Cricket Player Manager
Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 222

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

  1. #106
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    #banblocky
    Posts
    20,360
    Quote Originally Posted by ret View Post
    I don't have time to spoon feed but if you see the points table, it against teams that have advanced to R2. If your argument is that Pak played Aus in R1, then you should remember that 3 teams played Aus in R2
    Again, irrelevant.

    None of Pakistan's opponents in Round 2 played Australia in Round 1.

  2. #107
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    44,040
    Quote Originally Posted by ret View Post
    I don't have time to spoon feed but if you see the points table, it against teams that have advanced to R2. If your argument is that Pak played Aus in R1, then you should remember that 3 teams played Aus in R2
    Yeah, but the teams don't play all the other teams that make it to Round 2. Under your system, other than the game they played against each other...

    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?
    ~ Cribbertarian ~

    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09

    Quote Originally Posted by John Singleton
    Recognition of Property Rights in material objects is the recognition of a manís right to exist; his right to pursue his own goals in his own manner at his own discretion with what is rightfully his to command. Just as the Right to Life is the right to the property of oneís own person, so the right to own material products is the right to sustain oneís life and to keep the results of oneís own efforts.


  3. #108
    ret
    ret is offline
    International Debutant ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    canada
    Posts
    2,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Cruxdude View Post
    If India gets to the Semis now that would be something most undeserved.
    In fact, if Ind makes it to the semis then it would have played some great cricket! Don't forget Ind has to beat SL by some margin or chase the total in 16-17 overs. On top of that it would have beaten two teams to make it to the R2, i.e. SL and SA
    Fastest gun in town

  4. #109
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    4,793
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    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.
    2 points of disagreement.

    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.


  5. #110
    ret
    ret is offline
    International Debutant ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    canada
    Posts
    2,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    Yeah, but the teams don't play all the other teams that make it to Round 2. Under your system, other than the game they played against each other...

    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?
    I understand your point but when you carry forward the points you earned against the team that also advanced, you have increased the number of games a team has to play to get to the semis from 3 to 4, there by, to an extent, giving a team more opportunity to advance based on wins earned

    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 06:49 PM.

  6. #111
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    44,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Alex View Post
    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 same applies to the second round of group matches. Just replace "4" with "8". I just don't see why you're willing to give all the teams a clean slate after Round 2 but not after Round 1.

  7. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    4,793
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    Indeed. You can't equate playing Australia in this tournament to playing Sri Lanka. You're much better off just having each group as a bubble, and making each team deal with each stage of the tournament on a stage by stage basis.
    What?

    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.

  8. #113
    ret
    ret is offline
    International Debutant ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    canada
    Posts
    2,890
    Quote Originally Posted by GingerFurball View Post
    Again, irrelevant.

    None of Pakistan's opponents in Round 2 played Australia in Round 1.
    To understand whats relevant, you probably need to understand the system that was proposed

  9. #114
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    44,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Alex View Post
    What?

    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.
    Well yeah that's great if every team plays Australia and every team plays Bangladesh. But they don't. I really don't like the idea of getting points in your group for games against teams that aren't in your group and that other teams in your group haven't played. You compete against the teams in your group and if you do well then you progress to the next stage.

  10. #115
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    4,793
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    The same applies to the second round of group matches. Just replace "4" with "8". I just don't see why you're willing to give all the teams a clean slate after Round 2 but not after Round 1.
    Because the top 8 you mention is not a knockout like top 4.

    What is the point of having two seperate 'league stages' in the first place?

    Which other sport follows this two league stages in the finals?

  11. #116
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    44,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Alex View Post
    Because the top 8 you mention is not a knockout like top 4.
    Don't see what's so special about a knockout. Seems like you're just making up the rules as you go along. It's all about just qualifying for the next stage IMO; be that a knockout or a quadruple round robin that last four weeks. Once you get there it's a fresh start IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Alex View Post
    What is the point of having two seperate 'league stages' in the first place?
    Yeah I don't really like it either but it's not really the point of what we're talking about. Given the system we have, you couldn't possibly have another points system IMO. I don't like the double league stage with two separate groups in the second round any more than you do though. If they're going to do it like this the second round should all be one big group and everyone should play each other once but that'd probably take a bit longer than the window they were willing to schedule it in unless they had simultaneous matches.

  12. #117
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    4,793
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    Well yeah that's great if every team plays Australia and every team plays Bangladesh. But they don't. I really don't like the idea of getting points in your group for games against teams that aren't in your group and that other teams in your group haven't played. You compete against the teams in your group and if you do well then you progress to the next stage.
    Well then what's the point in having Stage 1 anyways? There also you don't get to play teams other guys get to.

    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.

  13. #118
    JJD Heads Athlai's Avatar
    Duck Hunt Champion! Plops Champion!
    Tournaments Won: 2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    #teamAthlai
    Posts
    27,923
    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.
    Direbirds FTW!

    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Wellington will win the whole thing next year. Mark my words.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem274* View Post
    I'll offer up my avatar to Athlai forever if Wellington wins the Champions League.
    President of T.I.T.S
    Tamim Is Talented Society

  14. #119
    Cricket Web Staff Member Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    41,972
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Alex View Post
    Iran had both fewer wins AND more losses than Australia when they got through?
    Yeah, because they'd played in different groups. The stage where they met each other was a two-legged tie to get to the WC finals.

    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

  15. #120
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    4,793
    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.

Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 6th Team Options?
    By Simon in forum CW Development League
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 15-01-2010, 05:06 AM
  2. Isn't Saurav Ganguly such a lovable character ?
    By DaBombayDuck in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 31-10-2005, 12:49 PM
  3. Chappell Wants Ganguly Out - Emails BCCI.
    By Sanz in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 128
    Last Post: 27-09-2005, 11:58 PM
  4. CW "A" Team in India and Pakistan
    By Mr Mxyzptlk in forum Cricket Web XI
    Replies: 713
    Last Post: 31-05-2005, 05:27 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •