First, the number one ranked team India after the league level over was knocked out of the ICC World Cup 2019 tournament by number-four ranked team New Zealand in the first semi-final, then number two ranked team of the leader-board Australia was knocked out of the tournament by number-three ranked team England in the second semi-final. Now the final was played between number-three and number-four ranked teams of the leader-board after the group level, and England won the World Cup. Point is if league matches are also important, should the top two be knocked out for just a day’s bad performance? Are there other ways? Is the IPL way of playoff games the real answer to avoid such upsets?
When asked, Indian Captain Virat Kohli supported IPL like playoff format for World Cup to avoid just one bad performance (or say in Virat Kohli’s language of “45 minutes of bad performance”), which closed the doors for a team which played very well consistently throughout the tournament. Well, many people support the idea although some opposed the idea citing that such knock-outs give thrill and a chance to a relatively weaker team to knock out a stronger team in the highest stage of competitive games displaying the quality to handle the pressure. That’s why I analyzed why to follow the IPL format of the semi-final after decoding all the World Cups since 1975. Let’s go through the format and the upsets in various World Cups briefly.
In 1975 World Cup, England topped Group A, followed by New Zealand, whereas West Indies topped Group B followed by Australia. Final was played between West Indies and Australia, and West Indies won the World Cup. Here the table topper of a group won the championship. But the question remained whether number one and number two of Group B are superior to the number one and number two of Group-A because the table toppers of Group A were eliminated in the semi-finals.
In 1979 World Cup, England topped Group A followed by Pakistan and West Indies topped Group B by New Zealand. The final was played by the table topper of both groups: West Indies and England, as 2nd rank teams of both groups were eliminated in the semi-final. West Indies won the World Cup deservingly. Thus, the format appears to be alright.
In 1983 World Cup, England again topped Group A, followed by Pakistan—whereas West Indies topped Group B followed by India. Like 1975, both 1st and 2nd ranked team of Group-A were eliminated in the semi-final. The final match was played between West Indies and India (1st and 2nd ranked team of Group B), but surprisingly India won the World Cup. Many said that the final was an off-day for West Indies. Some even jokingly say that in 1983 World Cup final, India played bad but West Indies played worse. Some even said that India’s World Cup win in 1983 was a fluke. However, in 1985 mini World Cup, India again became champion not losing a single game in leagues or knock-outs and was adjudged as “team of the century” by Wisden. However, the article is about the World Cup format; thus let’s come back to the main subject.
In 1987 World Cup, India topped Group A, followed by Australia, and Pakistan topped Group B, followed by England. But in semi-finals both group toppers India and Pakistan were eliminated, and the final was played between 2nd rank teams of both the groups (Australia and England), and finally, Australia lifted the trophy. This would appear to be weird as two best teams couldn’t reach the finals.
That perhaps forced ICC to change the format during the 1992 World Cup, where nine teams played the round-robin league. After the league stages were over, New Zealand topped the leader board followed by England, South Africa and Pakistan. The semi-final was played by 1st ranked team vs. 4th ranked team, and 2nd ranked team vs. 3rd ranked team. Upsets happened here as well. 4th ranked team Pakistan eliminated top-ranked team New Zealand, whereas 2nd ranked team England was saved from defeat by 3rd ranked team South Africa because of rain. South Africa needed 22 runs in 13 balls when the rain came in, and two overs were lost due to which the target was revised as 22 runs in one ball.
The final match happened between 4th ranked team Pakistan and 2nd ranked team England. The result was surprising because Pakistan won the World Cup, a team that entered into top four with a lot of difficulties but defeated the number one team in semi-final and number two team in final. Thus, this format doesn’t end up with the deserved champion because of the bad luck of better teams in the knock out matches. A team which struggled in league level became champion because it just won two crucial matches in succession. 2019 World Cup was no different.
In the 1996 World Cup, the format was changed again with the introduction of two groups (each having six teams) and introducing the quarterfinals. In Group A, Sri Lanka topped followed by Australia, India and West Indies—whereas South Africa topped Group B followed by Pakistan, New Zealand and England. After quarterfinals and semi-finals, Sri Lanka and Australia qualified for final where Sri Lanka lifted the trophy. In this World Cup, Sri Lanka was the deserving champion and deservingly won the World Cup.
In 1999 World Cup, the format was changed a bit, and the concept of “Super-Six” was introduced with teams carrying league points to super-six leagues. South Africa topped Group A, followed by India and Zimbabwe. Whereas, Pakistan topped Group B followed by Australia and New Zealand. It all came down to the “Points carried Forward system” (PCF). For example, in Group A, South Africa topped, but its PCF was just 2 because South Africa won against India but lost to Zimbabwe in the league stage.
Similarly, India ranked 2 in Group-A, but its PCF was zero as it lost to both South Africa and Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe ranked third whereas its PCF was 4 points before the beginning of the super-six competition. Interestingly, England, too, had 4 points like Zimbabwe but couldn’t progress to super-six because Zimbabwe’s net run rate was higher. Had England entered into the super-six, the PCF of India and South Africa would have been different.
In Group B, Pakistan topped, followed by Australia and New Zealand. Pakistan’s PCF was 4 whereas Australia’s was zero and New Zealand’s 2. Thus, in super-six, Pakistan finally topped followed by Australia, South Africa and New Zealand by virtue of PCF. In the semi-final, Pakistan defeated New Zealand confidently, but Australia won against South Africa in the semi-final just because South Africa had a bit of bad luck on that day. In the final, Australia defeated Pakistan and won the World Cup. Frankly speaking two deserving teams for the finals were Pakistan and South Africa but Australia became the champion.
In 2003 World Cup, although the format was the same as 1999, there were 14 participating teams. Australia, India and Zimbabwe entered into the super-six from Pool A whereas Sri Lanka, Kenya and New Zealand entered into super-six from Pool-B. Australia topped the super-six followed by India, Kenya and Sri Lanka. The final was played between number one ranked Australia and number two ranked India, and deservingly, Australia won the World Cup. Although Australia was the deserving champion of this World Cup, there were a lot of upsets because of which teams like South Africa, England, West Indies, Pakistan etc. couldn’t qualify to super-six, and teams like New Zealand couldn’t qualify to the semis.
In the 2007 World Cup, the format was changed again. Sixteen teams were divided into four groups, and then a league of “Super 8” was introduced—taking top two teams of each group—without PCF (Point Carried Forward). In the group level, each team played just three matches. In this WC there were a lot of upsets as India, Pakistan couldn’t qualify for “Super 8” because of bad performance in just one match. Pakistan and India were fourth- and fifth-ranked ODI teams in world ranking in 2007. Australia, Sri Lanka, New Zealand and South Africa qualified for semis, but then world number one team South Africa had to face world number two Australia in the semi-final, and Australia won to enter into the final. On the other hand, world number six team Sri Lanka too entered the final. Australia won the tournament quite deservingly because it was world number two before the start of the World Cup.
In 2011 World Cup, the format again was changed to the format adopted in 1996 World Cup. In 1996, there were 12 teams, but in 2011, there were 14 teams. Pakistan topped Group A, followed by Sri Lanka, Australia and New Zealand, whereas South Africa topped Group-B, followed by India, England and West Indies. Unfortunately, both top-ranked teams of Group A and Group B (Pakistan and South Africa) were eliminated in knock-out stages. South Africa was eliminated in the quarterfinal by New Zealand (the fourth-ranked team of Group A), whereas Pakistan was eliminated by India (the 2nd ranked team of Group B) in the semi-final. The final was played by 2nd ranked teams of Group A and Group B (India and Sri Lanka), and India lifted the trophy defeating Sri Lanka.
In the 2015 World Cup, the format of 2011 World Cup was followed. New Zealand topped Group A followed by Australia, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, whereas India topped Group B, followed by South Africa, Pakistan and West Indies. Australia and New Zeeland entered into the final after the knock-out stages (quarterfinal and semi-final), and Australia was beaten by New Zealand to win the World Cup. The only upset was that the final was played between 1st ranked and 2nd ranked teams of Group A and the second-ranked team of Group A, Australia won the World Cup.
That’s why perhaps the 1992 World Cup format was re-used in 2019 World Cup. In this World Cup, India topped, followed by Australia, England and New Zealand. But in the semis, the number one ranked team India, and number two ranked team Australia were eliminated just like it happened during 1992.
Point must be noted that the upsets were happening in knock-out stages or where the teams had very few matches to qualify like in 2007. Cricket is a special game where the nature of field/pitch changes with time. In games like football, hockey or even tennis, rivals get the same condition throughout. In cricket, if you bat first then there would be a swing and if you bat second, the wicket might be slowed down. That’s why some times toss, or change of condition due to rain or dew changes the equation and favours one particular team on a particular day.
Thus, the round-robin league is apt to find the top four teams. Out of the top four, the top two teams should get a lifeline, and the 3rd and the fourth team should win at least two matches to enter the final. In this process, hard work during league matches can be honoured. That’s why the IPL play-off system is the best. The first semi-final must be played between the top two teams, the winner enters the final, and the loser will play a second semi-final against the winner of the eliminator. The second-ranked and third-ranked team will play the eliminator. The loser will be eliminated, and the winner will face the loser of the 1st semi-final to qualify for the final.
Some say that knock-out matches have a particular interest because they prove whose nerves are right or who can handle the pressure in games where one bad performance or decision may eliminate the team. My point is simple—if knock-out games are interesting, then why are there league matches? Let the entire format be purely knock-out based like in Tennis matches. In fact, there were complete knock-out tournaments in the name of ICC knock-out Tournament 1998, and ICC knock out Tournament 2000, conducted purely on a knock-out basis. However, the knock out version was changed to a group league level since 2002 changing the name of the tournament to ICC championship trophy. The reason was simple—fans didn’t appreciate upsets in simple knock-out format.
Now if there are league matches, I think the IPL style playoff is the best. I would support for a three-match final between finalists. Some may think it will linger the tournament. But the point is that cricket is a longer duration game and none will question the long-duration of a tournament for a better result. Just watch the IPL! Does anyone complain against the longest duration of any club tournament?