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

[Thirdman1]

I mean in 2009 also they just won 1 match against major nations and reached semi-final. And in 2010 also there is chance of winning against SA and reaching semi-finals .

Entire format of this tournament needs to be changed

[zaremba]

Not sure what the thread title means but there can surely never have been a flukier Pakistan team than the 1992 world cup team which was saved from elimination in the first round by rain whilst being thoroughly drubbed by England.

I forget, of course, what later transpired.

[Sir Alex]

Originally Posted by Thirdman1

I mean in 2009 also they just won 1 match against major nations and reached semi-final. And in 2010 also there is chance of winning against SA and reaching semi-finals .

Entire format of this tournament needs to be changed

Whatever is applicable to them is exactly applicable to us as well. If they beat SA, and if they possess the better run rate, they indeed deserve to go into the semis, although it may not be due to the fact that they're superb, but because they were the better among the remaining teams.

Still looks unlikely them making semis.

[Thirdman1]

Originally Posted by Sir Alex

Whatever is applicable to them is exactly applicable to us as well. If they beat SA, and if they possess the better run rate, they indeed deserve to go into the semis, although it may not be due to the fact that they're superb, but because they were the better among the remaining teams.

Still looks unlikely them making semis.

No NZ can atleast claim they defeated 2 out of 4 major nations(SL and Pak). None of SA and Pak deserve to go with 1 win out of 4 against major nations to semi-final of a major cricket tournament.

This entire format sucks to be honest.

[Sir Alex]

Originally Posted by Thirdman1

No NZ can atleast claim they defeated 2 out of 4 major nations(SL and Pak). None of SA and Pak deserve to go with 1 win out of 4 against major nations to semi-final of a major cricket tournament.

This entire format sucks to be honest.

I agree the absence of carry forward points from group stages is a dampener.

Also the whole super eight thing looks odd for me. India could win the next two matches and still be out of the tournament, while Pak could qualify with just one win in the super eight. That'd be farcical.

A probably better way could be to determine semifinalists by the number of points in super eight regardless of groups. For example, if in our group, three teams, Aus, SL, Ind finish with 4 points, and in Group F, Eng finishes on 6 points, and the rest three on 2 points each, then, the three teams from Group E plus Eng should be allowed to play semis. There might be repetitions, but atleast it is fairer, as the best teams get to play finals.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Sir Alex

I agree the absence of carry forward points from group stages is a dampener.

Also the whole super eight thing looks odd for me. India could win the next two matches and still be out of the tournament, while Pak could qualify with just one win in the super eight. That'd be farcical.

A probably better way could be to determine semifinalists by the number of points in super eight regardless of groups. For example, if in our group, three teams, Aus, SL, Ind finish with 4 points, and in Group F, Eng finishes on 6 points, and the rest three on 2 points each, then, the three teams from Group E plus Eng should be allowed to play semis. There might be repetitions, but atleast it is fairer, as the best teams get to play finals.

No it's not.

[Sir Alex]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

No it's not.

Please explain.

This is bordering on the farcical. Pakistan will enter semis if they beat SA, and England beat NZ, both of which looks probable. Run rates don't matter then as both SA and NZ's run rates are below that of Pak.
So we'll witness a situation where a team despite losing more than it won enter the semis. And to say one of the two Pak wins came against Ban.

And should we see India going out on run rates even after winning the next 2 matches, because Sri Lanka beat Aus, and Aus beat WI, all hell will break

[Athlai]

Pakistan beating SA is probable? Bull.

[Lostman]

Originally Posted by Athlai

Pakistan beating SA is probable? Bull.

The SAvs Pak game would be a must win game for SA.
So that means we can already count it as a SA loss.

[Athlai]

Originally Posted by Lostman

The SAvs Pak game would be a must win game for SA.
So that means we can already count it as a SA loss.

[slugger]

I think its time the scrap the super 8 round esp. in 20/20 cricket and just play the tournament like the world cup soccer version. meaning the winner world need to win atleast 5 games to win the tournament and the last 3 in a row.

[Sir Alex]

Originally Posted by Athlai

Pakistan beating SA is probable? Bull.

It's a t20 mate, anybody can beat anyone. Did you actually think England would've thrashed SA like they did yesterday?

Also as Lostman said, it's a must win for both, past history points to one team accustomed to coming back from the death, and the other helping to do so.

[Sir Alex]

Originally Posted by slugger

I think its time the scrap the super 8 round esp. in 20/20 cricket and just play the tournament like the world cup soccer version. meaning the winner world need to win atleast 5 games to win the tournament and the last 3 in a row.

I think they should do it in the style of old Champions trophy by making it a knockout.

Every match would get interesting that way without bringing in complexities of run rates etc.

They should scrap the existing Champions trophy and put this championship in it's place. Also it shouldn't be called or regarded as World Cup, which should be only for one days, but name it t20 champions trophy. It will be cricketing equivalent of FA cup.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Lostman

The SAvs Pak game would be a must win game for SA.
So that means we can already count it as a SA loss.

Well played sir.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Sir Alex

Please explain.

This is bordering on the farcical. Pakistan will enter semis if they beat SA, and England beat NZ, both of which looks probable. Run rates don't matter then as both SA and NZ's run rates are below that of Pak.
So we'll witness a situation where a team despite losing more than it won enter the semis. And to say one of the two Pak wins came against Ban.

And should we see India going out on run rates even after winning the next 2 matches, because Sri Lanka beat Aus, and Aus beat WI, all hell will break

Too bad, if India don't qualify they only have themselves to blame for not winning the games they needed to.

Don't see how that makes the format "farcical." Win all your games, you win the tournament.