Tony Becca

IN THE years, months, weeks and days leading up to Cricket World Cup 2007, the West Indies organisers promised not only a World Cup to remember, but also the best and most exciting World Cup of all time.

The reality, however, is tha it is said to have made some money it is said that it made the most money of any World Cup, as a cricket tournament, as far as being fan-friendly, it was far from being the best.

It was also far from being much more exciting than any of the previous eight.

As far as the fans were concerned, probably because of the influence of the ICC and the restrictions which dampened the spirit of the Caribbean people, and regardless of how much money was made, the World Cup simply was not successful.

In fact, based on the pricing of the tickets; the many restrictions regarding music, drinks, etc.; the dissatisfaction of the fans and the empty seats, but for a few brilliant performances, based on the many one-sided matches and the bizarre ending of the final, it was, and is still being described by many, locals and foreigners alike, as the worst World Cup ever.

Changing the format

The 2007 World Cup was so disappointing that the world of cricket had been talking about making changes to the format before the contest, or whatever it was called was over, that the ICC has been talking about changes ever since the excitement of the inaugural World Twenty20 championships recently. The ICC is now meeting in Bangladesh to discuss the format of the next tournament scheduled for 2011 in Asia.

The general feeling is that the tournament, which ran for 47 days and 51 matches, was too long and turned off many spectators. The format which saw 16 teams in four groups with each team playing three matches and the top two from each group moving on made it easy, too easy, for a good team to get knocked out because of one bad day - and in the interest of the game and the tournament, that must change.

What is important is that almost all the ICC full members, including champions Australia, believe that the tournament was too long and that almost all of them, including Pakistan, who were knocked out in the first round, believe that the format was not good for the tournament for the simple reason that it was too easy for the weak to slay the strong by knocking them out of the tournament and destroying the tournament as a contest.

On the table before the ICC members are seven different proposals for a shorter and more exciting tournament with the Pakistan board, the BCCP, in favour of the format used during the South Africa World Cup in 2003.

That format called for 14 teams in two groups of seven with the top three from each group moving into the Super Six stage and the top four from the Super Six stage moving into the semi-finals from which the two winners went on to contest the final.

Although teams like England and Pakistan, the West Indies and South Africa dropped out after the first round, they were eliminated not after losing one match, but in the case of England and Pakistan, after losing three each in Group A, and in the case of the West Indies and South Africa, after losing two and trailing Kenya and New Zealand on run-rate in Group B.

Round-robin league

Among the other six proposals is one that calls for a single league - a round robin which will see the teams, probably 14 of them, playing each other once with the top four meeting in the semi-finals.

In the first, second, third and fourth World Cup tournaments in 1975, 1979, 1983 and 1987, there were eight teams in two groups with the top two from each group moving into the semi-finals.

In 1992, there were nine teams playing in one round-robin league with the top four moving into the semi-finals.

In 1996 and 1999, there were 12 teams in two groups of six each with the top four from each group moving into the quarter-finals, the four winners into the semi-finals, and the two winners into the final.

So far, the best of the tournaments appears to have been the 1992 version in Australia and New Zealand. That was the tournament in which nine teams were involved; which saw the teams playing each other; which saw the top four teams - New Zealand, who won seven and lost one, England, who won five and lost two with one no-result, South Africa, who won five and lost three, and Pakistan, who won four and lost three - moving into the semi-finals with Pakistan, after knocking off first-round leaders New Zealand in the semi-finals, going on to win the title by defeating England in the final.

With eight teams involved, maybe the 1992 format which saw all the teams playing each in the first round with the top four moving on is the best way to go.

With 14 or 16 teams, however, with time an important consideration and the protection of the good teams, up to a point, almost as important, maybe the best format so far was that of the 2003 tournament and may be that is the way to go.

In 2003, unlike the last one which saw Pakistan and India losing only one match in the first round and going home, three teams - Zimbabwe from Group A, Kenya and New Zealand from Group B - lost two matches each in the first round in and yet moved into the Super Six stage.

Kenya, who also lost two matches in the Super Sixes, Sri Lanka, who, after losing one in the first round, lost three in the Super Sixes, and India, who, also after losing one in the first round, lost one in the Super Sixes, contested the semi-finals, with India number two in the Super Sixes and victors over Kenya in the semis, going on to the final where they lost to Australia who boasted a perfect six from six in the first round and a perfect five from five in the Super Sixes.

What is the best format?

The question, however, is this: what is the best format for a world tournament?

Is it a format which protects, as much as possible, a top team from going home after the first round - after one defeat?

Is it a format in which a team can move into the second round despite losing two matches in the first round as Zimbabwe, Kenya and New Zealand did in 2003?

Or is it a format in which a team can contest the semi-finals despite losing three matches and winning only two in the second round as Sri Lanka did in 2003?

More importantly, is it a format in which a team can lose four matches in a tournament and yet still have a chance to win the title before losing for the fifth time (as Sri Lanka did in 2003, to Australia in the semi-finals)?

With Australia and their perfect record up against India and their 5-1 record contesting the final, the 2003 format really seems the best.

With a little bad luck for either of them, however, if Kenya had defeated India in one semi-final and Sri Lanka had defeated Australia in the other, India would have been out after losing only two matches - one in the first round and one in the second, Australia would have been out after losing only one, and the World Cup title would have been decided between four-time losers Kenya and four-time losers Sri Lanka.

That would not have been fair, that cannot be good for the sport and, therefore, that format should not even be considered. Without knowing what are the nine different formats under discussion, even though the tournament was a disappointment, an the absence of Pakistan and India contributed to the disappointment, the 2007 format was better than that of 2003.

There is nothing wrong with the format of a tournament in which the weak knock off the strong. In fact, it adds to the drama and to the excitement. There can be no doubt about it: two of the highlights of the last World Cup were Ireland's surprising victory over Pakistan and Bangladesh's ambush of India.

The 2007 tournament was too long - no question about that. Remembering that the schedule could have been tighter, that more matches could have been played each day and that more matches can be played each day, that, however, can be corrected.

Do not get carried away

What is important is that the ICC and its members do not get carried away with the inaugural World Twenty20 tournament and destroy what should be the perfect blend between the seriousness of Test cricket and the hit-or-miss roulette of Twenty20.

The Cricket World Cup 2007 was a disappointment. It had nothing to do with the format, however, and cricket is better served with Test matches, one-day 50-over matches and Twenty20 matches than with Test matches and two types of Twenty20 world tournaments.