An Assessment of the Group Stage Matches of this World Cup

[SillyCowCorner1]

There is one that’s alarmingly blatant. The current holders of the trophy haven’t played enough ODIs…and now that they’ve played a string of games, they have improved leaps and bounds. Goes to show that if you take the format seriously it’ll get you far (See Netherlands).

The reason why the Proteas did so well (batting first) is because they treat the 50 overs as a T20. How I can elaborate here? Batting first, they were under no pressure to post a total and so their lickit batters made hay. We saw how they folded under the pressure of chasing.

India and Australia are the only teams that have shown that they are head and shoulders above the others…

I’ll add more as more thoughts come to mind…

 

[Andyhere]

Not enough close game.
Out of 45 games, I can only remember two close game - Pak vs SA and Afg vs Australia.

 

[loterry1994]

Not the greatest of group stages but has been some great individual batting and bowling performances. Theee semis finals could go either way honestly every team still has weaknesses the others can exploit.

Think India been far above the rest their bowling in the powerplay has been crazy but I think their main weakness is if they have to chase a bigger total and Rohit falls early they could be in trouble. South Africa and Australia have been around the same for me, Australia still has bowling troubles especially with Starc struggling in the powerplay and death overs. South Africa struggle with chasing plus Bavuma is like a free wicket most games and New Zealand they made it to the semis without beating a team in the top 5

 

[_Ed_]

Not enough close game.
Out of 45 games, I can only remember two close game - Pak vs SA and Afg vs Australia.

Australia v NZ was close too, albeit an awful game for bowlers.

 

[Burgey]

Australia v NZ was close too, albeit an awful game for bowlers.

Yeah I guess it depends if you like massive score v massive score games or want something more for the bowlers. Both are fine afaic. It gets a bit tedious if there’s always massive scores, but when both sides are hammering along at least the closeness keeps it interesting

 

[silentstriker]

It’s a bad day of cricket when you have to ask “hey why didn’t he just bowl a slower ball so it couldn’t be hit for six?” Legitimately the worst thing about modern LO cricket. But I’ll stop complaining about it.

 

[Sunil1z]

Not enough close game.
Out of 45 games, I can only remember two close game - Pak vs SA and Afg vs Australia.

NZ vs AUS , AFG vs PAK , AFG vs ENG , NED vs SA , IND vs NZ all were very good games

 

[honestbharani]

It has been a really fun world cup and we could not nail down the semifinalists till the last 3 days or so. And I have also enjoyed the fact that bowlers have had a say, especially spinners.

 

[Gob]

Yeah it's alright. Not too great, not too shabby, right in the groove

 

[Molehill]

NZ vs AUS , AFG vs PAK , AFG vs ENG , NED vs SA , IND vs NZ all were very good games

But of those, only two were close. Afghan v Aus was the game of the group stage. I'd add in SL/Bang as another good one but for entirely different reasons.

But all in all, it was a ****ing dreadful and tedious 45 matches where we successfully predicted the semi finalists halfway through Round 4 of the 9 games. Having said that, today I'm missing not having a one sided game to have on in the background as I work!!

Question for the future, would having a bonus point system work better than NRR? I remember it was used in Aus, extra point for chasing inside 40 overs or winning by over 20%.

 

[centurymaker]

We'd still get the same semifinalists

 

[Molehill]

We'd still get the same semifinalists

You would, but the NRR had killed off any chance of anything different. If Pakistan say had the chance to qualify if they chased England's total inside 40 overs (still very unlikely) it would've added a little more intrigue.

 

[centurymaker]

I agree the WC is too long.

I wish they could reduce the number of games for the next one, which has 54 matches in total, six more than this one.

Need to get rid of super six. Have straight semis & then final. Cuts the world cup down to 45 games which is more than sufficient. Even QFs then SFs & F is better than super six!

 

[centurymaker]

You would, but the NRR had killed off any chance of anything different. If Pakistan say had the chance to qualify if they chased England's total inside 40 overs (still very unlikely) it would've added a little more intrigue.

NZ won their games convincingly so they would have had more bonus points regardless of Pakistan chasing in 40 overs vs England.

Thats why NZ's NRR was significantly better than Pakistan's.

 

[centurymaker]

New Zealand won 4 matches by a significant margin. The only win which doesn't make the cut is the one vs Bangladesh which was chased in 42 overs. If they knew about bonus point, they'd have chased it under 40 overs too.

So you can safely assume that NZ would have won 5 bonus points.

Pakistan won just 2 games by a significant margin. Wins over SL and NZ were close ones. So even if they had chased easily vs England, they'd have finished with just 3 bonus points. 2 points behind NZ.

Thats why imo bonus point system is not a lot different from NRR. In fact NRR is probably the most fair way of assessing which team has done better. Pakistan wouldn't have made top 4 under any system besides head to head, if they'd won vs England.

 

[Victor Ian]

I agree the WC is too long.

I wish they could reduce the number of games for the next one, which has 54 matches in total, six more than this one.

Need to get rid of super six. Have straight semis & then final. Cuts the world cup down to 45 games which is more than sufficient. Even QFs then SFs & F is better than super six!

Play 2 per day. Can be done with in a month. How anyone can complain about near two months of cricket everyday is beyond me. They should do 64 teams with a two super 12s and then a mega 10 and then quarter finals and play up to 4 games a day so we have 24 hours of cricket over 3 months.

 

[GIMH]

Close finishes and close games aren't necessarily the same thing.

Eng V Afg was fairly close for the bulk of it. Eng V Aus was close until the last couple of overs. etc

 

[Himannv]

Play 2 per day. Can be done with in a month. How anyone can complain about near two months of cricket everyday is beyond me. They should do 64 teams with a two super 12s and then a mega 10 and then quarter finals and play up to 4 games a day so we have 24 hours of cricket over 3 months.

Agreed.

They should also definitely being back the Windies and have different pitch types to give it some variety.

Also, no one wants to see Bangladesh right? Tell them to **** off.

 

[Molehill]

NZ won their games convincingly so they would have had more bonus points regardless of Pakistan chasing in 40 overs vs England.

Thats why NZ's NRR was significantly better than Pakistan's.

Yeah, in this instance it would've made little difference.

A reminder in 2027 we'll have 2 groups of 7 and then the Super 6 with points carried forward (which was rubbish before and probably will be again). Can lead to farces at the end of a group stage as you work out which teams you want to qualify with you.

Given NZ lost to 4 of the Top 6 this year, they would be struggling to make the semis (would have an identical record with Afghan and Pak).

 

[Victor Ian]

Rather than qualify, have teams apply. But make sure Bangladesh's application is lost in the mail so you can time them out!