View Poll Results: does the super 8 stage go to long

Voters
41. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    19 46.34%
  • no

    22 53.66%
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 102

Thread: does the super 8 go to long

  1. #1
    Cricket Spectator jemo27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    39

    does the super 8 go to long

    24 days is nearly a month, i feel it to longs

  2. #2
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Had things worked as they were planned I certainly don't feel so.

    Personally, I feel the preliminary group-stages should have been done at another time - as a qualifying round, rather than the tournament proper. Maybe a year ago. Then start the tournament with the Super Eight phrase. Maybe that'd be an option in future, if people insist there must be mega amounts of top-meets-bottom games.

    And, of course, an added bonus there would be that had it done so it's unlikely things would have failed to go according to plan.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  3. #3
    International Coach KiWiNiNjA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In the kitchen
    Posts
    10,601
    I think nearly a month of the TOP 8 sides playing each other is definitely not TOO long. Unfortunately things didnt go all to plan but still....

  4. #4
    International 12th Man irfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,732
    Yes, it does. But that's not to say I don't like the format. The intention of the ICC was obviously to get the top 8 Test nations playing against each other and playing everyone bar the team they played in the group stages.

    There is no other 'complete' way of judging a team's quality other than have it play every other team once before the semi-final stage. No teams can say they had an unlucky draw, got badly affected by pitch & weather conditions or got knocked out due to a freak result.

    I also like the carry-over-points system where a team gets 2 points if it defeats the other team in their group that qualified for the super 8. Minimises dead rubbers and lack of intensity shown by team who's already qualified - reinforces the importance of every WC match.

    Atm, the WC is semi-league, semi-tournament and if you want it to be a true tournament then you have to alter the format accordingly.

    1. Introduce seedings; seedings correspond to ODI rankings given out to all teams. The seeding of teams should be done after the last ODI match before the WC.
    2. Keep the Group Stage format as is.
    3. Say the teams that qualified for the Next stage are of corresponding seedings (1,2,3,4,6,8,9,11)

    Then the matches would 1 vs 11, 2 vs 9, 3 vs 8, 4 vs 6.

    Winners progress to Super 4 stage(lame I know) (say 1,2,3,6 win) where it would be a round-robin competition. The two teams then play-off in the final

    This way to qualify for the Final you would have to play a maximum of four matches instead of seven matches. One potential pitfall with this format is that half the teams that get out of the group stage will be knocked out with one bad perfomance.

    This is done to ensure that freak results (Ireland vs Pakistan) doesn't ensure Ireland an extra 6 games but rather a sudden-death match that proves whether they really have the quality to mix it up with the big boys.

    This format may be harsh, if all the big 8 nations qualify then it means that if you lose one crunch match, you're out. But if you can't bank on winning in a pressure do-or-die situation then you shouldn't be entertaining thoughts of winning a WC

    Just my two cents


  5. #5
    International Coach pup11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    India
    Posts
    12,146
    No way the Super 8's is too long for me, i think this format is the best we have had so far in any WC. Its just a pity that India and Pakistan weren't able to make it through to the Super 8's.


    Anyways according to me the best 8 teams in this WC are in the Super 8's and thats what really matters in the end.

  6. #6
    State Captain LA ICE-E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    1,973
    well if they really cared about making it shorter...then they could have- just have two games a day like you did it in group stage- then it would be down to 27 days all together...but i guess super 8 games needs undivided attention...

  7. #7
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Had things worked as they were planned I certainly don't feel so.

    Personally, I feel the preliminary group-stages should have been done at another time - as a qualifying round, rather than the tournament proper. Maybe a year ago. Then start the tournament with the Super Eight phrase. Maybe that'd be an option in future, if people insist there must be mega amounts of top-meets-bottom games.

    And, of course, an added bonus there would be that had it done so it's unlikely things would have failed to go according to plan.
    A year ago?

    Utterly meaningless to do that, since the teams evolve for one thing.
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  8. #8
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Well the rest of the qualification was such a time ago.

    Teams evolve over a tournament. You're never going to stop that from having an effect.

    The whole point is that the tournament and the qualifying should be separate. IMO the preliminary group stages were more qualifiers than part of the finals.

  9. #9
    Hall of Fame Member age_master's Avatar
    Plasmanaut on Fire Champion!
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    15,777
    Definately not too long for mine.
    Member of CW Green
    Kerry O'Keefe - Worlds funniest Commentator

  10. #10
    State Captain LA ICE-E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    1,973
    then would it have been a good idea to have two super 8 matches a day too?

  11. #11
    JJD Heads Athlai's Avatar
    Duck Hunt Champion! Plops Champion!
    Tournaments Won: 2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl:lsFJg/s
    Posts
    27,632
    Quote Originally Posted by LA ICE-E View Post
    then would it have been a good idea to have two super 8 matches a day too?



    But how would we watch them all live!
    Think of all that unwatched cricket.

  12. #12
    Cricket Web Owner James's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    23,980
    I think the problem is that there isn't the nature of knock-outs so the games don't really give you that edge of your seat feeling.

    Why can't we just have Quarters/Semis/Finals like the Football World Cup?

  13. #13
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Well the rest of the qualification was such a time ago.
    The group stages aren't qualification though, they're part of the tournament.

    What you're saying is the equivalent of saying the group stages of the 2010 World Cup should be in 2009.

  14. #14
    State Captain LA ICE-E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    1,973
    Quote Originally Posted by James View Post
    I think the problem is that there isn't the nature of knock-outs so the games don't really give you that edge of your seat feeling.

    Why can't we just have Quarters/Semis/Finals like the Football World Cup?
    because people complain that its not fair and all that crap when a team like india gets out...
    well not enough games i guess...because remember fifa world cup has the round of 16 too...so may be they will have knockouts when the formats expands...

  15. #15
    State Captain LA ICE-E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    1,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    But how would we watch them all live!
    Think of all that unwatched cricket.
    it was like that in the group stage...just switch between channels...but yeah thats why im guess this is long...so if you complaining about it being long than you're obviously talking about cutting some cricket out anyways...it would cut it down for you but the cricket wouldn't be cut down...

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. How will the super 8's work
    By brockley in forum World Cup 2007
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 09-02-2007, 06:22 PM
  2. Should Super 8 be divided into two groups?
    By LA ICE-E in forum World Cup 2007
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 06-02-2007, 01:04 AM
  3. 2006 Super Cheap Auto Bathurst 1000
    By Johnners in forum General Sports Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 08-10-2006, 07:33 AM
  4. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 16-09-2006, 07:09 PM
  5. The ICC Super Series
    By aussie in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 390
    Last Post: 04-07-2005, 06:30 AM

Posting Permissions

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