Would larger squads and more frequent games, making a shorter World Cup, be better for the game of cricket than a hugely drawn out round robin, but then have all the finals over in a week?
Andrew: Unfortunately, James, while I agree with you it's not the size and frequency of the squads and games that are the problems but rather not having too many games on TV that would split the audience. There's been an average of a couple of games a day but for some reason they needed a rest day and play only one game a day.
Mark: The short answer to your question is they have to harden up. You can't tell me players can't play two games every three days. I mean come on. I could bat non-stop for two days and then want to go again the next day. The problem is we want to see every game and so that means teams have to wait while we see a game a day. To broadcast every game of a 14-team tournament means it takes six months to compete.
Matt Glover: Do you think the country (read "the country's media/you guys") would still be happy with a semifinal exit, considering that was our original hope?
Mark: Don't throw me in with the media. I hate the media and I never said a quarter-final exit is okay. It's the final or bust baby, nothing else. We don't need to win it but a semifinal exit is routine for us now and not good enough. It's time to go one further and make the big dance. I'll accept a close semi exit but it had better be something extraordinary or I will say this team is no better than the ones that fell at the second last hurdle before.
Andrew: They've promised so much I know that a semifinal loss will give us plenty to talk about for weeks on end in the media but would be a failure for this team. They are favourites for the final but other teams are closing in on them, form wise.
Regan Muirhead: Will this Cricket World Cup ever end?
Mark: When will this World Cup end? It will end when the parade down Queen St winds up and I hand out the Halberg to the Black Caps. So that should be in January next year.
Andrew: Never. Jeff Crowe is still in Jamaica turning the lights off from 2007.
Lance Naera: If Aussie wins it all do we say "ohh we'll get them next time" or do we hold the team accountable as choke artists?
Mark: If Aussie wins it again we wash our hands of the World Cup altogether and never speak of it again. We channel all our attention towards the IPL and celebrate that as the pinnacle of the game.
Andrew: Because it's entirely possible that could happen it means that the psyche of an Australian cricketer should be held up as the epitome of winning. Therefore ODIs are dead as a format and England look like geniuses for going home early.
Michael John: Do you think New Zealand are disadvantaged by playing all games in New Zealand until the final? Ground size, pitch etc
Mark: What a question. Are we disadvantaged by playing all our games in New Zealand before a possible final in Australia on a slow wicket in a big ground. Brilliant question. You should be a journalist with a question like that.
Andrew: The only thing we are disadvantaged over by having the final in Australia is that we're never allowed to play Australia at their place because we are minnows in their eyes. The MCG will be unbelievable to be at when the Black Caps and India walk out in the final.
Ant Karl Niterl: If you had a World Cup cricket team full of number 11 batsmen, who would be the 11th batsman?
Mark: What a stupid question. Who do you think would bat 11 in a World Cup team of number 11 batsmen. Honestly, with questions like that you should be a journalist.
Andrew: Who's batting 1 through 10? I'd say Mark because he used to be a bowler once.
Robert Hanlon: How come the two best spin bowlers at the Cricket World Cup can't turn the ball to save themselves?
Mark: I'm going to get technical so you have to concentrate. Change of pace to upset timing and taking leverage always from batsman to reduce power is more important than spin deception. Spin sometimes just provides room and leverage to swing. I would have murdered Murali.
Andrew: If Daniel Vettori doesn't turn the ball yet his economy rate is below 5 in a bat-happy tournament then turning the ball is overrated.
Paul Alex Tetini Tohovaka: Who do you two want to see in the World Cup finals? I reckon NZ and India.
Mark: Personally I would go for New Zealand v Australia. How awesome would that be? However, it is probably important that India win the World Cup or the BCCI might cancel cricket.
Andrew: I reckon that too, Paul. Just think about it. India were there for months getting obliterated and laughed at by Aussie cricket fans and then they make the final and maybe go back to back with titles when it counts? Wonderful commitment to trolling, India! Bravo!
Mike McCarthy: Why hasn't Williamson been given the chance to bowl?
Mark: Why has Williamson not bowled? Let me answer that with a question. Would you go to the doctor for a rectal examination if there was nothing wrong with you?
Andrew: Let me answer that, Mark. Yes, I would because men your age need to see the doctor regularly. As for Williamson not bowling, we just don't need him unless Boult gets a breeze in his face and we have to get him and Southee to swap ends again as Dan isn't playing.
Ben Reyngoud: Who's had the unluckiest WC run: Scotland for being unable to pick up a win despite going so close, Ireland for playing so well only to be potentially squeezed out by a resurgent Pakistan who came out of nowhere to beat SA, or England for failing to live up to expectations?
Mark: The unluckiest team at this World Cup? Yeah Scotland. They blew the game against Afghanistan and then had enough to win against Bangladesh. Three cups and no wins. Hah losers. The unluckiest team ever were the South Africans in 1992. They had it in the bag against England in the semifinal before being absolutely robbed by a prehistoric rain delay system.
Reuben Molnar: Would the ICC allow Mark Richardson to enter the field at halftime to don the lycra once again?