every 4 years. 20-20 World series 14 teams every year No bilateral ODI series between teams. 4-6 ODI torunaments every year with 4-6 teams each (can easily include associates here) A champions trophy every 2 years with only 6 top teams. Bilateral test series between test nations where everyone plays the other (home and away) in 3/5 test per series format over a period of 4 years (Standings can form the Test Match cup.) Currently India has never hosted Bangladesh for a Test/ODI series. That shows how much India is interested in the spread of cricket.

  • POSTED BY shrastogi on | April 4, 2011, 12:39 GMT

    If you want to globalise the game it is important that World Cup is inclusive rather than exclusive. As is evident from the world cup some associatie nations like Ireland have made progress but some like Kenya have gone back a notch. So the balance has to be arrived at. If ICC is reducing the strength to 12 itmust increase t20 world cup to 16 so that more and more nations get the feel of high level game. As of format - the current format is pretty good. There is no need for 1992 like format.

  • POSTED BY Robster1 on | April 4, 2011, 12:34 GMT

    Two groups of six leads to far too many uncompetitive matches with the big nations virtually guaranteeing qualification for the knockout phase. What the ICC must do is ensure that every group match truly counts toward qualification as with the 1992 model with all playing all and then the top four qualifying for the semi finals. That was the best option.

    And in future the tournamnet should be held ina maximum of two countries to reduce player travelling and fatigue and also reduce significantly the length of the tournamnet. Two matches daily in the group stage is a must.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 12:32 GMT

    2015 WC in Australia and Newzealand. WC mean one team should have to play all team. not in group A and B, this is the simple idea one team should play all matches and the end first 4 goto Semifinal.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 12:31 GMT

    I think this would be best and better idea. In case of 10 or 12 teams World cup divided in two pools, the group toppers Should go to the Semi-finals directly! The 2nd and 3rd place teams from both pools should contest the knock out phase. Example from this World Cup: Group A: 1) Pakistan 2) Sri Lanka 3) Australia 4) New Zealand ...... Pakistan goes directly to the Semi-finals Group B: 1) South Africa 2) India 3) England 4) West Indies ...... South Africa goes directly to the Semi-finals Now the knockout matches: (A2 v B3) Sri Lanka v England (Winner faces group B winner in the semi-final e.g., Sri Lanka v South Africa) (A3 v B2) Australia v India (Winner faces group A winner in the semi-final e.g., India v Pakistan). In this way group winners get full credit for their hard work. Any better ideas?

  • POSTED BY Mehjun on | April 4, 2011, 12:23 GMT

    10 teams or 12 teams, the best option is to have round robin where every team will play other teams and then have semifinal and final.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 12:20 GMT

    Lovely decision by the ICC. Every should have a dream to play in world cup,even if he is playing in division 4. Gud opportunity for Afghanistan to show they can play against any team.

  • POSTED BY toughthinktank on | April 4, 2011, 12:13 GMT

    12 teams...2 groups, but 4 should be selected from each group..so that the top 8 competitive teams play the super 8 stage..where those teams will play each other who have not played before...i.e. teams of opposite groups...leading to semis of top 4 teams with accumulated points from league & super 8s...and then the finals...so ther will be 49 matches in all....6 weeks of World Cup would do...

  • POSTED BY Adnan_80 on | April 4, 2011, 12:07 GMT

    It must be 12 teams with 6 in a pool to keep the interest of associates but "NO Quarterfinal" please. Let the 2 teams top the pool and play into semi finals. Otherwise it doesnt matter to come 1st or 4th in a pool, eventually world cup starts from semi final like for SouthAfrica.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 11:58 GMT

    Next world cup win so much difficult for India, so need hardworking maybe possible,

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 11:54 GMT

    We need to spread the cricket to more countries. We need 3-4 associate teams in the world cup to be given the opportunity to match up against the top teams. I also think it would help if the associate teams got the chance to play bi/tri-series with some of the big teams

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 11:49 GMT

    1992 WC format was the best according to me. 12 teams with round-robin method,each team plays with each other once..

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 11:44 GMT

    I feel that if 12 team world cup is the way to go,then 1999 world cup format should be followed.Quarter finals are not the best eliminator in cricket because frankly,there are only 8 strong contenders:it is ok in football where number of true contenders is more.AS we saw in 2011 world cup,South Africa strongly deserved a place in the top 4,they had even topped their group.But just one bad game against the kiwis proved fatal for them.A similar fate happened to them in 1996.Having super sixes after the league stage is the best option as one bad day doesnt hurt so cruelly.Super sixes also promise 9 marquee games as opposed to the quarters which provide only 4.The ICC must seriously think on this issue.This format is not too long either,just 42 matches,7 less than in 2011.

    However,if a 10 team world cup is organised,each team should play each other once and the top 4 should advance into the semis.

  • POSTED BY L.Pearce on | April 4, 2011, 11:37 GMT

    12 teams. 2 groups of 6, quarters-semis-final. 10 test playing nations, 2 associates (winner and runner-up of WC qualifier). exact format from WC2011, top 4 from each group progress to QF knockout (2 bottom teams from each group eliminated). it is that simple and the ICC should not make it any otherwise. just think of WC 2011 (how successful it was) minus 2 "uncompetetive sides", plus just the 2 most successful associates making for an equally successful WC but more competetive.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 11:36 GMT

    10 teams is good. No need of 12. The associate games are very boring and heavily one sided.

  • POSTED BY Farhan15904 on | April 4, 2011, 11:28 GMT

    I think the best option is to choose Two team from associates nation. So this team will surely be competitive than the a nation.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 11:25 GMT

    If this is the case it is fantastic news. Ireland were by no means easily beaten when they lose, running India, West Indies and Bangladesh close, the match against the West Indies was lost because of a poor umpiring decision and they should have beaten Bangladesh quite easily. Then of course they defeated England in that epic match and defeated fellow Associate the Netherlands. Both their victories came chasing 300+ scores. They even bowled well against South Africa, with only their extreme pace doing for the Irish. Outside we have Afghanistan; if the right decision is made to include 2 Associates/Aflliaites then I can see these two playing in 2015.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 11:17 GMT

    Go back to the old days when they had Super 8, but instead have Super 6. 12 Teams in the Cuo.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 11:03 GMT

    i definitely want to see ireland in the next world cup!!! they really deserve it!!!

  • POSTED BY indianzen on | April 4, 2011, 10:52 GMT

    it doesnt make any difference as long as the world cup is played in a great country like INDIA...

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 10:47 GMT

    12 is must. And go back to the format of 1999 and then top 6 will play each other.If India and Pakistan are not scared.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 10:42 GMT

    1992 format was the best. top 10 teams should be there as matches wont be one sided and the charm of the tournament will remain so.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 10:37 GMT

    i think round robin model is best each team plays one other before entering semis

  • POSTED BY JosephRoshanthaKingstonFernando on | April 4, 2011, 10:34 GMT

    We need to give the best associate teams a chance!

    Sri Lanka is where it is today, because of the opportunities we got in the 1975 and 1979 World Cups!

    Ireland played excellent cricket in this year's WC! Unfortunately, they were not in the Q-Finals! If they had been there, they would have been better than the West Indies!

  • POSTED BY Timmuh on | April 4, 2011, 10:33 GMT

    That would be much better than a ten team world cup. There needs to be a chance for the best Associates to prove themselves, and the stage of the world cup is ideal for it. They also need the opportunity to advance themselves outside world cups, with games against first class tams, national "A" sides and full internationals - along with playung each other. If they don't get to play better opposition on a regular basis, they will never get to Test status - which should be the aim of the Associates and of the ICC.

  • POSTED BY ZAKHTARZAI on | April 4, 2011, 10:07 GMT

    I think ICC should give chance to associate teams to play such big events, as for as the associates are concerned they played some very good cricket in 2001 world Cup. A part from world cup ICC needs to arrange and organize tours for assocaite members among associates and with affelaite teams, this will help improve cricket game and will encourage small teams to work hard and rise them selves. Afghanistan is a very young and talented team segnificantly roused in short time, they won several trophies and has the ability to play big events, therefore, we request ICC to give apportunity such teams in order to shine thier talents.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 9:46 GMT

    After seeing some of performances of the minnows (Giant Killers?), in the last few WCs, I beleive it si good to include more teams in the fray.

    More associate nations will be more matches, more fun, more upsets. ICC should plan for regular nations to play more matches against the associates in the interim and choose from them. 14-16 is ideal I think......

  • POSTED BY ssenthil on | April 4, 2011, 9:32 GMT

    I was writing the Same for long. 12 Teams makes sense. Hope I will see 12 teams in the Next World cup.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 9:31 GMT

    Round-robin league is the best........quarter-finals means lottery as everything depends on who faces whom...round robin format is the most comprehensive ...leaving no room for any complacency ...throughout the tourney....

  • POSTED BY fwd079 on | April 4, 2011, 9:28 GMT

    Associates can only help make Cricket popular and India showed the Associates can be good competitive teams. So if India can successfully host a world cup with Associate Nations playing some really nice and entertaining cricket, I fail to see what is the problem with ICC?

  • POSTED BY gidza on | April 4, 2011, 9:22 GMT

    HONESTLY SPEAKING MINORITY TEAMS SHOULD BE GIVEN A CHANCE I BELIEVE LEARNING COMES WITH EXPERIENCE. There is no way minority team can learn whilst playing on their own. imagine a game between Canada and Kenya its on no real value to both side as they play more or less the same low game

  • POSTED BY DEDKIK on | April 4, 2011, 9:19 GMT

    12 teams and Super Six may well be the best option which gives opportunities to the minnows as well as a fairer competition in the later stages. This was tried in 1999, but perhaps this fell out of favour because England and the previous winner Sri Lanka departed early in that tournament.

  • POSTED BY Ind_cric_lover on | April 4, 2011, 9:18 GMT

    I think ICC can try the following format. Have 14 teams like in this world cup. The top 8 teams in ICC rankings play each other once and similarly the bottom 6 teams play against each other once. After this the top 6 sides in 1st grp will automatically qualify for quarters while each of the bottom 2 in 1st grp will play against both the top 2 of the other group. The top 2 out of these 4 will become the other Q Finalists. Note that the points the teams scored against each other in round robin would be carried forward in round of 'bottomFours'

  • POSTED BY Taz786 on | April 4, 2011, 9:10 GMT

    The format used in the 1999 and 2003 World Cup was the best one. Top 3 from each group go through to the Super 6's and point's carried over in the games against the teams they played against in the Round Robin stage. From there the top 4 then progress to the Semi's and Final etc.

  • POSTED BY pj3000 on | April 4, 2011, 9:09 GMT

    I'd be happy to see 10 teams in the 2015 WC - if there were two years' worth of WC qualifiers among 20 teams (both Full & Associate members). A qualifying format would help spread the appeal of the game internationally eg) India, Aus etc showing up in Kenya and Ireland etc to play qualifiers + it would help lift the standard of the Associates. At the moment, the first time Associates play Full Members is when they rock up to a WC. Qualifying rounds would also ensure the top 10 nations in the world over the two years prior would be on show for the WC finals tournament. If, for example, Ireland make it to the top-10 tournament, you'll know they'll give it a fair shake as they'd have to beat Full Members to make the finals. Two years of qualifiers would also give more context and relevance to the 50-over game generally. The only 50-over cricket we get excited about now is the WC: qualifiers would help raise the stakes of ODI games more regularly. Most ODI series nowadays are pointless.

  • POSTED BY mdg60 on | April 4, 2011, 9:09 GMT

    I believe its very important that Associate countries are still apart of the ODI World Cup and that 12 teams should be involved instead of 10. Cricket needs to grow like Football has all around the world, the Football world cup has 32 teams in the tournament and is a prestigious event because of the number of countries involved. Cricket needs to involve Associate countries therefore to reach a mass appeal worldwide, + i know ppl have been complaining about 'minnow bashing' going on, but if the ICC adopts an approach where Associates are allowed to play the 'A' side of Test Nations more regularly till 2015 then we can expect the standard of cricket to dramatically improve. 12 teams will provide the perfect solution as the length of the tournament will be slightly shorter then this years, altho i had no problem with it at all, and the Test Nations wont be shunting out the ODI game to other countries, and will allow it to evolve and give the ODI format the proper recognition it deserves.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 8:49 GMT

    THe best format was the 1992 world cup format & the ideal one to check teams true skills, as they they have to compete against all test playing nations. 10 teams will be ideal. 1992 world cup teams plus zimbabwe & Ireland. ive swtiched of my tv many times in this years world cup when there was a match between a minnow & high ranking team. Only irealand played well & deserve to be better than the bangladesh.

  • POSTED BY cricket2011 on | April 4, 2011, 8:38 GMT

    I think IRELAND and AFGHANISTAN will play next world cup.

    What about NEDERLAND, CANADA, KENYA, BERMUDA, UAE and NAMIBIA.

    they are also participated in previous world cup .

  • POSTED BY ganeshraam on | April 4, 2011, 8:29 GMT

    No messing with the format... It was very clear to every one... 2 Pools... 14 teams... 4 Quarters... 2 Semis.... 1 Final... This was/is the best format to be played for cricket... If they want to reduce the number of days the matches are played, then kindly make way to 2 matches per day... which would reduce the no. of days played as well as spectator boredom!!! If the officials who are officiating the matches are less, then its time ICC recruits more Umpires, referees and officials But for god sake... please dont change this format... would love to see teams like Ireland, Netherlands, Afghanistan, Canada, Kenya, UAE and others!!!

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 8:12 GMT

    Appart from Ten Test Nations IRELAND & NETHERLANDS SHOULD BE INCLUDED. Netherlands is a very capable country only right advertisement & encouragement of Cricket is missing in their country. They are brilliant in most sports like Hockey & football. ICC must just popularise cricket in holland.

  • POSTED BY LALITHKURUWITA on | April 4, 2011, 8:06 GMT

    It should be at least 12 teams as some of the associates played very well.

  • POSTED BY TPockets on | April 4, 2011, 8:02 GMT

    12 team ICC WC best combination between 8 top teams and 4 associate members in world cricket. Another great balance between round robin and knock outs is playing in two sections of 6 teams (Round 1), and then a super six (round 2) playing against qualifiers from other halve, ensuring all the top teams play each other before semi-finals (and not quarter finals as in now). So every game counts from beginning because you carry over your round 1 points to super six stage. Round 1 = 30 games in 18 days; Super 6 = 9 games in 9 days; 2 semifinals and 1 final in 7 days = TOTAL of 42 games over 34 days!!! Impotrant games like SA vs AUS will then take place unlike this World Cup and teams like England who play badly in round 1 will not a second chance in knock outs, a much better balannced system then on the table.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 7:59 GMT

    they won't do this, but i wonder if it shld be called the 10 nations cup or something. the world cup can then be between uncapped/domestic teams from those top ten nations, and associate/affiliate nations. then it would be a 'world' cup... though it probably wouldn't get the same interest... so probably wouldn't work

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 7:54 GMT

    good if they choose 12 teams ireland were good at this world cup and 2015 if they take 12 teams afganistan be almost the 2nd top team maybe even the top team these two will compete if given the opportunity 2 pools of 6 same format with quarters semis finals sightly shorter be good decision gives associates something to play 4 if theirs world cup spots up for grabs

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 7:50 GMT

    Two pools of six is worse than the current situation. 10 Teams in a round robin is the only way to ensure the most consistant sides progress to the finals. Also, it allows more big clashes, and will give all games context. Allowing the associates to have their arses handed to them on the world stage every four years is not the way to go. They need more four day cricket against quality domestic sides from test playing nations.

  • POSTED BY itismenithin on | April 4, 2011, 7:42 GMT

    I think the best format would be as given below. 10 teams divded into 2 groups of 5 each. Top 3 teams from each group would qualify into super 6. Super six would be round robin league and top 4 would enter the semis. Total number of matches played could easily fit in 1 month schedule. Also it would restrict the knock out phase to only semi and final. ICC could select the top 8 teams as per ranking and next 2 places could be decided in a qualifying tournament including top 4 Associate nations which could be held a year before the world cup giving good preparation time for the qualified teams.

  • POSTED BY andrew.henshaw on | April 4, 2011, 7:41 GMT

    12 teams is a good compromise. Lets hope its Ireland and Afghanistan. I'd like to see the group topping teams go straight to the semi final and play the winner of 2nd vs 3rd.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 7:36 GMT

    The ICC should aim for bringing in more associate nations for the future of cricket...12 team cup sounds good enough...else we will eventually gravitate towards a stale tournament where the rest of the world will not be able to connect.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 7:35 GMT

    Hopefully the ICC have finally lifted their collective heads out of the sand and seen that a 12 team tournament would be the best option for 2015. The 10 test nations together with Ireland and probably Aghanistan would be very competitive.

  • POSTED BY remnant on | April 4, 2011, 7:26 GMT

    1992 format is the best as it allows the top 4 to be decided until the very last and keeps the tournament open and interesting along the way. It can also allow a team to come from behind and regroup, and that's not a bad thing. Truly tests teams.

  • POSTED BY saifkl on | April 4, 2011, 7:26 GMT

    Time for ICC to think out of the box. Why cannot they have the following teams 1. Europe (players from all countries except England) 2. Americas (USA/Canada/Other Carribean nations that are not in West Indies) 3. Africa (Players from all African nations with the exception of SA) 4. Asia (Afghanistan/UAE/HK/Singapore and any other country)

    Each team will decent , each will at least have a fighting chance to go quite deep, games will be more interesting. Over time as each country becomes stronger they can play on their own. Give each team Test Status and good funding....

    Even the 20/20 will be fantastic to watch...

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 7:25 GMT

    To spread the wings of Cricket worldwide...... More Associated teams should be involved in the WC..... Also ICC should take active part in the development of Cricket in countries like Ireland, Scotland, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan etc.

  • POSTED BY nusratv on | April 4, 2011, 7:22 GMT

    Here is a format which should satisfy both the minnows and the main teams. A total of 12 teams. The top 7 ODI ICC ranked teams qualify automatically.The remaining 2 Test teams and Zimbabwe compete with the Associate teams in a qualifying tournament for the remaining 5 places. Two groups of 6 each play a round robin and then a super six round with teams carrying forward points in the round robin leauge against other qualifying super six. Then the semifinals and final.This will be a total of 57 matches (30+24+2+1). The lower ranked Test/ODI teams have to fight it out for qualification giving the minnows a shot at 5 places.The round robin will give every team plenty of chances to remain in the tournament. The super six we have seen previously is an intense round with each match very important. No quarter finals will mean one less knockout match. This format I think has the right number of matches, plenty of oppurtunity for minnows, a super six round and only 2 knockout matches.

  • POSTED BY sikhan on | April 4, 2011, 7:17 GMT

    It is great if we can ensure more participants in tournament like Worldcup. In My opinion 2015 can be like 3 groups of 4 team (Total 12 teams). From each group 3 team will be qualified for second phase. Thus in second stage there will be 9 teams and will play round robin league ( teams from the same group will not play as they already played in the group matches). When 3 teams will be promoted in from 1st to 2nd round they will go with the points incurred among the 3 teams in group lebel. This will ensure more team's participation and also maintain quality. In summary, it will be like 9 best teams playing as round robin league where the number of participants is 12. Shahnoor

  • POSTED BY thefountain on | April 4, 2011, 7:13 GMT

    Best format was 1992. Go back to that.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 7:07 GMT

    the 2011 WC got the rightful champions to win in the final but the road to the final should follow a different format.the semi finals and finals should be the best of 3 games.the quarter final should perhaps work on a round robin basis and to keep the tournament shorter, there should be less teams from the onset in the WC. the associate teams must prove to the icc during the four year buildup between world cups that they are worthy competitors. they can play the bigger teams in this interum period to qualify.

  • POSTED BY smudgeon on | April 4, 2011, 7:06 GMT

    It would be fantastic to see Ireland in the next WC, no doubt they are a cut above the rest of the associates. Making the WC gives the associates something to aspire to, and don't we get so much out of seeing the enthusiasm and competitive spirit they bring? Hopefully the decision falls in favour of a 12 team comp, I look forward to seeing Ireland or the Netherlands beat England at Bellerive in 2015 :)

  • POSTED BY P.Srikanth on | April 4, 2011, 6:52 GMT

    12 teams without Kenya and Canada could be great. These 12 teams may be divided into 4 groups (A, B, C, D) and top two teams from each group qualify for Quarter Finals. From there A1vB2, A2v B1, C1vD2, C2vD1 and winner of these matches head to semis and then finals.

  • POSTED BY Saikat_Chakraborty on | April 4, 2011, 6:50 GMT

    i think so! 12,should be 12! even 14 is not so bad idea but never 10... if ten then 50over crickes's death only a matter of time...

    10 team? hi icc,is it globalization of cricket? ? ?

  • POSTED BY kazam_razaq on | April 4, 2011, 6:44 GMT

    the best format for the world cup was in 1992 and then when we have super6 quarter final is a rubbish thing.South Africa was the best team both in 1996 and in 2011 in pool stages and they were out of the tournament for just 1 bad day.so there should be a format like 1992 or super 6 stage.nobody is interested to see in one off performance so i would like to see organizers to be firm on their stance as there will be no upset likely to cause in AUSTRALIA-NEW ZEALAND conditions by either Bangladesh or Zimbabwe

  • POSTED BY Caveman. on | April 4, 2011, 6:43 GMT

    12 teams, 2 groups, 15 games/group, i.e. 30 league games, 4 quarter finals, 2 semi-finals and a final = 37 games. Or, replace the 4 quarter finals by the 9 super six games for a total of 42 games. If indeed it boils sown to 10 team, then there should be a proper qualification process involving the top four associates and 2-3 bottom ranked test playing teams. Zim, by the way, should be counted as an associate since they are not playing tests at the moment.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 6:38 GMT

    12 teams would be much better idea, may i suggest 3 groups of 4, with the top 2 in each going through to the next stage, then the 3rd placed teams in each group playing each other once to make up the final 2 places for quarter finals (that way if certain cash inducing nations lose the wrong game they get another chance unless they finish bottom of the group!)

  • POSTED BY mayhem.rules on | April 4, 2011, 6:31 GMT

    I think some of the associate teams deserve more exposure on the big stage. Ireland, Netherland and Bangladesh played some very good cricket over the past few weeks in the ICC World Cup 2011. They should play against the established teams over the next 4 years so that they can be well prepared for the next world cup in Aus-NZ 2015.

  • POSTED BY sifter132 on | April 4, 2011, 6:29 GMT

    The 1999 WC - that's the one to follow - 2 groups of 6. I'd prefer they used the super 6 format though. I don't like QFs because teams like SA deserve to get to the semis.

  • POSTED BY Gilys_Heroes on | April 4, 2011, 6:28 GMT

    Thank God! this format of 2 groups was exciting throughout the pool stage (atleast in group B with Ban, Eng, WI, Ire all fighting for 2 spots) and also exciting in the knockout quaterfinals, unlike super sixes of previous years. Fair enough knock out the two weakest associates and improve overall competitiveness, but you need 12 teams to have associates who are truly what makes the World Cup special (Ireland beating England anyone :). Having ireland n only the best associate of Netherlands, Canada, Kenya, Scotland, Afghanistan should ensure reasonable competitiveness, especially if the world cup qualifiers are held CLOSER 2 THE ACTUAL TOURNAMENT! <--- U listening ICC???

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 6:27 GMT

    It will be great decision if it is implemented.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 6:23 GMT

    Don't reduce the number of matches by allowing only 10 teams to play...

  • POSTED BY jashan83 on | April 4, 2011, 6:23 GMT

    This is really great news. A 10 team WC was simply pathetic. The best would have been a 14, 15 or 16 WC, but a 12 nation WC is "Something is better than nothing"

  • POSTED BY daSaj on | April 4, 2011, 6:21 GMT

    It would be extremely silly for the ICC to kick all of the Associates out of the World Cup in 2015 especially Ireland who have been consistently challenging most of the Full Member teams

  • POSTED BY mjrvasu on | April 4, 2011, 6:17 GMT

    All Associate Members of ICC should have a chance to play the World Cup. A preliminary round-robin to reduce the number to 8; a second round-robin to determine semi-finalists. This way all teams will be able to contest against each other at least once, and everybody has an opportunity to make it to finals.

  • POSTED BY AKHILESH_ANALYST on | April 4, 2011, 6:13 GMT

    Do anything but do not continue the format of 2011 WC. As it remains no meaning of Group stage. If 10 teams go for 1992 WC format if 12 then go for 1999 WC format.

  • POSTED BY Meety on | April 4, 2011, 6:12 GMT

    I'd prefer to have 16 teams in 4 pools of 4, but this would be a good compromise. Maybe the top 8 sides get automatic entry - then the next 8 sides battle for 4 places in an event just prior to the W/Cup, (in Oz).

  • POSTED BY PakHamza on | April 4, 2011, 6:10 GMT

    Why don't they put 20+ teams in T20 WC format... much fairer for them and 50 over cricket will be left for the big boys

  • POSTED BY Chris_Howard on | April 4, 2011, 6:03 GMT

    No matter what model they choose, it has to ensure that the top 6 or 8 teams all play each other at least once. It's ridiculous that SA and Aus were eliminated without ever playing each other. If t's going to be a World Cup, the best in the world have to play each other.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 6:02 GMT

    Its Very Good Decision which can be welcomed by all... Can be finalised as 12 teams!!! There will be healthy competition to qualify with Quality associate teams like Irish,Dutch,Canada & Afghanistan.. I wud like to see Afghans in the 12, who missed out by whiskers in 2011...

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 6:00 GMT

    In the 2011 CWC, Bangladesh was considered an Associate nation, but that might not be the case in 2015. Four years is a pretty long time. Lets not forget 1996 WC, before which SL was a part of the minnows and they shocked the entire world. So before deciding the format and groups, ICC should seriously consider all teams.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 5:57 GMT

    The best way to improve the quality of cricket amongst Associate teams is by making test playing teams visit 2 associate teams every year for a series of 3 One days and 1 2020 match .. which would mean they would get ample exposure within the next 4 years by playing every possible team... and in between they can be invited to play tri series tournaments like the late 1990's and early 2000's era

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 5:57 GMT

    The best way to improve the quality of cricket amongst Associate teams is by making test playing teams visit 2 associate teams every year for a series of 3 One days and 1 2020 match .. which would mean they would get ample exposure within the next 4 years by playing every possible team... and in between they can be invited to play tri series tournaments like the late 1990's and early 2000's era

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 6:00 GMT

    In the 2011 CWC, Bangladesh was considered an Associate nation, but that might not be the case in 2015. Four years is a pretty long time. Lets not forget 1996 WC, before which SL was a part of the minnows and they shocked the entire world. So before deciding the format and groups, ICC should seriously consider all teams.

  • POSTED BY on | April 4, 2011, 6:02 GMT

    Its Very Good Decision which can be welcomed by all... Can be finalised as 12 teams!!! There will be healthy competition to qualify with Quality associate teams like Irish,Dutch,Canada & Afghanistan.. I wud like to see Afghans in the 12, who missed out by whiskers in 2011...

  • POSTED BY Chris_Howard on | April 4, 2011, 6:03 GMT

    No matter what model they choose, it has to ensure that the top 6 or 8 teams all play each other at least once. It's ridiculous that SA and Aus were eliminated without ever playing each other. If t's going to be a World Cup, the best in the world have to play each other.

  • POSTED BY PakHamza on | April 4, 2011, 6:10 GMT

    Why don't they put 20+ teams in T20 WC format... much fairer for them and 50 over cricket will be left for the big boys

  • POSTED BY Meety on | April 4, 2011, 6:12 GMT

    I'd prefer to have 16 teams in 4 pools of 4, but this would be a good compromise. Maybe the top 8 sides get automatic entry - then the next 8 sides battle for 4 places in an event just prior to the W/Cup, (in Oz).

  • POSTED BY AKHILESH_ANALYST on | April 4, 2011, 6:13 GMT

    Do anything but do not continue the format of 2011 WC. As it remains no meaning of Group stage. If 10 teams go for 1992 WC format if 12 then go for 1999 WC format.

  • POSTED BY mjrvasu on | April 4, 2011, 6:17 GMT

    All Associate Members of ICC should have a chance to play the World Cup. A preliminary round-robin to reduce the number to 8; a second round-robin to determine semi-finalists. This way all teams will be able to contest against each other at least once, and everybody has an opportunity to make it to finals.

  • POSTED BY daSaj on | April 4, 2011, 6:21 GMT

    It would be extremely silly for the ICC to kick all of the Associates out of the World Cup in 2015 especially Ireland who have been consistently challenging most of the Full Member teams

  • POSTED BY jashan83 on | April 4, 2011, 6:23 GMT

    This is really great news. A 10 team WC was simply pathetic. The best would have been a 14, 15 or 16 WC, but a 12 nation WC is "Something is better than nothing"