-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
2015 World Cup compared to other World Cups
- Thread starter CricAddict
- Start date
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
The thing is, there's no reason topping the group stage should impact the super six phase, and that's not the purpose of carrying points over. The idea of carrying points over is just to make the super six phase a six team league where everyone plays all the other teams once, that's it. Carrying points over just stops teams that have already played each other having to play again.
Imagine in the group stage, team A and team B both win all their games except one. Team A beats team B, but loses to another random team, while team B wins all their matches except the one against team A. Team B might finish on top of the group by virtue of higher NRR, but only team A would carry over points into the Super Six. The purpose of carrying over those points has nothing to do with "rewarding" anyone for performance in the group stage - both teams have already been rewarded by passage into the Super Six stage. It's just a reflection of the points they've accrued by winning games in the new "league".
The alternative isn't having points carry over from all group stage games, that would be incredibly silly. Why should, say, Australia get Super Six points for beating Scotland in the group stage if Scotland don't qualify for the Super Six? The alternative in the above scenario is having team A and team B play again in the Super Six stage, which is fine, but makes an already long tournament even longer for no real reason.
And by the way, the criticism of the QF system isn't that it makes the group stage not matter, it's that qualifying for the QFs is too easy, which means individual games in the group stage don't matter. A completely different criticism. In this coming WC a team could lose to every test team in their group by huge margins and still make the knockout games and win the WC by beating minnows + Bangladesh/Zimbabwe. And even if you think that's fine, it takes like 50 games for anyone to actually get knocked out of the tournament, and then the entire tournament is decided in 7 knockout games in the last 10 days or whatever. Six group games would be okay if there were only two spots in each group, since every game would matter then, or two group stages or something would be fine too. It's just silly that a team can win their first 3 games and then have 3 dead matches that don't matter before they run into whoever in a single knockout game.
Imagine in the group stage, team A and team B both win all their games except one. Team A beats team B, but loses to another random team, while team B wins all their matches except the one against team A. Team B might finish on top of the group by virtue of higher NRR, but only team A would carry over points into the Super Six. The purpose of carrying over those points has nothing to do with "rewarding" anyone for performance in the group stage - both teams have already been rewarded by passage into the Super Six stage. It's just a reflection of the points they've accrued by winning games in the new "league".
The alternative isn't having points carry over from all group stage games, that would be incredibly silly. Why should, say, Australia get Super Six points for beating Scotland in the group stage if Scotland don't qualify for the Super Six? The alternative in the above scenario is having team A and team B play again in the Super Six stage, which is fine, but makes an already long tournament even longer for no real reason.
And by the way, the criticism of the QF system isn't that it makes the group stage not matter, it's that qualifying for the QFs is too easy, which means individual games in the group stage don't matter. A completely different criticism. In this coming WC a team could lose to every test team in their group by huge margins and still make the knockout games and win the WC by beating minnows + Bangladesh/Zimbabwe. And even if you think that's fine, it takes like 50 games for anyone to actually get knocked out of the tournament, and then the entire tournament is decided in 7 knockout games in the last 10 days or whatever. Six group games would be okay if there were only two spots in each group, since every game would matter then, or two group stages or something would be fine too. It's just silly that a team can win their first 3 games and then have 3 dead matches that don't matter before they run into whoever in a single knockout game.
Last edited:
G.I.Joe
International Coach
Nah, GIMH, they don't need to. The Super six doesn't need to be treated as an all-play-all league with points awarded retrospectively based on the results of prior meetings between the qualifying sides. I'd be happy with the super six format if teams carried over points that reflect their group standings. Group topper carries over 4 points, second carries over 2 and third 0. Then they proceed to play the three teams from the other group as usual with 2 points for each subsequent win. It's just the carry over system they had in '99 that I dislike. Zimbabwe were third in their group table for a good reason. That fact shouldn't be glossed over just because they happened to beat the two teams that outranked them. Qualifying for the next stage was the reward for their efforts. A third placed team shouldn't be rewarded twice over by entering the next stage with a points advantage too.
IMO a simple super six format that takes into account your ranking at the end of the group stage is preferable to the Quarter-finals format. But I'd take the Quarter-finals format over the 1999 carry-over Super six format purely because your group rankings are likely to matter more in the former. The higher you are placed, the more likely you are to face a weaker opponent in the QF.
Last edited:
#fightingwords
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah GIMH that's basically what I want. Two group stages.
Other possibilities would be 6 groups of 3 with the winners going into a super six group, then semis and a final. Or three groups of five with the top two from each group going into a super six group, which would actually be my preferred format. Or even five groups of whatever number with the winners going into a group of 5, and the top 2 from that group going into a final.
I like the three groups of five thing because it means every game counts, since you'd need to win 3 of your 4 games to be sure of making it through, but still has enough games that you could slip up once and recover to qualify. And the super six would be teams that genuinely performed well in the group stage, not just the 8 main test nations every time, which is what a group of 8 or two groups of 4 would get you.
Basically there needs to be a preliminary group stage where teams can be eliminated, to avoid an endless parade of no-contest thrashings of minnows by test sides, without actually excluding them from the tournament. And then a group stage where we can see a number of high quality, competitive games between the strongest sides. And then some knockout games. It shouldn't just be one huge group including minnows into knockouts. And the 2007 format with a super eight is just too big for the second group, the second round should be somewhat exclusive to ensure the highest quality games.
Other possibilities would be 6 groups of 3 with the winners going into a super six group, then semis and a final. Or three groups of five with the top two from each group going into a super six group, which would actually be my preferred format. Or even five groups of whatever number with the winners going into a group of 5, and the top 2 from that group going into a final.
I like the three groups of five thing because it means every game counts, since you'd need to win 3 of your 4 games to be sure of making it through, but still has enough games that you could slip up once and recover to qualify. And the super six would be teams that genuinely performed well in the group stage, not just the 8 main test nations every time, which is what a group of 8 or two groups of 4 would get you.
Basically there needs to be a preliminary group stage where teams can be eliminated, to avoid an endless parade of no-contest thrashings of minnows by test sides, without actually excluding them from the tournament. And then a group stage where we can see a number of high quality, competitive games between the strongest sides. And then some knockout games. It shouldn't just be one huge group including minnows into knockouts. And the 2007 format with a super eight is just too big for the second group, the second round should be somewhat exclusive to ensure the highest quality games.
Last edited:
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
Yes, that is my stance.
The game of cricket - particularly limited overs cricket - does not always result in the best team winning. Just like any sport. And that's a good thing, yes. But the whole point of pool stages is to get as close as possible to ranking the top teams in their correct order.
Beating the better teams is more important to me in ranking those teams in the correct order.
It also places value on winning games in the earlier stages.
G.I.Joe
International Coach
Beating the better teams is indeed valuable, but if that team still ends up lower on the table despite those wins, it obviously implies that they were crappier against the weaker teams. One does not simply gloss over the negatives.
Hence, if one wants to place value on winning games in the earlier stages, one might want to start by respecting the group table that, you know, actually reflects the sum of performances in the earlier stages.
Hence, if one wants to place value on winning games in the earlier stages, one might want to start by respecting the group table that, you know, actually reflects the sum of performances in the earlier stages.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
That's already respected by the fact that only the top 3 teams go onto the next stage.
And in the next stage, ranking the teams based on games against teams not in that group doesn't make sense. If there's a triangular series between Australia, England and India, why should it matter than India lost to NZ last year? It shouldn't.
Contra
Cricketer Of The Year
I have to say, the one rule I genuinely don't like is the one where if teams are tied on points the one who beat the other previously gets to go through. NRR should be the main indicator of who has been better over the course of the tournament/league stage or w/e rather than using that one match to determine who should go through.
The super sixes format also contains more games which is one aspect of that format I don't like. The ideal format would be one where each game matters and the number of games is as little as possible. I'm not sure how financially viable that would be for the ICC but from a viewers perspective it would be lovely.
The super sixes format also contains more games which is one aspect of that format I don't like. The ideal format would be one where each game matters and the number of games is as little as possible. I'm not sure how financially viable that would be for the ICC but from a viewers perspective it would be lovely.
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
Agree with that too. If you are considering the match between those two sides only, you are again glossing over the results of other games which is also a point similar to what Joe is making. IIRC even this was changed in one of the editions of the world cup to count NRR instead of win in the bilateral game.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Nah, head to head should always take precedence over nrr.
G.I.Joe
International Coach
It doesn't respect the fact of the rankings. A first placed team is not equal to a second placed team is not equal to a third placed team. There needs to be incentive for topping the group table.
That's the difference of opinion we have. I don't think the next stage needs to behave as it's own independent tournament. The World Cup is one tournament, not a collection of tournaments.
G.I.Joe
International Coach
Only in case of a knockout game that isn't the final, IMO. If Australia ties with South Africa in a SF, it makes sense to promote the team that had the head to head advantage. But it doesn't make sense to do so in a league where the sum of all results needs to be respected.
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
So say the team that finishes 2nd in group A beats the team that finishes 1st in group A and then they end up tied on points (after your switching the result to ignore what happened and give the points to the team that finished 1st). By your system the team that finishes 1st should have the NRR reversed as well then because otherwise they're not getting the benefit for finishing first...
G.I.Joe
International Coach
I don't follow. Team A beating Team B doesn't necessarily imply that they were the best team in the group because if Team A beats Team B and still ends up 2nd based on the table, it implies that Team A lost one game more than Team B did against other opposition in the group. The Group table is the sum of all results and is a better indicator of overall worth of a team than one single meeting between the two sides in a league. That's the entire point of a league system, as opposed to the knockout stages.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
It is its own tournament.
You need to respect the fact that the rankings in the first round are purely to pick the top 3 teams into the super six stage. Why should there be an incentive to top the group? The incentive is to win the world cup, not top the group stage.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
No way it was horrible. **** pitches, and the final wasn't even a 50 over match and ended in the worst way ever.
Athlai
Not Terrible
The final was ridiculous but there was a clear winner and it was the greatest ODI team ever.