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

[Uppercut]

Yeah, probably. The thing is, eventually there's going to be a situation where one team is at a ridiculous advantage through being able to play second, and when that happens they'll have to change the rules anyway. So they may as well just change them now.

 

[Shifter]

Nah, I disagree. NZ played pretty crap the whole tournament and didn't deserve to go through to the semis.

NZ didn't but Pakistan does despite having a worse win/loss ratio? There should be rewards for winning, teams don't need to carry forward points to the next stage they just need to carry wins.

In an equal points situation such as the one we have/had the team with the most wins in the tournament so far progresses. If the wins are also equal then NRR determines who goes on.

I just hope Pakistan get knocked out asap as if they go on to win it would be an even bigger farce than last year.

 

[Faisal1985]

NZ didn't but Pakistan does despite having a worse win/loss ratio? There should be rewards for winning, teams don't need to carry forward points to the next stage they just need to carry wins.

In an equal points situation such as the one we have/had the team with the most wins in the tournament so far progresses. If the wins are also equal then NRR determines who goes on.

I just hope Pakistan get knocked out asap as if they go on to win it would be an even bigger farce than last year.

Also should get penalized for getting thrashed. Pakistan's NRR was better because their games went very close....and even if they lost it was not a drubbing by opposition.

I know how NZ fans feel though. Once in a blue moon their team was about to get a semis spot but that too was taken away. I understand it hurts.

 

[nightprowler10]

I just hope Pakistan get knocked out asap as if they go on to win it would be an even bigger farce than last year.

How was last year a farce?

 

[Shifter]

Also should get penalized for getting thrashed. Pakistan's NRR was better because their games went very close....and even if they lost it was not a drubbing by opposition.

I know how NZ fans feel though. Once in a blue moon their team was about to get a semis spot but that too was taken away. I understand it hurts.

Whats more important, winning more games or winning less but when you lost you lost by smaller margins. The whole point of a tournament is supposed to be to determine who the best team/player at the tournament is. The most important criteria to determine who the best is, is winning. If the situation were reversed I'd want Pakistan to go through. I want either Aus or England to win the thing just because they have been easily the best teams even though I have no love for either team to put it mildly.

 

[Shifter]

How was last year a farce?

Sri Lanka, the team who was easily the best at the tournament didn't win it. Whats worse is they lost it to a team who qualified for the semis by beating 2 minnows and one good team in New Zealand. This year would be a bigger joke as Pakistan have managed to get through by only beating 1 minnow and one good team in SA.

 

[Faisal1985]

Whats more important, winning more games or winning less but when you lost you lost by smaller margins. The whole point of a tournament is supposed to be to determine who the best team/player at the tournament is. The most important criteria to determine who the best is, is winning. If the situation were reversed I'd want Pakistan to go through. I want either Aus or England to win the thing just because they have been easily the best teams even though I have no love for either team to put it mildly.

They have to be the best in the decisive game. Semis and Final....if they play like **** in Semis and lose then would you start bashing the winning team?

It happens in every sport. Look at NHL, look at what's happening in the eastern conference. 1st seeded got eliminated by the 8th seeded team in the first round....there was a 33 point difference in both teams but hey, 1st seeded did not deliver in the play offs and is out....So what happened to 90 regular season games that they played and won most of them and were the highest scoring team? Well that got washed away in the 1st round when they lost 4-3.

All the Fifa World Cups have the same format, what do you say about that?

 

[Faisal1985]

Sri Lanka, the team who was easily the best at the tournament didn't win it. Whats worse is they lost it to a team who qualified for the semis by beating 2 minnows and one good team in New Zealand. This year would be a bigger joke as Pakistan have managed to get through by only beating 1 minnow and one good team in SA.

They beat SA in the Semis and then they beat SL in the final....

Its called rising to the occasion and playing the best cricket when it really matters.....

 

[Shifter]

They have to be the best in the decisive game. Semis and Final....if they play like **** in Semis and lose then would you start bashing the winning team?

It happens in every sport. Look at NHL, look at what's happening in the eastern conference. 1st seeded got eliminated by the 8th seeded team in the first round....there was a 33 point difference in both teams but hey, 1st seeded did not deliver in the play offs and is out....So what happened to 90 regular season games that they played and won most of them and were the highest scoring team? Well that got washed away in the 1st round when they lost 4-3.

All the Fifa World Cups have the same format, what do you say about that?

I'm not bashing Pakistan, I'm saying they are not among the 4 best teams in this tournament and they were not the best team in the last tournament. As I've said in an earlier post a tournaments goal is supposed to be to determine who the best side/player is. This format and the format those sports you mentioned do not accomplish this and for that very reason I don't much care what happens in them. That's why I'd prefer one of two teams I don't have much (any) affection for win this one.

There are other considerations in the organising of these tournaments beyond determining who the best is, most prominently money and time which is why these formats are used. Finals put bums in seats and eyes on TV's. That being said the current format can still be improved slightly by rewarding wins achieved throughout the tournament in some fashion.

 

[Shifter]

They beat SA in the Semis and then they beat SL in the final....

Its called rising to the occasion and playing the best cricket when it really matters.....

lol OK you keep telling yourself that tired old cliche.

 

[Faisal1985]

lol OK you keep telling yourself that tired old cliche.

I bet you i will tell that myself this time around as well...........

 

[Shifter]

I bet you i will tell that myself this time around as well...........

You do that, that still doesn't make Pakistan deserved winners.

 

[Sir Alex]

There is no doubt Pakistan does not deserve to be in top 4 when they are at the bottom of list when it comes to wins.

But, should they go to win the Cup from here. Then they rightly deserve it, because they did it when it mattered.

 

[Shifter]

There is no doubt Pakistan does not deserve to be in top 4 when they are at the bottom of list when it comes to wins.

But, should they go to win the Cup from here. Then they rightly deserve it, because they did it when it mattered.

Wrong. Every win matters because only by winning more than your opposition can you establish you are better than they are. This is basic stuff people. If I am more successful than you than I am more deserving of winning whatever it is we are competing for. How does one determine who is more successful? By seeing who won more events.

The "thems the rules" argument doesn't fly when the rules don't exist for the sole reason of determining the best team. My indoor soccer team won the tournament we were in even though we sneaked into the semi's just barely. I can promise you we weren't the best team there (no soccer team with me in it can claim to be the best at anything soccer related) and we didn't win more games than the other finalists. The team with the most wins was most deserving as they proved over the season (a sufficient period of time) they win more than anyone else.

 

[Furball]

Cup competitions are more about peaking at the right time and getting the appropriate luck than being the "best" team in the tournament.

It's not a league championship played over 40 games or so where the best team wins the competition.

 

[Shifter]

Cup competitions are more about peaking at the right time and getting the appropriate luck than being the "best" team in the tournament.

It's not a league championship played over 40 games or so where the best team wins the competition.

Exactly. Which is my problem with it and why I don't take the results seriously. I would prefer to have a pure knockout format over the current one so that to win you at least have to win all your games. It wouldn't be the most accurate result possible, but every game would count for something.

That being said I feel the current format, as flawed as it is for determining the best team, could still be improved. I'd prefer if wins in the first stage counted for something beyond the first stage. The first stage is just a vehicle to give associate teams some exposure as has been said, so its pretty much a waste of time as far as pure sporting considerations go. Getting rid of it and doing something like the suggested 2 groups of 5 would probably be better. All your group games would then count towards winning a team a place in the semi's.

 

[Furball]

Exactly. Which is my problem with it and why I don't take the results seriously. I would prefer to have a pure knockout format over the current one so that to win you at least have to win all your games. It wouldn't be the most accurate result possible, but every game would count for something.

That being said I feel the current format, as flawed as it is for determining the best team, could still be improved. I'd prefer if wins in the first stage counted for something beyond the first stage. The first stage is just a vehicle to give associate teams some exposure as has been said, so its pretty much a waste of time as far as pure sporting considerations go. Getting rid of it and doing something like the suggested 2 groups of 5 would probably be better. All your group games would then count towards winning a team a place in the semi's.

Pure knockout is pointless. There is no point in flying teams halfway round the world in order to play one game.

 

[Faisal1985]

Wrong. Every win matters because only by winning more than your opposition can you establish you are better than they are. This is basic stuff people. If I am more successful than you than I am more deserving of winning whatever it is we are competing for. How does one determine who is more successful? By seeing who won more events.

The "thems the rules" argument doesn't fly when the rules don't exist for the sole reason of determining the best team. My indoor soccer team won the tournament we were in even though we sneaked into the semi's just barely. I can promise you we weren't the best team there (no soccer team with me in it can claim to be the best at anything soccer related) and we didn't win more games than the other finalists. The team with the most wins was most deserving as they proved over the season (a sufficient period of time) they win more than anyone else.

Ok, so who is more successful? Pak has the highest win/loss ratio over all. They have won more T20s over all then any other team? Why just look at this tournament look at the whole picture. Its not like T20 has been around for 100 years. So, why just look at 1 tournament and why not look at the team's over all performance?

 

[Shifter]

Pure knockout is pointless. There is no point in flying teams halfway round the world in order to play one game.

That's more of a logistics/money concern, a valid one but I'm purely focusing on how a more worthy winner could be determined. I realise bitching about it on an internet forum isn't going to accomplish or change anything, but I felt like fruitlessly discussing this.

 

[Faisal1985]

Exactly. Which is my problem with it and why I don't take the results seriously. I would prefer to have a pure knockout format over the current one so that to win you at least have to win all your games. It wouldn't be the most accurate result possible, but every game would count for something.

That being said I feel the current format, as flawed as it is for determining the best team, could still be improved. I'd prefer if wins in the first stage counted for something beyond the first stage. The first stage is just a vehicle to give associate teams some exposure as has been said, so its pretty much a waste of time as far as pure sporting considerations go. Getting rid of it and doing something like the suggested 2 groups of 5 would probably be better. All your group games would then count towards winning a team a place in the semi's.

and i thought i was a whiner.....