Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 42

Thread: Was the format wrong?

  1. #1
    State Vice-Captain jot1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,098

    Was the format wrong?

    Surely any competition is about one team beating other teams and winning as many matches in the competition as possible. That way you can really say they are the best. IMO this competition has ended up being about who hit their runs the quickest in the preliminaries, not who won the most matches and beat the most teams and so, was the best team.
    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.

  2. #2
    *waits for someone to deliberately misinterpret 'format'*

    I don't see any real problem with the format personally, obviously it was somewhat abbreviated to fit into two weeks. For what it this competition was intended to be I think it has been fine.

    I expect the inaugural World Cup in England will be a bit longer with more games anyway.
    National Scrabble Champion 2009, 8th, 11th and 5th in 2009/2011/2013 World Championships, gold medal (team) at Causeway, 2011 Masters Champion
    Australia’s Darren Lehmann is a ‘blatant loser’ insists Stuart Broad
    Countdown Series 57 Champion
    King of the Arcade
    Reply from mods to my prank bans in public:
    Reply from mods to my prank bans in private:


    MSN - evil_budgie @ hotmail.co.uk

  3. #3
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by jot1 View Post
    Surely any competition is about one team beating other teams and winning as many matches in the competition as possible. That way you can really say they are the best. IMO this competition has ended up being about who hit their runs the quickest in the preliminaries, not who won the most matches and beat the most teams and so, was the best team.
    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.
    It must be now that South Africa is out, I am surprised that you waited so long to bring this up.

  4. #4
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    55,017
    Nah South Africa just choked to be honest. There's no excuse not getting 120 against the Indian bowling attack.
    "I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."

    Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.


  5. #5
    State Vice-Captain jot1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanz View Post
    It must be now that South Africa is out, I am surprised that you waited so long to bring this up.
    I feel this statement is a bit nasty and uncalled for.
    I posted this to get opinions from people other than South Africans. I was looking at the format, and just wondered if the format was the wrong way of calculating a winner and if other cricket fans felt that way too. Not just in the context of this World Cup, but i.r.o. other competitions too.

  6. #6
    Banned sideshowtim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,255
    I agree. This format is entertaining, but it in NO way gives you an idea of who the better team really is. In no way. However if people accept that, and see what it is, just some entertainment, I have no problem with it.

  7. #7
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    55,017
    What was being referred to was the actual format of the tournament. As in group stages, divisions etc.

  8. #8
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Perm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Clutha Valley, New Zealand
    Posts
    21,816
    Nothing wrong with the format IMO, a simple pool play stage followed by another similar stage and then semi finals and finals. It's a very important part of being a successful team to be able to lift when it counts and win crunch games, really all this talk of criticising the format is a bit of a back-lash from certain teams not making the grade (no offence jot1).
    The Future of International Cricket - Rohit Sharma, Suresh Raina, Ravi Bopara, Tim Southee, Ross Taylor, Shahriar Nafees, Raqibul Hasan, Salman Butt, JP Duminy
    Proud Supporter of the Bangladeshi Tigers
    Ryan ten Doeschate - A Legend in the Making
    MSN: zacattack90@hotmail.com

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Romance can be dealt with elsewhere - I just don't enjoy it in cricket.

  9. #9
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by jot1 View Post
    I feel this statement is a bit nasty and uncalled for.
    I posted this to get opinions from people other than South Africans. I was looking at the format, and just wondered if the format was the wrong way of calculating a winner and if other cricket fans felt that way too. Not just in the context of this World Cup, but i.r.o. other competitions too.
    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.

    In the Second Round SA didn't win more matches than India and NZ and their NRR was lower than India/NZ, hence they were eliminated, as simple as that., nothing wrong with the format, no format is wrong or right, there is no format that is perfect.

  10. #10
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by sideshowtim View Post
    I agree. This format is entertaining, but it in NO way gives you an idea of who the better team really is. In no way. However if people accept that, and see what it is, just some entertainment, I have no problem with it.
    Who cares about the better team ? India were not the better team in in 1983 world cup, but they were the better team when it mattered i.e. in the SF and Final. If we are so hell bent about better teams playing the finals then there is no point in having a tournament, infact we all know the best team, lets hand them the trophy.

  11. #11
    State Vice-Captain slugger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    1,053
    this was the same attitude towards the wi wc 07 format, when the minors played out of their skin and early exits followed for india and pak..

  12. #12
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Perm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Clutha Valley, New Zealand
    Posts
    21,816
    Fully in agreeance with Sanz here, you can criticise the format all you want, but it won't acheive anything until you realise that the teams who played better when it counted moved through into the knockout stages. Okay, Australia are the 'best' team in the world, but they were beaten on the day by India and didn't deserve to progress. Same goes with South Africa, India beat them and they earnt the right to move forward ahead of the home nation.

    I'm sure many of you know I'm a Kiwi and All Blacks supporter, we haven't won a World Cup in 20 years because we've choked when push comes to shove and we need to win the cut-throat games. Now, we as supporters don't blame the format, because it's painfully obvious you have to play well on the day to progress, rather that be the 'best' team in the world.

  13. #13
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by slugger View Post
    this was the same attitude towards the wi wc 07 format, when the minors played out of their skin and early exits followed for india and pak..
    I dont know about others, but I have never blamed a format for India's poor performance in any tournament. If you win enough matches, you will go to next round.

    And even if you are the best team and have won more games than anyone, at some point in the tournament, you will have to play the knock out round where you will have to perform under pressure.

  14. #14
    Hall of Fame Member honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    15,695
    to be honest, I do believe that the WC 2007 format was very good as it meant that you had to beat almost all top 8 sides to lift the WC. This format is not like that, more like the Champions Trophy in ODIs. As Scaly said, I guess when the actual Twenty20 WC happens, we will perhaps see all big teams having to play at least once against each other before the knock out stage is reached.

    But there is no real excuse for RSA not being able to score 106 off 120 balls against THIS Indian side (and before someone turns too clever, remember India bowled 20 wides.)
    We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.
    A cricket supporter forever

    Member of CW Red and AAAS - Appreciating only the best.


    Check out this awesome e-fed:

    PWE Efed

  15. #15
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,264
    I think the format is very good.

    If I was to suggest a change I would strongly recommend a replay of games completely washed out and a continuation on next day of games where some overs were still left to be bowled. Sharing points in a group where only two matches per team are played is a farce and any version of Duckworth Lewis in a 20 over game would often be a mockery of justice.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Format ideas for future World Cups.
    By slugger in forum World Cup 2007
    Replies: 162
    Last Post: 05-04-2007, 11:39 AM
  2. What's wrong in South Africa?
    By Richard in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 12-02-2007, 05:18 PM
  3. Sorry wrong section
    By tasso in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 18-11-2002, 03:03 PM

Posting Permissions

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