How will the super 8's work

[brockley]

Do we play every other team,or not the one we already played.
Looked at the fixtures,seems to have no order from that what will happen.
Not even a scenario of team first from group A plays team 2nd group C etc etc.
Anyone have an idea.

 

[LA ICE-E]

it will be same as the super 6 but with 8 teams. you don't play the other team that came from you group; so you play all other teams. you carry on the points you scored against the other team from you group stage group to the super 8.

 

[Richard]

In other words, you beat both the substandard teams in your group, then the one serious game between you and the other ODI-standard team gets "carried through" but the points and run-rate from the substandard-side-victories don't - you then play the other 6 teams, creating a final all-played-all table of the 8 ODI-standard sides.

At least, that's the way it's designed... what're the odds something getting mucked-up by a substandard side managing a victory of some sort...

 

[Neil Pickup]

In other words, you beat both the substandard teams in your group, then the one serious game between you and the other ODI-standard team gets "carried through" but the points and run-rate from the substandard-side-victories don't - you then play the other 6 teams, creating a final all-played-all table of the 8 ODI-standard sides.

At least, that's the way it's designed... what're the odds something getting mucked-up by a substandard side managing a victory of some sort...

Well seeing as there are four of them in Group C, I'd say quite high. Six ties ain't too likely.

 

[Richard]

When England and New Zealand play Canada and Kenya we'll see how substandard the former two really are.

You don't always want to take John Buchanan 100% seriously, y'know.

 

[brockley]

Then it doesn't in australias' case matter if we crush holland or scotland run rate wise because the run rate and bonus points won't count,we mays well bat slowly and get batting practice.
Question will there be bonus points and double bonus pts at the world cup how will it work.

 

[Richard]

Bonus-points in ODIs are one of the worst ideas ever come-up with.

One of Matthew Engel's few bad ideas.

 

[LA ICE-E]

no, no bonus points. they i think finally got it right (after reading the comments on the other thread) they didn't want it complicated like last time. its simple- 2 for win, 1 for tie/no result and 0 for loss. in case of a tie in the semi-final and final its a bowl out.

 

[Richard]

Bonus-points are one of the worst ideas ever to be brought into ODI cricket.

They make discrete what is actually very much a continuum. Net-run-rate is still around, anyhow, so why on Earth have it in two stages?

Why suggest there's every difference between winning by 56 runs and 55, but no difference between winning by 187 and 62?

It's utterly stupid.

 

[Evermind]

I just don't understand the point of having 2 minnows in every group, and then the top 2 teams go on to the next level. This presents the following problems:

- Because 2 teams go through anyway, and every group has only 2 strong teams, the entire group stage is redundant. This should be a PRELIMINARY stage, not the actual world cup.

- Batsmen like Tendulkar and Hayden and bowlers like Vaas chalk-up ridiculously flattering statistics that are simply not indicative of their ability against true peers. Games against non-test-playing nations should definitely be organised, but not at the world cup and these games should NOT be given ODI or test status.

I propose that they have another mini-tournament exclusively for the minnows, where maybe a league-type system is introduced and the top 2 or 3 teams get to play at the world cup. That way we can have Bangladesh and maybe Kenya, Zimbabwe (prob?) playing and Bermuda etc will sit out.

Boxing has heavyweight, middle-weight, feather-weight. Football has preliminary qualifiers then the real world cup. Why is ICC screwing with the cricket world cup, the ONE respectable cricket tournament out there?

 

[marc71178]

Kenya, a minnow, made the semi finals in 2003...

 

[Richard]

Thanks to a forfeit and some food-poisoning.

In addition to playing better than some abysmally poor sides.

 

[Richard]

- Batsmen like Tendulkar and Hayden and bowlers like Vaas chalk-up ridiculously flattering statistics that are simply not indicative of their ability against true peers. Games against non-test-playing nations should definitely be organised, but not at the world cup and these games should NOT be given ODI or test status.

Amen.

It's certainly far from merely those 3 who get flattering statistics.

 

[silentstriker]

Amen.

It's certainly far from merely those 3 who get flattering statistics.

When teams played NZ earlier, SA earlier, WI when they joined...the statistics got inflated too. There have always been a 'minnow' in WC.

 

[Richard]

Err, what? There was certainly no substandard side in the 1992 WC (one of the things that made it so good).

And NZ and WI have never been substandard in World Cups - and SA didn't even play one until 1992.

 

[marc71178]

Zimbabwe were there in 1992 weren't they.

 

[Richard]

On merit.

I seem to recall they defeated England, who only made the final (and were looking good to win it at one stage) that year...

 

[marc71178]

Yes, and we'll gloss over the 7 defeats and that the win was a one off won't we.

Because that doesn't suit you.

 

[Richard]

They were repeatedly and patently outclassed, were they?

The way Scotland, for example, were in 1999?

No.

But because it suits you, a few scores are all that matters.

 

[LA ICE-E]

I just don't understand the point of having 2 minnows in every group, and then the top 2 teams go on to the next level. This presents the following problems:

- Because 2 teams go through anyway, and every group has only 2 strong teams, the entire group stage is redundant. This should be a PRELIMINARY stage, not the actual world cup.

- Batsmen like Tendulkar and Hayden and bowlers like Vaas chalk-up ridiculously flattering statistics that are simply not indicative of their ability against true peers. Games against non-test-playing nations should definitely be organised, but not at the world cup and these games should NOT be given ODI or test status.

I propose that they have another mini-tournament exclusively for the minnows, where maybe a league-type system is introduced and the top 2 or 3 teams get to play at the world cup. That way we can have Bangladesh and maybe Kenya, Zimbabwe (prob?) playing and Bermuda etc will sit out.

Boxing has heavyweight, middle-weight, feather-weight. Football has preliminary qualifiers then the real world cup. Why is ICC screwing with the cricket world cup, the ONE respectable cricket tournament out there?

one there is already preliminary stages its called the world cup qualification proccess and they don't count as odi, two not every player is good against the minnows so its to their credit who are, 3 they should have odi status because they deserve it, they came out of the other 86 for this and thats a long way.and no the ICC isn't screwing up on is...they have started doing some pretty good things...

Thanks to a forfeit and some food-poisoning.

In addition to playing better than some abysmally poor sides.

uhhh the fortiet alone didn't get them there....that's just one game...they beat sri lanka didn't they....never heard anything about food poisoning....in every tournament teams get outclassed not a new thing....you need to get your facts straight....