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?
Cricket Web's current Premier League Tipping Champion
- As featured in The Independent.
"I don't think that they'll come close to us to be honest."
- Steve Smith before the Ashes
Yeah but Oz doesn't have Swanneh and are hence mere mortals by default.
Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
Rejecting 'selection deontology' since Mar '15
'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)