Was the format wrong?

jot1 · 22-09-2007, 09:44 AM

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.

Scaly piscine · 22-09-2007, 10:05 AM

*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.

Sanz · 22-09-2007, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jot1

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.

Jono · 22-09-2007, 10:59 AM

Nah South Africa just choked to be honest. There's no excuse not getting 120 against the Indian bowling attack.

jot1 · 22-09-2007, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sanz

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.

sideshowtim · 22-09-2007, 01:20 PM

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.

Jono · 22-09-2007, 01:25 PM

What was being referred to was the actual format of the tournament. As in group stages, divisions etc.

Perm · 22-09-2007, 05:13 PM

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).

Sanz · 22-09-2007, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jot1

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.

Sanz · 22-09-2007, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sideshowtim

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.

slugger · 22-09-2007, 08:53 PM

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..

Perm · 22-09-2007, 09:27 PM

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.

Sanz · 22-09-2007, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slugger

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.

honestbharani · 23-09-2007, 12:50 AM

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.)

SJS · 23-09-2007, 01:39 AM

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.

22-09-2007, 09:44 AM	#1 (permalink)
jot1 State Vice-Captain 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.

22-09-2007, 10:05 AM	#2 (permalink)
Scaly piscine Hall of Fame Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: North East England Posts: 18,536	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 in 2009 World Championships, gold medal (team) at Causeway, 2011 Masters Champion 24 Hour Scrabble World Record Attempt for Charity, in aid of Daisy Chain and End Polio Now 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

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

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

22-09-2007, 10:59 AM	#4 (permalink)
Jono Request Your Custom Title Now! Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Virat Kohli Posts: 47,551	Nah South Africa just choked to be honest. There's no excuse not getting 120 against the Indian bowling attack.

22-09-2007, 01:20 PM	#6 (permalink)
sideshowtim Banned 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.

22-09-2007, 01:25 PM	#7 (permalink)
Jono Request Your Custom Title Now! Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Virat Kohli Posts: 47,551	What was being referred to was the actual format of the tournament. As in group stages, divisions etc.

22-09-2007, 08:53 PM	#11 (permalink)
slugger State Vice-Captain Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Auckland Posts: 1,052	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..

22-09-2007, 09:27 PM	#12 (permalink)
Perm Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Clutha Valley, New Zealand Posts: 21,817	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.

23-09-2007, 01:39 AM	#15 (permalink)
SJS Hall of Fame Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Mumbai India Posts: 19,180	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.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)