Pakistan most fluke team (and discussion about tournament structure fairness)

[Sir Alex]

Originally Posted by Daryl Harper

England are by far "the most fluke team" as they lost to W.I. and basically Ireland, two of the poorer sides in it.

Not Pakistan.

They didn't lose to Ireland. Also WI loss is no shame considering how screwed they were by DL. Not many teams manage it when asked to defend 60 in 6 overs after putting up a 190 target.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Daryl Harper

England are by far "the most fluke team" as they lost to W.I. and basically Ireland, two of the poorer sides in it.

Not Pakistan.

England might have stumbled into the Super 8s a little fortuitously, since then we've thumped every side we've played, so no, you're wrong.

I'll give your attempt at trolling 2/10.

[Shifter]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

England might have stumbled into the Super 8s a little fortuitously, since then we've thumped every side we've played, so no, you're wrong.

I'll give your attempt at trolling 2/10.

I'd say they would of been unlucky not to make it into the super 8's. They ended up on the wrong side of D/L and even though they posted a poor score vs Ireland I would back them to defend it 9/10 times. Far as I'm concerned England went through the tournament undefeated.

[BoyBrumby]

It's that time of the working day when the mind wanders and the thought occured to me that, even after beating them in the final, England's number of wins in the tournament (5) was less than Australia's (6). By using Sir Alex's "results carry forward from previous round" method surely England as champions looks a grave injustice?

[Shri]

Yeah but Oz doesn't have Swanneh and are hence mere mortals by default.

[Sir Alex]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

It's that time of the working day when the mind wanders and the thought occured to me that, even after beating them in the final, England's number of wins in the tournament (5) was less than Australia's (6). By using Sir Alex's "results carry forward from previous round" method surely England as champions looks a grave injustice?

My grouse was till knockout rounds. After that it's anyone's game.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Sir Alex

My grouse was till knockout rounds. After that it's anyone's game.

Why draw an arbitrary distinction? If you think results from previous rounds should be carried forward at all I can't see any logical reason the principle should be different.

[Sir Alex]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Why draw an arbitrary distinction? If you think results from previous rounds should be carried forward at all I can't see any logical reason the principle should be different.

I had already posted my view on this.

Originally Posted by Sir Alex

Put the rules above spirit of the tournament right?

The entire point of having this prelim games is to find 4 best teams of the lot. From there onwards it is a hit or miss, which is understandable because the assumption is that there is little to choose otherwise between these 4, and hence the knockouts.

Now, the purpose of the tournament is to find the best team in that. For that you've three main stages. Be among the top 4. Win the semi. And Win the final.

There is no ambiguity about the last two stages. It's winner takes all basically.

So now the issue or the 'whine' is regarding the first stage. How to determine the top 4 from the 12?

Common sense says it should be the 4 teams that have won the maximum number of games. This is entirely consistent with the latter two stages, and the spirit of tournament itself, which says the one who wins more should take precedence over the one that win less.

I don't have a problem with Pakistan going into the knockouts with a less than 50 per cent record. But when that is at the cost of two teams who have registered more wins than them at the same stage, is basically mocking at the entire purpose, principle and spirit of the tournament. To attribute it to 'well rules are same for everyone' is basically taking refuge behind rules which are completely in discordance with the basic logic of this tournament or any tournament.

Please for the thousandth time, Let me make it clear my whine has got nothing to with Pakistan the team. My grouse is with purely with ICC who has let this loophole go unnoticed. Ultimately it should be the number of wins that should decide the last 4 and ICC has screwed upon that basic premise by blindly going behind some models in other sports, without realising this could end in farcical situations like this. 12 teams is a small spread. There is absolutely no reason for introducing two mini round robin rounds and deny carry forward of points from the first sound to the second.

Summarising,

1. Australia - 4 wins out of 4, win rate 100 - Semi guaranteed.
2. England - 4 out of 5. 80 per cent. - Semifinalists.
3. West Indies - 3/4 75 per cent - undecided
4. New zealand - 3/5 60 per cent - Out!!
5. India - 2/4 50 per cent, undecided
6. Sri Lanka - 2/4 50 per cent - undecided
7. Pakistan - 2/5 40 per cent - Semi finalist!!
8. South Africa - 2/5 40 Per cent. Out!

In other words at the end of super 8 there would be 5 teams who'd have won more watches than Pakistan with another 2 who'd have won the same. So basically having finished with least number of wins among super eight, you have them making the last 4. What's worse is that Sri Lanka could also make it that way.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Why draw an arbitrary distinction? If you think results from previous rounds should be carried forward at all I can't see any logical reason the principle should be different.

This argument has been presented about 85 times during this thread.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

This argument has been presented about 85 times during this thread.

So it would seem, yeah.

It's just such a Dickinsonesque argument (in that SA presupposes the correctness of an assumption and then uses it to support a contention, in this case that prelim games exist "to find 4 best teams of the lot") I couldn't resist a playful jab.

[Sir Alex]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

So it would seem, yeah.

It's just such a Dickinsonesque argument (in that SA presupposes the correctness of an assumption and then uses it to support a contention, in this case that prelim games exist "to find 4 best teams of the lot") I couldn't resist a playful jab.

Well of course you're free to provide your views as to the purpose of the league games then. Or the need for having it as it is now, ie, league-SF-finals.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Sir Alex

Well of course you're free to provide your views as to the purpose of the league games then. Or the need for having it as it is now, ie, league-SF-finals.

Think Prince nailed it, myself:

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

What I can't understand is the inability to recognise that the goal for each team of each stage of the tournament is merely to reach the next one.

The group stages are necessary in the first round(s) to ramp up the total number of games for television and to give every team (weather permitting) a guaranteed number of outings.

I don't see any compelling arguments for carrying forward results from one round to the next; as I said before it raises the spectre of attempts at collusion like we saw in 1999. If a team isn't good enough to beat their opponents in subsequent rounds it seems unfair to me their results in previous chapters could separate them.