-
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.
does the super 8 go to long
- Thread starter jemo27
- Start date
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
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.
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.
irfan
State Captain
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
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
pup11
International Coach
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.
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.
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
A year ago?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.
Utterly meaningless to do that, since the teams evolve for one thing.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
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.
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.
age_master
Hall of Fame Member
Definately not too long for mine.
Athlai
Not Terrible
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
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.
LA ICE-E
State Captain
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...
LA ICE-E
State Captain
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...
Perm
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The quarterfinal knockout system would be a good one in my books, that would mean that the tournament as a whole would be more exciting. However, a lot of people would complain and say things like "They had one bad game, they shouldn't be eliminated" if there were some minnow upsets, like Ireland beating Pakistan.
LA ICE-E
State Captain
yeah exactly...thats the reason the knockout format of the champions trophy was changed because australia complained...but if the format expands they should think about knock-out rounds because thats the only way to cut down on days and still include more teams...but there should always be a group stage 1st though...
Hamilton B
School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Ha, you are unbelievable. You couldn't prove how this tournament is fairer compared to previous ones, yet you still carry on like a spoiled prat.
LA ICE-E
State Captain
wtf? i if you went back and read what i wrote...i never said it was fairer...i said it was better...i not doing anything like a spoiled brat...its just you because you think india and pakistan own cricket or something...anyways i was just saying what you would have said here anyway...that its not fair how the **** is that being a spoiled brat...