Furball
Evil Scotsman
India's reward for beating South Africa was qualifying for the Super 8s.
In the Super 8 stage, you start from scratch.
It's really not difficult to comprehend.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Pakistan most fluke team (and discussion about tournament structure fairness)
- Thread starter Thirdman1
- Start date
In the Super 8 stage, you start from scratch.
It's really not difficult to comprehend.
ret
International Debutant
SA's reward for NOT beating Ind was also S8 *winks*
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
But they did get the points for it - and it got them to the next stage, where they've since played terribly. If SA had lost another match, they wouldn't have made the second stage.
Sir Alex
Banned
Then they should've made it a Super 10, with 2 groups of 5 each.
Because anyways a team which goes out in the super 8s don't get to play 6 of the total 12 teams anyways. While in a Super 10, it comes down to 5.
Or make it a knockout like old Champions trophy. Atleast the team with most wins will advance to next stage.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
That's the way progressing through stages of a tournament works. The objective of each stage is to progress to the next one.
As I said before, it's the same principle that dictates Australia and India or Sri Lanka being on the same level come the semi final, and both finalists being on the same level in the final. No-one ever complains about that, and I'm yet to see what makes the fact that it's the final four intrinsically more important than the final eight. That's what the initial stage is for - to define the final eight; not the final four. The qualification for each stage is determined by what happened in the stage immediately before, regardless of whether it's a knockout stage or not.
The same logic that's behind considering two games and ignoring the rest when determining the top two...Sir Alex said:
Sir Alex
Banned
No. They could've got in without beating SA. That's why the reward for the 'extra effort'
ret
International Debutant
Another reason why carrying points you earned against the team that also advanced is the teams go in to R2 groups based on their pre-tournament seeding and not based on how they fared in their group in R1.
So even though SA finished 2nd in its group in R1, it goes to R2 as if it would have won the R1 group (based on its pre-tourney seeding)!!
So even though SA finished 2nd in its group in R1, it goes to R2 as if it would have won the R1 group (based on its pre-tourney seeding)!!
Last edited:
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It's fairly simple: you don't get through to the semi's of a major tournament simply by beating one team, so whether or not one team or another beat India, SA or whoever else is meaningless; and Twenty20 cricket is unpredictable by its very nature, so you're going to have more upsets than the longer forms of the game.
On a side-note, whoever banned the OP deserves to be congratulated.
On a side-note, whoever banned the OP deserves to be congratulated.
Last edited:
Sir Alex
Banned
Ah, it's the classic case of missing the wood for the trees.
There could be fixtures drawn with multiple leagues like super 8, 6 etc, but the question is does it address the fact that the best team gets the Cup in the end?
The fact that one team with a 60 percent loss rate, and having won lower and lost more than another team which was thrown out screams out No.
The fact is the two stage concept creates more problems than it solves compounde by the puzzling logic to not provide for carry forward.
There is no perfect system I agree. But a system which allows for the above mentioned anomaly, whose complex and puzzling structure allows for teams to prosper above others despite performing worse than them must be done away with.
The logic perhaps behind having knockouts at the end could be that it also tests the mental strength of teams to handle the pressure of a do or die system. It also assumes that the top 4 are of roughly the same stuff.
It's also acceptable to think the top 8 or top 10 are also of same quality. That's when we have fully knockout tournaments like old Champions trophy.
@Burgey
In that instance instead of SA afghanistan would qualify.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Heh.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
Called out long ago.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
No one has ever denied that but Pakistan's world cup win was not a fluke. They deserved it as much as any other WC champions.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah and the comeback didn't really start until they beat Australia because they lost to both India and South Africa after the game against England in Adelaide.
And in the same way they were lucky to get a point in the game against England, Pakistan can definitely legitimately claim to have been robbed by the rain rule against South Africa. having bowled quite well, they weren't too far below the required run-rate with plenty of batting to come (just under 5 an over when they went off) before the rain came but when they came back out, needed about 8 an over to win. Coudn't believe it when Inzi and Imran almost got them home even in the face of that.
Even with all that against them, they beat Australia comfortably then went on to smash NZ at home and away (undefeated to that point) to make the final and beat the second best side in the tournament.
Swings/roundabouts, etc.
And in the same way they were lucky to get a point in the game against England, Pakistan can definitely legitimately claim to have been robbed by the rain rule against South Africa. having bowled quite well, they weren't too far below the required run-rate with plenty of batting to come (just under 5 an over when they went off) before the rain came but when they came back out, needed about 8 an over to win. Coudn't believe it when Inzi and Imran almost got them home even in the face of that.
Even with all that against them, they beat Australia comfortably then went on to smash NZ at home and away (undefeated to that point) to make the final and beat the second best side in the tournament.
Swings/roundabouts, etc.
I understand and am with Sir Alex on this one. Though as has been mentioned the whole finals situation makes the argument worthless. To truly determine who is the best team at a tournament a league only format where everyone plays everyone would be ideal. That isn't going to happen due to a number of reasons.
New Zealand were the more deserving of a semi final berth but thanks to a format that doesn't reward teams for all their efforts its not happening.
New Zealand were the more deserving of a semi final berth but thanks to a format that doesn't reward teams for all their efforts its not happening.
Last edited:
I would
Tbh, I partially agree with our resident knight of the realm in that I dont think that the system is perfect and I would be slightly miffed if a team with a relatively poor win/loss ratio knocked Oz in the semis.
However, if India was in Oz's position and we beat them in the semis despite having a relatively poor record, it would all be good
Anyway, the teams knew the rules coming in so I'd be amazed if any of the players have given too much thought to it and I would be extremely surprised/disappointed if they begrudged a team the title just because they lost a few less important games earlier in the tourney
BoyBrumby
Englishman
I've always thought carrying results over from one round to another a flawed concept. When it was first introduced (99 from memory) we had the unedifying spectacle of teams going deliberately slowly in run chases to make sure the NRR allowed an opponent whom they'd taken two points from to advance.
No other major team sport does it in their world cups.
I agree with PEWS: each stage is just a way of determining who advances. We all have hard luck stories where a team (usually our own) has gone out unluckily, but them's the breaks.
No other major team sport does it in their world cups.
I agree with PEWS: each stage is just a way of determining who advances. We all have hard luck stories where a team (usually our own) has gone out unluckily, but them's the breaks.