22nd Match - England v Sri Lanka

[flibbertyjibber]

I think the complete abjectness of England is really a good example of why eight teams qualifying for the next round is just too much. If England snuck home against Bangladesh, qualified for the quarters and then, by a massive fluke, won the following three games.. do we really think it's a deserving way to win a World Cup? England should be eliminated already. The fact that their remaining games aren't dead rubbers is actually a bad thing as much as it's a good thing.

Same for Pakistan really.

We are a shambles but we should beat Bangladesh and Afghanistan and it isn't impossible to fluke a win and be in the semi final which given our performances so far is a total joke.

 

[Prince EWS]

Same for Pakistan really.

Yeah absolutely.

 

[Contra]

I think the complete abjectness of England is really a good example of why eight teams qualifying for the next round is just too much. If England snuck home against Bangladesh, qualified for the quarters and then, by a massive fluke, won the following three games.. do we really think it's a deserving way to win a World Cup? England should be eliminated already. The fact that their remaining games aren't dead rubbers is actually a bad thing as much as it's a good thing.

Yeah completely agree with this, just no incentive for topping the group (other than playing the so called "weaker" teams from the other group) and very little consequences for losing as badly as England and Pakistan have (mind you Pak haven't played SA yet so they can potentially still lay claim to having done okay if they beat them, however unlikely).

 

[Howe_zat]

I think the complete abjectness of England is really a good example of why eight teams qualifying for the next round is just too much. If England snuck home against Bangladesh, qualified for the quarters and then, by a massive fluke, won the following three games.. do we really think it's a deserving way to win a World Cup? England should be eliminated already. The fact that their remaining games aren't dead rubbers is actually a bad thing as much as it's a good thing.

I'm really coming around to Furball's suggestion of group winners to semis, 2nd and 3rd into playoffs. Huge monetary cost in removing two quarter finals though, innit

 

[Pothas]

I think the complete abjectness of England is really a good example of why eight teams qualifying for the next round is just too much. If England snuck home against Bangladesh, qualified for the quarters and then, by a massive fluke, won the following three games.. do we really think it's a deserving way to win a World Cup? England should be eliminated already. The fact that their remaining games aren't dead rubbers is actually a bad thing as much as it's a good thing.

Hard to disagree but England winning 5 games in a row from here to win thing would be a pretty damn good story. Losing 3 games is probably too much but though I would admit.

 

[GIMH]

It's like Pakistan's 92 win has a permanent asterisk against it because only rain really allowed them to progress

 

[Furball]

I think the complete abjectness of England is really a good example of why eight teams qualifying for the next round is just too much. If England snuck home against Bangladesh, qualified for the quarters and then, by a massive fluke, won the following three games.. do we really think it's a deserving way to win a World Cup? England should be eliminated already. The fact that their remaining games aren't dead rubbers is actually a bad thing as much as it's a good thing.

Yes because they will have won the games that matter. That's how tournaments work.

Winning a game that's 100 overs long isn't by 'some fluke' either, the winner on the day generally deserves to do so.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think the complete abjectness of England is really a good example of why eight teams qualifying for the next round is just too much. If England snuck home against Bangladesh, qualified for the quarters and then, by a massive fluke, won the following three games.. do we really think it's a deserving way to win a World Cup? England should be eliminated already. The fact that their remaining games aren't dead rubbers is actually a bad thing as much as it's a good thing.

Disagree totally. It's a tournament, with knockout rounds... the point of the WC is to deliver when it matters. By your logic, we may as well say Pakistan didn't deserve the 92 win and fluked it because of the rain saving them, or even Australia didn't deserve the 96 win because they weren't great in the group stage and only qualified because of Klusener's crazy run, or that South Africa deserved to win every WC since 92. If England go on and win the remaining group games, and win 3 consecutive knockout games (I know, fat chance and all, but you never know), they deserve it whether you like it or not.

It's not a league PEWS, it's a tournament with knockout rounds, exactly like it should be.

 

[Teja.]

From a neutral entertainment POV, Pakistan or England winning from here would be absolutely surreal.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Is it too soon for a West Indies/England tour thread yet?

Not like either side will last longer than a quarter final

 

[Pothas]

Disagree totally. It's a tournament, with knockout rounds... the point of the WC is to deliver when it matters. By your logic, we may as well say Pakistan didn't deserve the 92 win and fluked it because of the rain saving them, or even Australia didn't deserve the 96 win because they weren't great in the group stage and only qualified because of Klusener's crazy run, or that South Africa deserved to win every WC since 92. If England go on and win the remaining group games, and win 3 consecutive knockout games (I know, fat chance and all, but you never know), they deserve it whether you like it or not.

It's not a league PEWS, it's a tournament with knockout rounds, exactly like it should be.

The league stage is part of the tournament though, you can't lose 3 games and win the Football World Cup and nor should you be able to. I don't hate this format, I like that the associate nations get to play so many games and they really make the group stages worth watching, but their are drawbacks to any schedule and the fact that teams that have been rubbish can make the later stages is the biggest one of this particular one.

 

[Contra]

I don't think too many people will discredit England if they do win (I certainly wouldn't), but the point here is that they shouldn't even be allowed to be in a position to win from here. It's the leinency of the format which I feel most people are against. It also reflects badly on the quality of cricket played, the world cup winners should have won most if not all of their games in the world cup, that's how the format should be set up, these backdoor entry wins are rather lame, even if they make for a "great story".

England were in the same position last time around IIRC, at least in 2011 they lost to smaller teams and competed with the bigger wins, still not a fan of this quarter finals garbage, but at least you could somewhat justify an England win had they won in 2011. This time around it would annoy most people if they did indeed pull of a miracle, England haven't merely lost, they've been owned, well and truly.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The league stage is part of the tournament though, you can't lose 3 games and win the Football World Cup and nor should you be able to. I don't hate this format, I like that the associate nations get to play so many games and they really make the group stages worth watching, but their are drawbacks to any schedule and the fact that teams that have been rubbish can make the later stages is the biggest one of this particular one.

I really don't get the big deal though. If in the knockout match, teams which which have been good in the group stage lose to the teams which have been rubbish it just shows which team performed better at the business end. If teams are rubbish enough to get eliminated in the group stage itself, they will be eliminated. It's not as though that has never happened to top 8 teams.

 

[OverratedSanity]

God you guys are coming up with some nonsense logic here. And here I am having to defend England and Pakistan. Sheesh. I feel disgusting.

 

[paulted]

shockingly poor, England could rack up 400 and I would have no confidence in them defending even that total. it would seem that the players are the only ones who believe in THEIR ability but they never prove it. In one day and 20/20 cricket they are 20 years behind anyone else. I very much doubt that players like Chris Woakes will be mentioned by anyone in 20 years time. Is he worth his place as primarily a bowler-NO, as a batsman-NO. Following on from the likes of De Villiers, McCullum,, Finch, Warner or O'Brien, whom from the England team would likely hit a 50 ball hundred- NONE. Buttler may be able to do this but when he comes in the overs have run out....

 

[Spark]

so cribb has the innings started?

 

[Prince EWS]

Disagree totally. It's a tournament, with knockout rounds... the point of the WC is to deliver when it matters. By your logic, we may as well say Pakistan didn't deserve the 92 win and fluked it because of the rain saving them, or even Australia didn't deserve the 96 win because they weren't great in the group stage and only qualified because of Klusener's crazy run, or that South Africa deserved to win every WC since 92. If England go on and win the remaining group games, and win 3 consecutive knockout games (I know, fat chance and all, but you never know), they deserve it whether you like it or not.

It's not a league PEWS, it's a tournament with knockout rounds, exactly like it should be.

Yeah I'm not saying it should be a league though, or that the final should be played between the winner of each group. I just think the balance is off as it is. If we had eight teams in each group and every single team qualified for the knockouts, with the group stage merely deciding the standings, you could actually make the exact same argument you have in that post, and I'm sure we'd all agree that'd be silly.

I'm not questioning the format of having a league-ish group stage followed by a knockout with the successful sides from each group.. I just don't think coming fourth out of seven sides qualifies as successful. Having three from each group qualify with the quarters being played by 2 v 3 and the semis being played by 1 v quarter final winners would feel much better to me.

 

[Cabinet96]

Fell asleep at about the 30th over. Doesn't seem like I missed much. When do the Windies tests start?

 

[Cabinet96]

Shoutout to people who think the 2007 WC in the West Indies is more relevant to how Anderson can be expected to perform than a tri series in Australia a month ago btw.

 

[Cabinet96]

Just heard Thirimanne in the press conference. Unbelievable cheek for someone dropped on **** all.