Originally Posted by jot1
Wouldn't a more true reflection of the best team be, the team with the most wins goes through to the final. The team that won the second most matches goes through to the final. Only when there is no such winner in either case, should the finalists be chosen by runrate or whatever.
This was the basic pretence underlining the super eight in the Caribbean this spring, wasn't it? That hardly produced entertaining cricket, did it?
This was a format aimed at producing intensity and as many crunch games as possible - yes, we've had a handful of dead games, but it's an improvement on there being a handful of live ones.
Winning a KO tournament is about winning when it matters. Ultimately, if you win all of your games, then you're going to win the tournament and run-rate will come nowhere near it.