Was the format wrong?

[jot1]

Surely any competition is about one team beating other teams and winning as many matches in the competition as possible. That way you can really say they are the best. IMO this competition has ended up being about who hit their runs the quickest in the preliminaries, not who won the most matches and beat the most teams and so, was the best team.
Wouldn't a more true reflection of the best team be, the team with the most wins goes through to the final. The team that won the second most matches goes through to the final. Only when there is no such winner in either case, should the finalists be chosen by runrate or whatever.

 

[Scaly piscine]

*waits for someone to deliberately misinterpret 'format'*

I don't see any real problem with the format personally, obviously it was somewhat abbreviated to fit into two weeks. For what it this competition was intended to be I think it has been fine.

I expect the inaugural World Cup in England will be a bit longer with more games anyway.

 

[Sanz]

Surely any competition is about one team beating other teams and winning as many matches in the competition as possible. That way you can really say they are the best. IMO this competition has ended up being about who hit their runs the quickest in the preliminaries, not who won the most matches and beat the most teams and so, was the best team.
Wouldn't a more true reflection of the best team be, the team with the most wins goes through to the final. The team that won the second most matches goes through to the final. Only when there is no such winner in either case, should the finalists be chosen by runrate or whatever.

It must be now that South Africa is out, I am surprised that you waited so long to bring this up.

 

[Jono]

Nah South Africa just choked to be honest. There's no excuse not getting 120 against the Indian bowling attack.

 

[jot1]

It must be now that South Africa is out, I am surprised that you waited so long to bring this up.

I feel this statement is a bit nasty and uncalled for.
I posted this to get opinions from people other than South Africans. I was looking at the format, and just wondered if the format was the wrong way of calculating a winner and if other cricket fans felt that way too. Not just in the context of this World Cup, but i.r.o. other competitions too.

 

[sideshowtim]

I agree. This format is entertaining, but it in NO way gives you an idea of who the better team really is. In no way. However if people accept that, and see what it is, just some entertainment, I have no problem with it.

 

[Jono]

What was being referred to was the actual format of the tournament. As in group stages, divisions etc.

 

[Perm]

Nothing wrong with the format IMO, a simple pool play stage followed by another similar stage and then semi finals and finals. It's a very important part of being a successful team to be able to lift when it counts and win crunch games, really all this talk of criticising the format is a bit of a back-lash from certain teams not making the grade (no offence jot1).

 

[Sanz]

I feel this statement is a bit nasty and uncalled for.
I posted this to get opinions from people other than South Africans. I was looking at the format, and just wondered if the format was the wrong way of calculating a winner and if other cricket fans felt that way too. Not just in the context of this World Cup, but i.r.o. other competitions too.

It is not uncalled for at all. This is thread from a South African fan looking for excuses after their world cup loss. You wouldn't have opened this thread If SA were still around.

In the Second Round SA didn't win more matches than India and NZ and their NRR was lower than India/NZ, hence they were eliminated, as simple as that., nothing wrong with the format, no format is wrong or right, there is no format that is perfect.

 

[Sanz]

I agree. This format is entertaining, but it in NO way gives you an idea of who the better team really is. In no way. However if people accept that, and see what it is, just some entertainment, I have no problem with it.

Who cares about the better team ? India were not the better team in in 1983 world cup, but they were the better team when it mattered i.e. in the SF and Final. If we are so hell bent about better teams playing the finals then there is no point in having a tournament, infact we all know the best team, lets hand them the trophy.

 

[slugger]

this was the same attitude towards the wi wc 07 format, when the minors played out of their skin and early exits followed for india and pak..

 

[Perm]

Fully in agreeance with Sanz here, you can criticise the format all you want, but it won't acheive anything until you realise that the teams who played better when it counted moved through into the knockout stages. Okay, Australia are the 'best' team in the world, but they were beaten on the day by India and didn't deserve to progress. Same goes with South Africa, India beat them and they earnt the right to move forward ahead of the home nation.

I'm sure many of you know I'm a Kiwi and All Blacks supporter, we haven't won a World Cup in 20 years because we've choked when push comes to shove and we need to win the cut-throat games. Now, we as supporters don't blame the format, because it's painfully obvious you have to play well on the day to progress, rather that be the 'best' team in the world.

 

[Sanz]

this was the same attitude towards the wi wc 07 format, when the minors played out of their skin and early exits followed for india and pak..

I dont know about others, but I have never blamed a format for India's poor performance in any tournament. If you win enough matches, you will go to next round.

And even if you are the best team and have won more games than anyone, at some point in the tournament, you will have to play the knock out round where you will have to perform under pressure.

 

[honestbharani]

to be honest, I do believe that the WC 2007 format was very good as it meant that you had to beat almost all top 8 sides to lift the WC. This format is not like that, more like the Champions Trophy in ODIs. As Scaly said, I guess when the actual Twenty20 WC happens, we will perhaps see all big teams having to play at least once against each other before the knock out stage is reached.

But there is no real excuse for RSA not being able to score 106 off 120 balls against THIS Indian side (and before someone turns too clever, remember India bowled 20 wides.)

 

[SJS]

I think the format is very good.

If I was to suggest a change I would strongly recommend a replay of games completely washed out and a continuation on next day of games where some overs were still left to be bowled. Sharing points in a group where only two matches per team are played is a farce and any version of Duckworth Lewis in a 20 over game would often be a mockery of justice.

 

[jot1]

It is not uncalled for at all. This is thread from a South African fan looking for excuses after their world cup loss. You wouldn't have opened this thread If SA were still around.

You are completely wrong! Don't attribute thoughts, feelings and actions to me that you have no basis for. You are probably judging me by your thoughts, actions and feelings.
In no way, at any time, have I made excuses for our loss. I honestly believe we played appalling cricket and deserved to lose. What's more, my reaction when we lost, was humorous.
To me this has and always will be just a game.
I believe it is this sort of thing that is causing cricketweb to lose some of it's best posters.
If certain people don't agree with a statement you make hoping to start an interesting discussion, they attack you.
Get over yourself, Sanz. Either discuss the issue and give intelligent reasons why you disagree, or get out of my thread.

 

[SJS]

get out of my thread.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Wouldn't a more true reflection of the best team be, the team with the most wins goes through to the final. The team that won the second most matches goes through to the final. Only when there is no such winner in either case, should the finalists be chosen by runrate or whatever.

This was the basic pretence underlining the super eight in the Caribbean this spring, wasn't it? That hardly produced entertaining cricket, did it?

This was a format aimed at producing intensity and as many crunch games as possible - yes, we've had a handful of dead games, but it's an improvement on there being a handful of live ones.

Winning a KO tournament is about winning when it matters. Ultimately, if you win all of your games, then you're going to win the tournament and run-rate will come nowhere near it.

 

[Sanz]

You are completely wrong! Don't attribute thoughts, feelings and actions to me that you have no basis for. You are probably judging me by your thoughts, actions and feelings.
In no way, at any time, have I made excuses for our loss. I honestly believe we played appalling cricket and deserved to lose. What's more, my reaction when we lost, was humorous.
To me this has and always will be just a game.
I believe it is this sort of thing that is causing cricketweb to lose some of it's best posters.
If certain people don't agree with a statement you make hoping to start an interesting discussion, they attack you.
Get over yourself, Sanz. Either discuss the issue and give intelligent reasons why you disagree, or get out of my thread.

Oh and I have already given intelligent reason which you seemed to have ignored.

 

[anoop4real]

This format is cool and really entertaining .....it has turned lots of people to cricket lovers...