The overtaking question

Questions over the impact of Formula 1's controversial new regulations are sure to creep into every critical discussion in coming weeks, after this weekend's Turkish Grand Prix set new all-time records for most overtaking moves and most pit stops in a race. For 2011, all Formula 1 cars now run on Pirelli tyres, the Italian company having replaced Bridgestone at the end of the 2010 season as sole tyre supplier. In pre-season testing it quickly became clear that Pirelli's rubber was a major step below Bridgestone's in terms of durability. Pirelli made haste to point out that this degradation was deliberate, as it would result in greater performance differential between drivers at different times, as well as more varied pit strategies.

The return of Pirelli has coincided with two other measures intended to promote overtaking and help create an exciting new era of Formula One. The return of Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems (KERS) technology first used in 2009, allowing drivers to gain a boost of 80 horsepower for seven seconds per lap, is a major development but has slipped under the radar thanks to the divisive new Drag Reduction System (DRS). The DRS allows a driver following another car to open a slot in his rear-wing to decrease aerodynamic drag, resulting in a speed increase of up to 15 km/h which drastically aids the overtaking process. The system was devised as a counter to the notorious turbulence effect felt when following another car. Turbulence has become prevalent over the last ten to fifteen years as car performance has increasingly shifted away from the mechanical to the aerodynamic. This loss of downforce when within a few seconds of a leading car had reigned supreme, largely cancelling out any attempted regulations to promote overtaking until this year. Usage of the DRS is extremely limited however, as a driver must be within one second of the car in front at a single defined point on the circuit and is allowed to deploy the system only in a single zone, generally the circuit's longest straight.

The chancy new regulations have for the most part, been a huge success. The first four races of the 2011 season have been a marked departure from the recent formulaic past. Pirelli degradation has resulted in more pit-stops, during which positions regularly change, and KERS and DRS have through their limited mandate, given just enough of a small helping hand to overtake. At least that was the unanimous feeling after the first race or two. But with the Chinese Grand Prix, and now even more noticeably in Istanbul this week, the beginnings of a major rumbling from a number of circles have started to emerge.

In the opening race in Australia, a solid 30 overtaking moves were successfully made. This jumped to a wonderful 70 for the second round in Malaysia, hardly a surprise given its two generous straights. In both cases nearly half these passes had direct influence from DRS technology. But the upturn kept going unabated. In China there were 90 moves, in Turkey a staggering and record-breaking 112. One should never scoff at too much overtaking, but the telling statistic is that of those 112 moves, 71 were as a result of DRS deployment. Anyone watching the race could see the ease with which cars were able to open their rear wing and drive past the car in front as if they were standing still. These moves were complete well before the braking zone, whereas the FIA mandate for the DRS technology was merely to assist cars in getting side by side in the braking zone, at which point driver skill would come to the fore.

As unthinkable an irony as it may be, the Turkish Grand Prix has led to a number of criticisms from prominent members of the paddock, including drivers, that there is too much overtaking action in Formula One now, and that it is too artificial. These concerns don't just refer to the on-track action, but also to the spiraling number of pit-stops the high wear rate of the Pirelli tyres have necessitated. The Turkish Grand Prix not only equalled a 28 year old overtake record, but broke an 18 year old record for most number of pit stops in a single race, 79.

The notion that Formula One could have so suddenly shifted from lacking action to having too much is for the most part a childish one, and the majority of fans and people involved in the sport have given the new regulations a major thumbs up. The critics seem to have two major beefs. In Turkey as soon as any car came close to another through the kink that leads onto the long DRS-zone straight, it was a foregone conclusion that they would ease past and slot back into the racing line in front of their rival before the corner. The one driver who was less keen to give up his position so easily was Michael Schumacher, and he duly caused at least two amateurish collisions into the corner. If these positional changes weren't enough, four-stop strategies have become the norm now and many, led by Ferrari Team Principal Stefano Domenicali, claim that the constant position changing due to pitstops have made races too fast-moving and confusing for casual fans to follow. I wonder however if Domenicali shortchanges the intellectual capabilities of his sport's following. Furthermore, the plethora of passes in Turkey was an anomaly, the DRS system is still a work-in-progress and will clearly be deployed at a less liberal juncture next year.

Istanbul of its own accord is a particularly friendly track to the cause of overtaking. Like at the previous race in Shanghai, the DRS zone was at a traditional overtaking hot-spot, at the end of two long periods of non-stop full throttle which are barely matched on the entire calendar. One cannot judge the effectiveness of DRS after tracks like Shanghai and Istanbul. Next week's Round 5 of the championship is the Spanish Grand Prix at the challenging but notoriously dull Circuit de Catalunya. The Barcelona circuit is the testing home away from home for most Formula One teams, and as such most drivers and setup engineers can almost tune into the circuit with their eyes closed. Therefore the Spanish Grand Prix will always reveal the true pecking order of Formula One, as there is little in the way of driver struggle or setup error to explain a performance away. But more to the point, the error-free perfection with which most drivers can navigate the circuit, and the greater distance between cars, means that overtaking has traditionally been virtually non-existent throughout the circuit's 20 year history. This is  a tradition which may finally be mercifully changed thanks to the new regulations.


But with the new regulations being a work-in-progress, the FIA must make sure they are able to learn the lessons gleaned from the opening races for the future, because there are definite concerns which need to be addressed. There were early criticisms of the DRS when it was first tabled as an idea during 2010, which amidst the hoopla of Istanbul have largely been lost. Drivers were initially opposed to the system because they feared the extreme closing speeds would cause accidents like Mark Webber's in Valencia last year, where Webber rode up over the back of the much slower Lotus of Heikki Kovalainen and was launched into spectacular death-defying somersault through the sky. This is one reason why the inconsistency of allowing DRS usage at any time in Practice and Qualifying, but only at a single strictly defined zone in the race, needs to be addressed. In Melbourne, looking to get his wing flap open early, Adrian Sutil had a bemusing spin at the normally unchallenging exit of the final turn, almost planting his Force India into the pit wall. Drivers are pushing their risk taking further and further, employing the system through fast corners not just on the straight. The aerodynamically supreme Red Bull can already be seen doing this regularly. It is only a matter of time before an overambitious application of the system mid-corner, or a mechanical failure which leaves the flap open into a braking zone, will cause a serious accident.

The regularity of pit-stops could also prove to be dangerous in time, as Domenicali pointed out after the Turkish Grand Prix. Tracks with tighter pit lanes, such as many of the upcoming European circuits, will struggle to handle the overcrowding and may lead to potential accidents in pit lane, which are naturally a safety hazard to nearby mechanics. Those mechanics also face increasing pressure as the regularity of pit activity increases, and their errors can just be as dangerous a few laps later when the driver is going full speed as they are to life and limb inside the garage.

The development direction of the Pirelli tyres could prove to be the ultimate solution to both these problems. The combination of danger and artificiality means that although it has proven a useful bonus, the Drag Reduction System is not the most sustainable future development. KERS on the other hand is at the forefront of modern motoring technology, with major benefits for road car technology. If it can be tweaked to possibly include a bonus especially for the car behind as DRS provides, KERS combined with the Pirelli tyres should do the job of providing exciting on-track action adequately. At tracks like Spain and Monaco, difference in tyre performance is likely to make create far more overtaking than any DRS boost anyway. The problem with Pirelli's 'deliberate degradation' is the specific way the profile of their tyres wear down, and the performance differential. Pirelli's harder compounds have proven far slower than the soft compounds compared to Bridgestone's equivalent tyres last year. Were they closer in performance there would be far more differentiation in strategy choice. The main problem however is that the Pirelli's are said to colloquially 'fall off a cliff', losing all performance almost immediately upon the beginning of degradation. Trying to handle such extreme wear is beyond the capabilities of even the most smooth drivers like Jenson Button. Consequently every team is forced onto a uniform three or four-stop strategy.

Pirelli need to change their tyre profiles so that they still begin to wear quickly and lose peak performance, but do not drop so harshly off the proverbial cliff. This would create far greater strategic variation (should we go 1,2,3 or 4-stops?), and rather than resigning to come into the pits at the first sign of wear, good tyre management would be rewarded. The hustle and bustle of the pit lane would also somewhat decrease as the race would likely have less total pit stops. But most importantly, the polar extremes in strategy of so many different cars would create more extreme performance gaps, and consequently more overtaking. Every Grand Prix would be even more strategically unpredictable and exciting than they already are.

The Vettel enigma: Why we could have another Schumacher

Two races into the 2011 Formula One Season it is reigning world champion Sebastian Vettel who sits emphatically atop the Driver's Championship with a perfect 50 points. The signs for the rest of the year are ominous as Vettel, despite some impressive and surprising race pace from McLaren, won both the Australian and Malaysian Grands Prix with relative ease. A variety of frustrations have beset his interminably unfortunate team-mate Mark Webber, who sits in a tie for 3rd with just 22 points. With the closeness at time in race pace, and Webber's struggles, one could be forgiven for thinking we have yet another exciting competitive year on our hands. There's every indication that may not be the case however. At regular vital intervals Red Bull have shown that they have easily the year's premier car, as can only be expected from master designer Adrian Newey who Martin Brundle aptly called "the Leonardo Da Vinci of Formula One."

Rumour has it that at this weekend's Chinese Grand Prix, every team in the paddock except the three new boys, and Red Bull, will run with their Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems technology. This technology acts as a glorified push to pass system essentially, with a complex system of energy recovery under braking being able to transfer back into the power train for 80bhp extra power per lap, for seven seconds. The FIA introduced the scheme for the primary purpose of overtaking of course, but it is said to be worth on some circuits more than half a second per lap. Red Bull have had problems with faulty KERS since the introduction of their car and have swept to both pole positions and both victories almost entirely without the system's bonus power. The disadvantage is twofold though, as the KERS motor's 35kg weight means 35kg less ballast to move around the car, significantly limiting the potential for optimum weight distribution. If Red Bull do decide to remove the system from their car entirely in China, they will shed the one element that seems to have most affected the stability of the car. The big question at this race, especially if without KERS, is whether the RB7 will be better balanced and able to extend its already sizable gap to the rest of the field. If this happens I fear we may not see Vettel threatened on his way to an emphatic title defense.

The possibly mistaken view that 2011 is going to be thrillingly close comes from the simple fact that 2010 was also deceiving in its tightness. 2010 was really an astonishing season, with five men leading the world championship and the unprecedented scenario of four drivers still in the running at the season-ending Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. Vettel won the title despite having not led the points standings once during the entire season before the final race. Throughout the whole season Vettel utterly dominated qualifying and always loomed as a man likely to threaten for the title, even when he was as low as fifth in the standings.

In truth Sebastian could call himself unlucky that he wasn't already a World Champion. For all of his astonishingly short career he had impressed, from scoring a point on debut at the age of 19, to shining spectacularly as a late season replacement for Toro Rosso in 2007. In 2008, after a tough start adjusting to a difficult car, Vettel was supreme, scoring a remarkable pole to flag win for the small team in driving rain at Monza. Then he came to Red Bull in 2009 and largely dominated his new team-mate Mark Webber in the process. Webber was already entrenched at the team and is not just experienced but fantastically fast. Before Vettel no-one had come close to challenging Webber's domination over all his team-mates for qualifying pace. Vettel won third time out in China and went on to win three more races on his way to second in the championship, not too far behind Jenson Button. Although few would begrudge Button his title, the truth remains that all six of his wins came in the first seven races thanks in large part to the headstart his Brawn GP team had by virtue of a loophole in the regulations. By that time Newey's RB5 had established itself as the class of the field and Button did not win again all year.

Vettel came in 2010 frustrated from being so near yet so far in 2009. His nerves and inexperience often came to the forefront, in a series of often controversial errors. In reality, Vettel's own faltering resolve, and the fallible reliability of the RB6, conspired to almost lose a championship that should gone their way in a canter.

Vettel won the 2010 World Championship with 256 points on the back of five wins. Alonso was just four points behind (seven points seperate 1st and 2nd in every race to give an idea how close that is), on 252 with Webber on 242 and McLaren's Lewis Hamilton on 240. Vettel could very easily have run away with the title by over 100 points however, but was denied liberally by car failures and brain failures. The most inopportune mechanical gremlins afflicted Vettel while leading three grands prix, two of them surely guaranteed victories. Vettel's own youthful exuberance ruined his weekend at least another four times. Here's a short summary of only those major setbacks which spring to the forefront of the mind:

Bahrain - Vettel dominated all weekend and was easily on his way to a pole-to-flag victory before a spark plug failure on the engine hamstrung the car. The Ferraris of Alonso and Massa drove past as if Vettel was standing still and finished 1-2. Even with the initially fatal-looking problem, Vettel still somehow salvaged 4th.

Australia - Once again Vettel took a dominant pole position and pulled immediately away at the front before a break failure plunged him into the gravel and out of the race. With the wet conditions Vettel was far from guaranteed victory but surely lost major points again.

Spain - Another break failure denied Vettel 2nd place and once again it was the class of the man which still salvaged 3rd (with help from Lewis Hamilton who crashed out of 2nd) when it looked as if he was set for retirement.

Turkey - The famous collision, as Vettel threw away a guaranteed 18 points and possible 25 with an ill-advised move on team-mate Mark Webber to take the lead. The move handed victory to McLaren but while Webber recovered to 3rd, it was DNF for Vettel.

 Great Britain - After racing to his now customary pole position, Vettel got a poor start and then an over-aggressive squeeze on team-mate Webber to try and hold the lead left Vettel off the track and with a puncture that sent him to dead last. He recovered to finish 7th but with Red Bull's dominant pace it should have been at least 2nd.

Germany - Yet again Vettel fluffed the start from pole, losing out to both Ferrari's, and that's where he stayed all day.

Hungary - Another pole, another solid lead. Then an obscure safety-car rule cost Vettel of all things, as he failed to stay within 10 car lengths of the safety-car in front and was given a drive-through penalty that dropped him to 3rd.

Belgium - Like Australia, the race at Spa was wet and wild with no guarantees, but Vettel made extra sure he wouldn't score points with an amateurish crash into Jenson Button that broke his front wing and earned him a drive-through penalty. This was compounded by a puncture later in the race and Vettel finished 15th.

Korea - For the 3rd time, and most heartbreaking, Vettel's RB6 gave up the ghost while he led convincingly. This time there was just 10 laps to go and Vettel was well clear of Fernando Alonso when his engine gave way spectacularly, seemingly ending his championship chances.


Obviously mistakes can happen, even more assuredly will reliability strike at inopportune moments. But there is much to read from Vettel and Red Bull's near-self destruction in 2010. What must be remembered is that Vettel is just 23 years of age, comfortably the sport's youngest ever World Champion. Furthermore, his Red Bull team are also babies in the grand scheme of things, having entered F1 in 2005 and only become competitive in 2009 as Adrian Newey's influence took over. Neither team or driver could be expected to possess the kind of battle-hardened consistent acumen to get the job done as the old hands at Ferrari and McLaren might have.

The fact is that Vettel and Red Bull were unlucky not to be champions in 2009, and 2010 should have been a walk in the park. The reason it was not was because neither party had ever reached these heights before. Now the job is done, the ambition is achieved, and the pressure which seemed to utterly overwhelm anyone near Vettel, has been lifted. Since it debuted in testing this year, Newey's RB7 has looked as fast as can ever be expected, but also possessing of nearly flawless reliability. More importantly, Sebastian looks to have followed the same path. There is an aura of calm contentment around Vettel these days which belies his age, and clearly not by coincidence, he has looked ominously metronomic on track.

Sebastian Vettel is clearly one of a handful of truly special drivers in the world today, surely matched only by Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton. At his best it is arguable he is unmatched even by those peers. Adrian Newey IS unmatched at what he does, that bears no cause for argument. Vettel has shown signs in the two races so far in 2011, that he can match the uncanny speed he was born with, to the kind of inch-perfect precision that made the only other German World Champion Michael Schumacher so unbeatable at times. If Adrian Newey can give him the car to match for years to come, who's to say there won't be another German dynasty?

World Cup success defies public indifference

Anyone who follows Cricket or keeps a general eye on sports news would be aware that the sport is undergoing more than its fair share of crises. Match-fixing concerns and the advent of Twenty20 bringing into the question the very structural fabric of what Cricket should be, threaten to tear the sport apart. But the situation is arguably direr, and certainly less acknowledged, in Australia. Cricket historically has been Australia’s national pastime, with our feats and the heated biannual battles with old foes like England and The West Indies capturing the public’s imagination. After World Series Cricket in 1977-79, Australia’s annual One-Day International tri-series held an indelible place in our summer culture.
But in recent years Cricket seems to have dropped off the national radar to an extent. The oversaturation of meaningless international fixtures and Australia’s invariable dominance over the last decade has taken the interest away for many fans. For those left, Australia’s subsequent decline has led to disillusionment. It is difficult to measure such a decline in interest because ticket sales for showcase events like the Ashes and Twenty20 fixtures remain strong, and junior sign-ups continue to grow. But it is in the young adult demographic that Cricket seems to have lost its groove. There would of course be hundreds if not thousands of Cricket fans amongst my age group, but could have fooled me.

It is specifically the idea that Cricket must now be a closet passion that is disappointing. The well-educated tertiary intelligentsia is too cynical to give any time to what has become an overbearing monotonous schedule of Cricket clearly designed as a moneymaking venture. The same crowd are in turn too mature to latch onto the hit and giggle phenomenon that is Twenty20.

Cricket itself will find a way to survive, but television and spectator figures attest to the fact that the future may not include the 50-over form of the game. This would be a great disappointment as the tactical complexity and fluctuations of a true One-Day International cannot be replicated in Twenty20. The 2011 ICC Cricket World Cup is nearing its completion and there have been a multitude of magic moments which uncomfortable fans and former fans of the game need to stamp into their consciousness to try and rally the old passion for the bat and ball.

Cricket fans have a lot to thank England for at this tournament. All six of their group games were stunning and went down to the wire, and the sheer drama of their campaign (which somehow remains alive at time of writing) has given the World Cup the pizzazz it needed. On the one hand there are England’s two thrilling upset losses to Ireland on the back of Kevin O’Brien’s astonishing hundred, and Bangladesh thanks to an unlikely 9th wicket partnership of 58. In turn England defended a mediocre 171 to upset tournament front runners South Africa, played out an absurdly dramatic high scoring tie against India, and pulled off the great escape to somehow beat The West Indies and stay alive. It is not just England who has provided high drama at the World Cup though. Feats like Virender Sehwag’s blistering 175 in the tournament opener and Ross Taylor’s unfathomable destruction of Pakistan’s bowling attack come to mind.

Cricket in all its forms can remain hip and relevant in today’s culture and this World Cup has reminded us just why. For those who share my passion, embrace it and flaunt it.

Fairytale and tragedy guaranteed for opposing legends

After a tournament of unprecedented fabulousness, the 2011 Cricket World Cup concludes tonight in Mumbai between the dramatic but fallible India, and top-heavy but spectacular Sri Lanka. Although both nations will richly deserve their success if they are victorious tonight, millions of Cricket fans the world over will feel a tinge of sadness thanks to a fairytale final showdown for two of the game's all time greats. There is an almost cruel dramatic perfection to the script that this World Cup has come down to Sachin Tendulkar and Muttiah Muralitharan's teams.

Tonight's match will be Muralitharan's final international for Sri Lanka. The situation is not so black and white for Tendulkar and certainly he looks destined to dominate Test Cricket for more years yet, but surely it is too much to expect him down under in 2015 for a dizzying seventh World Cup campaign at age 41. Their showdown is so perfect and cruel not merely because both men are the greatest Cricketers their countries have ever produced (which both are almost without question), but because both have forever altered the very fabric of not just their Cricket teams, but their nations themselves.

India has always been a cricketing stronghold, but largely because of the nation's origins as a British colony. India were perpetual seller-dwellers in the grand scheme of Test Cricket, and uniformly uninterested in ODI cricket until the spectacular World Cup triumph of 1983. That began the modern age of Indian cricket, where India stands still for important cricketing occasions, and controls 80% of the sport's financial assets. Sachin Tendulkar was the hero Indian cricket needed and largely thanks to his genius, India are at the top of the game on and off the field, and look set to stay entrenched there for decades to come. Further evidence of Sachin's influence is easy to come by when one looks at the media and public attention which follow the little master 24/7, to levels far beyond even Western Paparazzo standards. One man on Cricinfo exclaimed emotionally that he will never watch Cricket again after Tendulkar retires.

As for Sri Lanka, they are still in grand terms a baby of a nation, and were a Cricketing minnow until granted Test status in the 1990s. Murali has played for all but three years of Sri Lanka's existence as a Test playing nation and surely no-one would dispute that he is Sri Lanka's greatest cricketer, even accounting for the likes of Ranatunga, De Silva, Jayasuriya, Jayawardene and Sangakkara. Like India, Cricket is the be-all and end-all for so many Sri Lankans, but as a small island without the wider influences and interests of India, the journalistic hyperbole that 'every single person' literally stops for Cricket, may actually be closer to the truth. The fact of that matter is that Murali is often referred to as the greatest Sri Lankan of all time period. His captain Kumar Sangakkara said exactly that after their semi-final win over New Zealand. Not even Bradman can quite scale those heights in Australia.

The tragedy of the situation of course is that one of these men must end their World Cup careers with a loss. Although my support stands with Sri Lanka (by virtue of having picked them as my favourites to win the World Cup months ago), the lesser tragedy would be an Indian win. Murali at least has won a World Cup in 1996, and were Sri Lanka to win, the greatest player of our generation, perhaps of many generations, would end his career without a World Cup. That would be a travesty. But then perhaps it would be a blessing in disguise, and motivate the great man to come out here in four years time? What a privilege to witness that would be.

As for the Cricket, it is an intriguing contest with neither team having set the world sufficiently alight to feel unbeatable. Beyond Zaheer Khan and the unlikely hero Yuvraj Singh, India's bowling has lacked any consistent penetration, but they have shown to be the team for pressure situations in the last two matches and have shored up the middle order jitters from early in the tournament. Sri Lanka in turn choked and spluttered their way over the line against New Zealand, and their middle order remains every bit as utterly unconvincing as it did two months ago. But I stand by Sri Lanka as my pick. The top four of Tharanga, Dilshan, Sangakkara and Jayawardene have been mighty in the tournament even beyond India's top order, and their bowlers are clearly superior in variety and wicket-taking nous. The key for Sri Lanka is to avoid exposing their middle order too early if batting first, or even worse, exposing them to a tight chase. If the game gets tight and tense, then expect India to find a way home.

Prediction Of The Day - Formula 1

Australian Grand Prix - Starting Grid Prediction

         1. S.Vettel                                                                          

Red Bull                                           2. M.Webber

                                                         Red Bull 

3. F.Alonso                                                                

    Ferrari                                           4. L.Hamilton

                                                           McLaren

 5. M.Schumacher                                                      

              Mercedes                                       6. N.Rosberg            

                                                         Mercedes

 7. J.Button                                                                  

          McLaren                                        8. V.Petrov           

                                                     Renault

         9. F.Massa                                                                          

       Ferrari                                          10. K.Kobayashi

                                                         Sauber

11. R.Barrichello                                                        

    Williams                                     12. N.Heidfeld

                                                        Renault

    13. S.Buemi                                                                     

    Toro Rosso                                  14. A.Sutil       

                                                       Force India

                15. J.Alguersuari                                                                        

Toro Rosso                                 16. S.Perez

                                                       Sauber

17. P.Maldonado                                                         

          Williams                                       18. P.Di Resta      

                                                             Force India 

        
         19. H.Kovalainen                                                                  

Lotus                                          20. J.Trulli

                                                       Lotus

21. T.Glock                                                                   

         Virgin                                           22. J.D'Ambrosio

                                                       Virgin

The HRT's of Karthikeyan and Liuzzi will fail to qualify.

The World Cup Solution

This week we enter the knockout stage of the Cricket World Cup, with a quarter-line up which was essentially a foregone conclusion at the outset of the tournament a month ago. However the infinite insanity of the ICC, creating a tournament format to ensure a maximum number of games for the financial lynch pins of the sport and avoid the kind of economic farce of 2007, must not detract from what has been a thoroughly entertaining month of Cricket. The nature of this most unique of sports fundamentally ensures that mismatches will always find a way to happen. The default way of things would seem to involve whining about the group stage being boring or predictable because of the lack of quality match ups, while in another Internet tab ranting spiritedly on how evil the ICC are to get rid of the Associate nations for forthcoming World Cups. The supposed faultiness of Cricket's showpiece tournament has become a self-fulfilling prophecy, with the incompetence of the ICC and the irritability of a demanding cricketing public dooming the World Cup to a perpetual lack of appreciation.

By every logical measure this 10th edition of the World Cup has been an unqualified success, particularly compared to the Caribbean abomination preceding. Ticket sales have been excellent, and prices mercifully brought back down to Earth unlike four years ago. As for the Cricket itself, we largely have England to thank for the excitement and tension of the group stage. Group A admittedly suffered from the prolonged and foregone format, but Group B was anyone's guess until the final days. If Bangladesh had the experience to deal with home expectation and avoid their spectacular collapses, if England had been unable to contain the West Indies' thrilling run chase, and had Asoka De Silva not committed the tournament's biggest umpiring howler just as Ireland looked set to overcome the West Indies, the results could have been very different. It is just a shame really that the ICC as ever had to be so unconscionably simple-minded as to come up with such a staid format. It's amazing to think how great could this World Cup could have been. As it stands, if the final seven games provide their fair share of drama we still might have the best ever edition of the modern dozen-plus team coloured clothing tournament yet.

Something must be done about the absurdity of having Quarter Finals in a tournament which, with respect to Bangladesh, has a clear eight team hierarchy. You only have to look at the thrashing World No.7 New Zealand doled out to the 10th full member Zimbabwe to understand what an inopportune juncture for dramatic tension a cutoff of eight is. The next tournament must be different, and lo and behold it is. You'd think the ICC might have seen reason. But alas this remains a notion of a cricket fan's wildest imaginings. Only the ICC could have the genius to devise an infinitely worse format for 2015's tournament in Australia and New Zealand. The format is not finalised yet, but what is assured is that only 10 teams will be admitted to the tournament. The decision to, in all probability, entirely exclude the nations where Cricket remains at its most relatable and innocent, and who most vitally need development and exposure, is tacit confirmation that the power brokers who run Cricket have their brains in their back pockets. As a 20 year old Australian, 2015 will be the first World Cup I'll have the pleasure of experiencing without a dummy in my mouth (notwithstanding the need I still have for this one judging by this article.) I can attest to the immense disappointment many Cricket fans must feel at this money-grubbing decision. But as previously stated, 2011's structure too will not do. So to what middle ground do we go?

The Solution

Twelve teams. Two groups of six. The Top two teams from each group advance to the Semi Finals. 33 games. Roughly 30 days.

For all the complexities and passions of the World Cup it's really quite simple. 14 teams is too many. 10 is not enough. 12 is right in the middle. I'll go into the main two reasons in detail, but the benefits of the system are self explanatory. There would be a third less games than the 49 in 2011's World Cup. The tournament would be concise but retain all its status and grandeur, it would be compact but still open to developing nations. 

The Associates

Aside from Ireland, and the odd fleeting patches of promise from the Dutch and the Canadians, the Associates have been disappointing at this World Cup and have been the primary contributor to the bad taste in many people's mouths. It is clear that I am of the popular view that 10 teams is patently unfair and the Associate members must be given an opportunity. But in the current state of play, 14 teams is too many for complex reasons beyond the obvious. Generally the opposing arguments relating to the minnows are that on the one hand, they need international exposure, but on the other hand what good is going around for a month getting constantly thrashed? Both these problems can be fixed by processes completely outside the boundaries of the quadrennial showcase of Cricket. Firstly more bilateral contests between Associate nations and Full member nations must be set up. But this is both unlikely to fully eventuate because of the self-interested Cricket boards, and not the full extent of the fix. Secondly, the in-house stakes need to be raised.

Four slots is too many, and there are too few Associates with a genuine Cricketing infrastructure. In the foreseeable future the 13th and 14th ranked teams in the world are not going to be of sufficient quality to warrant a World Cup berth. If only two slots were available, (one of which would surely go to Ireland), the onus would be on those nations (and the ICC to support them) to get to the level they need to get to qualify for a World Cup. The overall competitive level of the World Cricket League, involving the Associate nations, would clearly increase, and every World Cup would be guaranteed two respectable teams who had to achieve a certain high level just to qualify. In time all the front running Associates would develop and the World Cup could expand beyond 12 teams. But either way it moves forward instead of treading water. The overall quality has generally increased, but the fact remains that there is a huge gulf between the world's 8th and 9th ranked teams and the 13th and 14th, just as there was 20 years ago.

Why Quarter-Finals do not work

On the surface this would seem obvious, as it has become indelibly customary for cricket fans to frustratedly fret about how irrelevant the first month of the World Cup is before the inevitable eight teams line up in the knockout stage. But now the Quarter Finals are here everyone is sufficiently pumped up and satisfied that the remainder of the tournament will be both dramatic and fair. Neither is necessarily so. Because the quality differential between Cricket's 1st and 8th ranked teams is so great, Quarter Finals more often than not result in one (or both) of two undesirable situations. The first has been exemplified in a blazing pile of Caribbean ineptitude this week at the World Cup, where the lowest ranked of the eight teams left, The West Indies, served up nothing but a variety platter of different types of awful, and were mercilessly browbeaten by Pakistan, a team not known for being too clinical. 

The second scenario we have thankfully escaped to any notable level at this World Cup. Regardless of whether the tournament is 12,14 or 16 teams, making the Quarter Finals can be achieved exclusively by beating only the minnows in your group, even if thoroughly outclassed in every game against a Test playing nation. England's infamous 1996 World Cup team achieved this ignominious distinction, finishing 4th in their six team group with just two wins from five, over hapless debutants the United Arab Emirates and The Netherlands. The games against New Zealand, Pakistan and South Africa all ended in comprehensive defeats. By finishing fourth you would play the top team from the opposing group, who may have a peerless unbeaten record. There is every chance this game would skew to either unsatisfying extreme, either the undefeated team would utterly humiliate their below-par opponents, or because of the fantastic beauty of Cricket, an upset might happen. I am all for upsets and am not laying claim to knockout stages inherently being flawed because 'the best team might not win.' An English Football style League only model is out of date in the modern world of corporate sport, where it is the big money events like Grand Finals that bring home the bacon. But I feel that in a cricketing context it is too far towards the extremities of unfairness to have scenario like the 1996 World Cup once again. In 96 South Africa won all five group games but then lost to the West Indies who'd won just two from five (including an astonishing capitulation to lowly Kenya) on the back of a single heroic innings by Brian Lara.

The sport is not football. Cricket operates in a uniquely bizarre way, where different nations in its hierarchy are allowed or denied to play the actual primary form of the game. There are only ten test nations, basic mathematical logic tells you that eight is too big a sufficient number to weed down towards subsequent to a group stage. Teams like England in 1996, and this year's West Indians, prove that the Cricket World Cup with eight teams in the final knockout stage fails to convey what a final knockout stage of such a tournament should convey. That is the impression that we are now down to the true final few elites, who have already achieved so much and now must jump the last but biggest hurdles on the way to glory. But four teams is a different kettle of fish.

Why Semi Finals work

I am really quite astonished that, of all the varying and extensive dialogues I've participated in, and opinions I've read, no-one seems to to have thought of or publicly aired the idea of going straight to the Semis. It is surprising because it feels so fundamentally right and obvious. One reason for the oversight may be that in the late 20th and 21st century, sport as an entire entity has softened up. As an Australian I can readily point to some of the recent finals systems used in our football codes, such as Top 10 of 20, and ridiculously, Top 8 of 14. When did finals criterion, both in a single tournament like a World Cup, and in an annual league post-season, become so much easier to fulfil. NRL teams in this decade can win only 10 or 11 of 24 games, yet make the finals and conceivably be only four wins from premiership glory. It is no coincidence that by far the most exciting and successful Cricket World Cup I've ever experienced, was South Africa 2003. It had the harshest ratio of teams participating to teams advancing. There were 14 teams and just 6 would move on, the top 3 from each group, into a Super Six stage. South Africa, The West Indies, England and Pakistan all failed to advanced, and they all invariably were involved in tense life or death thrillers in the process. However the Super Six concept, albeit one I enjoyed, has also proven unpopular and untenable because of both its needless complexity, and it drawing the length of the tournament out a bit too much. So all that leaves is Super Four. The good old Semi-Final.

Cricket in its current state is perfect for a 10/12/14 to 4 straight Semi-Final scenario. Six teams fill the top echelon roughly, with New Zealand slightly behind and then the following group beginning at the West Indies. If you had to pick a single number as your cutoff point between stages at a World Cup, for the highest possible drama and unpredictability as to who would and wouldn't make the cut, it would have to be four. This also shortens the tournament overall. Twelve teams in two groups of six would play 30 games, and then there would be a mere three further games. Every group game between major nations would not be genuinely of value, instead of holding a largely artificially derived value where its all about 'where in the top four' a team might finish. Behind this facade, everyone knows that both teams are still in the tournament regardless, and this reduces the stakes tenfold. But if it were only the top two advancing, a team would know that one loss and they may be out, two losses and they probably will be.

Happily this World Cup has amplified the wisdom behind the concept in the way it has played out. If just the top two teams from both groups moved on to the next stage in this World Cup, then the last three showcase games involving Test nations in the group stage would all have been sudden death blockbusters. The 42nd and last Group game between India and the West Indies was 2nd vs 3rd. The winner would have made the Semi-Finals, the loser gone home. Before that, Group A climaxed with Australia vs Pakistan and New Zealand vs Sri Lanka. Ignoring unusual happenings, this is a straight shootout. The two winners came 1st and 2nd, the two losers came 3rd and 4th. This may seem harsh on Australia, to miss out from a single loss in their last game, but that's the way it goes. Australia and Sri Lanka had the unique circumstance of their game (which as it turned out was THE pivotal game to decide 2nd and 3rd in the group) being washed out and the points shared. You can't legislate against extenuating circumstance. But for Australia, elimination would have been fair punishment for their scratchy wins over Canada and Kenya. Therein lies the final bonus gem of the format. Every single game, even those monotonous mismatches, take on new importance and tension because net run rate becomes even more vitally important to a team's very survival. Take note ICC. It only needs a careful tweak and your World Cup will retain its former glory.

Famous (and not so famous) sporting birthdays: March 1-7

March 1, 1956 - Balwinder Singh Sandhu (Cricket)

BS Sandhu was a useful (if unspectacular) medium pace bowler for India over the course of an International career lasting barely two years. Sandhu played just eight tests, without any major success. He possessed no great arsenal of pace or variation, but could swing the ball mildly in both directions. He qualifies unequivocally as one of the not-so-famous birthdays this week to most, yet any Indian cricket fan over the age of 30 must surely remember his name for a single delivery. In the 1983 World Cup final India had been bowled out for a paltry 183 by the mighty West Indians, who had won both World Cups to date. Early on in what seemed like a regulation run-chase, legendary West Indies opener Gordon Greenidge shouldered arms to what looked like another innocuous delivery from Sandhu. But the ball nipped back off-the seam just enough to take out Greenidge's off-stump. To the surprise of no-one, Sandhu didn't take another wicket or have any great impact on the rest of the match, but that famous ball will live on in the annals of Indian Cricket. It sparked a collapse that saw the West Indies all out for 140 and crowned India world champions for the only time to date.

March 2, 1982 - Ben Roethlisberger (American Football)

Compared to other contact sports around the world (except perhaps Ice Hockey), the average age of professional American Footballers is notably high. It is a measure of the man's greatness that even isolated from the sport to the extent we are in Australia, sports fans have known Roethlisberger's name for so long and yet he has only just turned 28. The quarter-back for the Pittsburgh Steelers, Roethlisberger is one of those few names like 'Manning', 'Brady' and 'Favre' who casual Australians can turn to when trying to fake a credible knowledge of the States' most quintessentially American sport. Roethlisberger has also achieved more in the sport than any of his contemporaries could manage by such a young age, most notably becoming the all time youngest Super Bowl winning Quarter-back with the Steelers in February 2006.

March 2 1988 - Matthew Mitcham (Diving)

Australian Matthew Mitcham dived into the public consciousness with one number: 112.80. This was the Olympic record smashing single dive Mitcham pulled out, when needing a mammoth 107.30 to beat China's Xhuo Luxin to gold in the 10m Platform Diving event at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Mitcham is the latest in a long line of Australian divers who have given the sport a resurgence in the country over the past ten years. Mitcham participated without major fanfare in the Melbourne Commonwealth Games of 2006 at the not particularly young (for diving) age of 18, and had a similar lack of impact in the 3m Springboard event at Beijing. But an inspired set of dives off the 10m platform set off whisperings of one final Australian medal on the closing night of the games, but surely no-one including Mitcham thought it was going to be gold until that final magic dive.

March 4 1936 - Jim Clark (Motor Racing)

The story of Formula 1 driver Jim Clark is one of the great tragedies of motor racing. He was a freakish talent matched by few before or since, yet is often never remembered in quite the same breath as other all time greats like Fangio, Stewart, Lauda, Senna and Schumacher. Without a doubt his lack of due credit comes about because of the unreliability of the cars he drove, and his untimely death at the age of 32 denied Clark the chance to build an unprecedented legacy. Clark formed 50% of a legendary partnership with engineering legend Colin Chapman, whose pioneering Lotuses took Clark to the World Championship by huge margins in 1963 and 1965. A mere two titles does a great injustice to the man. Chapman's penchant for spectacular revolutionary designs inevitably meant that each year the Lotus was easily the fastest car, with easily the world's fastest driver, but had horrible reliability. If the cars had been able to make the finish line more often, Clark could easily have won every championship from 1962 to 1968.

Clark even took on and conquered the greatest American race the Indiannapolis 500. Clark was a close 2nd on debut in 1963, was denied victory by a characteristic mechanical gremlin in 1964, and then thoroughly dominated the all-American field to win in 1965, midway through his F1 title-winning year. In the modern professional era of motor racing, such a feat is even more astounding. More World Championships would surely have come after 1968 had he not been killed when a tyre de-laminated during a Formula 2 race at Hockenheim in 1968, sending him into the trees at high speed.

March 5 1963 - Eddo Brandes (Cricket)

Zimbabwe's Eddo Brandes is not a cricketer who should ever come across as particularly threatening, yet his name would make the blood of many an Englishman boil. He was one of a handful of hard working medium pace bowlers of the late 1980s and 1990s, as Zimbabwe struggled for recognition or success on the world stage. In an otherwise inauspicious part-time career, the chicken farmer dominated England's batting line-up on more than one occasion. Most notable was his 4 for 21 in the 1992 World Cup which inspired Zimbabwe to an amazing 9 run win, after they'd been bundled out for 134 batting first. In 1997 Brandes also managed a One-Day International hat-trick against England, dismissing three far from shabby batsmen, Nick Knight, John Crawley and Nasser Hussain. The cherry on top of course is his famous exchange with Glenn McGrath, where Brandes explained the source of his somewhat portly mass.

March 5 1975 - Luciano Burti (Motor Racing)

Few people other than dedicated Formula 1 enthusiasts would remember Brazilian Luciano Burti, other than his immediate family and friends. His primary claims to fame are two spectacular accidents at the end of his Formula 1 career. Although he achieved little international stardom, Burti was an impressive talent. He outperformed future F1  champion Jenson Button to be runner-up in the 1999 British Formula 3 championship. His performances impressed three-time world champion Jackie Stewart. In 2000, Stewart's team became Jaguar Racing and Burti was employed as the team's test and reserve driver, getting an unexpected debut when Eddie Irvine missed the Austrian Grand Prix with illness. In 2001 he became Irvine's permanent team-mate but fell out with the team after just four races and moved to fellow back-markers Prost. It was with Prost that he had the accidents which came to define his career. First he spectacularly vaulted the slow-starting Michael Schumacher at the start of the German Grand Prix, then two races later was lucky to survive a high speed accident at the Belgian Grand Prix. He never drove in F1 again.

March 6 1947 - Dick Fosbury (Athletics)

American Dick Fosbury became Olympic High Jump champion when he cleared an Olympic record 2.24 metres at the Mexico City games of 1968. But it was his revolutionary new jumping technique for which he is world famous. In the 1960s the prevailing method for High Jump was the straddle technique, a diving-like motion where a jumper would throw themselves over the bar facing forward and down, and then pull their legs individually over. The teenage Fosbury found this technique difficult and throughout his High School years slowly began to hone his own technique of running in at an angle and then leaping backwards, facing skyward as he arched his back and legs over the bar. His method came to be known, disparagingly, as the Fosbury flop. Fortuitously, the cushioning mats used today became standard issue around the time of Fosbury's rise. As he mastered the technique Fosbury swept all before him, and it is now the default technique for all High Jump.