LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThat's fair enough but it seems that most days have only had one
That's fair enough but it seems that most days have only had one
"It was an easy decision to sign. I could have gone elsewhere, I had calls, but it never entered my mind it's not about the money."
Jason Koumas
SWA
RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.
The tv networks probably offered more money to have it turn out that way. On a weekday the early timeslot is a terrible viewing time for European viewers, and it's not great for Australian viewers either. On a weekend that changes, so they're probably reluctant to schedule too many early games for weekdays.Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.
Too many bones, not enough CASH!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZwgu8_b0Vw
RIP Craig
Weekdays are just crap for Europeans full-stop, literally the whole game falls in working hours
The formats with the "Points Carried Forward" from the Group stages, were, quite frankly, ****ing ludicrous. The whole basis of that system is the assumption that if you beat a particular team in the group stage then it can be assumed that you would also beat that same team in the Super stages, so let's not bother playing that game and just give you the points now.
So a win in the Group stage actually counted as two wins (one win in the Group stage and one in the Super stage) if the team you beat also made the Super stage. Nuts.
No, it still counted as one win, it just removed an extra load of games which would've made the concept of the better sides all facing all (which has been pretty much unanimously agreed as the bast format on here) too unwieldy to carry out.
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.
No, it counted as two wins. You got 2 points for it in the group stage and 2 points for it in the Super stage. That's 4 points, 2 wins worth of points.
If it only counted as one win, how did it remove an extra load of games? The way it removed those games is by counting one game twice instead of playing two games!!
Last edited by BeeGee; 10-03-2011 at 05:25 PM.
I make two changes to the 2011 format. I play two games every day to compact it a bit more and the top team from each pool automatically advances to the semi final with the next two highest from each pool playing in semi final qualifiers. It only cuts off two games in the tournament and doesn't make it so drawn out and makes the pool games more worthwhile. Currently the top eight is ovbious with the Windies winning key games and England beating the Saffers plus Bangles beating Ireland. So all the games are meaningless til the lottery stages. The No.1 teams for each pool deserve an automatic place in the semi finals. Otherwise best format since 1999 and before that 1992.
Qualifying Finals
A2 v B3
B2 v A3
Semi Finals
A1 v Winner B2/A3
B1 v Winner A2/B3
Why would NZ be in your WCQ League? They were ranked 5th ahead of England, Sri Lanka, and the West Indies when the groups for this WC were decided. And with the need for a qualifying tournament then rankings would need to be decided earlier, so NZ could have even been in the top 3. Please check facts.
kthxbye
Last edited by KiWiNiNjA; 10-03-2011 at 06:33 PM.
My fav format:
4 groups - 3 teams in each group, then instead of the Super 6/8s, the knock out stage.
The formats with the "Points Carried Forward" from the Group stages, were, quite frankly, ****ing ludicrous. The whole basis of that system is the assumption that if you beat a particular team in the group stage then it can be assumed that you would also beat that same team in the Super stages, so let's not bother playing that game and just give you the points now.
So a win in the Group stage actually counted as two wins (one win in the Group stage and one in the Super stage) if the team you beat also made the Super stage. Nuts.The problem I had with the carry over points was that the teams carried over only the points earned against the teams that made it to next stage. That certainly was ridiculous. In 99 for example, ZIM finished 3rd in its group, but because the two teams it beat - SA and Ind - it was ranked 1st or 2nd at the start of super six stage. So while ZIM could have made it to the semis with just one more win, India needed to win all 3! Complete nonsense. If there has to be carry over of points, all points against all oppositions should be carried over.
Well I thought it gave an edge to group games. Take Eng V NZ in 07. We realistically knew both teams were going to progress but that game still had plenty riding on it because of the prospect of the points bearing fruit in the Super 8s.
Nah, IMO we need as many knockout games as possible. Every game should have a lot riding on it. You don't want the finals decided with several games still to play. What exactly would the other teams be playing for at that point?
Invite as many teams as possible, get the group stage over fast, and move on to the exciting phase.
"The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
-My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with
How the Universe came from nothing
I can see both sides of the argument.
From what I remember, most people were salivating over the 2007 WC format prior to the tournament. It was like 92 - all the top teams playing each other. Then India and Pakistan both screwed up and there were a lot of one-sided games in the Super 8s.
Would the top 2 be decided with loads of game to spare? Possibly, but then again you could go into the final weekend of the Super 8s, with four games being played and heaps of permutations where any couple of teams could make it through.
At the same time, knockouts ARE what tournaments are all about and they are exciting. I think cricket needs to find a balance, because a WC with a group stage of three games then quarters seems a bit too short, really. When we live in an age of 7-match ODI series, 6 games to win a WC seems like too few.
Yes, those universally loved 7 match ODI series.
But yes, six games may seem too little but IMO more is not always better.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
