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

[Top_Cat]

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

What 'people'? It's only one 'person' here!

 

[Furball]

Must be my fixation with the idea that the team with more wins should progress to the knockouts ahead of teams with lesser wins.

If there are instances where a team managed to reach knockouts in a world tournament, despite having lesser wins than a team which exited it, please feel free to share.

In other words why the need for two prelim rounds?

Bayern Munich qualifying for the Champions League Final is unfair, Bordeaux beat them twice in the group stages.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah bring it on mate. Resorting to laughable personal attacks when you can't contest what I said. Not the first time. Surely won't be the last either.

But am not going to reciprocate on the same line.

Btw, request you to answer my query whether The team that pipped past Australia during WC qualifiers had less wins than Aus?

Mate, it's not a personal attack, but I can make it one if you like.

Said in the other thread, heaps of sides who got to the 98 WC did so with more losses, but they, like Pakistan here, qualified via different pools.

Like Sinatra said mate..

That's life.. That's what all the people say,
You're riding high in April
At the bottom of a bucket of **** in May..

Or something like that.

 

[honestbharani]

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

mate, seriously, you are going nowhere.. Pakistan deserved their WC wins just as much as we did... It is not as if they lost some game and won the trophy, for crying out loud!!!


And yeah, Pak have gone through on the basis of winning one game now.. And India can go through too, winning just one game!!! And don't blame Pakistan if we can't win our game tomorrow. Us losing and Pak winning does not make the format a bad one!!!

 

[Furball]

I'd imagine Iran had more losses than Australia, given that Australia's path to qualification pre 2010 involved thrashing a bunch of islands and New Zealand before inevitably losing to the 4th placed South American side.

 

[Sir Alex]

Mate, it's not a personal attack, but I can make it one if you like.

Said in the other thread, heaps of sides who got to the 98 WC did so with more losses, but they, like Pakistan here, qualified via different pools.

Like Sinatra said mate..

That's life.. That's what all the people say,
You're riding high in April
At the bottom of a bucket of **** in May..

Or something like that.

Ok, lets do this is the other thread mate.

 

[Sir Alex]

Bayern Munich qualifying for the Champions League Final is unfair, Bordeaux beat them twice in the group stages.

Did they have fewer overall wins than Bordeaux at time of latter's elimination?

(I don't follow football that closely so apologise for me ignorant of results)

 

[Furball]

Champions League 2009/10

Bordeaux: 8 wins, 1 draw, 1 defeat. Eliminated at the quarter finals.

Inter Milan: 7 wins, 3 draws, 2 defeats. Finalists.

Bayern Munich: 7 wins, 1 draw, 4 defeats. Finalists.

Not fair.

 

[Burgey]

mate, seriously, you are going nowhere.. Pakistan deserved their WC wins just as much as we did... It is not as if they lost some game and won the trophy, for crying out loud!!!


And yeah, Pak have gone through on the basis of winning one game now.. And India can go through too, winning just one game!!! And don't blame Pakistan if we can't win our game tomorrow. Us losing and Pak winning does not make the format a bad one!!!

HB - WAG. Hits the nail on the head right here.

 

[Sir Alex]

Mate, it's not a personal attack, but I can make it one if you like.

Said in the other thread, heaps of sides who got to the 98 WC did so with more losses, but they, like Pakistan here, qualified via different pools.

Like Sinatra said mate..

That's life.. That's what all the people say,
You're riding high in April
At the bottom of a bucket of **** in May..

Or something like that.

Nicely done. But diff being in football, win ratio and loss ratio are two seperate things. In other words, you might have lost less than the other team, but it doesn't mean you've WON more than the other.

 

[marc71178]

Champions League 2009/10

Bordeaux: 8 wins, 1 draw, 1 defeat. Eliminated at the quarter finals.

Inter Milan: 7 wins, 3 draws, 2 defeats. Finalists.

Bayern Munich: 7 wins, 1 draw, 4 defeats. Finalists.

Not fair.

Can beat that - by virtue of winning 2 out of 14 matches in full European competition, Atletico Madrid are in the Europa league final this week.

 

[Sir Alex]

Champions League 2009/10

Bordeaux: 8 wins, 1 draw, 1 defeat. Eliminated at the quarter finals.

Inter Milan: 7 wins, 3 draws, 2 defeats. Finalists.

Bayern Munich: 7 wins, 1 draw, 4 defeats. Finalists.

Not fair.

I gather Quarter finals are knockouts?

 

[ret]

I agree with Sir Alex in the way that round 1 points against the team that also advanced to R2 should be carried over

At the end of the day, one team is going to semis based on NRR, which is something that you want to use as a last resort

 

[Burgey]

I'd imagine Iran had more losses than Australia, given that Australia's path to qualification pre 2010 involved thrashing a bunch of islands and New Zealand before inevitably losing to the 4th placed South American side.

Indeed. Can't see how you can have a perfect system where pools are involved. Just the way it is, unless they have a system where they all play each other. But then it just drags on and on forever.

I mean that in the ricketing context btw, completely untenable of course at football WCs.

 

[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 'point' of the first stage is simply to whet the appetite, give the associate nations some exposure on the world stage and progress the best eight teams to the next stage.

I don't see how this situation is any different from an undefeated team going down in a semi-final to a team that's lost a couple of games earlier... or even the declaration of the winner after the final. I'm getting really bored of all these soccer examples so I'll try my hand with a theoretical cricket one - if India make the final and beat Australia, I don't think anyone will be suggesting that we just award Australia the cup anyway because they had a better win percentage during the tournament. The same applies to a hypothetical example in a semi-final where a team like India with two losses defeats a team like Australia with zero losses - no-one's going to say that we should just let the loser progress because they have a better record. That completely undermines the principle behind progressing through each stage and building as you go along, as does what a select few people are saying in this thread. Knockout stages don't have any sort of special value that makes they different to round-robin group stages - it's all about doing what you can to make the next stage. Once you reach it, it starts again.

That doesn't even bother pointing out the intrinsic inequity in comparing the records of teams who have played entirely different opponents either.

 

[Sir Alex]

Can beat that - by virtue of winning 2 out of 14 matches in full European competition, Atletico Madrid are in the Europa league final this week.

Because unlike in cricket, there is also the draw as a valid result. And that it also earns a point?

To put it more specifically, has anyone reached the knockouts by winning less AND losing more than a team which didn't make the cut?

 

[Furball]

I agree with Sir Alex in the way that round 1 points against the team that also advanced to R2 should be carried over

At the end of the day, one team is going to semis based on NRR, which is something that you want to use as a last resort

That only works when they all go into one giant pool. The fact that Pakistan lost to Australia and New Zealand beat Sri Lanka is of absolutely no relevance to this pool.

 

[Sir Alex]

I'd imagine Iran had more losses than Australia, given that Australia's path to qualification pre 2010 involved thrashing a bunch of islands and New Zealand before inevitably losing to the 4th placed South American side.

Iran had both fewer wins AND more losses than Australia when they got through?

 

[Prince EWS]

That only works when they all go into one giant pool. The fact that Pakistan lost to Australia and New Zealand beat Sri Lanka is of absolutely no relevance to this pool.

Exactly. If we carried over points you'd essentially have teams playing different oponants to the others in their group. Now that would be unfair.

 

[Cruxdude]

If India gets to the Semis now that would be something most undeserved.