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

[NasserFan207]

Unbelievable.

 

[Furball]

Jesus Alex, how come you're the only one on the planet who can't see that the system is perfectly fair and reasonable.

Because it's Pakistan that are "benefitting" from it while India look set to be flying home.

 

[Sir Alex]

LMAO PAKISTAN sneak through again............ watch out they can just explode through this tournament. If they win that will be 3 world titles and carry an aussie/wi like aura next time they enter the world cup again haahahahh

not bad for a team which decides to choke test matches practically handed to them on a biryani platter

I highly doubt about the 'aura' part.

But fair play IF they manage to go on and win the cup from here. Will be a marvellous feat if they manage to correct the 10-0 record against Australia this season.

 

[Sir Alex]

It goes right next to the part where everyone knew what the rules were before the tourney started.

Please see my comments in 'Pakistan : flukiest team'.

 

[Fusion]

Please see my comments in 'Pakistan : flukiest team'.

I have. Nothing you stated changes the fact that everyone knew the rules to qualify before the tournament started. You can whine all you want, but the same set of rules applied to every team.

 

[GIMH]

They have won more matches than Pakistan and yet could be out of the tournament. What a joke!

They must have carry forward in the prelim group stages.

So how do you justify Pak being one among the top 4, when they have lost 3 and won 2 so far?

They should've had carry forward from prelim stage. In which case, it should be NZ and Eng from Group E, and Aus and based on results of matches tomorrow. If SL beats Ind, and Aus beat WI, then the one who has better run rate among SL and WI. If WI beat Aus, WI must go through regardless of result of Ind vs Sl.

They should replace this idiotic prelim and super 8 thing, with just a super 10 with 2 groups of 5 each. 8 out of them will be full members, and remaining two associates.

Why on earth would prelim points be carried forwards? That would be completely unfair given that the four sides in the group would have all faced different sides. It's not like in the 50-over WC in 07, where you carried forward points only from your game with the other team to also go through.

There is no argument that can be made for points being carried forwards in the interest of fairness. If pakistan aren't good enough then they'll get found out in the semis, or the final.

 

[mohammad16]

LMAO almost all professional world tournaments work like this SIR alex, points from previous stages never carry forward to new rounds, that's the beauty of the game and its fair for everyone. The higher you go up the stages, the more is at stake and its a completely different ball game, its like saying some previous ODI series records should be factored into the world cup.

Just get over the fact that India simply failed to reach their potential as flat track bullies.

 

[Sir Alex]

I have. Nothing you stated changes the fact that everyone knew the rules to qualify before the tournament started. You can whine all you want, but the same set of rules applied to every team.

Put the rules above spirit of the tournament right?

The entire point of having this prelim games is to find 4 best teams of the lot. From there onwards it is a hit or miss, which is understandable because the assumption is that there is little to choose otherwise between these 4, and hence the knockouts.

Now, the purpose of the tournament is to find the best team in that. For that you've three main stages. Be among the top 4. Win the semi. And Win the final.

There is no ambiguity about the last two stages. It's winner takes all basically.

So now the issue or the 'whine' is regarding the first stage. How to determine the top 4 from the 12?

Common sense says it should be the 4 teams that have won the maximum number of games. This is entirely consistent with the latter two stages, and the spirit of tournament itself, which says the one who wins more should take precedence over the one that win less.

I don't have a problem with Pakistan going into the knockouts with a less than 50 per cent record. But when that is at the cost of two teams who have registered more wins than them at the same stage, is basically mocking at the entire purpose, principle and spirit of the tournament. To attribute it to 'well rules are same for everyone' is basically taking refuge behind rules which are completely in discordance with the basic logic of this tournament or any tournament.

Please for the thousandth time, Let me make it clear my whine has got nothing to with Pakistan the team. My grouse is with purely with ICC who has let this loophole go unnoticed. Ultimately it should be the number of wins that should decide the last 4 and ICC has screwed upon that basic premise by blindly going behind some models in other sports, without realising this could end in farcical situations like this. 12 teams is a small spread. There is absolutely no reason for introducing two mini round robin rounds and deny carry forward of points from the first sound to the second.

Summarising,

1. Australia - 4 wins out of 4, win rate 100 - Semi guaranteed.
2. England - 4 out of 5. 80 per cent. - Semifinalists.
3. West Indies - 3/4 75 per cent - undecided
4. New zealand - 3/5 60 per cent - Out!!
5. India - 2/4 50 per cent, undecided
6. Sri Lanka - 2/4 50 per cent - undecided
7. Pakistan - 2/5 40 per cent - Semi finalist!!
8. South Africa - 2/5 40 Per cent. Out!

In other words at the end of super 8 there would be 5 teams who'd have won more watches than Pakistan with another 2 who'd have won the same. So basically having finished with least number of wins among super eight, you have them making the last 4. What's worse is that Sri Lanka could also make it that way.

 

[Sir Alex]

I have. Nothing you stated changes the fact that everyone knew the rules to qualify before the tournament started. You can whine all you want, but the same set of rules applied to every team.

Put the rules above spirit of the tournament right?

The entire point of having this prelim games is to find 4 best teams of the lot. From there onwards it is a hit or miss, which is understandable because the assumption is that there is little to choose otherwise between these 4, and hence the knockouts.

Now, the purpose of the tournament is to find the best team in that. For that you've three main stages. Be among the top 4. Win the semi. And Win the final.

There is no ambiguity about the last two stages. It's winner takes all basically.

So now the issue or the 'whine' is regarding the first stage. How to determine the top 4 from the 12?

Common sense says it should be the 4 teams that have won the maximum number of games. This is entirely consistent with the latter two stages, and the spirit of tournament itself, which says the one who wins more should take precedence over the one that win less.

I don't have a problem with Pakistan going into the knockouts with a less than 50 per cent record. But when that is at the cost of two teams who have registered more wins than them at the same stage, is basically mocking at the entire purpose, principle and spirit of the tournament. To attribute it to 'well rules are same for everyone' is basically taking refuge behind rules which are completely in discordance with the basic logic of this tournament or any tournament.

Please for the thousandth time, Let me make it clear my whine has got nothing to with Pakistan the team. My grouse is with purely with ICC who has let this loophole go unnoticed. Ultimately it should be the number of wins that should decide the last 4 and ICC has screwed upon that basic premise by blindly going behind some models in other sports, without realising this could end in farcical situations like this. 12 teams is a small spread. There is absolutely no reason for introducing two mini round robin rounds and deny carry forward of points from the first sound to the second.

Summarising,

1. Australia - 4 wins out of 4, win rate 100 - Semi guaranteed.
2. England - 4 out of 5. 80 per cent. - Semifinalists.
3. West Indies - 3/4 75 per cent - undecided
4. New zealand - 3/5 60 per cent - Out!!
5. India - 2/4 50 per cent, undecided
6. Sri Lanka - 2/4 50 per cent - undecided
7. Pakistan - 2/5 40 per cent - Semi finalist!!
8. South Africa - 2/5 40 Per cent. Out!

In other words at the end of super 8 there would be 5 teams who'd have won more watches than Pakistan with another 2 who'd have won the same. So basically having finished with least number of wins among super eight, you have them making the last 4. What's worse is that Sri Lanka could also make it that way.

 

[Sir Alex]

Why on earth would prelim points be carried forwards? That would be completely unfair given that the four sides in the group would have all faced different sides. It's not like in the 50-over WC in 07, where you carried forward points only from your game with the other team to also go through.

There is no argument that can be made for points being carried forwards in the interest of fairness. If pakistan aren't good enough then they'll get found out in the semis, or the final.

Jesus Alex, how come you're the only one on the planet who can't see that the system is perfectly fair and reasonable.

Must be my fixation with the idea that the team with more wins should progress to the knockouts ahead of teams with lesser wins.

If there are instances where a team managed to reach knockouts in a world tournament, despite having lesser wins than a team which exited it, please feel free to share.

In other words why the need for two prelim rounds?

 

[Uppercut]

Afghanistan should have carried their win over Ireland in qualifying into the tournament imo.

 

[Burgey]

Put the rules above spirit of the tournament right?

The entire point of having this prelim games is to find 4 best teams of the lot. From there onwards it is a hit or miss, which is understandable because the assumption is that there is little to choose otherwise between these 4, and hence the knockouts.

Now, the purpose of the tournament is to find the best team in that. For that you've three main stages. Be among the top 4. Win the semi. And Win the final.

There is no ambiguity about the last two stages. It's winner takes all basically.

So now the issue or the 'whine' is regarding the first stage. How to determine the top 4 from the 12?

Common sense says it should be the 4 teams that have won the maximum number of games. This is entirely consistent with the latter two stages, and the spirit of tournament itself, which says the one who wins more should take precedence over the one that win less.

I don't have a problem with Pakistan going into the knockouts with a less than 50 per cent record. But when that is at the cost of two teams who have registered more wins than them at the same stage, is basically mocking at the entire purpose, principle and spirit of the tournament. To attribute it to 'well rules are same for everyone' is basically taking refuge behind rules which are completely in discordance with the basic logic of this tournament or any tournament.

Please for the thousandth time, Let me make it clear my whine has got nothing to with Pakistan the team. My grouse is with purely with ICC who has let this loophole go unnoticed. Ultimately it should be the number of wins that should decide the last 4 and ICC has screwed upon that basic premise by blindly going behind some models in other sports, without realising this could end in farcical situations like this. 12 teams is a small spread. There is absolutely no reason for introducing two mini round robin rounds and deny carry forward of points from the first sound to the second.

Summarising,

1. Australia - 4 wins out of 4, win rate 100 - Semi guaranteed.
2. England - 4 out of 5. 80 per cent. - Semifinalists.
3. West Indies - 3/4 75 per cent - undecided
4. New zealand - 3/5 60 per cent - Out!!
5. India - 2/4 50 per cent, undecided
6. Sri Lanka - 2/4 50 per cent - undecided
7. Pakistan - 2/5 40 per cent - Semi finalist!!
8. South Africa - 2/5 40 Per cent. Out!

In other words at the end of super 8 there would be 5 teams who'd have won more watches than Pakistan with another 2 who'd have won the same. So basically having finished with least number of wins among super eight, you have them making the last 4. What's worse is that Sri Lanka could also make it that way.

For those CWers who can't be ****ed reading this, the gravimen of Sir Alex's post is that India should have immunity, like in Survivor. They have to be in the semis, or else.. Or else.

Suck it up mate. If India win their last game they can still make it, at least I think. Don't care really.

And if Australia don't win it I hope Pakistan do, because there'll be a few blokes on here who will go so utterly spare that they'll end up banned.

And that'll be tops, to use the old 80s vernacular of my youth.

 

[Sir Alex]

Because it's Pakistan that are "benefitting" from it while India look set to be flying home.

Where did I say that? I have maintained this has nothing to do with India or Pakistan.

Shame that a moderator who's supposed to set an example for other posters indulge in such kind of posts which has no basis whatsoever.

Sir, you're free to disprove me, if you can show me instances where a team has progressed to the last 4 of a tournament with fewer number of wins than losses, and at the cost of teams which recorded more number of wins than them. Thanks.

 

[Sir Alex]

Afghanistan should have carried their win over Ireland in qualifying into the tournament imo.

The flaw being they'd have the benefit of the extra game then, which nullifies the Level Playing Field.

 

[Burgey]

Where did I say that? I have maintained this has nothing to do with India or Pakistan.

Shame that a moderator who's supposed to set an example for other posters indulge in such kind of posts which has no basis whatsoever.

Sir, you're free to disprove me, if you can show me instances where a team has progressed to the last 4 of a tournament with fewer number of wins than losses, and at the cost of teams which recorded more number of wins than them. Thanks.

You can say what you like, but your position on this ois so transparent as to be laughable.

So, if India were in Pakistan's position, you'd be saying "we don't deserve the chance to cop a few more bruises from the bouncer barrage, we've been mud"?

Give me a break mate. You're better than this, surely.

 

[Sir Alex]

For those CWers who can't be ****ed reading this, the gravimen of Sir Alex's post is that India should have immunity, like in Survivor. They have to be in the semis, or else.. Or else.

Suck it up mate. If India win their last game they can still make it, at least I think. Don't care really.

And if Australia don't win it I hope Pakistan do, because there'll be a few blokes on here who will go so utterly spare that they'll end up banned.

And that'll be tops, to use the old 80s vernacular of my youth.

Yeah bring it on mate. Resorting to laughable personal attacks when you can't contest what I said. Not the first time. Surely won't be the last either.

But am not going to reciprocate on the same line.

Btw, request you to answer my query whether The team that pipped past Australia during WC qualifiers had less wins than Aus?

 

[Burgey]

The difference is that in football, there are 3 results possible, win, draw or loss.

Out of curiousity, did any team which qualified at their expense had a lower win rate than Australia at the point of latter's exit?

Without looking it up, for certain they did. We didn't lose a game, plenty of the teams who qualified from different qualifying pools had worse results than Aus.

Just like, hang on, Pakistan, who have worse results than India, but being from a different pool, have snuck through.

Fair dinkum, starting to hope they win this now. Absolute comedy gold on here if they do.

 

[BoyBrumby]

This is the third tournament with the same format, isn't it?

 

[Sir Alex]

Without looking it up, for certain they did. We didn't lose a game, plenty of the teams who qualified from different qualifying pools had worse results than Aus.

Just like, hang on, Pakistan, who have worse results than India, but being from a different pool, have snuck through.

Fair dinkum, starting to hope they win this now. Absolute comedy gold on here if they do.

More wins than Australia? Please could you put in the exacts? Further, I repeat am not sure how valid is a comparison between football and cricket, as the former has three possible results while the latter has just the two.

My position has been transparent on this issue from the outset. It has got nothing to do with your perceptions not being the reality.

 

[Sir Alex]

This is the third tournament with the same format, isn't it?

First with me around here.

Not sure 07 one was on the same lines. Because I can't remember associates playing in that.