Three questions: What is the ideal Cricket World Cup format?

Steven Smith is bowled by Daniel Vettori and caught by Luke Ron during New Zealand's Pool A test against Australia at Eden Park. Photo / Greg Bowker.

Herald cricket experts Dylan Cleaver, Andrew Alderson and David Leggat answer three key questions about the Cricket World Cup.

1) What is the ideal Cricket World Cup format?

Dylan Cleaver: Sixteen teams, two pools of eight; then the NRL playoff system. One plays eight, two plays, seven, three v six, four v five. The two lowest qualifying losers are punted, the two top qualifying winners get a pass to the semis. The remaining four teams playoff to decide which other two teams make the semis. It's simple, it's brilliant. Cricket grows, not shrinks, its showpiece tournament. India, unless they forget to show up, are pretty much guaranteed at least eight games, so that will keep broadcasters happy. Let's not muck around ICC... just do it. Oh, and two pool games nearly every day, so we can trim some time off it.

David Leggat: Sort the playing numbers first. If it stays at 14, the current system is fine but the time frame MUST be compressed. If it does come down to 10, as the ICC have so far said it will, then a repeat of 1992 where every team plays every other team is the only way to do it.

Andrew Alderson: The ICC desire to earn revenue from extra games must be compromised against the public demand for a faster-moving tournament. I'll take 12 teams (eight automatic and four qualifiers decided at a curtain-raiser to whet the appetite). Break them into two pools of six. Even numbers are important so no-one has a lay-day and each team plays every four days or less. Fitness and squad depth should be rewarded. Ideally the top two from each pool would qualify for semi-finals and a final, but the ICC will need further games, so build in more quality cricket at a 'Super Six' stage. The lesser-ranked teams have impressed so four shouldn't be sacrificed for 2019. If the Football World Cup is completed within a month, cricket's showpiece should too. The 1999 tournament (12 teams, Super Six, 38 days) could be a sound starting point.

2) Pakistan, West Indies or Ireland are in line to face the Black Caps in the quarter-finals. Which side poses the biggest threat and why?

Dylan Cleaver: Pakistan, because they're so mercurial and, if Mohammad Irfan is fit, a bowling attack that could surprise. The West Indies and Ireland have weak bowling attacks that New Zealand should feast upon.

David Leggat: A blend of the West Indies batting and Pakistan bowling would be interesting, but let's plump for the Windies. They have batting talent and while their bowling can be hittable, importantly they are superior athletes in the field. Pakistan's fielding is awful.

Andrew Alderson: The West Indies. The likes of Chris Gayle, Jerome Taylor, Andre Russell et al are mercurial enough, despite internal bickering with the board, to pull off a win. Pakistan have found fleeting confidence but New Zealand have succeeded against them recently; Ireland's capability should be neutralised on current form.

3) Past the halfway point how does this World Cup rate with previous editions?

Dylan Cleaver: It's the best by at least three furlongs.

David Leggat: The most exhilarating. Being in our back yard, with a team playing really well, might factor in. But there have been some dreadfully ho-hum tournaments. 2007 in the Caribbean was probably the pits.

Andrew Alderson: This World Cup has exceeded expectations thanks largely to the sustained competitiveness of teams 9-14. There's more early rhythm than the three previous versions but that statement might be premature; we're now in a fortnight's lull before the first quarter-final on March 18. Are there enough contests to captivate in the meantime?