Myth Breaker: This format will suss out the weak teams and only let through the best

[aloo paratha]

I've never seen it to the extent I see some from some fans here to be totally honest. The victimhood, paranoia and conspiracy theories are on a different level.

Well that's because you're on a Pakistani forum. Go find forums from other countries and you'll see it's not exclusive to Pakistan fans. Some people will whine about anything.

 

[geraltofrivia]

Cricket WILL return to Pakistan, InshAllah.

We all know who was behind the attack on the Srilankan team.

And 'never be good enough', seems like you have forgotten the phanti you used to receive regularly at our hand.

Lastly, come back to earth kid, its just a game.

I haven’t forgotten anything, I wasn’t even born. That’s how long ago Pakistan’s golden days were.

Aap YouTube me miandad six ke videos dekho aur hum live rohit Sharma ke sixes dekhenge.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Before the world cup, nobody would have had issues with NZ getting qualifeid. But the way they played with just one batsman was not exactly a championship stuff.

 

[Balthazar]

So how many weak teams made it into the semis? Except for big three, all teams are relatively weak. Pakistan was hammered by WI, which is another weak team.

 

[TheNightWatchman]

It did. The four best teams in the world have qualified for the semi-finals.

Haha. you're kidding right? India and Australia are the only 2 teams deservedly in the quarter finals. Newzealand is in their by pure fluke. Didn't win against any major team. Lost to Pakistan. Had one of their tougher matches rained out. To say Newzealand deserved to be in the semis and Pakistan didn't is horse ****. Meanwhile England can't stand on 2 legs unless they win the toss and bat first. And that too on flat roads. They lost to an old and fat malinga. They lost to Pakistan. <--Pakistan is so terrible according to you. How can England lose to such a terrible team?? Forget NRR, the least ICC could have done was kept reserve days if they really wanted the top deserving teams in the semis.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

The West Indies had two wins in this tournament. 34 days apart

Afghanistan lost all their games. Over 6 weeks

All the favourites made it to the semi finals comfortably. Had England not choked vs SL, would've been sealed two weeks ago.

The Top 4 have remained virtually unchanged the entire six week group stage, bar 1 day before the India England game.

There is around a week between the confirmation of semi finalists and the games themselves.

South Africa, Afghanistan, West Indies and, realistically, Sri Lanka, were knocked out three to four weeks ago.

It's even longer than the previous world cups, which everyone said were too long.

Football world cup is 31 days long. Rugby is 43 days long (needed due to the physicality of the game) , hockey is 19 days long and those tournaments have at least double the participating teams. 32 (soon to be 48) for football, 20 for rugby, 16 for hockey.

Its three times longer than the olympics, longer than any other sporting world cup on the planet and, get this, it has the LEAST amount of teams.

The length between West Indies, knocked out weeks ago, two wins all tournament is longer than an entire football world cup, two hockey world cups, two olympics etc. And thats just the GROUP STAGE.

) )

Spectator sports reach their peak in pressure knock out games. Sadly sports administrators hate this as it jeapordises the big sides and money spinning teams. Hence crickets regression into a format with the least excitement or intensity possible. Lose three group games? Eh, no worries, win some others. Laughable. Could at least hold games twice daily, maybe even three a day, then let fans select which ones they wanna watch. Nope, need to stretch it out as loooonnnng as possible to max that revenue.

Tournament started in May. Its mid july and we're not even done the group yet for gods sake )

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

The fact that England eventually qualified with aplomb proves that this format is designed to weed out the mediocre teams from the knockouts.

It is the ideal format because it provides incentives to teams who are capable of playing with consistency. That is why Pakistan’s so-called late surge (which included the Afghanistan embarrassment) was not enough and rightly so.

Lol PP's resident pessimist at it again. Don't you ever get tired of playing devil's advocate? You've become a caricature of yourself at this point.

 

[Abu_Hamza]

Pakistan too had been given 9 chances and still they couldnt make it...It only shows that they were undeserving. A late surge means nothing when u get out for 105 against a team that managed to win only one game and that was against Pakistan only. U were always playing a catch up game and eventually it came back to bite u.
End of the discussion.

 

[Abu_Hamza]

Lol PP's resident pessimist at it again. Don't you ever get tired of playing devil's advocate? You've become a caricature of yourself at this point.

The fact is that Sir [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] has been spot on with his predictions and more often than not he has the last laugh...Even [MENTION=9]Saj[/MENTION] has echoed him many a times and agreed with him..Sugar coating a miserable and failure performance doesnt help..Harsh truth needs to be told else keep on getting embarrased and knocked out..

 

[OffDrive]

Pakistan has achieved more in cricket but that is not an achievement by any measure. With over 200m people and a country that is obsessed with the game, we have underachieved considerably. The fact that we are 6th in ODIs and 7th in Tests shows how rotten our cricket is. We have been substandard for far too long. With our resources, we should consistently be a top 3 team.

This.

Look at Australia a population of 25 million and we still win against countries with 10x the population, and we do it in almost every sport, we compete in sports that we aren't good at, NZ as well for a population of 6 million they do very well of the world stage.

 

[Sunny_majoka]

though pakistan played well than england and new zealand. but honestly they don't deserve to be in semis
giving how they played in last year or so, they already snatched ct17 luckily. pakistan should also try to win bilateral series more often

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

The fact is that Sir [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] has been spot on with his predictions and more often than not he has the last laugh...Even [MENTION=9]Saj[/MENTION] has echoed him many a times and agreed with him..Sugar coating a miserable and failure performance doesnt help..Harsh truth needs to be told else keep on getting embarrased and knocked out..

Everyone is well-aware of Pakistan's failures but to downplay the team's performance in the last 4 games is frankly a little shameless. Would he say that India got embarrassed by Afghanistan? That game was also ran very close. Pakistan is not one even one of the Top 5 teams in the world but that hardly matters because this is the WC, not the World Test Championship. You don't have to be the best to win. Form, momentum and how you play on the day matters. Pakistan had the form and the momentum to make it interesting.

This is nothing new from Mamoon, I have been seeing it for a fairly long time. Just wanted to tell him that this shtick has gotten really, really boring.

 

[Oxfordchamp]

This world cup has been a great success and promises even more in the last stages..one of the best world cups with every thing in it..Only until the final few matches semifinalist were not decided and 6 teams had chance to qualify for semis proving format was good..

 

[CCAD]

It makes no sense that a team with arguably the best current form of all 10 teams is going out.

I called this format ridiculous earlier also.

Never liked it.

No point of letting minnows okay 9 matches either. Crap format.

It was a deliberate attempt to sabotage Pakistan cricket.
All the other teams are scared to face them in the KO matches so made a deal between themselves to knock Pakistan out.
First India and Australia did the job by beating them.
Than india and NZ did the job by deliberately losing at the right time to England.
All 4 teams have done well to keep the mighty Pakistan team from semifinal birth.

It’s so tragic, there should be some investigation done for this collusion by these 4 teams.

 

[Oxfordchamp]

A majority of experts and common fans picked the same semifinalists..so no surprises there

 

[pillionrider]

This is a good format. Just replace NRR with Head to Head.

1. Points
2. Wins
3. H2H
4. NRR

The chances of two teams being tied on NRR is ridiculously low.

 

[CCAD]

Haha. you're kidding right? India and Australia are the only 2 teams deservedly in the quarter finals. Newzealand is in their by pure fluke. Didn't win against any major team. Lost to Pakistan. Had one of their tougher matches rained out. To say Newzealand deserved to be in the semis and Pakistan didn't is horse ****. Meanwhile England can't stand on 2 legs unless they win the toss and bat first. And that too on flat roads. They lost to an old and fat malinga. They lost to Pakistan. <--Pakistan is so terrible according to you. How can England lose to such a terrible team?? Forget NRR, the least ICC could have done was kept reserve days if they really wanted the top deserving teams in the semis.

Pakistan nearly lost to Afghanistan until Afghani captain decided to be big hearted and handed the match to Pakistan on a platter... Full tosses outside off stump at gentle pace to a player who wasn’t able to touch spin bowling at all. There was something very bizzare about it all, almost as if he didn’t want to win.
Pakistan got smashed by Windies.

Safe to say NZ had better world cup and why they are in the semifinals.

 

[member250]

Pakistan is way better then NZ, thats for sure. And they needed all the luck in the world to get in to semis without beating even 1 good team. Pak won at least against ENG out of top 3.

 

[Itachi]

So what pak ppers want is, more priority vs game with top teams and win against minnows should carry normal points. By that way, pak would have had 1 point more since it did beat England. Guys, am I right in my assumption?

 

[TheNightWatchman]

Pakistan nearly lost to Afghanistan until Afghani captain decided to be big hearted and handed the match to Pakistan on a platter... Full tosses outside off stump at gentle pace to a player who wasn’t able to touch spin bowling at all. There was something very bizzare about it all, almost as if he didn’t want to win.
Pakistan got smashed by Windies.

Safe to say NZ had better world cup and why they are in the semifinals.

And India almost lost to Afghanistan too?
Newzealand almost lost to West Indies? By your logic Few more inches and NZ would have been 2 points less. Game isn't about what ifs.
A win is a win. 2 points is still 2 points.
Pak and NZ ended up with the same points but Pakistan easily played the better cricket in the tournament beating major contenders and beating the very team they tied on points with. Which is exactly why I said it shouldn't be a game about "what ifs". Reserve games are 100% the way to eliminate any doubt instead of gifting away 1 points. NZ were exposed as soon as they started playing the better teams. If the match against India hadn't rained out they would have been exposed much earlier. Similarly Pakistan had a rained out match vs Sri Lanka, which had Pakistan as favorites going in. This tournament failed to weed out the top 4 teams with conviction.

 

[Couch Cricketer]

Pakistan nearly lost to Afghanistan until Afghani captain decided to be big hearted and handed the match to Pakistan on a platter... Full tosses outside off stump at gentle pace to a player who wasn’t able to touch spin bowling at all. There was something very bizzare about it all, almost as if he didn’t want to win.
Pakistan got smashed by Windies.

Safe to say NZ had better world cup and why they are in the semifinals.

NZ is in the semis because they got 1 point from the top 2 teams for free. Now you can debate which team was better Pak or Nz but that is subjective. NZ team performed at a consistent level so lost too better teams but won against weaker teams. Where as Pakistan was inconsistent they were able to beat England but lost to WI. I personally enjoyed this format and I think should be persisted with in the future with a few tweaks for rain/head to head results. NZ got through with the rules they were given so they deserve to be there. Now I am hoping for NZ vs Eng final so we see a new world cup winner as Ind and Aus have won the last 5 between them.

 

[Itachi]

And India almost lost to Afghanistan too?
Newzealand almost lost to West Indies? By your logic Few more inches and NZ would have been 2 points less. Game isn't about what ifs.
A win is a win. 2 points is still 2 points.
Pak and NZ ended up with the same points but Pakistan easily played the better cricket in the tournament beating major contenders and beating the very team they tied on points with. Which is exactly why I said it shouldn't be a game about "what ifs". Reserve games are 100% the way to eliminate any doubt instead of gifting away 1 points. NZ were exposed as soon as they started playing the better teams. If the match against India hadn't rained out they would have been exposed much earlier. Similarly Pakistan had a rained out match vs Sri Lanka, which had Pakistan as favorites going in. This tournament failed to weed out the top 4 teams with conviction.

Pakistan played better in ONE match.

Pakistan also played WORST in ONE match.

nz didn't get all out in 105 to allow the opposition to win big.

When you win against one top team but played like a minnows against another minnow and got defeated like THAT way, YOU DIDNT PLAYED BETTER CRICKET.

You played inconsistent cricket where your focus is only on good performance while the bad performance are not even coming into discussion.

 

[pillionrider]

NZ are the better team. NRR is the way to go. All these Pakistanis talking about head to head.

Remember WorldT20 2012? India had lower RR than Pakistan but had won head to head. Then where was this NRR thing?

I believe in H2H over NRR but thanks for reminding about this.

Recall Pak fans in the stadium during India's final game vs SA (I think) taunting Kohli and others on the boundary once it became mathematically impossible for India to qualify. A few days later Raina's nephew took over his phone

The cycle of life...

 

[CricFan2012]

Some people just love to disregard the details.

Rain pretty much ruined the World Cup, we missed out on the full experience, we would have gotten a more fair representation of the top 4 teams.

This format is perfect and needs to continue, hopefully with two more teams.

 

[TheNightWatchman]

Pakistan played better in ONE match.

Pakistan also played WORST in ONE match.

nz didn't get all out in 105 to allow the opposition to win big.

When you win against one top team but played like a minnows against another minnow and got defeated like THAT way, YOU DIDNT PLAYED BETTER CRICKET.

You played inconsistent cricket where your focus is only on good performance while the bad performance are not even coming into discussion.

Upsets happen in cricket. Any team can have a bad day. England collapsed like a minnow against Sri Lanka and lost to Pakistan. If that isn't inconsistent I don't know what is? Inconsistencies don't matter in tournaments. That defeats the purpose of this whole format if that was the case. The whole format was built around every team plays against each other so that every team has a fair chance. No "difficult groups" or none of that. That didn't happen thanks to the rained out matches. Suppose NZ had a rained out match vs Sri Lanka instead of India and then subsequently lost to India (which most likely would have been the case) it would have been a different story wouldn't it?

 

[CricFan2012]

The fact that England eventually qualified with aplomb proves that this format is designed to weed out the mediocre teams from the knockouts.

It is the ideal format because it provides incentives to teams who are capable of playing with consistency. That is why Pakistan’s so-called late surge (which included the Afghanistan embarrassment) was not enough and rightly so.

Damn bro, what happened to you?

You're really undermining Pakistan over here. We beat Kiwis, the English, and this strong Bangladeshi side.

That Afghanistan team also brought India close as well. We definitely deserved to be the 4th team here, but rain dishes back karma from 1992.

 

[happydavy]

Pakistan were better than them.

If Pakistan was better then it would have been in top 4 and not 5. Yes you could say NZ were a little lucky but u don't win a world cup without luck. Luck is a part of success, and in some cases the basis for success. Ask Imran 1992.

 

[Oxfordchamp]

This is a good format. Just replace NRR with Head to Head.

1. Points
2. Wins
3. H2H
4. NRR

The chances of two teams being tied on NRR is ridiculously low.

Head to head won’t work ..suppose you have India nz and pak teams tied on same points and India beat pak ,pak beat nz and nz beat India, you cannot choose head to head. Got to decide based on NRR.

 

[pillionrider]

Head to head won’t work ..suppose you have India nz and pak teams tied on same points and India beat pak ,pak beat nz and nz beat India, you cannot choose head to head. Got to decide based on NRR.

That's why you have NRR as the 4th deciding factor.

 

[Oxfordchamp]

That's why you have NRR as the 4th deciding factor.

3rd not 4th..

 

[pratiktc]

Sri Lanka saved this WC by beating England. Else last 10 days almost all matches would have been dead rubbers

This format was good in principle but was brought down by poor cricket from SA primarily. None of their matches were interesting except game against NZ and that too because NZ batting screwed up.

Windies made 3-4 games interesting till late in 2nd half, Afg made 2-3 games interesting.

 

[pratiktc]

Pak have no one to blame but poor selection policies of Mickey and Sarfaraz. Too many punts on aging and out of form players in the squad and lack of any systematic planning for WC

Inzy should get a last chance for now because despite his crappy selection, sticking out neck in last minute to bring back Amir and Wahab was proven to be a good decision.

The biggest failure players were:

1) Sarfaraz - unfit, uninspiring and weak in pressure moments. L Zero value add with bat and should never have been part of 15 itself

2) Fakhar - lack of clear thinking and unsure of how he wanted to play. Still selectors were fair to play him in all matches given his good form in Eng series and in hope it would all come together.

3) Hasan Ali - biggest let down. But to be fair it should have been clear after practice games and first match. Shaheen should always have played ahead of him

4) Hafeez - one match defining inns vs Eng but his age and familiar flakiness showed in all other games. Contributed much better than expected with ball. Cant blame mgmt for picking him as he offered steady value with ball and gave good returns up front

5) Shoaib Malik - worst pick. Should not have been in XI ahead of either Haris or Asif. All indications were that he was past his best yet they picked him squad and XI.

 

[Thinking_Cap]

A lot of what we use as fans is hindsight. In a team of 11, there are always a few players who are struggling with form or out of form. You have to take chances with a few key players and if they don;t come off, so be it.

The format is the best format to help the most consistent teams play the knockouts. The ONLY real debate is whether Pakistan should have qualified ahead of NZ. The killjoy was the rain - Pakistan probably got an easier game rained off than NZ. Maybe keep a reserve day for the games - the games are anyway well spread out. That solves all the issues! This format definitely won't allow teams like Kenya / Ireland / Afghanistan make the Knockouts, which is what you want.

 

[ak619]

People here calling NZ "lucky" to go to the SF should now finally realize just how lucky Pakistan was to win the CT in 2017.

 

[Hasan123]

The best teams are through. That's what this format is about.

 

[Sir Alex]

Fair format is this. Allows for teams that display consistent cricket through out a period of time to reach knockouts. And then rewards teams that hold their nerves in the semis and final.

 

[big_gamer007]

It's obvious that some Pakistani fans here find it easier to cope up with the loss by living in a make believe world in which they have decided the team is full of warriors and gladiators and they are the best team only to be robbed by cheating, rain, format etc etc.

When someone is reeling from a loss and its hurting them too much they have 2 things. Either accept the loss and short comings and work to overcome the short comings. Or start blaming others for your own short comings which lets you cope up with the loss.

Some PPers here have chosen the second option. They will blame everyone and everything to ease their pain. No need to ridicule them or make fun of them, its human nature of being delusional helps them sleep at night peacefully we should respect their choice. However problem happens when people in power to make changes act the same way. If team management and selectors think the same way they won't make wholesome changes for the better because they will keep thinking they lost due to conspiracy or bad luck. So this sort of mindset breeds mediocrity, it's ok for fans to have such mindset but not the people in power.

Interesting times for Pakistan cricket forward.
[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] you need to understand this and let them deal with loss in their own way.

 

[redmaverik84]

I am a fan of this format. This gives a chance for all teams to compete against each and the top 4 qualify further. If as is being said this is unfair on Pakistan, they have only themselves to blame for not playing consistently and starting better. And since this is being compared to football, lets say this was a 3 team group with Pakistan and another 2 teams, the way Pakistan started off, they would have been eliminated eitherways. So its not fair in any sport that a team starts badly and then improve their game and complain that they are better on current form.

 

[TheNightWatchman]

I am a fan of this format. This gives a chance for all teams to compete against each and the top 4 qualify further. If as is being said this is unfair on Pakistan, they have only themselves to blame for not playing consistently and starting better. And since this is being compared to football, lets say this was a 3 team group with Pakistan and another 2 teams, the way Pakistan started off, they would have been eliminated eitherways. So its not fair in any sport that a team starts badly and then improve their game and complain that they are better on current form.

I like this format too
but
1- football matches dont get rained out
2- The purpose of the format was that all teams play each other. That didn't happen

 

[Mamoon]

Haha. you're kidding right? India and Australia are the only 2 teams deservedly in the quarter finals. Newzealand is in their by pure fluke. Didn't win against any major team. Lost to Pakistan. Had one of their tougher matches rained out. To say Newzealand deserved to be in the semis and Pakistan didn't is horse ****. Meanwhile England can't stand on 2 legs unless they win the toss and bat first. And that too on flat roads. They lost to an old and fat malinga. They lost to Pakistan. <--Pakistan is so terrible according to you. How can England lose to such a terrible team?? Forget NRR, the least ICC could have done was kept reserve days if they really wanted the top deserving teams in the semis.

England lost to Pakistan because Roy, Bairstow, Morgan, Stokes and Archer collectively had a terrible game. When your 5 main players go AWOL and the opposition plays good cricket (which we did on the day), you are unlikely to win. The fact that England were within striking distance in spite of half of their team not turning up shows how superior they are to Pakistan.

India and Australia have been the two best sides so far, but New Zealand deserve to qualify ahead of us. They have played professional cricket and managed their NRR better. It is not their problem that Pakistan lost to West Indies in 13.4 overs. Please refer to post 53 for further details on why New Zealand deserve to qualify ahead of Pakistan.

 

[Mamoon]

Lol PP's resident pessimist at it again. Don't you ever get tired of playing devil's advocate? You've become a caricature of yourself at this point.

Forgive me for not wallowing in self-pity and how the great Shaheens are unlucky to make the semi-finals. This is Pakistan's problem and it is not limited to cricket only - we are never prepared to take responsibility for our own failures. We didn't qualify the semi-finals because we didn't deserved to. We should have kept our NRR in check but we couldn't.

 

[JibranAnsari]

I love this format ,so many matches and suspense till the very end. You don't get more points to beat the top sides , thats it.

 

[Rana]

I have got no love for Pak but the bold part is quite rude to be honest. I agree with the rest of your post. India is so far above the rest of the Asian teams that we could play our second XI against them and still win without fuss.

You would have lost in this World Cup batting second against Pakistan.

Indian fans and arrogance has no boundaries

 

[Markhor]

Regardless of your whole opinion on who is better between NZ and Pak, the fact is a team with only 1 win vs top 6 and losing their last three matches (all by pretty significant margins may I add) is going to be playing in the semi final. Only in cricket.

The format doesn't give you bonus points for beating a top 6 opponent. You have to beat the lower ranked opponents too - and not only did we fail to do so vs West Indies, but we got absolutely hammered by them.

It was inexcusable not even to take the game deep to minimise damage to our NRR.

 

[Markhor]

Cricket only has 6 or 7 good teams.

All deserve to play each other at the World Cup.

QF format is dumb and stupid.

Best format after this league format is the super 6 format.

Also England should be banned from holding world events until they do something about the rain effected games.

Super 6s and Super 8s are even worse - it's basically a second group stage that drags out the tournament even longer as we saw in 1999, 2003 and 2007. I've no idea why some cricket fans have such an affection for it. It only works for the WT20 because of the short and sharp nature of the format.

As for the second point, what do you suggest - a weather machine ? The ICC are to blame for not leaving any space in the schedule for reserve days.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

Super 6s and Super 8s are even worse - it's basically a second group stage that drags out the tournament even longer as we saw in 1999, 2003 and 2007. I've no idea why some cricket fans have such an affection for it. It only works for the WT20 because of the short and sharp nature of the format.

As for the second point, what do you suggest - a weather machine ? The ICC are to blame for not leaving any space in the schedule for reserve days.

This is even longer than all those tournaments, so if length is an issue for you, why isnt this format? Its made the problem worse

 

[Markhor]

This is even longer than all those tournaments, so if length is an issue for you, why isnt this format? Its made the problem worse

I'm not a fan of this format either, 10 teams is not a World Cup but an extended Champions Trophy.

I'd prefer two groups of six, with the top two reaching the SFs. All done in a month.

 

[Markhor]

[MENTION=136108]Donal Cozzie[/MENTION] - I was talking in terms of matches played not days in the tournament. In 2003 and 2007 you had 54 and 51 matches, whereas this World Cup features 48.

I see no point in Super 6s and Super 8s because it means qualifying from the Group Stage simply means you've qualified for another Group Stage. It's like the Second Group Phase in the UEFA Champions League in the early 2000s - it wasn't long before they ditched that idea.

 

[Titan24]

People here calling NZ "lucky" to go to the SF should now finally realize just how lucky Pakistan was to win the CT in 2017.

Lucky? How? In that sense every team which wins the tournament is lucky.

By the way Rohit Sharma’s catch has been dropped in every match he scored a century in WC 19. Talk about luck and going to semis.

 

[Babbar]

Look at the list of top 4 in ICC ODI ranking list before the start of tournament. All those 4 have reached semis. It has never happened ever when top 4 reaches semis.

Just shows that this format respects performance, consistency and cricketing brains.

Rest can complain about whatever.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

[MENTION=136108]Donal Cozzie[/MENTION] - I was talking in terms of matches played not days in the tournament. In 2003 and 2007 you had 54 and 51 matches, whereas this World Cup features 48.

I see no point in Super 6s and Super 8s because it means qualifying from the Group Stage simply means you've qualified for another Group Stage. It's like the Second Group Phase in the UEFA Champions League in the early 2000s - it wasn't long before they ditched that idea.

Fair points.

IMO this is the worst format of all because, while there are certainly more boring ones, this one is actively harming the sport to a massive extent, whereas the others at the very least were expansionary,

This nonsense of everyone needing to play everyone to be a true world champion is farcical also. No other sport has that mindset. Whichever team comes through the knock outs on top are deserving world champions, regardless of competition.

As I said, if not for England completely imploding vs the Lankans, this group stage would've been over 10 days ago.

 

[TheNightWatchman]

England lost to Pakistan because Roy, Bairstow, Morgan, Stokes and Archer collectively had a terrible game. When your 5 main players go AWOL and the opposition plays good cricket (which we did on the day), you are unlikely to win. The fact that England were within striking distance in spite of half of their team not turning up shows how superior they are to Pakistan.

India and Australia have been the two best sides so far, but New Zealand deserve to qualify ahead of us. They have played professional cricket and managed their NRR better. It is not their problem that Pakistan lost to West Indies in 13.4 overs. Please refer to post 53 for further details on why New Zealand deserve to qualify ahead of Pakistan.

So if the number 1 team in the world can, why is it not possible for Pakistan to have a bad day either? Should that one bad game determine the entire course of their worldcup. You make it seem as though Pakistan played abhorrent cricket compared to NZ and England when they all lost the same number of games. Like I said before, NZ should consider themselves extremely lucky having their toughest match being rained out and Pakistan having one of their easier ones being rained. That is why you cannot say with conviction that the deserved them reached the top 4. Simply because they didn't play against similar oppositions.

 

[Bewal Express]

Nothing wrong with the format, Any format has advantages and disadvantages but it's just a shame that the Windies defeat and particularly it's manner, cost us so dearly

 

[Hyperion66]

You would have lost in this World Cup batting second against Pakistan.

Indian fans and arrogance has no boundaries

We have performances to back this arrogance (If any), unlike you we don't build castles in the air or dwell in the conspiracy universe.

 

[Hyperion66]

You would have lost in this World Cup batting second against Pakistan.

Indian fans and arrogance has no boundaries

We have performances to back this arrogance (If any), unlike you we don't build castles in the air or dwell in the conspiracy universe. Man up and accept that you are not good enough to beat India in a wc and life will be much easier.

 

[Mamoon]

So if the number 1 team in the world can, why is it not possible for Pakistan to have a bad day either? Should that one bad game determine the entire course of their worldcup. You make it seem as though Pakistan played abhorrent cricket compared to NZ and England when they all lost the same number of games. Like I said before, NZ should consider themselves extremely lucky having their toughest match being rained out and Pakistan having one of their easier ones being rained. That is why you cannot say with conviction that the deserved them reached the top 4. Simply because they didn't play against similar oppositions.

Most of Pakistan’s days are bad anyway, that is why they are ranked 6th, have played like minnows for 2 years and entered the England game with a 14 match losing streak.

Pakistan have no one to blame because they paid a price for their incompetence. New Zealand didn’t get lucky - they played smart cricket and are one of the four teams with a positive NRR.

 

[Akki malhotra]

You can give them a league medal for coming 3rd, but what do rankings actually mean?

India is number 1 because it doesn’t rigorously test itself home and away against a sub continent side. Pakistan is number 6-7 because it’s played no matches in Pakistan since 2009?

The World Cup is where we see who actually raises the bar when it matters. New Zealand have been poor and 5-6 matches have proved it. Name one convincing win in their campaign besides beating Sri Lanka and Afghanistan?

India beat South Africa in South Africa by 4-1 in odi series recently.
India beat new Zealand in new Zealand by 3-1 in last series.
India beat Australia in Australia by 2-1 in last series in Australia.
India beat sri lanka in sri Lanka many times.
India won last Asia cup in Bangladesh
India beat west Indies in west Indies.
India beat everyone in india.


Oh bde bhaiya... Tanik sochke toh comment kra kre...

 

[TNAmarkFromIndia]

It makes no sense that a team with arguably the best current form of all 10 teams is going out.

They lost by some of the biggest margins and won a lot of games by close margins so they only have themselves to blame.

 

[geraltofrivia]

You would have lost in this World Cup batting second against Pakistan.

Indian fans and arrogance has no boundaries

No we wouldn’t. Asia cup showed that. Pakistan would have scored 180-220. India would have chased that with 2-3 wickets down. Pakistan just isn’t good enough to compete with the elite in cricket like India.

 

[JellyBro]

So the only format that will satisfy OP is one in which Pakistan qualifies I guess.

The problem with "we were a better team in the latter half of the tournament t and therefore deserve to qualify" is that no one cares about Pakistan lates resurgence except for Pakistanis. In the world cup you have to bring your A game from the first game. At the end of the day , 4 good teams had to make it through and that's what happened.

 

[Chokli]

Super 6s and Super 8s are even worse - it's basically a second group stage that drags out the tournament even longer as we saw in 1999, 2003 and 2007. I've no idea why some cricket fans have such an affection for it. It only works for the WT20 because of the short and sharp nature of the format.

As for the second point, what do you suggest - a weather machine ? The ICC are to blame for not leaving any space in the schedule for reserve days.

1999 and 2003 were great tournaments.

2007 would have been better had India and Pakistan not been eliminated.

All the teams deserve to play each other, Cricket is different than other sports.

Reserve days but it can rain even on reserve days. Anyhow we won't have to worry about it since England won't host an event for a long time.

1999 World Cup, 2004 CT, 2009 World T20, 2013 CT, 2017 CT, 2019 World Cup - They've hosted more than enough tournaments.

Glad the next tournament is in Australia and then two in India.

 

[Markhor]

1999 and 2003 were great tournaments.

2007 would have been better had India and Pakistan not been eliminated.

All the teams deserve to play each other, Cricket is different than other sports.

Reserve days but it can rain even on reserve days. Anyhow we won't have to worry about it since England won't host an event for a long time.

1999 World Cup, 2004 CT, 2009 World T20, 2013 CT, 2017 CT, 2019 World Cup - They've hosted more than enough tournaments.

Glad the next tournament is in Australia and then two in India.

1999 was great in spite of the format not because of it. What made it memorable was there wasn't a huge gulf between top and bottom teams as now do it was a highly competitive tournament. Barring the associates, every team had at least one world class player. Second was the Dukes ball that actually swung for the seamers unlike the current crappy Kookaburra being used. And third, because of the diverse society in Britain every team gets support from locals/expat communities - especially Asian teams who packed the stands like 2019.

2003 was the longest World Cup in history with a whopping 54 matches. World Cups should be short and sharp, and this was anything but, with too many one sided matches. It was foregone conclusion Australia would win.

Ironically the rain was the best thing to have happened to this tournament because it spiced up the pitches ! Hence a good balance between bat and ball, leading to numerous close contests.

Whereas last time in Australia/NZ on those appalling dead, drop in pitches 300-400+ scores were being scored for fun with bowlers torn to shreds.

 

[KB]

I quite like the format compared to ones in prior years. However I think the tournament is still too long. Perhaps they could have more days where two matches are played in a single day to speed it up to a conclusion?

I understand the concerns about this format excluding 'minnows', but I think more regular cricket between them and the more established teams between world cups would be more helpful to their development than appearances in a world cup once every 4 years. We have had UAE, Holland, Scotland, Canada and Kenya play world cups in the past, but it does not seem to have done much for their development in the long run.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Forgive me for not wallowing in self-pity and how the great Shaheens are unlucky to make the semi-finals. This is Pakistan's problem and it is not limited to cricket only - we are never prepared to take responsibility for our own failures. We didn't qualify the semi-finals because we didn't deserved to. We should have kept our NRR in check but we couldn't.

No need to generalize. I'm perfectly well-aware that Pakistan has only itself to blame for not making the semi-finals. Primarily that is. There is also a little something called luck which went New Zealand's more than a few times. They had luck when their game against India got rained out, the way their matches were scheduled and the fact that Brathwaite couldn't clear the boundary one last time.

The every essence of World Cup cricket is that the best team does not have to win. So saying that Pakistan didn't deserve to make the semis because they are ranked 6th is absolute rubbish. Pakistan. Pakistan on its worst days plays worse than any team but on their good days plays better than any team whereas, New Zealand is a mediocre team that can only play to certain limitations. So stop peddling this nonsense that rankings or one or two games are the be all and end all. Because Australia is the biggest counter-point to this rankings nonsense.

 

[masalamaster]

Format doesn't work because inconsistent Pakistan couldn't make it to the semis. Going by your logic, if Pakistan qualifies for semis, what makes WI any less ? You lost a by friggin margin against a team you are expected to win. This is exactly why this format works because it rewards consistent performers.

OP and Entire Pakistan would have been jumping with joy if NZ had won their encounter against england. Would have helped Pakistan to get into semis based on their actual performance. Now that it's not the case, suddenly Pakistan is he victim here, right?

Wake-up and restrospect on the team's performance. Once in a fluke performance in CT semis or finals doesn't make you a better team all of a sudden!

 

[Mamoon]

No need to generalize. I'm perfectly well-aware that Pakistan has only itself to blame for not making the semi-finals. Primarily that is. There is also a little something called luck which went New Zealand's more than a few times. They had luck when their game against India got rained out, the way their matches were scheduled and the fact that Brathwaite couldn't clear the boundary one last time.

Considering the amount of luck factor in the two ODI trophies that we have won (92, 17), we should be the last team in the world to complain but about not getting lucky.

Also, if we are going to highlight moments like Brathwaite getting caught on the boundary, then we have been lucky in this World Cup as well. From the top of my head, we got lucky with the following moments:

- Roy dropping a sitter of Hafeez

- Roy getting injured

- the LBW decision against Bairstow vs Sri Lanka. 9/10 times, the umpire won’t give that out

- Root getting getting a feather on a leg-side wide vs Sri Lanka. 99/100 times, every batsman will miss that delivery

- Buttler getting caught on the boundary against Australia. If he had managed a couple of inches of elevation or had he hit it half an inch to his left, Khawaja wouldn’t have got his hands on it

- Latham dropping Babar when he was on 40 odd

- the umpire not giving Imad LBW and Afghanistan’s general shoddy fielding as well as Gulbadin’s decision to bowl his dibbly-dobblies when the spinners had us under the pump.

All of these events were not in our control but they helped Pakistan stay in the tournament. Hence, mentioning Brathwaite getting caught on the boundary means nothing.

The every essence of World Cup cricket is that the best team does not have to win. So saying that Pakistan didn't deserve to make the semis because they are ranked 6th is absolute rubbish.

No one is stopping Pakistan from winning the World Cup as a 6th ranked team, just like no one stopped Pakistan from winning the Champions Trophy as an 8th ranked team. The point is that more often than not, the best teams go deep into the tournament and end up winning the World Cup.

You cannot waddle into a World Cup with a 13 match losing streak and two years of minnow level performances, hoping that you will pick up your game and things will go your way in the World Cup. If Pakistan were unlucky, then they deserve to be unlucky because they didn’t prepare properly for the World Cup.

Pakistan on its worst days plays worse than any team but on their good days plays better than any team whereas, New Zealand is a mediocre team that can only play to certain limitations. So stop peddling this nonsense that rankings or one or two games are the be all and end all. Because Australia is the biggest counter-point to this rankings nonsense.

New Zealand don’t have spectacular highs but neither are they caught with their pants down as frequently as Pakistan. They are a solid, professional team and not chaotic and haphazard like Pakistan. That consistency is reflected in their third rank. Even now, this “mediocre team with certain limitations” will beat Pakistan 9/10 times in a series.

Australia is not the biggest counter-point. Far from it. They entered the World Cup as the 5th ranked team with their two best batsmen unavailable for a year.

Considering the small difference between the rating points of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, it is perfectly plausible that a full-strength Australian team would have entered the World Cup as the 4th or even the 3rd ranked team.

The fact that the four best teams in the world have qualified for the semi-finals is not a coincidence, and they have proved that rankings are not meaningless.

 

[Enforcer]

though pakistan played well than england and new zealand. but honestly they don't deserve to be in semis
giving how they played in last year or so, they already snatched ct17 luckily. pakistan should also try to win bilateral series more often

Upsets happen in cricket. Any team can have a bad day. England collapsed like a minnow against Sri Lanka and lost to Pakistan. If that isn't inconsistent I don't know what is? Inconsistencies don't matter in tournaments. That defeats the purpose of this whole format if that was the case. The whole format was built around every team plays against each other so that every team has a fair chance. No "difficult groups" or none of that. That didn't happen thanks to the rained out matches. Suppose NZ had a rained out match vs Sri Lanka instead of India and then subsequently lost to India (which most likely would have been the case) it would have been a different story wouldn't it?

This is a very valid point. The format is excellent but no reserve day means it eventually became a failure.

 

[SensiblePakFan]

Rain ruined it, but its the best format.

 

[Usman Chadda]

There was no reward for NZ, making the semi is just the next step in the process.

What a rubbish excuse.

NZ got man-handled in their last three games, so much so that a certain Australian commentator had the guts to outright say Australia or India would love to play NZ right now. You don't talk smack like that about a semi-finalist, if they have been 'by far the better team'.

If NZ gets thrashed in the semi-finals, expect these hushed opinions to grow into much louder ones. Graeme Smith and Michael Vaughan are two neutrals who have already voiced their concerns.

However, I don't believe Pakistan deserved to go through more-so than NZ. Beating weaker teams is an important part of this journey, and while NZ was pathetic against the top 5, they were fairly dominant against the weaker ones. You can make a case for either of Pakistan or NZ going through to the semis, and other side would always feel hard done by.

 

[Iqbal'sh]

Pakistan bottled it when it mattered, their batting was poor, their bowling only just passes as good, fielding well lets not go there, planning do they even know what planning is.

NZ were by far the better team.

Actually they did no such thing.
Their pressure match was against New Zealand at Edgbaston and they won that match comfortably despite losing the toss, and having to chase on a really difficult wicket.
New Zealand lost comfortably to the three teams finishing in the top 5 and their other game was rained off.
How does that make them by far better?

 

[Babbar]

I am not sure what is the problem with the format. It threw out all 6 bottom ranked teams and got 4 top teams in semis as was predicted by everyone except Pakistanis.

This is perfect. No one match stars or meltdowns had big effect.

No one should have any objection to the format except that probably rain washouts could have been handled better.

 

[Usman Chadda]

I am not sure what is the problem with the format. It threw out all 6 bottom ranked teams and got 4 top teams in semis as was predicted by everyone except Pakistanis.

This is perfect. No one match stars or meltdowns had big effect.

No one should have any objection to the format except that probably rain washouts could have been handled better.

Nothing wrong with the format. I think ICC have accidentally stumbled on to a really good format for once.

Pakistanis have an issue with people who say 'NZ was a FAR better team'. Quite simple really. I can understand it's hard to see through with all that bias, for you.

 

[Iqbal'sh]

LOL. Your team is out. It is not good enough. It will never be good enough. It will remain a 6-7 side. Cricket will never return to Pakistan. No need for delusions.

Same could have been said of the Indian teams of the 80’s & 90’s.
Nothing stands still but thanks for your thoughtful insight Nostradamus.

 

[ak619]

Don't understand the logic of some of the Pakistani supporters.

In one breath they are saying that NZ hasn't beaten any good team in the WC and don't deserve to be in the SF.

And in the same breath these people are saying that Pakistan has beaten top teams like England and New Zealand!

Make up your mind, people! Either NZ is or isn't a top team. If they are not, then stop claiming credit for beating them as one of the top teams.

 

[Iqbal'sh]

Had pakistan not have had the England option, they would have focussed on fixing their NRR well before the Bangladesh match.

You can’t fix NRR when you play on pitches that have winning scores of 240-250.
You also can’t do it if on such pitches you lose the toss and have to chase.

I read a preview before the WC started about the various grounds and the type of pitches that could be expected.
According to the preview Headingley was a pitch that didn’t aid spinners at all, yet despite being a fresh wicket how do you explain the pitch in the Pak vs Afg match?

 

[Iqbal'sh]

Don't understand the logic of some of the Pakistani supporters.

In one breath they are saying that NZ hasn't beaten any good team in the WC and don't deserve to be in the SF.

And in the same breath these people are saying that Pakistan has beaten top teams like England and New Zealand!

Make up your mind, people! Either NZ is or isn't a top team. If they are not, then stop claiming credit for beating them as one of the top teams.

You’re trying to hard, New Zealand finished in the top 4 and were ranked third before the tournament began so are considered a good team however they have failed to beat any of the other teams in the top 5, hence the good fortune of claiming a SF spot

 

[surg]

It's a good format. Lots of quality matches. The best four teams have marched to the Semis.

 

[ak619]

You can’t fix NRR when you play on pitches that have winning scores of 240-250.

I don't think you understand how NRR works. It's the difference in scores and not the scores themselves which matter.

So if you're playing on a 260 pitch, then you should be good enough to get the opposition out for 180 odd to boost your NRR.

 

[ak619]

You’re trying to hard, New Zealand finished in the top 4 and were ranked third before the tournament began so are considered a good team however they have failed to beat any of the other teams in the top 5, hence the good fortune of claiming a SF spot

What good fortune? There are no extra points for beating a top team in any WC.

You get 2 points for beating India. And you get the same 2 points for beating Afghanistan.

You're grasping at straws.

 

[Iqbal'sh]

I don't think you understand how NRR works. It's the difference in scores and not the scores themselves which matter.

So if you're playing on a 260 pitch, then you should be good enough to get the opposition out for 180 odd to boost your NRR.

I understand how NRR works perfectly.
My point is that it’s more difficult to up NRR in low scoring matches especially when the oppo has first use of a pitch that will become more difficult to bat second time round.
In this case, Pakistan could have been more courageous and gone hell for leather and won games against New Zealand & Afghanistan with 10 overs to spare - in reality with that mindset they could also have ended up losing both games.
Especially against Afghanistan they needed a pitch similar to what England got against them when Morgan took their bowlers for 17 sixes, and their strong spin bowlers took a collective hammering.