2015 World Cup compared to other World Cups

[G.I.Joe]

nah I like that carry over points system.

Oh you do, don't you? Sicko.

 

[hendrix]

I still don't get your logic for not liking the carryover system.

Why should points carry over from games against teams who didn't make the super 6? That would invalidate everything.

When points carry over only amongst those 6 teams it effectively blends 2 pool stages into one, which makes things much fairer.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, the Super Six stage was effectively a league where each team played each other team once. Carry over points existed because you didn't play teams from your own pool a second time; the pool games completed the league. Scrapping carry over points would mean each team had one team they didn't play against -- an incomplete league -- and having all points carry over would have each team play against a random non-league side within the league.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I still don't get your logic for not liking the carryover system.

Why should points carry over from games against teams who didn't make the super 6? That would invalidate everything.

When points carry over only amongst those 6 teams it effectively blends 2 pool stages into one, which makes things much fairer.

Yeah, the Super Six stage was effectively a league where each team played each other team once. Carry over points existed because you didn't play teams from your own pool a second time; the pool games completed the league. Scrapping carry over points would mean each team had one team they didn't play against -- an incomplete league -- and having all points carry over would have each team play against a random non-league side within the league.

(a) The criticism of the QF format is that the group games mean nothing.

(b) If you don't enter the Super sixes with points that correspond to your standing at the end of the group stage, then the group stage meant nothing.

I get the idea behind carrying over points against fellow qualifiers into the super sixes, but it's stupid because there is a good chance of (b) happening, as it did during the 1999 WC. SA derived no benefit from topping their group table, and were indeed punished by having to play Australia in the SF as a consequence, instead of the Final, which would have been the most probable match-up in the absence of this utterly stupid carry-over system.

Did I say it was a stupid system?

Should probably reiterate it, because it was really really stupid.

One can't criticise the devaluation of the group stages in one format whilst condoning the same for another format.

 

[harsh.ag]

I prefer the QF format, since I like knockout matches. For example, I'm fascinated by the idea that there should be a final between the top 2 in the football leagues (given a maximum difference of say 6 points between them when the season gets over. More than that, and the top one wins by default).

 

[hendrix]

(a) The criticism of the QF format is that the group games mean nothing.

(b) If you don't enter the Super sixes with points that correspond to your standing at the end of the group stage, then the group stage meant nothing.

I get the idea behind carrying over points against fellow qualifiers into the super sixes, but it's stupid because there is a good chance of (b) happening, as it did during the 1999 WC. SA derived no benefit from topping their group table, and were indeed punished by having to play Australia in the SF as a consequence, instead of the Final, which would have been the most probable match-up in the absence of this utterly stupid carry-over system.

Did I say it was a stupid system?

Should probably reiterate it, because it was really really stupid.

One can't criticise the devaluation of the group stages in one format whilst condoning the same for another format.

That is a stupid comment. South Africa weren't "punished" for topping their group by playing Australia; Australia had lost to NZ and Pakistan in the group stage, hence they weren't ranked highly.

Australia were simply not amongst the top 3 teams across the length of that tournament. Had there been a quarterfinal situation they also may well have been knocked out. Hell, in plenty of other formats they may not have even made the QFs.

They got themselves together towards the end of the tournament and won the thing; which is another big tick in the box for the super six format. They even finished higher in the super six format than South Africa! I don't get how you can be using South Africa's knock out as a black mark on that tournament.

 

[Flem274*]

Here's an idea I concocted in two minutes

- Five Groups of three seeded based on rank with the best team in each group going through to the next round. I don't have the rankings around but say it goes one top five country, one 6-10 country and one associate in each group. #1, #10 and #15 get a group, #2, #9 and #14 get another group and so on until you have #5, #6 and #11 in a pool of death.
- Final Five play in a league.
- The top two from the Final Five contest the final.

If the winners follow the rankings then the top five ranked sides will play in the Final Five and provide an awesome product, and because the group stages are so important they won't be wasted but the minnows still have a chance. Every game has meaning and hey, if the #12 in the world gets through they deserved it because they beat a top five side and a lower full member to get in.

Thoughts?

 

[Flem274*]

So now I've dug up the rankings and in my format the five groups would be

Group 1 - Australia, Zimbabwe, PNG
Group 2 - India, Bangladesh, Scotland
Group 3 - South Africa, West Indies, UAE
Group 4 - Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Ireland
Group 5 - England, New Zealand, Afghanistan

So Australia and India all but guaranteed to go through, South Africa should damn well go through, Sri Lanka and Pakistan could go either way and so could New Zealand and England however in the latter two pools Sri Lanka and New Zealand would be the favourites leaving a Final Five of

- Australia
- India
- South Africa
- Sri Lanka
- New Zealand

 

[hendrix]

So now I've dug up the rankings and in my format the five groups would be

Group 1 - Australia, Zimbabwe, PNG
Group 2 - India, Bangladesh, Scotland
Group 3 - South Africa, West Indies, UAE
Group 4 - Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Ireland
Group 5 - England, New Zealand, Afghanistan

So Australia and India all but guaranteed to go through, South Africa should damn well go through, Sri Lanka and Pakistan could go either way and so could New Zealand and England however in the latter two pools Sri Lanka and New Zealand would be the favourites leaving a Final Five of

- Australia
- India
- South Africa
- Sri Lanka
- New Zealand

This isn't an option in the ICC's eyes. India could very feasibly be knocked out before the pool stage.

 

[ankitj]

(a) The criticism of the QF format is that the group games mean nothing.

(b) If you don't enter the Super sixes with points that correspond to your standing at the end of the group stage, then the group stage meant nothing.

I get the idea behind carrying over points against fellow qualifiers into the super sixes, but it's stupid because there is a good chance of (b) happening, as it did during the 1999 WC. SA derived no benefit from topping their group table, and were indeed punished by having to play Australia in the SF as a consequence, instead of the Final, which would have been the most probable match-up in the absence of this utterly stupid carry-over system.

Did I say it was a stupid system?

Should probably reiterate it, because it was really really stupid.

One can't criticise the devaluation of the group stages in one format whilst condoning the same for another format.

Yeah, completely agree with that. In 2003 there was an attempt to correct that but it didn't correct it completely. What they did was that a win against a team that qualified in super six stage counted for more (4 points) and win against a team that didn't qualify counted for less (1 point). So there was acknowledgement of the problem Joe is referring to. I think it would be best to have teams carry over all their group points.

 

[ankitj]

This isn't an option in the ICC's eyes. India could very feasibly be knocked out before the pool stage.

Hey genuinely curious. Were there any leaked reports that formats of world cup is being decided keeping in mind India's interests. Won't be surprised if they are, but want to know.

 

[G.I.Joe]

That is a stupid comment. South Africa weren't "punished" for topping their group by playing Australia; Australia had lost to NZ and Pakistan in the group stage, hence they weren't ranked highly.

Australia were simply not amongst the top 3 teams across the length of that tournament. Had there been a quarterfinal situation they also may well have been knocked out. Hell, in plenty of other formats they may not have even made the QFs.

They got themselves together towards the end of the tournament and won the thing; which is another big tick in the box for the super six format. They even finished higher in the super six format than South Africa! I don't get how you can be using South Africa's knock out as a black mark on that tournament.

Australia did top the group in reality, but they only did so because SA did not derive the full benefit of topping their group table! If SA had entered the Super sixes with maximum points, as they should have, then they would have topped the Super sixes table - which would make the SF lineup SA vs NZ and Aus vs Pak, with an Aus-SA final the most likely outcome. Australia winning the tournament is not an endorsement of the format - it is merely a reflection of the design of the tournament that allowed teams to start off slowly and peak late. A properly designed points system might well have seen the same result, but it would have structured it more accurately with the best game of the tournament as the Final rather than the Semi-final.

The fact remains that the points South Africa carried into the super sixes were not reflective of their standing at the end of the group stage. There is no amount of mental callisthenics that can refute this. Group toppers need to enter the next stage with maximum points if the group stage is to have any value beyond just knocking out certain teams.

If the carried over points do not reflect the group standings, then they devalue the group stage. If the devaluation of the group stage is a criticism of the QF format, then it must be a criticism of the Super sixes format; or more specifically - the well-intentioned, but nevertheess ill-designed carry over points system.

 

[GIMH]

16 teams
4 x 4 group stage, top two progress
2 x 4 group stage, top two progress
Semis
Final

 

[Jimbo the giant]

Super 6s wasn't that great. I remember the Aussie's trying to manipulate WI's runrate by blocking a few overs to try and knock out NZ. NZ had beaten them so they wanted to get the windies through so they could gain an advantage. I don't like the manipulation im glad its gone tbh.

 

[marc71178]

Australia did top the group in reality, but they only did so because SA did not derive the full benefit of topping their group table! If SA had entered the Super sixes with maximum points, as they should have, then they would have topped the Super sixes table - which would make the SF lineup SA vs NZ and Aus vs Pak, with an Aus-SA final the most likely outcome. Australia winning the tournament is not an endorsement of the format - it is merely a reflection of the design of the tournament that allowed teams to start off slowly and peak late. A properly designed points system might well have seen the same result, but it would have structured it more accurately with the best game of the tournament as the Final rather than the Semi-final.

The fact remains that the points South Africa carried into the super sixes were not reflective of their standing at the end of the group stage. There is no amount of mental callisthenics that can refute this. Group toppers need to enter the next stage with maximum points if the group stage is to have any value beyond just knocking out certain teams.

If the carried over points do not reflect the group standings, then they devalue the group stage. If the devaluation of the group stage is a criticism of the QF format, then it must be a criticism of the Super sixes format; or more specifically - the well-intentioned, but nevertheess ill-designed carry over points system.

So in that case by giving SA points for topping the group you're actually turning round to the side that beat them and saying "Yeah we know you beat them and all that but we're going to give the points to SA anyway" How is that fair?

 

[G.I.Joe]

So in that case by giving SA points for topping the group you're actually turning round to the side that beat them and saying "Yeah we know you beat them and all that but we're going to give the points to SA anyway" How is that fair?

The group stage involves matches other than between those two sides. If you're disregarding those performances and not rewarding the table topper, where's the fairness in that? Why bother topping the table in that case? Makes the group stage performances as irrelevant as those with the QF format, in which case people need to stop flogging the dead horse about the group stages in the QF format being irrelevant. It's a matter of consistency.

 

[hendrix]

Hey genuinely curious. Were there any leaked reports that formats of world cup is being decided keeping in mind India's interests. Won't be surprised if they are, but want to know.

Nah it's not that it's in India's interests, it's that it's in the ICC's interest. The ICC takes the profit from the broadcasting deals. India goes out early and those broadcast deals are suddenly worth bugger all.

So no BCCI conspiracy or anything like that, and I'm certainly not claiming it's unfair to any other team. It's just that there's a vested interest in carrying on the tournament for as long as possible without the good-ish teams being knocked out.

Australia did top the group in reality, but they only did so because SA did not derive the full benefit of topping their group table! If SA had entered the Super sixes with maximum points, as they should have, then they would have topped the Super sixes table - which would make the SF lineup SA vs NZ and Aus vs Pak, with an Aus-SA final the most likely outcome. Australia winning the tournament is not an endorsement of the format - it is merely a reflection of the design of the tournament that allowed teams to start off slowly and peak late. A properly designed points system might well have seen the same result, but it would have structured it more accurately with the best game of the tournament as the Final rather than the Semi-final.

The fact remains that the points South Africa carried into the super sixes were not reflective of their standing at the end of the group stage. There is no amount of mental callisthenics that can refute this. Group toppers need to enter the next stage with maximum points if the group stage is to have any value beyond just knocking out certain teams.

If the carried over points do not reflect the group standings, then they devalue the group stage. If the devaluation of the group stage is a criticism of the QF format, then it must be a criticism of the Super sixes format; or more specifically - the well-intentioned, but nevertheess ill-designed carry over points system.

The group stage involves matches other than between those two sides. If you're disregarding those performances and not rewarding the table topper, where's the fairness in that? Why bother topping the table in that case? Makes the group stage performances as irrelevant as those with the QF format, in which case people need to stop flogging the dead horse about the group stages in the QF format being irrelevant. It's a matter of consistency.

Pakistan had beaten Australia and NZ. South Africa had lost to Zimbabwe. They would have derived full points if they had simply beaten the good teams in the first pool stage.
Zimbabwe had also beaten India. Zimbabwe rightfully carried forward more points than South Africa. They had been a better team by beating the best teams.

The whole point in the points carried ford is that matches against the good teams (proven by who comes out on top) matter.

South Africa did poorly against the good teams. And then they lost to Australia. There was nothing in the least unfair about that.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Pakistan had beaten Australia and NZ. South Africa had lost to Zimbabwe. They would have derived full points if they had simply beaten the good teams in the first pool stage.
Zimbabwe had also beaten India. Zimbabwe rightfully carried forward more points than South Africa. They had been a better team by beating the best teams.

The whole point in the points carried ford is that matches against the good teams (proven by who comes out on top) matter.

South Africa did poorly against the good teams. And then they lost to Australia. There was nothing in the least unfair about that.

Nowhere has the claim been made that SA losing to Australia was unfair. I don't even know where you're getting that from.

Your stance is that a team that ranks third in the group stage should be allowed to derive greater benefit than a team that tops the table. I disagree. Results against other teams should have a bearing on the assessment of how good you've been. Discounting other results makes a mockery of the group stage. It would be like India beating Australia in a Test series in the 2000s and claiming that they were a better Test team overall, ignoring the fact that they were not as good as Australia against a host of other opponents.

 

[marc71178]

The group stage involves matches other than between those two sides. If you're disregarding those performances and not rewarding the table topper, where's the fairness in that? Why bother topping the table in that case? Makes the group stage performances as irrelevant as those with the QF format, in which case people need to stop flogging the dead horse about the group stages in the QF format being irrelevant. It's a matter of consistency.

The group stage was a means to qualify for the next round, the next round in which teams were aware that results from the group stage against fellow qualifiers counted. If a team won all it's game then fair enough, but if they lose to the other qualifiers but get through by beating up the minnows more so that they place top in the group, why should they be rewarded?

 

[G.I.Joe]

The group stage was a means to qualify for the next round, the next round in which teams were aware that results from the group stage against fellow qualifiers counted. If a team won all it's game then fair enough, but if they lose to the other qualifiers but get through by beating up the minnows more so that they place top in the group, why should they be rewarded?

I'm going to pretend you didn't just ask why topping the table shouldn't be rewarded.

I feel like I've stepped into the twilight zone.