• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

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

Daryl Harper

Well-known member
England are by far "the most fluke team" as they lost to W.I. and basically Ireland, two of the poorer sides in it.

Not Pakistan.
 

Sir Alex

Banned
England are by far "the most fluke team" as they lost to W.I. and basically Ireland, two of the poorer sides in it.

Not Pakistan.
They didn't lose to Ireland. Also WI loss is no shame considering how screwed they were by DL. Not many teams manage it when asked to defend 60 in 6 overs after putting up a 190 target.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
England are by far "the most fluke team" as they lost to W.I. and basically Ireland, two of the poorer sides in it.

Not Pakistan.
England might have stumbled into the Super 8s a little fortuitously, since then we've thumped every side we've played, so no, you're wrong.

I'll give your attempt at trolling 2/10.
 

Shifter

Well-known member
England might have stumbled into the Super 8s a little fortuitously, since then we've thumped every side we've played, so no, you're wrong.

I'll give your attempt at trolling 2/10.
I'd say they would of been unlucky not to make it into the super 8's. They ended up on the wrong side of D/L and even though they posted a poor score vs Ireland I would back them to defend it 9/10 times. Far as I'm concerned England went through the tournament undefeated.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
It's that time of the working day when the mind wanders and the thought occured to me that, even after beating them in the final, England's number of wins in the tournament (5) was less than Australia's (6). By using Sir Alex's "results carry forward from previous round" method surely England as champions looks a grave injustice? :ph34r:
 

Sir Alex

Banned
It's that time of the working day when the mind wanders and the thought occured to me that, even after beating them in the final, England's number of wins in the tournament (5) was less than Australia's (6). By using Sir Alex's "results carry forward from previous round" method surely England as champions looks a grave injustice? :ph34r:
My grouse was till knockout rounds. After that it's anyone's game.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
My grouse was till knockout rounds. After that it's anyone's game.
Why draw an arbitrary distinction? If you think results from previous rounds should be carried forward at all I can't see any logical reason the principle should be different.
 

Sir Alex

Banned
Why draw an arbitrary distinction? If you think results from previous rounds should be carried forward at all I can't see any logical reason the principle should be different.
I had already posted my view on this.

Put the rules above spirit of the tournament right?

The entire point of having this prelim games is to find 4 best teams of the lot. From there onwards it is a hit or miss, which is understandable because the assumption is that there is little to choose otherwise between these 4, and hence the knockouts.

Now, the purpose of the tournament is to find the best team in that. For that you've three main stages. Be among the top 4. Win the semi. And Win the final.

There is no ambiguity about the last two stages. It's winner takes all basically.

So now the issue or the 'whine' is regarding the first stage. How to determine the top 4 from the 12?

Common sense says it should be the 4 teams that have won the maximum number of games. This is entirely consistent with the latter two stages, and the spirit of tournament itself, which says the one who wins more should take precedence over the one that win less.

I don't have a problem with Pakistan going into the knockouts with a less than 50 per cent record. But when that is at the cost of two teams who have registered more wins than them at the same stage, is basically mocking at the entire purpose, principle and spirit of the tournament. To attribute it to 'well rules are same for everyone' is basically taking refuge behind rules which are completely in discordance with the basic logic of this tournament or any tournament.

Please for the thousandth time, Let me make it clear my whine has got nothing to with Pakistan the team. My grouse is with purely with ICC who has let this loophole go unnoticed. Ultimately it should be the number of wins that should decide the last 4 and ICC has screwed upon that basic premise by blindly going behind some models in other sports, without realising this could end in farcical situations like this. 12 teams is a small spread. There is absolutely no reason for introducing two mini round robin rounds and deny carry forward of points from the first sound to the second.

Summarising,

1. Australia - 4 wins out of 4, win rate 100 - Semi guaranteed.
2. England - 4 out of 5. 80 per cent. - Semifinalists.
3. West Indies - 3/4 75 per cent - undecided
4. New zealand - 3/5 60 per cent - Out!!
5. India - 2/4 50 per cent, undecided
6. Sri Lanka - 2/4 50 per cent - undecided
7. Pakistan - 2/5 40 per cent - Semi finalist!!
8. South Africa - 2/5 40 Per cent. Out!

In other words at the end of super 8 there would be 5 teams who'd have won more watches than Pakistan with another 2 who'd have won the same. So basically having finished with least number of wins among super eight, you have them making the last 4. What's worse is that Sri Lanka could also make it that way.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Why draw an arbitrary distinction? If you think results from previous rounds should be carried forward at all I can't see any logical reason the principle should be different.
This argument has been presented about 85 times during this thread. :p
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
This argument has been presented about 85 times during this thread. :p
So it would seem, yeah. :ph34r:

It's just such a Dickinsonesque argument (in that SA presupposes the correctness of an assumption and then uses it to support a contention, in this case that prelim games exist "to find 4 best teams of the lot") I couldn't resist a playful jab.
 
Top