marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!
Anyone want to join the Society?
Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.
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
Fastest gun in town
I mean that in the ricketing context btw, completely untenable of course at football WCs.
WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
"People make me happy.. not places.. people"
"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." - Samuel Johnson
"Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn
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.
Last edited by Prince EWS; 10-05-2010 at 06:16 PM.
~ Cribbertarian ~
Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
Originally Posted by John Singleton
If India gets to the Semis now that would be something most undeserved.
Let's see how the points table would have been if R1 points that a team earned against a team that also advanced to R2 were carried forward:
- Aus 2 wins + 1 against Pak in R1 = 3 wins* (semis)
- WI 1 win in R2 + 1 win against Eng in R1 = 2 wins* (undecided)
- SL 1 win + 0 win in R1 = 1 win* (undecided)
- Ind 0 win + 1 win against SA in R1 = 1 win* (undecided)
* To play one more game
- Eng 3 wins in R2 + 0 wins in R1 = 3 wins (semis)
- NZ 1 win + 1 win against SL in R1 = 2 wins (out)
- Pak 1 win + 0 win in R1 = 1 win (semis)
- SF 1 win + 0 win in R1 = 1 win (out)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)