Do Pakistan deserve to be in semi-finals of the ICC World Cup 2019?

[ali061091]

Yes.

 

[Babbar]

A Pak win in next match will not do anything for Pak. But a BD win will take them up to their best ever finish at #5 and cement their position as Asia #2.

I expect BD to come totally charged against Pak that has nothing to gain really.

 

[IAJ]

A team that enters the World Cup as a 6th ranked team with a 13 match losing streak deserves nothing.

You are basing your posts on wrong prerequisites. Doesn’t matter much what happend before WC, they messed it up big time against Windies, and winning in last over AFG was also horrible. So yes they don’t deserve to go to semis, but only based on WC performances

 

[sivanand82]

Yes.But then they did not get beaten in any match with nearly 40 overs to spare and thrashed other team 35 overs.That made huge difference in the end.

 

[iRfaN_LA]

1996 - lost QF to India
1999 - lost Final to Australia
2011- lost SF to India
2015 - lost QF to Australia

Yeah right, no team could stop Pakistan in 2019.

You still don’t understand Pakistan team. From a slow miserable start to reaching knockout, we are unstoppable after that. In 96, 99, 2011 and 2015, we player consistent cricket. Not in 1992, not in 2009 and not in 2019. This team was unstoppable had it reach semis.

 

[Junaid_ahmed]

A team that enters the World Cup as a 6th ranked team with a 13 match losing streak deserves nothing.

So why the world cup drama is necessary, award the cup on rank basis.

 

[sivanand82]

A Pak win in next match will not do anything for Pak. But a BD win will take them up to their best ever finish at #5 and cement their position as Asia #2.

I expect BD to come totally charged against Pak that has nothing to gain really.

As Steve Rhodes observed Pakistan will play for the revenge of Asia cup and Pride to remain dominant with south asian neighbour.

 

[bluevision]

No, but Pakistan in the SF could have brought more excitement than the 'bland' Kiwis. Not gonna judge who deserved it more. BD were good too.

 

[Hasan123]

We don't deserve to get through that's why we are going home.

 

[pillionrider]

Assuming Pak beat BD, they'd have lost 3 games this WC.

England and NZ also have lost 3 games each.

So by that, you could argue that Pak morally should be in the semis considering they've beaten both these teams.

In '99, India messed up vs Zim with Sachin missing. The points were carried over to the next round and we were booted out. Sometimes one single game can come back to haunt you later in the tournament and for Pak, WI is their Zim.

 

[bruhbruh]

Yes we beat NZ and England and were robbed off a point because of rain which would've made us go through.

 

[Mamoon]

Keeping asides who deserves itna not, [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] who do you think would be a bigger threat in the semi? Pakistan or NZ?

I personally feel for NZ there is a limit to their performance whereas while Pakistan has many flaws and are inconsistent their upswing is higher making them a bigger threat for a one off game

Pakistan has a greater propensity than New Zealand to produce a fluke performance on a given day, but New Zealand have more consistent players who can keep them competitive in the long run. It also depends on the opposition - Australia and England would probably have a greater chance of losing to Pakistan than New Zealand, while India might find New Zealand a more slippery opponent, notwithstanding the Champions Trophy Final.

 

[Mamoon]

You are basing your posts on wrong prerequisites. Doesn’t matter much what happend before WC, they messed it up big time against Windies, and winning in last over AFG was also horrible. So yes they don’t deserve to go to semis, but only based on WC performances

So why the world cup drama is necessary, award the cup on rank basis.

Rankings are build on consistency, and its value is also exhibited in tournament format. It is no coincidence that teams like England and India (top 2) as well as New Zealand (top 3) and Australia (5th, but potentially 3rd/4th) have made it to the semi-finals ahead of so-called maverick teams like Pakistan, West Indies, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

People can call New Zealand lucky, but their professionalism is what helped them qualify for the semi-finals in the end.

They started their tournaments against weak teams, but they defeated them without losing their heads (Pakistan vs Afghanistan) and neither did they have a meltdown (Pakistan vs West Indies). Those boring but solid wins gave them breathing space later in the tournament where their frailties were exposed.

As a 6th ranked team, Pakistan simply doesn't have the capability to produce 2-3 good performances on the trot without losing its head.

 

[Technics 1210]

As a 6th ranked team, Pakistan simply doesn't have the capability to produce 2-3 good performances on the trot without losing its head.

Yet they did in 2017, with more or less the same team, in the UK, being a 7th ranked team.

Explain how a team like SA ended up second from bottom despite performing well in ODis before the world cup? You cannot, because your hypothesis is nonsense.

 

[Technics 1210]

NZ were lucky with the rain vs India. NZ were lucky vs WI too.

Williamson has scored 32% of Kiwi runs in this WC. No NZ bowler is in the top 5 of this WC. No NZ batsmen is in the top 5 of this WC. NZ is a one man team.

Time to bestow NZ with the lucky tag!

 

[Mamoon]

Yet they did in 2017, with more or less the same team, in the UK, being a 7th ranked team.

Explain how a team like SA ended up second from bottom despite performing well in ODis before the world cup? You cannot, because your hypothesis is nonsense.

The 2017 Champions Trophy is not a blueprint for success. Maybe in one in a hundred attempts would you see the lowest-ranked team go all the way.

The fact that England (1), India (2), New Zealand (3), Australia (5, but didn't have two best batsmen for a year) have qualified for the semis shows that rankings have value. Of course, there isn't a guarantee as we have seen in South Africa's (4) example, but the probably that the higher ranked teams will qualify and eventually win the tournament will always be higher.

Moreover, South Africa haven't exactly performed well in ODIs since 2018. They got pummelled by India at home, did some minnow-bashing in Zimbabwe and narrowly beat a poor Pakistan team at home. Their only impressive result was winning 2-1 in Australia. Hence, considering their inconsistent performances in the last two years and their inability to string together impressive performances, it wasn't a surprise to see them struggle in the World Cup.

If you continue to rubbish rankings and believe that the only thing that matters is how you perform on the day, you will continue to be disappointed like you are today. With this approach and this mentality, Pakistan will most likely never win a World Cup in your lifetime. The chances of performing better on a given day increases when you are a higher ranked team.

 

[Technics 1210]

The 2017 Champions Trophy is not a blueprint for success. Maybe in one in a hundred attempts would you see the lowest-ranked team go all the way.

The fact that England (1), India (2), New Zealand (3), Australia (5, but didn't have two best batsmen for a year) have qualified for the semis shows that rankings have value. Of course, there isn't a guarantee as we have seen in South Africa's (4) example, but the probably that the higher ranked teams will qualify and eventually win the tournament will always be higher.

Moreover, South Africa haven't exactly performed well in ODIs since 2018. They got pummelled by India at home, did some minnow-bashing in Zimbabwe and narrowly beat a poor Pakistan team at home. Their only impressive result was winning 2-1 in Australia. Hence, considering their inconsistent performances in the last two years and their inability to string together impressive performances, it wasn't a surprise to see them struggle in the World Cup.

If you continue to rubbish rankings and believe that the only thing that matters is how you perform on the day, you will continue to be disappointed like you are today. With this approach and this mentality, Pakistan will most likely never win a World Cup in your lifetime. The chances of performing better on a given day increases when you are a higher ranked team.

I never said CT17 was a blueprint for success. My point was CT17 proves your nonsense wrong. You said

As a 6th ranked team, Pakistan simply doesn't have the capability to produce 2-3 good performances on the trot without losing its head.

Pakistan not only won 4 games on the trot, but did not lose it's head, and were ranked 7th at the time! Proving it;s about the performance in a tournament that counts, not pre-tournament streaks and rankings.

Moving on, you also claimed that top 3 ranked teams end up in the SFs, well, Australia were ranked 5, yet are in the top 4 of this WC, AND at the top of the WC standings, again proving your nonsense wrong.

SA had a better streak than Pakistan heading into this world cup, and were of a higher ranking. What happened? Don't give me this bull-dust about their performance and series results, talk in your language of ranks and streaks. If your ranking and streak nonsense had any truth to it, you would stop waffling, and explain what happened to SA. 7 bad days on the trot in this WC?

You can continue clinging to rankings and streaks thinking somehow these ascertain the future, but the facts suggest otherwise. So much so, in the KO stage, previous streaks and ranks - not only mean nothing, but cannot predict the winner with any degree of certainty based on the group stages of this WC.

The sooner you let go of your hate towards Pakistan (and please stop pretending your views apply to the previous 2 years), the sooner you might make sense. IN the meantime, stick to your garbage that IPL is better than the WC, and best preparation than the WC, because we can all see how WI performed!

 

[masalamaster]

This whole net run rate is absolute nonsense. Why should it be decided by the net run rate? If New Zealand lose against England and we beat Bangladesh, both teams will finish on 11 points, yet NZ will go through due to their superior run rate. That is absolute nonsense. It should be decided by head to head and not by net run rate. We beat NZ, so we should go through instead if both teams are level on points.

Absolute non-sense because it didn't work for Pakistan correct?

 

[Junaid_ahmed]

Rankings are build on consistency, and its value is also exhibited in tournament format. It is no coincidence that teams like England and India (top 2) as well as New Zealand (top 3) and Australia (5th, but potentially 3rd/4th) have made it to the semi-finals ahead of so-called maverick teams like Pakistan, West Indies, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

People can call New Zealand lucky, but their professionalism is what helped them qualify for the semi-finals in the end.

They started their tournaments against weak teams, but they defeated them without losing their heads (Pakistan vs Afghanistan) and neither did they have a meltdown (Pakistan vs West Indies). Those boring but solid wins gave them breathing space later in the tournament where their frailties were exposed.

As a 6th ranked team, Pakistan simply doesn't have the capability to produce 2-3 good performances on the trot without losing its head.

Dont always write love letters for simple questions,

you said Pak dnot deserved as it is #6 team
I replied no need to do circus of 2 months just award trophy on ranking basis if ranking is the criteria to win.

Now tell me what could be the potential threat for AUS this newzeland or Pakistan?

 

[Mamoon]

Dont always write love letters for simple questions,

you said Pak dnot deserved as it is #6 team
I replied no need to do circus of 2 months just award trophy on ranking basis if ranking is the criteria to win.

Now tell me what could be the potential threat for AUS this newzeland or Pakistan?

If you have a problem with long answers then this isn't the right platform for you. Maybe you should stick to Twitter. Anyway, I will try to keep it brief for your sake. Ranking isn't the criteria to win, but they provide a very accurate picture of how the World Cup will shape up. The rankings aren't formed from thin air - they show the consistency and the quality of teams. For example, England and India are the top two ranked teams and if the World Cup takes place a 100 times, they will make the semi-finals 99 times. That is because over 9 games, they will win their majority because they are consistent teams. On the other hand.

As far as the second part of your post is concerned, i.e. whether Australia will consider Pakistan or New Zealand a bigger threat in the knockouts, my answer to this has two aspects. Pakistan is a fluke team unlike New Zealand, and fluke teams have a greater potential for upset wins. Therefore, on a given day, Pakistan are more likely to upset a superior team. However, New Zealand will always be more consistent than Pakistan over a number of games, which is why they are third and have also qualified for the semi-finals.

 

[Mamoon]

I never said CT17 was a blueprint for success. My point was CT17 proves your nonsense wrong.

Pakistan not only won 4 games on the trot, but did not lose it's head, and were ranked 7th at the time! Proving it;s about the performance in a tournament that counts, not pre-tournament streaks and rankings.

It appears that you do not understand the concept of exceptions. Exceptions can never disprove anything because they are deviations from the norm. You gloat a lot over how lower ranked sides have won World Cups in the past, but what you fail to realise is that the majority of the World Cups have been won by the higher ranked sides and this will not change in the future. This World Cup doesn't appear to be an exception either, because one of the top two ranked teams in the world will be the final and will possibly beat the third or the fifth ranked team.

Moving on, you also claimed that top 3 ranked teams end up in the SFs, well, Australia were ranked 5, yet are in the top 4 of this WC, AND at the top of the WC standings, again proving your nonsense wrong.

Again, it is not my nonsense but your lack of understand that is getting the better of you. Australia are 5th on paper, but they were without their two hugely important players for a year. Considering the points difference between Australia, New Zealand and South Africa is quite small, it is very probable that with the presence of Warner and Smith, Australia might have achieved 4th or even 3rd position.

The semi-finalists in this World Cup have once again poured cold water over the notion that rankings don't matter in World Cups. England (1), India (2), New Zealand (3) and Australia (5, but read above) are the four semi-finalists for a reason, and that reason is reflected in their ranking.

SA had a better streak than Pakistan heading into this world cup, and were of a higher ranking. What happened? Don't give me this bull-dust about their performance and series results, talk in your language of ranks and streaks. If your ranking and streak nonsense had any truth to it, you would stop waffling, and explain what happened to SA. 7 bad days on the trot in this WC?

South Africa's performance since January 2018 has been inconsistent and that is why they ave gradually slipped down the rankings as well. Their defeats to England, India and New Zealand were expected, and they are also expected to lose to Australia. They beat the teams the two teams they were expected to beat, and although they lost to Pakistan, it wasn't a bizarre outcome that "disproved" anything.

South Africa narrowly beat a weak Pakistan 3-2 back in January and entered the World Cup as the 4th ranked team while Pakistan were 6th. Since Australia's 5th rank is misleading because of the absence of Warner and Smith for 12 months, we can reasonably assume that South Africa's true ranking at the moment is 5th, and losing to a 6th ranked side is not an upset by any means.

The rankings of the two sides clearly shows that they are closely matched. While South Africa should win slightly more games over a number of matches (hence the 3-2 win January), Pakistan can potentially beat them in a one-off game without having multiple things going its way, since the gap between Pakistan and South Africa is much narrower than the gap between Pakistan and England/India.

You can continue clinging to rankings and streaks thinking somehow these ascertain the future, but the facts suggest otherwise. So much so, in the KO stage, previous streaks and ranks - not only mean nothing, but cannot predict the winner with any degree of certainty based on the group stages of this WC.

Facts do not suggest otherwise. In fact, facts support the claim that rankings matter, and that is why majority of the tournaments have been won by higher ranked teams. In the knockout state, rankings mean something too. More of than not, the higher ranked side will win the quarter-final, semi-final or final. Again, giving examples the Champions Trophy does not disprove anything because they are exceptions.

The sooner you let go of your hate towards Pakistan (and please stop pretending your views apply to the previous 2 years), the sooner you might make sense. IN the meantime, stick to your garbage that IPL is better than the WC, and best preparation than the WC, because we can all see how WI performed!

It is not about hate. I want Pakistan to become a consistent, elite team that regularly maintains a top 3 ranking in Tests and ODIs. I want Pakistan's off day to be a bad performance rather than a great performance. I want Pakistan to be the sort of team that the opposition fears for its consistency instead of the "Pakistan vs Pakistan" nonsense that means absolutely nothing.

Meanwhile, you can keep rubbishing rankings and pretending they don't mean anything all you want, but more often than not, you will end up disappointed like you are today.

 

[BoomBoomAli]

Yes we did, played better than expected. Big-3 politics means no WC semi for us.

Big 3 politics, how?

Did they determine the weather? Did they let the Windies in on a secret?

Did they cause us to collapse against the Aussies and Afghanistan?

 

[Technics 1210]

It appears that you do not understand the concept of exceptions. Exceptions can never disprove anything because they are deviations from the norm. You gloat a lot over how lower ranked sides have won World Cups in the past, but what you fail to realise is that the majority of the World Cups have been won by the higher ranked sides and this will not change in the future. This World Cup doesn't appear to be an exception either, because one of the top two ranked teams in the world will be the final and will possibly beat the third or the fifth ranked team.



Again, it is not my nonsense but your lack of understand that is getting the better of you. Australia are 5th on paper, but they were without their two hugely important players for a year. Considering the points difference between Australia, New Zealand and South Africa is quite small, it is very probable that with the presence of Warner and Smith, Australia might have achieved 4th or even 3rd position.

The semi-finalists in this World Cup have once again poured cold water over the notion that rankings don't matter in World Cups. England (1), India (2), New Zealand (3) and Australia (5, but read above) are the four semi-finalists for a reason, and that reason is reflected in their ranking.



South Africa's performance since January 2018 has been inconsistent and that is why they ave gradually slipped down the rankings as well. Their defeats to England, India and New Zealand were expected, and they are also expected to lose to Australia. They beat the teams the two teams they were expected to beat, and although they lost to Pakistan, it wasn't a bizarre outcome that "disproved" anything.

South Africa narrowly beat a weak Pakistan 3-2 back in January and entered the World Cup as the 4th ranked team while Pakistan were 6th. Since Australia's 5th rank is misleading because of the absence of Warner and Smith for 12 months, we can reasonably assume that South Africa's true ranking at the moment is 5th, and losing to a 6th ranked side is not an upset by any means.

The rankings of the two sides clearly shows that they are closely matched. While South Africa should win slightly more games over a number of matches (hence the 3-2 win January), Pakistan can potentially beat them in a one-off game without having multiple things going its way, since the gap between Pakistan and South Africa is much narrower than the gap between Pakistan and England/India.


Facts do not suggest otherwise. In fact, facts support the claim that rankings matter, and that is why majority of the tournaments have been won by higher ranked teams. In the knockout state, rankings mean something too. More of than not, the higher ranked side will win the quarter-final, semi-final or final. Again, giving examples the Champions Trophy does not disprove anything because they are exceptions.



It is not about hate. I want Pakistan to become a consistent, elite team that regularly maintains a top 3 ranking in Tests and ODIs. I want Pakistan's off day to be a bad performance rather than a great performance. I want Pakistan to be the sort of team that the opposition fears for its consistency instead of the "Pakistan vs Pakistan" nonsense that means absolutely nothing.

Meanwhile, you can keep rubbishing rankings and pretending they don't mean anything all you want, but more often than not, you will end up disappointed like you are today.

More love letters.

I asked you to explain, using your own terms, your own delusional logic, how a team with a better streak and ranking than Pakistan, SA, ended up second from bottom. You cannot. I asked you to explain how a 5th ranked team ended top of the table. You cannot, because you're spouting horsepukky.

 

[MMHS]

No - 4 teams that are in SF are the deserving ones. Ranking or reputation doesn’t matter - it’s the position and the table matters.

 

[Hasan123]

Australia are 3rd in the rankings now officially.

 

[mmkextreme_1]

Yes

Or at least they definitely deserve to be there over New Zealand.

 

[Inswinging Yorker]

No, they wasted opportunities to earn extra points against Aus and Windies, they never attempted to boost their net rr..they deserve to be exactly where they are.

 

[Junaid_ahmed]

If you have a problem with long answers then this isn't the right platform for you. Maybe you should stick to Twitter. Anyway, I will try to keep it brief for your sake. Ranking isn't the criteria to win, but they provide a very accurate picture of how the World Cup will shape up. The rankings aren't formed from thin air - they show the consistency and the quality of teams. For example, England and India are the top two ranked teams and if the World Cup takes place a 100 times, they will make the semi-finals 99 times. That is because over 9 games, they will win their majority because they are consistent teams. On the other hand.

As far as the second part of your post is concerned, i.e. whether Australia will consider Pakistan or New Zealand a bigger threat in the knockouts, my answer to this has two aspects. Pakistan is a fluke team unlike New Zealand, and fluke teams have a greater potential for upset wins. Therefore, on a given day, Pakistan are more likely to upset a superior team. However, New Zealand will always be more consistent than Pakistan over a number of games, which is why they are third and have also qualified for the semi-finals.

You know why cricket is funny game?
Bcz a #10 team can eliminate #1 team from big events & this is the beauty of this game. You cant always rely on stats that is why I am saying that if ranking is the criteria to win then event like WC should never be organize. Only skills & consistency are not the requirements for win. Passion & aggression are the non statistical things which always count.

To live longer Cricket & specially world cup needs matches like Eng vs Pak or NZ vs Pak unlike Eng vs Ind or Aus vs Ind or eng vs NZ where skills set of all teams were same but the matches were dull & boring, hard to differ either you are watching cricket or golf.

 

[nads_rocks]

You deserve to be in the top 4 if you have performed to the best you can without any handouts freebies or miracles and your performance and Nrr shows and backs that up.

Pakistan in my opinion despite their wins, they have performed average for a superior International experienced team. They have had a poor world cup campaign.

Never did deserve the top 4 spot because they never seemed interested in it otherwise they would have changed their attitude and approach in games where it matters especially after their horrible 1st game.

 

[shockbound]

Big 3 politics, how?

Did they determine the weather? Did they let the Windies in on a secret?

Did they cause us to collapse against the Aussies and Afghanistan?

Putting our easy game in rain-prone place.

Making favorable tracks for England to score late.

Intentional loss by India.

 

[Inswinging Yorker]

no