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

[Shifter]

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?

I do look at the teams overall performance. Like I've said I don't take the results in these cups very seriously. I haven't checked their win/loss ratio any time recently but if its still the best then they are the most successful T20 outfit thus far, well done to them.

Like I said I'm not trying to bash Pakistan here, I'm not even championing NZ. I'm trying to be totally impartial. I don't remember the first T20 world cup results but its quite possible that India won without being the best team there as well. I'm only arguing NZ's case here because it just so happens that they had more wins this time.

 

[Sir Alex]

That's the right way to do it SL than seek backdoor entry. Well done.

Will now be praying for a win, however small it may be, for West Indies.

Not because I don't like Australia, but to have a good laugh at the situation where a team West Indies who won 4 out of their 5, and 2 out of their 3 in Super Six go out as opposed to Pakistan, who have one fewer win in both.

 

[Shifter]

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

I don't see how arguing a valid point logically is whining, but whatever. You seem to think that I'm sore about NZ being knocked out. I don't care about NZ, I care about improving the format of the world cup. Its never going to be the ideal I would like it to be but that doesn't mean it can't be improved.

 

[GraemeSmith]

That's the right way to do it SL than seek backdoor entry. Well done.

Will now be praying for a win, however small it may be, for West Indies.

Not because I don't like Australia, but to have a good laugh at the situation where a team West Indies who won 4 out of their 5, and 2 out of their 3 in Super Six go out as opposed to Pakistan, who have one fewer win in both.

 

[Faisal1985]

That's the right way to do it SL than seek backdoor entry. Well done.

Will now be praying for a win, however small it may be, for West Indies.

Not because I don't like Australia, but to have a good laugh at the situation where a team West Indies who won 4 out of their 5, and 2 out of their 3 in Super Six go out as opposed to Pakistan, who have one fewer win in both.

SL still needs to pray that WI loses to Australia. If they win with a good enough margin SL is out. So, it boils down to the same thing, comparatively speaking.

The system is fair because it is divided into rounds. 1st round is easier and easier to qualify for the next round. Once you successfully qualify for the next round as a reward you start from the scratch again against a new pool of teams. If you come on top of that round you go to the next...i don't know what's wrong with it. Pak played relatively better then the other 2 teams in their pool.

Carrying points over to the next round is as stupid as it sounds. Think about applying something like that for boxing. There are 12 rounds or 10 sometimes. Introduce your genius idea to that game and see how people would point and laugh at you....it doesn't work like that.

ITS A DUMB IDEA. Plain and simple.

 

[Faisal1985]

I do look at the teams overall performance. Like I've said I don't take the results in these cups very seriously. I haven't checked their win/loss ratio any time recently but if its still the best then they are the most successful T20 outfit thus far, well done to them.

Like I said I'm not trying to bash Pakistan here, I'm not even championing NZ. I'm trying to be totally impartial. I don't remember the first T20 world cup results but its quite possible that India won without being the best team there as well. I'm only arguing NZ's case here because it just so happens that they had more wins this time.

Thats fine, but i don't think carrying over the points is a good idea. It defeats the whole purpose of best team progressing and so on.

Out of Aus Pak and Bang, Aus and Pak were the better teams because Bang lost all their games.

Out of Eng Pak SA NZ, Eng and Pak were better teams. Eng was better because they played better, but Pak "ended up" being better because NZ and SA played **** cricket....

Same in the other pool.....

 

[Sir Alex]

SL still needs to pray that WI loses to Australia. If they win with a good enough margin SL is out. So, it boils down to the same thing, comparatively speaking.

The system is fair because it is divided into rounds. 1st round is easier and easier to qualify for the next round. Once you successfully qualify for the next round as a reward you start from the scratch again against a new pool of teams. If you come on top of that round you go to the next...i don't know what's wrong with it. Pak played relatively better then the other 2 teams in their pool.

Carrying points over to the next round is as stupid as it sounds. Think about applying something like that for boxing. There are 12 rounds or 10 sometimes. Introduce your genius idea to that game and see how people would point and laugh at you....it doesn't work like that.

ITS A DUMB IDEA. Plain and simple.

Typing in Caps don't win arguments.

Consider West Indies winning by say 15 runs.

They then, would've 2 wins in Super Eight. And 2 wins in group stages, and yet cannot enter semis. Which means despite 4 wins off 5 games they are packing.

Now, Pakistan has 1 win in group, 1 win in Super Eight. That makes it a total of 2 wins out of 5.

Also West Indies would've beat Australia, who thrashed Pakistan.

Which means whichever way look at, ie, number of wins, number of wins in Super Eight, performance against a common opposition, West Indies have far outdone Pakistan and yet it's Pakistan who advances to Last 4.

West Indies had no choice on it's group. And did much better with what they had as compared to Pakistan.

Rules? What is the point of having such rules when it favors a team which underperforms?

 

[Faisal1985]

Typing in Caps don't win arguments.

Consider West Indies winning by say 15 runs.

They then, would've 2 wins in Super Eight. And 2 wins in group stages, and yet cannot enter semis. Which means despite 4 wins off 5 games they are packing.

Now, Pakistan has 1 win in group, 1 win in Super Eight. That makes it a total of 2 wins out of 5.

Also West Indies would've beat Australia, who thrashed Pakistan.

Which means whichever way look at, ie, number of wins, number of wins in Super Eight, performance against a common opposition, West Indies have far outdone Pakistan and yet it's Pakistan who advances to Last 4.

West Indies had no choice on it's group. And did much better with what they had as compared to Pakistan.

Rules? What is the point of having such rules when it favors a team which underperforms?

Cherry picking doesn't win arguments either..

WI is in a different pool and Pak is in a different pool.

You are talking about wins and losses this system is going beyond that and taking into account how badly losing or how comprehensively winning with the NRR. I don't see anything wrong with it.

It is a dumb idea to carry points forward though.

 

[honestbharani]

I like the current system.. The best way is to have all top 8 play each other and that time, carrying points through makes sense.. So that you play against the 6 others and when you add up, each team in top 8 has played against the others. But if they are worried about the length of the tournament, the current format is good as it is..

 

[Sir Alex]

Cherry picking doesn't win arguments either..

WI is in a different pool and Pak is in a different pool.

You are talking about wins and losses this system is going beyond that and taking into account how badly losing or how comprehensively winning with the NRR. I don't see anything wrong with it.

It is a dumb idea to carry points forward though.

Did they get to choose their pools?

What is the point of considering two group as completely diff? How can you justify West Indies still going out after a win yesterday? Whatever be the constitution of their group, how can you possibly justify a situation where a team that has more wins in both stages going out? The basic fallacy of having group system is that the second best team in one group may not even be as good as the third best in the other, and hence is completely at odds with the objective of the group stages itself which is to find the 4 best teams among the whole lot.

Carrying forward of points help in giving the team which did better a reward. It is comparable to scheduling of semi finals, where in the top team in pool A gets to face the second team in Pool B and vice versa.

As I have asked before please find me instances where a team with less wins and more losses getting a chance to play the knock outs ahead of another team which exited.

Worse, the seedings were determined well before the first round, which meant teams were going into a predetermined group regardless of how they performed in the initial groups.

This resulted in three teams which finished at the top in the initial groups coming together in one group with one second ranker. And Pakistan getting an easier group with just number 1 ranker and 3 second rankers.

A slightly exaggerated analogy for this would be taking the finalists of Champions League and finalists of EUFA cup and proclaiming them to be the best 4 clubs in Europe.

 

[Xuhaib]

Did they get to choose their pools?

What is the point of considering two group as completely diff? How can you justify West Indies still going out after a win yesterday? Whatever be the constitution of their group, how can you possibly justify a situation where a team that has more wins in both stages going out? The basic fallacy of having group system is that the second best team in one group may not even be as good as the third best in the other, and hence is completely at odds with the objective of the group stages itself which is to find the 4 best teams among the whole lot.

Carrying forward of points help in giving the team which did better a reward. It is comparable to scheduling of semi finals, where in the top team in pool A gets to face the second team in Pool B and vice versa.

As I have asked before please find me instances where a team with less wins and more losses getting a chance to play the knock outs ahead of another team which exited.

Worse, the seedings were determined well before the first round, which meant teams were going into a predetermined group regardless of how they performed in the initial groups.

This resulted in three teams which finished at the top in the initial groups coming together in one group with one second ranker. And Pakistan getting an easier group with just number 1 ranker and 3 second rankers.

A slightly exaggerated analogy for this would be taking the finalists of Champions League and finalists of EUFA cup and proclaiming them to be the best 4 clubs in Europe.

oh FFS you are getting annoying now.

 

[Shri]

Now? I am going to assume you were not here since Nov 2009.

 

[Sir Alex]

Yay the jury is here.

 

[Burgey]

Yay the jury is here.

Returned a rapid-fire guilty verdict tbf.

 

[nightprowler10]

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.....

This. Totally. I think its hilarious that Pakistan made it to the semis after that ******** performance against England but they've played the rest of their cricket pretty well, maybe not well enough to deserve a spot in the semi but better than New Zealand and South Africa, otherwise they'd be the ones ahead in the NRR. They did just enough with the cards they were dealt, the other two didn't. Simple.

 

[Shifter]

This. Totally. I think its hilarious that Pakistan made it to the semis after that ******** performance against England but they've played the rest of their cricket pretty well, maybe not well enough to deserve a spot in the semi but better than New Zealand and South Africa, otherwise they'd be the ones ahead in the NRR. They did just enough with the cards they were dealt, the other two didn't. Simple.

Whats simple is that a tournament structure that doesn't reward winning, the whole purpose of playing sport, is stupid. They get through due to a flawed system, well done... I guess? It seems I'm among the minority of people who actually care about who played the best cricket throughout the tournament and actually want the most deserving team to win it.

 

[Uppercut]

Teams understand that the aim isn't to win more games than anyone else, it's to win the ones that matter. Every match does NOT matter equally. You might wish that they did, but this isn't the case, and by demeaning Pakistan's achievements based on this incorrect assumption you're coming across as rather bitter (whether you actually are or not, I don't know).

If you are to take your arguments to their reasonable conclusion, you would have to say that the only fair tournament is a round robin where all teams play each other once and the team with the most wins takes the trophy. But that's not what you want from a tournament that, given the accessibility of T20, should really be attracting more fans to cricket than any other. So tournament structure is a trade-off, something that is won by the best team often enough to ensure its credibility but not so often as to make it boring. And personally, I think they've found a good balance.

 

[Top_Cat]

Teams understand that the aim isn't to win more games than anyone else, it's to win the ones that matter. Every match does NOT matter equally. You might wish that they did, but this isn't the case, and by demeaning Pakistan's achievements based on this incorrect assumption you're coming across as rather bitter (whether you actually are or not, I don't know).

Unusually generous, tbh.

 

[Burgey]

How was last year a farce?

Simple. His team didn't win. Come on mate, get with the program here.

 

[Teja.]

Ah, The format is fine. Sir Alex, shut up ffs, It's obvious you are bitter that your team didn't go through.