Kenya in the SS

[Bazza]

I agree that South Africa should have won their own games, but still on face value how does it look like ?

Kenya in the Super sixes, MAYBE Zimbabwe in their, indicates a troubled tournament, and quite a few surprises as well. Its cricket, you have to be at your best everyday or else the others steal away your cake.

Its not fair to say that Kenya shouldn't be in the Super sixes, It may not look healthy but cricket is by chance......

Sorry I disagree.

South Africa are out - tough luck you should have won your games, it was in your own hands, blah blah blah.

Yet Kenya and Zimbabwe are through - congratulations, they deserve it, let them have their glory, they don't lower the standard of the SS, etc, etc.

What a walking contradiction? South Africa were to blame for not qualifying because they should have beaten NZ and WI and SL, well yeah fair enough. But Kenya only beat SL of any note. Zimbabwe didn't beat anyone except non-ODI-status sides.

Personally I'd rather see an off-the-boil SA in the SS than Kenya or Zimbabwe any day.

 

[Bazza]

Out of the top 10 sides, there are three who don't deserve a place in the SS - Kenya, Zimbabwe and Pakistan, who just never performed.

Yet two od those sides have got through at the expensse of South Africa, West Indies and England, who are blatantly much better sides and have played better cricket in this world cup. For this reason the supporters of those sides have a right to feel bitter, IMO.

For a while it looked like the two forfeited games wouldn't have much of an impact on the outcome of the group stages, but as it turns out they have very much so, the SS becomes a non-event, and Kenya will qualify for the semi finals, thus guaranteeing Australia a place in the final.

 

[V Reddy]

Australia were almost in the final before the WC started. I don't think any other team would be able to stop them anyway, so let Kenya have their glory.

I think NZ could trouble Australia . Not b'coz they beat India but they have some very good allrounders. I am also a kenya supporter but semifinal is too much for them.

 

[Paid The Umpire]

Kenya deserved it.

 

[Rik]

Although I feel Kenya deserved to go through, I am not a fan of the points carried through. Why not just let everyone scrap it out for the 4 places instead of giving several of the sides massive advantages?

 

[marc71178]

If you scrap the pulling through, then you get a lot of meaningless games AND extra games needed to be played in the Super Sixes!

 

[Rik]

If you scrap the pulling through, then you get a lot of meaningless games AND extra games needed to be played in the Super Sixes!

Yes but it can mean that the semi finals are basically decided and 2 of the teams are just there with basically no chance. So why are they there?

 

[Anil]

Yes but it can mean that the semi finals are basically decided and 2 of the teams are just there with basically no chance. So why are they there?

In '99, if I remember correctly, Australia went into the SS with no points, won all their SS matches and got through to the semis and the rest is history. So, it's not like NZ and Zimbabwe have no chance, especially NZ.

 

[full_length]

Marc is right- this point system (carrying through points) is a very good one.
By letting teams carry points for beating other qualifiers, they are effectively creating a league of six best teams each playing the other once. Apart from this, additional points are taken forward for beating teams that finish behind these six. It makes a lot of sense for me, especially now, that they also give points for matches won against non-qualifiers.

Ofcourse it all depends on whether the groups have been fairly split (ie. group A and group B teams are more or lesson par.)
Given this is the case, each team qualifying from (say) group A will have played the other two top teams from this group. Then, in the SS, they play the top three teams from the other group. Same goes for the other group.

So it's, in a way, like the '92 format.
So what if Kenya and Zimbabwe are highly unlikely to win the WC? The objective was to pick the top six.. and that's been done.

 

[marc71178]

Marc is right

I never thought I'd see you post something like that!

Ofcourse it all depends on whether the groups have been fairly split (ie. group A and group B teams are more or lesson par.)

I think that in this Cup they were fairly even to be honest, the idea of using the ICC ranking worked for me.

 

[Top_Cat]

Why not just let everyone scrap it out for the 4 places instead of giving several of the sides massive advantages?

Why do you think the concept of the Super Sixes was invented at all? To stop the situation happening to other teams as that which happened to South Africa in the 1996 World Cup where they won all prelim matches and were beaten in the semi-final so were out. Their argument was that form wasn't rewarded and was in fact penalised where their one off game turned out to be the one which counted. They wanted a change whereby even if a team has one or two off days, they can still compete.

If we had it your way, we'd be reverting to a method which almost no-one was happy with and that the ICC changed for a reason.

To all the Kenyan naysayers, what are they supposed to do about being in the Super Sixes; just let themselves get thrashed saying "Well, we didn't really deserve to be here anyway"? Sure they've had some luck along they way but the reality is that they did beat two Test playing nations so they deserve to at least be in the Super Sixes.

Whether they'll compete is another matter but to say they don't deserve to be there denigrates the efforts they put in and patronises their players, effectively saying to them "You're just lucky! You didn't deserve to win." It's akin to what spoilt-brat older brothers say when their little bro beats them in backyard games and that's the exact image I get in my head when I hear all this criticism of Kenya. They're there, deal with it. South Africa and the West Indies certainly have vastly more talented teams but to infer that on THAT basis they deserved a super sixes place more than Kenya is to ignore that they did not play to their potential.

Geez, if teams deserved to go through to the finals on the basis of pure talent and not how well they played, why have a WC at all? Why not just give the trophy to the Aussies and be done with it?

To use a similar argument would also infer that India did not deserve to win the 1983 WC because the West Indies side was a much more talented side or that Pakistan didn't deserve to win the 1992 WC because they started badly and that other teams somehow 'deserved' it more. WHAT-ever................

 

[Anil]

Very logical and sound, T_C. Very good points.