Deliberately losing a match

[KiWiNiNjA]

Say your team is already guaranteed a spot in the quarters. If they win their last match they play India (at home), if they lose they play England.

You win your last match, you face India and are massive underdogs and will most likely exit the WC at the quarter final stage.
You lose your last match, you face England and have a decent chance of making it through to the semi finals.

Given that the ultimate goal of a WC is to win the final, couldn't you argue that giving your team the best chance to make it to the final is more important than winning a single, meaningless match?

You don't have to throw the match, you could just not play your best players, or play recklessly. If your openers go out there and score 200 in 25 overs, then heck, you're well on track to posting a formidable total. If they fail and you end up at 45/6, then you end up facing a weaker opponent in the quarters.

 

[salman85]

I remember this instance recently from a European football league.Swedish league if i'm not mistaken.

On the last day,all teams had a match.I don't remember what team,but Team A and Team B were historical arch rivals.Team A was not in the running for the title,and it faced Team C on the last day,with Team C needing a win to clinch the league.

On the other end,Team B needed a win themselves to win the league,provided that last Team C didn't win their match against Team A.

Anyway,in the end Team A's fans demanded that their team lose the match against Team C,only so that their arch rivals don't win the league.I don't know what happened in the end and who won the league,but it certainly made for an interesting read.

 

[GIMH]

Say your team is already guaranteed a spot in the quarters. If they win their last match they play India (at home), if they lose they play England.

You win your last match, you face India and are massive underdogs and will most likely exit the WC at the quarter final stage.
You lose your last match, you face England and have a decent chance of making it through to the semi finals.

Given that the ultimate goal of a WC is to win the final, couldn't you argue that giving your team the best chance to make it to the final is more important than winning a single, meaningless match?

You don't have to throw the match, you could just not play your best players, or play recklessly. If your openers go out there and score 200 in 25 overs, then heck, you're well on track to posting a formidable total. If they fail and you end up at 45/6, then you end up facing a weaker opponent in the quarters.

What this post ignores is that we are by far and away superior to India. Play for the win

 

[vcs]

You won't be winning any World Cups if you are trying to avoid teams in any case. Play for the win, basically.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Why wouldn't you be winning World Cups by purposefully avoiding a strong team? It wouldn't be a good strategy for a stronger team, but if you are an underdog then you should find every advantage you can.

I don't get it. Let another team try and knock that team out, face an easier opponent and if you win you are one step closer.

If the ultimate goal is to win the Final, whats the problem with losing a match so as not to disadvantage your team, and make reaching the Final easier?

For example, deliberately facing Australia (winning streak intact) when you could be facing New Zealand is pretty moronic.

 

[Jono]

Agree with Kiwininja.

Let's make a hypothetical. Say you aren't the best team, but are still pretty strong. You have a very good bowling line-up, and solid batting line-up. Problem is some of your top batsman struggle against raw pace bowling. Surely you're better off playing India or New Zealand than Australia?

The fact that if you can't beat all the opposition than you're unlikely to win the World Cup anyway is obviously true. But you're trying to increase your percentages as much as possible. Not everyone is an Australia from 03 and 07. Some teams will win based on momentum and luck, nut pore dominance.

 

[Jono]

Doesn't mean I'd like to see it by the way. But I wouldn't hate a team for doing it, though it'd be unfortunate.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Yeah, and it would only really be a valid option when all other playoff teams had finished all their matches anyway.

 

[centurymaker]

why wouldn't you be winning world cups by purposefully avoiding a strong team? It wouldn't be a good strategy for a stronger team, but if you are an underdog then you should find every advantage you can.

I don't get it. Let another team try and knock that team out, face an easier opponent and if you win you are one step closer.

If the ultimate goal is to win the final, whats the problem with losing a match so as not to disadvantage your team, and make reaching the final easier?

For example, deliberately facing australia (winning streak intact) when you could be facing new zealand is pretty moronic.

+1

 

[Spark]

You won't be winning any World Cups if you are trying to avoid teams in any case. Play for the win, basically.

This.

You won't be winning any World Cups if you are trying to avoid teams in any case. Play for the win, basically.

Yep.

You won't be winning any World Cups if you are trying to avoid teams in any case. Play for the win, basically.

AWTA

You won't be winning any World Cups if you are trying to avoid teams in any case. Play for the win, basically.

+1

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

You won't be winning a World Cup if you face a team you have lost the last 10 times in a row too. But you could improve your chances by playing against a team that you have won 3 of the last 5 against. Then a team that you have won 4 in a row. Then you're in the final when anything can happen.

Repeating it 4 times doesn't make it true.

 

[benchmark00]

You won't be winning a World Cup if you face a team you have lost the last 10 times in a row too. But you could improve your chances by playing against a team that you have won 3 of the last 5 against. Then a team that you have won 4 in a row. Then you're in the final when anything can happen.

Repeating it 4 times doesn't make it true.

You're looking at it too theoretically though. Cricket isn't played on paper, it's played on the field, and it's my belief that you've got a better chance of winning against a team that has the 'wood' over you when the team's confidence and belief is high, which you breed through ingraining a winning culture within the team.

I've seen sporting teams who have been going brilliantly, then decide to taper going into a final series, only for them to completely lose their way and bow out.

Focus on what you're doing, not what will possibly happen.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

You're looking at it too theoretically though. Cricket isn't played on paper, it's played on the field, and it's my belief that you've got a better chance of winning against a team that has the 'wood' over you when the team's confidence and belief is high, which you breed through ingraining a winning culture within the team.

I've seen sporting teams who have been going brilliantly, then decide to taper going into a final series, only for them to completely lose their way and bow out.

Focus on what you're doing, not what will possibly happen.

But if your team doesn't have a winning culture to begin with, it is surely better to give yourself the better chance. Losing on purpose certainly wouldn't help a team with a winning culture.

I'm not saying I'm for doing it, but I'm not against it in specific cases.

 

[benchmark00]

But if your team doesn't have a winning culture to begin with, it is surely better to give yourself the better chance. Losing on purpose certainly wouldn't help a team with a winning culture.

I'm not saying I'm for doing it, but I'm not against it in specific cases.

Well in order to make it to a quarter final you generally need to have won a number of matches - granted that in this particular tournament you only really have to beat the minnows, but the point stands that in my opinion you're better off trying to win every match and developing a winning mentality.

 

[vcs]

Can see both sides of the argument TBH. Would still go with trying to win every game, you just cannot afford to be too cute at this level.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Yeah, and it would only really be a valid option when all other playoff teams had finished all their matches anyway.

Like now.

 

[nightprowler10]

You're looking at it too theoretically though. Cricket isn't played on paper, it's played on the field, and it's my belief that you've got a better chance of winning against a team that has the 'wood' over you when the team's confidence and belief is high, which you breed through ingraining a winning culture within the team.

I've seen sporting teams who have been going brilliantly, then decide to taper going into a final series, only for them to completely lose their way and bow out.

Focus on what you're doing, not what will possibly happen.

I...agree?

How do people think losing in such a manner would affect player growth especially where debutantes are concerned?

 

[GIMH]

Who the **** are you?

 

[nightprowler10]

That's just cold man.

 

[benchmark00]

Would prefer it if you didn't agree with me in the future.

thx.