Pakistan most fluke team (and discussion about tournament structure fairness)

[ret]

Let's see how the points table would have been if R1 points that a team earned against a team that also advanced to R2 were carried forward:

- Aus 2 wins + 1 against Pak in R1 = 3 wins* (semis)
- WI 1 win in R2 + 1 win against Eng in R1 = 2 wins* (undecided)
- SL 1 win + 0 win in R1 = 1 win* (undecided)
- Ind 0 win + 1 win against SA in R1 = 1 win* (undecided)
* To play one more game

- Eng 3 wins in R2 + 0 wins in R1 = 3 wins (semis)
- NZ 1 win + 1 win against SL in R1 = 2 wins (out)
- Pak 1 win + 0 win in R1 = 1 win (semis)
- SF 1 win + 0 win in R1 = 1 win (out)

 

[marc71178]

If India gets to the Semis now that would be something most undeserved.

No doubt Sir Alex will be as vocal in his disappointment at that as he has been today though...

 

[Furball]

Let's see how the points table would have been if R1 points that a team earned against a team that also advanced to R2 were carried forward:

- Aus 2 wins + 1 against Pak in R1 = 3 wins* (semis)
- WI 1 win in R2 + 1 win against Eng in R1 = 2 wins* (undecided)
- SL 1 win + 0 win in R1 = 1 win* (undecided)
- Ind 0 win + 1 win against SA in R1 = 1 win* (undecided)
* To play one more game

- Eng 3 wins in R2 + 0 wins in R1 = 3 wins (semis)
- NZ 1 win + 1 win against SL in R1 = 2 wins (out)
- Pak 1 win + 0 win in R1 = 1 win (semis)
- SF 1 win + 0 win in R1 = 1 win (out)

So what?

That would be more unfair, because Pakistan had a harder route to the Super Eights than New Zealand did.

 

[Prince EWS]

So what?

That would be more unfair, because Pakistan had a harder route to the Super Eights than New Zealand did.

Indeed. You can't equate playing Australia in this tournament to playing Sri Lanka. You're much better off just having each group as a bubble, and making each team deal with each stage of the tournament on a stage by stage basis.

 

[ret]

So what?

That would be more unfair, because Pakistan had a harder route to the Super Eights than New Zealand did.

I don't have time to spoon feed but if you see the points table, it against teams that have advanced to R2. If your argument is that Pak played Aus in R1, then you should remember that 3 teams played Aus in R2

 

[Furball]

I don't have time to spoon feed but if you see the points table, it against teams that have advanced to R2. If your argument is that Pak played Aus in R1, then you should remember that 3 teams played Aus in R2

Again, irrelevant.

None of Pakistan's opponents in Round 2 played Australia in Round 1.

 

[Prince EWS]

I don't have time to spoon feed but if you see the points table, it against teams that have advanced to R2. If your argument is that Pak played Aus in R1, then you should remember that 3 teams played Aus in R2

Yeah, but the teams don't play all the other teams that make it to Round 2. Under your system, other than the game they played against each other...

Pakistan played against Australia, England and South Africa
New Zealand played against Sri Lanka, England and South Africa

How is playing Australia the same as playing Sri Lanka?

 

[ret]

If India gets to the Semis now that would be something most undeserved.

In fact, if Ind makes it to the semis then it would have played some great cricket! Don't forget Ind has to beat SL by some margin or chase the total in 16-17 overs. On top of that it would have beaten two teams to make it to the R2, i.e. SL and SA

 

[Sir Alex]

What I can't understand is the inability to recognise that the goal for each team of each stage of the tournament is merely to reach the next one. The 'point' of the first stage is simply to whet the appetite, give the associate nations some exposure on the world stage and progress the best eight teams to the next stage.

I don't see how this situation is any different from an undefeated team going down in a semi-final to a team that's lost a couple of games earlier... or even the declaration of the winner after the final. I'm getting really bored of all these soccer examples so I'll try my hand with a theoretical cricket one - if India make the final and beat Australia, I don't think anyone will be suggesting that we just award Australia the cup anyway because they had a better win percentage during the tournament. The same applies to a hypothetical example in a semi-final where a team like India with two losses defeats a team like Australia with zero losses - no-one's going to say that we should just let the loser progress because they have a better record. That completely undermines the principle behind progressing through each stage and building as you go along, as does what a select few people are saying in this thread. Knockout stages don't have any sort of special value that makes they different to round-robin group stages - it's all about doing what you can to make the next stage. Once you reach it, it starts again.

That doesn't even bother pointing out the intrinsic inequity in comparing the records of teams who have played entirely different opponents either.

2 points of disagreement.

1. I can't agree with the concept of having a seperate round just to 'whet the appetite of associate nations'. This is a world cup 'finals' and every match should have equal importance till the knockouts.

2. Your example of giving trophy to Aus because they've won most is already addressed in one of my earlier posts. The knockouts exist with the premise that there is little to seperate between the top 4 teams regardless of what they have done till then. It also, to some extent, evens out disadvantages of the pool system. The question is regarding how you determine the top 4 then. It surely shouldn't be done in a two stage format as it is now, as it is giving wierd results like Pak's qualification despite having lost more than it has won etc.

 

[ret]

Yeah, but the teams don't play all the other teams that make it to Round 2. Under your system, other than the game they played against each other...

Pakistan played against Australia, England and South Africa
New Zealand played against Sri Lanka, England and South Africa

How is playing Australia the same as playing Sri Lanka?

I understand your point but when you carry forward the points you earned against the team that also advanced, you have increased the number of games a team has to play to get to the semis from 3 to 4, there by, to an extent, giving a team more opportunity to advance based on wins earned

If your Q is how is playing Aus the same as playing SL, then someone can even say how is being in the same group as Aus the same as being in the same group without Aus

In the end, I won't be surprised if we have semis with teams that won all its games in R2 (Aus and Eng) and teams that squeezed in based on just 1 win (SL and Pak) based on NRR. If R1 wins would have been considered then one from Ind and WI, along with NZ would have gone through Which I think is a 'more fair' system (assuming that no system is fool proof)

 

[Prince EWS]

The knockouts exist with the premise that there is little to seperate between the top 4 teams regardless of what they have done till then. It also, to some extent, evens out disadvantages of the pool system

The same applies to the second round of group matches. Just replace "4" with "8". I just don't see why you're willing to give all the teams a clean slate after Round 2 but not after Round 1.

 

[Sir Alex]

Indeed. You can't equate playing Australia in this tournament to playing Sri Lanka. You're much better off just having each group as a bubble, and making each team deal with each stage of the tournament on a stage by stage basis.

What?

Australia weren't even in the top 8 seeds when this tournament started.

Fixtures can't be drawn on subjective evaluations of who's better than who.

A win against Australia, is EXACTLY the same as a win against Bangladesh, or should be, because that's what a level playing field is all about.

 

[ret]

Again, irrelevant.

None of Pakistan's opponents in Round 2 played Australia in Round 1.

To understand whats relevant, you probably need to understand the system that was proposed

 

[Prince EWS]

What?

Australia weren't even in the top 8 seeds when this tournament started.

Fixtures can't be drawn on subjective evaluations of who's better than who.

A win against Australia, is EXACTLY the same as a win against Bangladesh, or should be, because that's what a level playing field is all about.

Well yeah that's great if every team plays Australia and every team plays Bangladesh. But they don't. I really don't like the idea of getting points in your group for games against teams that aren't in your group and that other teams in your group haven't played. You compete against the teams in your group and if you do well then you progress to the next stage.

 

[Sir Alex]

The same applies to the second round of group matches. Just replace "4" with "8". I just don't see why you're willing to give all the teams a clean slate after Round 2 but not after Round 1.

Because the top 8 you mention is not a knockout like top 4.

What is the point of having two seperate 'league stages' in the first place?

Which other sport follows this two league stages in the finals?

 

[Prince EWS]

Because the top 8 you mention is not a knockout like top 4.

Don't see what's so special about a knockout. Seems like you're just making up the rules as you go along. It's all about just qualifying for the next stage IMO; be that a knockout or a quadruple round robin that last four weeks. Once you get there it's a fresh start IMO.

What is the point of having two seperate 'league stages' in the first place?

Yeah I don't really like it either but it's not really the point of what we're talking about. Given the system we have, you couldn't possibly have another points system IMO. I don't like the double league stage with two separate groups in the second round any more than you do though. If they're going to do it like this the second round should all be one big group and everyone should play each other once but that'd probably take a bit longer than the window they were willing to schedule it in unless they had simultaneous matches.

 

[Sir Alex]

Well yeah that's great if every team plays Australia and every team plays Bangladesh. But they don't. I really don't like the idea of getting points in your group for games against teams that aren't in your group and that other teams in your group haven't played. You compete against the teams in your group and if you do well then you progress to the next stage.

Well then what's the point in having Stage 1 anyways? There also you don't get to play teams other guys get to.

Or why don't then have a third round called Super six as well? With no carry forward and teams like Aus and Eng having to start from scratch?

Your issue that teams get to carry forward points or benefits of beating another team which others had no chance to can fully addressed only if they all play each other in the round robin mode.

In other words Super 8 doesn't solve the issue that you had with carry forward of points.

Considering it actually rewards you for that 'extra win'. I don't see why a win against South Africa in round 1 be any lesser than a super 8 win against Australia, particularly when the SA whom we beat also managed to reach super 8s.

 

[Athlai]

Well the last time they had a super 8 that involved all the teams playing everyone, it was a terrible and boring world cup. Now they want to make it short and sweet.

 

[Burgey]

Iran had both fewer wins AND more losses than Australia when they got through?

Yeah, because they'd played in different groups. The stage where they met each other was a two-legged tie to get to the WC finals.

I guess what I'm saying is, failing every team playing each other once at every stage, there's never a completely fair way around this, be it cricket, football or whatever.

If you look at the draw for the WC finals in SA in June, there are huge discrepancies in the groups. England have got the group of life, another group is the group of death.

Such is the way of these things, unfortunately.

 

[Sir Alex]

Prince, please answer this.

India and Pakistan both played and beat the same team South Africa.

Yet India does not get even one point from that win. Why?

Why doesn't India get the reward for beating SA who is qualified to be super 8?

In effect, it keeps India and south Africa on the same level regardless of fact that India beat them.

What is the logic behind considering some games and completely ignoring others while determining the top 4?

It's not as if the game against SA was inconsequential in any way. Winning it was necessary for us to ensure our survival in the tournament anyways.