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

[Thirdman1]

So I guess if India quaifies they should also be classified a fluke team.

Lol We haven't won a trophy by fluke yet.
In 1983 WC also we defeated WI twice
In 1986 champions trophy we defeated everybody
In 2002 champions trophy we defeated everbody
In 2007 T20 WC we defeated everybody except NZ and beat you guys twice.

And what you did in 1992 WC and 2009 T20 WC was win few games and win the trophy

 

[AaronK]

Honestly this pakistani side doesn't deserve to be in Semi or final.. I much rather see South Africa for the sake of cricket..

 

[vcs]

So I guess if India quaifies they should also be classified a fluke team.

Ha ha, yes. Thank Australia for that.

Though it would take a bloody miracle for this Indian side to overcome Sri Lanka judging by their last two performances.

 

[Xuhaib]

Lol We haven't won a trophy by fluke yet.
In 1983 WC also we defeated WI twice
In 1986 champions trophy we defeated everybody
In 2002 champions trophy we defeated everbody
In 2007 T20 WC we defeated everybody except NZ and beat you guys twice.

And what you did in 1992 WC and 2009 T20 WC was win few games and win the trophy

Pakistan won 5 on the tro in 92 and 4 on the trot in 09, big tourneys are about peaking at the right time which we did not every one is Aus 03-07 or Brazil 1970

 

[Thirdman1]

Pakistan won 5 on the tro in 92 and 4 on the trot in 09, big tourneys are about peaking at the right time which we did not every one is Aus 03-07 or Brazil 1970

You were saved by rain from elimination against England in 1992 WC.

Lol 4 on the trot when 1 is against Irealand. I guess had there been Australia in your group instead of Ireland, your journey would have ended in Super-6 itself.

And Australia because Ireland did not deserve to be in super 6 instead of OZ.

 

[Jono]

Who cares? They won, and they played damn well... both in 92 and 2009.

 

[Top_Cat]

Jono clearly not up on the concept of fanboyism.

 

[Xuhaib]

You were saved by rain from elimination against England in 1992 WC.

Lol 4 on the trot when 1 is against Irealand. I guess had there been Australia in your group instead of Ireland, your journey would have ended in Super-6 itself.

And Australia because Ireland did not deserve to be in super 6 instead of OZ.

and how did Australia became deserving when they lost both matches at the group stage convincingly?

 

[Uppercut]

Please explain.

This is bordering on the farcical. Pakistan will enter semis if they beat SA, and England beat NZ, both of which looks probable. Run rates don't matter then as both SA and NZ's run rates are below that of Pak.
So we'll witness a situation where a team despite losing more than it won enter the semis. And to say one of the two Pak wins came against Ban.

And should we see India going out on run rates even after winning the next 2 matches, because Sri Lanka beat Aus, and Aus beat WI, all hell will break

No. The system is entirely fair. Pakistan would qualify on two points because they were in a group with one excellent team that won all their matches, and were the best of the three others. India would go out on four points because they were in a group with one megacrap team that lost all their matches, and were the worst of the three others.

Bear in mind that it's the same rules for everyone, and therefore cannot be unfair. Apart from the fact that seeding was used when drawing the teams. Are you opposed to seeding?

 

[Thirdman1]

and how did Australia became deserving when they lost both matches at the group stage convincingly?

And who did Ireland beat to reach super 6? Bangladesh.

 

[Burgey]

Thirdman1 to last 6 weeks tops.

Seriously mate, settle down or take it elsewhere. We're all full up of crazy here already.

 

[Xuhaib]

And who did Ireland beat to reach super 6? Bangladesh.

you can only beat what you have infront of you.

 

[Faisal1985]

I mean in 2009 also they just won 1 match against major nations and reached semi-final. And in 2010 also there is chance of winning against SA and reaching semi-finals .

Entire format of this tournament needs to be changed

And if Pak is getting advantage of the whole system then why single them out. All teams are part of the same system...

However, the Semi final of 2009 and the Final of 2009 were no flukes....they were pretty comprehensive wins as far as i see it.

 

[Faisal1985]

Lol We haven't won a trophy by fluke yet.
In 1983 WC also we defeated WI twice
In 1986 champions trophy we defeated everybody
In 2002 champions trophy we defeated everbody
In 2007 T20 WC we defeated everybody except NZ and beat you guys twice.

And what you did in 1992 WC and 2009 T20 WC was win few games and win the trophy

What's up with this you and me?

I would very well call that full toss, scooped by Misbah in 2007 a fluke win for India....that Sharma guy is no where to be seen in the Indian team now....

 

[Sanz]

The SAvs Pak game would be a must win game for SA.
So that means we can already count it as a SA loss.

 

[Sanz]

You were saved by rain from elimination against England in 1992 WC.

Late by 18 years on this one. Anyone who watched the WC 1992 wont call Pakistan's Victory as 'Fluke'. I

 

[NasserFan207]

The flukiest championship run of all time is still on!

 

[Teja.]

The 1992 WC win by Pakistan was one of the most inspirational comeback performances in the history of One-day International Cricket IMO.

 

[ret]

Pak improves its chances for the semis, depends up on the Eng-NZ game's result

If Pak makes it to the semis, once again they would have done it by beating just one major team in two rounds .... Last time, they went through by beating just one major team (NZ) in two rounds

If NZ doesn't make it then have to feel sorry for it as it has played some cool cricket so far, i.e. beat SL (chasing) and Pak (defending a low total)

 

[marc71178]

Late by 18 years on this one. Anyone who watched the WC 1992 wont call Pakistan's Victory as 'Fluke'. I

To be fair, they did only make the semis because of that rain, but from that point on they were unstoppable.