Pakistan played against Australia, England and South Africa
New Zealand played against Sri Lanka, England and South Africa
How is playing Australia the same as playing Sri Lanka?
Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
1. I can't agree with the concept of having a seperate round just to 'whet the appetite of associate nations'. This is a world cup 'finals' and every match should have equal importance till the knockouts.
2. Your example of giving trophy to Aus because they've won most is already addressed in one of my earlier posts. The knockouts exist with the premise that there is little to seperate between the top 4 teams regardless of what they have done till then. It also, to some extent, evens out disadvantages of the pool system. The question is regarding how you determine the top 4 then. It surely shouldn't be done in a two stage format as it is now, as it is giving wierd results like Pak's qualification despite having lost more than it has won etc.
If your Q is how is playing Aus the same as playing SL, then someone can even say how is being in the same group as Aus the same as being in the same group without Aus
In the end, I won't be surprised if we have semis with teams that won all its games in R2 (Aus and Eng) and teams that squeezed in based on just 1 win (SL and Pak) based on NRR. If R1 wins would have been considered then one from Ind and WI, along with NZ would have gone through Which I think is a 'more fair' system (assuming that no system is fool proof)
Last edited by ret; 10-05-2010 at 05:49 PM.
Australia weren't even in the top 8 seeds when this tournament started.
Fixtures can't be drawn on subjective evaluations of who's better than who.
A win against Australia, is EXACTLY the same as a win against Bangladesh, or should be, because that's what a level playing field is all about.
Or why don't then have a third round called Super six as well? With no carry forward and teams like Aus and Eng having to start from scratch?
Your issue that teams get to carry forward points or benefits of beating another team which others had no chance to can fully addressed only if they all play each other in the round robin mode.
In other words Super 8 doesn't solve the issue that you had with carry forward of points.
Considering it actually rewards you for that 'extra win'. I don't see why a win against South Africa in round 1 be any lesser than a super 8 win against Australia, particularly when the SA whom we beat also managed to reach super 8s.
Well the last time they had a super 8 that involved all the teams playing everyone, it was a terrible and boring world cup. Now they want to make it short and sweet.
I guess what I'm saying is, failing every team playing each other once at every stage, there's never a completely fair way around this, be it cricket, football or whatever.
If you look at the draw for the WC finals in SA in June, there are huge discrepancies in the groups. England have got the group of life, another group is the group of death.
Such is the way of these things, unfortunately.
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
#408. Sixty three not out forever.
Prince, please answer this.
India and Pakistan both played and beat the same team South Africa.
Yet India does not get even one point from that win. Why?
Why doesn't India get the reward for beating SA who is qualified to be super 8?
In effect, it keeps India and south Africa on the same level regardless of fact that India beat them.
What is the logic behind considering some games and completely ignoring others while determining the top 4?
It's not as if the game against SA was inconsequential in any way. Winning it was necessary for us to ensure our survival in the tournament anyways.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)