It was fair , like that a team who lost first 2 match has still a fair chance to make a comeback. And it was only 10 teams so top 6 teams were fighting till the end for getting in the knock out stage of 4, which is not in the case of current wt20 where you have 12 teams and only 4 can qualify, with 2 groups.
It's fair though, a team who lost first 2 match ultimately don't lose all hope of not getting in the k/o. And how can you have more dead rubber matches from 10 teams(as of 2019 round robin) , in comparison to 12 teams(t20 wc), when only 4 can qualify for knockouts.
If they lose 40% of their matches do they deserve to make the knockout?
Because it's not twelve teams all playing against each other, so there aren't as many matches. With ten teams there are 45 matches while in a six team group there are 15 matches. Fewer matches means that there are less likely to be as many dead rubbers (even taking into account that it's two groups of six).
yeah funny how this logic seems to fly over this dude’s head
three of the four sides that qualified won their first two games. The one that did not in England won their next three instead. Their loss versus Pakistan and later SL and Australia due to no Roy is why the tournament even became mildly interesting.
Always the same issues. Not enough teams (~10) and the associate members don't get to play. Too many teams (16-20) and half the games are one-sided floggings.
T20 is such a truncated format that 'one-sided floggings' aren't as embarrassing to watch as longer formats. The point is, as many countries should be involved as possible and participation becomes an important factor. By having Quarter Finals that participation is extended for some sides. Let's not complain about 'dead rubbers' and one sided games - rather embrace the spirit of the Olympics whereby all participants are acknowledged, not just those who ma
I agree with the sentiment but not in practical terms. It's important for at least most of the tournament, and the sport in general, to feel like it has stakes. If you have 3+ weeks of India, Australia, England etc. playing preliminary rounds that everyone knows are meaningless because they are going to make the final 8 anyway and nothing really matters until that quarter-final, that's an issue.
That's effectively the same result as having the qualifying tournament for the lower-ranked teams beforehand, except more one-sided group games and a longer tournament for everyone
i said round robin for 10 teams , and not for the 1 which has more than 10 teams. If we are including more than 10 teams, and that too with 2 pools, then there just shouldn't be a semi final. Atleast go for super 6 or include 2 more teams making it 14, and then following the trend of 2011 and 2015 wc
We can have quarters for 7-7 teams too, just like we have that in 2011 and 15 wc. Even Hockey in Olympics have 6-6 teams, and they did quarters(though that wasn't smart).
Yeah I ****ing hate quarter finals in cricket tournaments for this reason, especially if the group stages are drawn out with full round robins or only two groups.
