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

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Sir Alex

Really? Then how come a team that has won 2 and lost 3 are making it te the semi? Isn't the purpose of group matches to find the best 4 teams in the tournament? Are you suggesting a team that beat Bangladesh and now an out of sorts South Africa, but has lost to NZ, Eng and Aus deserve the semis?

If they finish 2nd in the group, then it's because New Zealand and South Africa will have done worse than them, so yes, they will deserve it.

India can qualify by hoping Australia beat West Indies and by beating Sri Lanka.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Faisal1985

I just wonder if people would show the same level of criticism if it was any other team in the position that Pak is.

Burgey to reply.

[NasserFan207]

Tbf Faisal, Pakistan haven't exactly covered themselves in glory in recent times. I think a lot of people view them as a bit of a joke.

Personally, I still like 'em. Great entertainment value imo.

[Sir Alex]

Originally Posted by Irish_Opener

Calm down.

Its the same rules for everyone.

But if the rules are so stupid like this, whereby the best 4 teams don't face off in semi, (and by best, based on wins in the tournament, not any subjective criteria), then ICC deserves the slack it is getting now.

I would've said exactly the same had it been India instead of Pakistan also. A bit mellow though.

[Lostman]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

If they finish 2nd in the group, then it's because New Zealand and South Africa will have done worse than them, so yes, they will deserve it.

India can qualify by hoping Australia beat West Indies and by beating Sri Lanka.

My thoughts exactly.
This whole deserving argument makes no sense.

[Lostman]

Originally Posted by Sir Alex

But if the rules are so stupid like this, whereby the best 4 teams don't face off in semi, (and by best, based on wins in the tournament, not any subjective criteria), then ICC deserves the slack it is getting now.

So who are the best 4 teams then?

[NasserFan207]

Originally Posted by Sir Alex

But if the rules are so stupid like this, whereby the best 4 teams don't face off in semi, (and by best, based on wins in the tournament, not any subjective criteria), then ICC deserves the slack it is getting now.

I would've said exactly the same had it been India instead of Pakistan also. A bit mellow though.

Eh, I like it. This way there are less dead rubbers, since teams nearly always have a chance to go through. Adds more excitement.

[Sir Alex]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

If they finish 2nd in the group, then it's because New Zealand and South Africa will have done worse than them, so yes, they will deserve it.

India can qualify by hoping Australia beat West Indies and by beating Sri Lanka.

I give up.

If a team that has a 60 per cent loss rate can be considered as one of the 4 best teams in a tournament, ahead of teams with much higher win rates, then it shows the rules are screwed up.

I don't care India qualifies or not. I feel they don't deserve to, but if at all they do, then they can atleast justify themselves by saying they have more number of wins than losses anyway.

[Sir Alex]

Originally Posted by Lostman

So who are the best 4 teams then?

So how do you justify Pak being one among the top 4, when they have lost 3 and won 2 so far?

They should've had carry forward from prelim stage. In which case, it should be NZ and Eng from Group E, and Aus and based on results of matches tomorrow. If SL beats Ind, and Aus beat WI, then the one who has better run rate among SL and WI. If WI beat Aus, WI must go through regardless of result of Ind vs Sl.

They should replace this idiotic prelim and super 8 thing, with just a super 10 with 2 groups of 5 each. 8 out of them will be full members, and remaining two associates.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Sir Alex

I give up.

If a team that has a 60 per cent loss rate can be considered as one of the 4 best teams in a tournament, ahead of teams with much higher win rates, then it shows the rules are screwed up.

I don't care India qualifies or not. I feel they don't deserve to, but if at all they do, then they can atleast justify themselves by saying they have more number of wins than losses anyway.

Ok, name 3 teams that'll have a higher win rate than Pakistan if they go through. Certainly not New Zealand or South Africa.

[Sir Alex]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Ok, name 3 teams that'll have a higher win rate than Pakistan if they go through. Certainly not New Zealand or South Africa.

NZ has won 3 already. Even if they lose today, would have a better win rate than Pak.

Australia and England already have better win rates, add to that West Indies too.

One of India or Sri Lanka would be having a better win rate as well after super 8.

So that makes it 5 teams who'd have more wins than Pakistan at the end of super 8.

[Sir Alex]

And oh, it seems Sri Lanka could also be a beneficiary of ICC's moronic structuring. They could lose to India by a small margin and yet reach semi if Aus beat WI. They hence would be in a similar position as Pakistan, with wins against Zim, WI and losses against Ind, NZ and Aus.

Thus we might see two such semifinalists. Dire.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by Sir Alex

So how do you justify Pak being one among the top 4, when they have lost 3 and won 2 so far?

They should've had carry forward from prelim stage. In which case, it should be NZ and Eng from Group E, and Aus and based on results of matches tomorrow. If SL beats Ind, and Aus beat WI, then the one who has better run rate among SL and WI. If WI beat Aus, WI must go through regardless of result of Ind vs Sl.

They should replace this idiotic prelim and super 8 thing, with just a super 10 with 2 groups of 5 each. 8 out of them will be full members, and remaining two associates.

You justify it because the tourney has moved to a different phase.

In the 1998 Football WC two teams did not lose a single match in thw whole tourney. One team, Les Frogs, won the tourney. The other, Australia, didn't even make the finals as they drew 2-2 at home in the last qualifying match vs Iran.

There was much gnashing of teeth here I can.tell you, but they were the rules, and every team knew what it had to do to qualify before they started.

It's not always fun, but them's the rules.

[Sir Alex]

Originally Posted by Burgey

You justify it because the tourney has moved to a different phase.

In the 1998 Football WC two teams did not lose a single match in thw wholte tourney. One team, Les Frogs, won the tourney. The other, Australia, didn't even make the final as they drew 2-2 at home in the last qualifying match vs Iran.

There was much gnashing of teeth here I can.tell you, but they were the rules, and every team knew what it had to do to qualify before they started.

It's not always fun, but them's the rules.

The difference is that in football, there are 3 results possible, win, draw or loss.

Out of curiousity, did any team which qualified at their expense had a lower win rate than Australia at the point of latter's exit?

[Uppercut]

Jesus Alex, how come you're the only one on the planet who can't see that the system is perfectly fair and reasonable.