Was the format wrong?

[jot1]

Originally Posted by Sanz

It is not uncalled for at all. This is thread from a South African fan looking for excuses after their world cup loss. You wouldn't have opened this thread If SA were still around.

You are completely wrong! Don't attribute thoughts, feelings and actions to me that you have no basis for. You are probably judging me by your thoughts, actions and feelings.
In no way, at any time, have I made excuses for our loss. I honestly believe we played appalling cricket and deserved to lose. What's more, my reaction when we lost, was humorous.
To me this has and always will be just a game.
I believe it is this sort of thing that is causing cricketweb to lose some of it's best posters.
If certain people don't agree with a statement you make hoping to start an interesting discussion, they attack you.
Get over yourself, Sanz. Either discuss the issue and give intelligent reasons why you disagree, or get out of my thread.

[SJS]

Originally Posted by jot1

get out of my thread.

[Neil Pickup]

Originally Posted by jot1

Wouldn't a more true reflection of the best team be, the team with the most wins goes through to the final. The team that won the second most matches goes through to the final. Only when there is no such winner in either case, should the finalists be chosen by runrate or whatever.

This was the basic pretence underlining the super eight in the Caribbean this spring, wasn't it? That hardly produced entertaining cricket, did it?

This was a format aimed at producing intensity and as many crunch games as possible - yes, we've had a handful of dead games, but it's an improvement on there being a handful of live ones.

Winning a KO tournament is about winning when it matters. Ultimately, if you win all of your games, then you're going to win the tournament and run-rate will come nowhere near it.

[Sanz]

Originally Posted by jot1

You are completely wrong! Don't attribute thoughts, feelings and actions to me that you have no basis for. You are probably judging me by your thoughts, actions and feelings.
In no way, at any time, have I made excuses for our loss. I honestly believe we played appalling cricket and deserved to lose. What's more, my reaction when we lost, was humorous.
To me this has and always will be just a game.
I believe it is this sort of thing that is causing cricketweb to lose some of it's best posters.
If certain people don't agree with a statement you make hoping to start an interesting discussion, they attack you.
Get over yourself, Sanz. Either discuss the issue and give intelligent reasons why you disagree, or get out of my thread.

Oh and I have already given intelligent reason which you seemed to have ignored.

[anoop4real]

This format is cool and really entertaining .....it has turned lots of people to cricket lovers...

[roseboy64]

Originally Posted by Sanz

It is not uncalled for at all. This is thread from a South African fan looking for excuses after their world cup loss. You wouldn't have opened this thread If SA were still around.

Psychic are we?

[BoyBrumby]

The nature of group stages is that there is always the chance that two or more teams will finish on the same number of points. Any method one chooses to separate them might be more or less arbitrary, but net RR seems less so than, say, sixes scored or wickets taken.

The obvious answer would be to have had straight quarter-finals rather than the super 8 stage, but that would've meant an even shorter tournament. Not that that would necessarily be a bad thing, one of the strengths of this tournament has been its hit-and-run brevity, especially when compared with the interminable ODI WC.

&, I may've turned two pages over at once, but has the ICC decided this isn't the 20/20 world cup? I was under the impression that that's exactly what it was.

[Scaly piscine]

This one isn't an official World Cup no, the inaugural Twenty20 World Cup is going to be held in two years time.

[silentstriker]

Eh? Really? I thought that's what it was too.

[Perm]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

This one isn't an official World Cup no, the inaugural Twenty20 World Cup is going to be held in two years time.

Really? Always thought this was the first World Cup. Don't tell me this is the Champions Trophy of Twenty20.

[Scaly piscine]

I don't know why the ICC didn't call it an official World Cup really, there are mixed messages as to whether the one in England in 2009 will be a World Cup or another 'ICC World Twenty20' - the bit on Cricinfo must have changed from the former to the latter over these last few days.

[Richard]

Really, WTF does it matter what the stupid thing's called? It's a global Twenty20 tournament - nothing else matters in the slightest. I$C$C can call it whatever they think will do them most help.

[ColdSnow]

Originally Posted by Sanz

Oh and I have already given intelligent reason which you seemed to have ignored.

Sanz, I think your dig at Jot was uncalled for. He just made a point that the format might be flawed.

Anyway...Jot, I think the "best" format to ensure that the best team goes forward is obviously have each team play against each other and then the two best play the final.

But such a format will run too long. This format was very entertaining for me.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Richard

Really, WTF does it matter what the stupid thing's called? It's a global Twenty20 tournament - nothing else matters in the slightest. I$C$C can call it whatever they think will do them most help.

It matters in the same way it matters whether you are playing in a ODI World Cup or ODI Champions Trophy. Big difference in terms of the prestige.

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

It matters in the same way it matters whether you are playing in a ODI World Cup or ODI Champions Trophy. Big difference in terms of the prestige.

Well World Championships is just another name for a World Cup really and it basically is the Twenty20 equivalent of the ODI World Cup, even tho this isn't officially called a World Cup. ICC are just confusing the issue with their branding.

Like I said earlier I think the reason for calling it something else was negative association on the 'World Cup' name in cricket if this event failed (or to possibly differentiate it generally speaking). But anyway don't worry it.