What's the fairest way for qualification to the semi-finals in the ICC Cricket World Cup?

[Sin Nombre]

Is head-to-head a better tie-breaker than Net Run Rate in Cricket?

Very similar discussion to football where h2h vs GD (goal difference; equivalent to net run rate in cricket) is argued incessantly.

La Liga uses h2h, other major leagues use GD.

Which one do you prefer in cricket as a tiebreaker - h2h or nrr?

 

[Cric_lover4487]

GD (football) and NRR (cricket) obviously. Final NRR reflects your team's overall performance in the tournament. Team which won more matches convincingly will have higher NRR and deserves to go ahead in the tournament. Final 4 is not just about two teams (h2h) but choosing best 4 teams in the tournament.

 

[dildilpak]

NRR. H2H can be skewed if a good team had an off day against a non-deserving team, however NRR is more accurate representation of performance throughout the tournament.

 

[Shaddy86]

What a shame that NZ had far worse overall performance than Pakistan. Pakistan has 2 wins against the top 4 and gave Australia good competition. Whereas NZ were convincingly thrashed by Aus and Eng, and escaped India in the washout. NZ on it's current form and overall performance do not deserve to be in the semis. Pakistan have lost a golden opportunity, just one silly performance cost them heavily.

 

[Captain caveman]

GD & NRR are used solely to get the more entertaining teams to qualify, has nothing to do with fairness or being the best method to judge the better team.
The respective bodies want loads of goals or loads of runs scored.
Its got nothing to with who the better team is, its all to do with who is the more ENTERTAINING team!

 

[Aman]

In this instance yes, Pakistan are more deserving Semi Finalists than NZ. But it could work against it when a team beats weak teams and flukes a win against a better team who beat stronger teams.

 

[Captain caveman]

In this instance yes, Pakistan are more deserving Semi Finalists than NZ. But it could work against it when a team beats weak teams and flukes a win against a better team who beat stronger teams.

Congratulations bro, on qualifying for the semis!
Seems like its always between pakistan and NZ for the last semi place in every wc!
Its your turn this time, go and win the cup!
Do it for the rest of us and stick it to the big 3!

 

[geraltofrivia]

No. NRR is. People who are talking about Pakistan beating top teams. Who asked you to lose in such a humiliating manner vs West Indies, a team which didn't even qualify directly.

 

[Captain caveman]

No. NRR is. People who are talking about Pakistan beating top teams. Who asked you to lose in such a humiliating manner vs West Indies, a team which didn't even qualify directly.

Apart from the teams that are tied on the same points, all other teams are not relevant in deciding which team qualifies!
Unless you introduce a ranking system into the competition, and such, this would be an alternative method for distinguishing ties, by having additional points for beating higher ranked
teams(only for teams that are tied)!

 

[Itachi]

If there was H2H and pakistan would have been kicked out, the same people would have created noise about how h2h is based on just one match where good team had an off day.

 

[ak619]

Suppose the IND vs NZ game had happened and NZ win that.

And then suppose right now IND, PAK and NZ were all at 11 points each.

So IND beat PAK
PAK beat NZ
NZ beat IND

3 teams fighting for 2 SF spot.

Now tell me how H2H will be the tie-breaker in this case?

 

[ak619]

If there was H2H and pakistan would have been kicked out, the same people would have created noise about how h2h is based on just one match where good team had an off day.

You can bet on it. It's just sour grapes. Nothing else.

 

[Balthazar]

NRR.

H-H makes lot of matches pointless at the backend of the tournament.

 

[Captain caveman]

If there was H2H and pakistan would have been kicked out, the same people would have created noise about how h2h is based on just one match where good team had an off day.

Probably, but head to head is genuinely a fairer method.

 

[Sir Alex]

NRR is a tried and tested tie breaker which also takes into consideration performance across the tournament.

Basically it rewards teams which competed better and had lost close matches than teams which lost by big margins and hence were less competitive.

Head to head is an unfair indicator when it comes to big tournaments like this. In this case NZ can argue that just because Pak beat them then NZ beat WI who in turn beat Pak by a whopping margin. It becomes circular and hence devoid of any cricketing logic.

 

[MMHS]

GD & NRR are used solely to get the more entertaining teams to qualify, has nothing to do with fairness or being the best method to judge the better team.
The respective bodies want loads of goals or loads of runs scored.
Its got nothing to with who the better team is, its all to do with who is the more ENTERTAINING team!

Wrong. You don’t know the logic, neither what actually means by GD or NRR. These two are best methods for a reason.

No, FIFA doesn’t use GD to make in entertainment, rather GD is used to measure the more dominant team (on equal points). Had the target been entertainment, then instead of using GD, they would have used GS (Goals Scored). Still nice GD is used as first tie breaker, it’s better to win 2-0, rather than 3-2 or 4-3. It has everything to do with who is overall better team, not entertaining team.

Similarly, NRR is used to determine who is better team, not entertaining team (if we consider high score is entertainment). In a tournament, against same team C, say Team A is scoring 256 and then wins it by 86 Runs (opponent all out for 170). Team B is scoring 353, and then winning by 10 (opponent all-out for 343). Then the game between A & B is washed out, leaving both A & B stuck at 3 points with one to advance. If we go by NRR route, Team A has a NRR of +1.72 and Team B has NRR of +0.20 - so team A qualifies. If we go by Run Rate route, Team A has a RR of 5.12; Team B has a RR of 7.06 - so team B team advances. Now you decide who is more dominant & who is more entertaining.

I understand that NRR method isn’t popular today in PP and there is a reason for it; but the guy instrumental in introducing NRR was among very few of the best cricket minds ever - it’s the nearest perfect method for a tie breaker.

H2H has merits, but demerits as well. Overall, NRR and GD are the best way for tie breaker.

 

[Captain caveman]

Suppose the IND vs NZ game had happened and NZ win that.

And then suppose right now IND, PAK and NZ were all at 11 points each.

So IND beat PAK
PAK beat NZ
NZ beat IND

3 teams fighting for 2 SF spot.

Now tell me how H2H will be the tie-breaker in this case?

If 3 teams or more are tied, you should first try h 2 h to decide who goes through, if this can't resolve the situation then you go to nrr.
At the moment its decided first by nrr and then by h 2 h, if nrr is the same

 

[Itachi]

Probably, but head to head is genuinely a fairer method.

H2H takes a very small sample size. And in a tournament like world cup where there are 10 teams, a small sample size will give skewed results.

In a triangular series, h2h may work but in world cup, NRR is what more fair.

All the teams knew it before hand. And hence played accordingly. It is pakistans fault that the team management cant make simple calculation and tell the team in last few matches that, winning isnt enough now, you have to win big.

 

[Captain caveman]

Wrong. You don’t know the logic, neither what actually means by GD or NRR. These two are best methods for a reason.

No, FIFA doesn’t use GD to make in entertainment, rather GD is used to measure the more dominant team (on equal points). Had the target been entertainment, then instead of using GD, they would have used GS (Goals Scored). Still nice GD is used as first tie breaker, it’s better to win 2-0, rather than 3-2 or 4-3. It has everything to do with who is overall better team, not entertaining team.

Similarly, NRR is used to determine who is better team, not entertaining team (if we consider high score is entertainment). In a tournament, against same team C, say Team A is scoring 256 and then wins it by 86 Runs (opponent all out for 170). Team B is scoring 353, and then winning by 10 (opponent all-out for 343). Then the game between A & B is washed out, leaving both A & B stuck at 3 points with one to advance. If we go by NRR route, Team A has a NRR of +1.72 and Team B has NRR of +0.20 - so team A qualifies. If we go by Run Rate route, Team A has a RR of 5.12; Team B has a RR of 7.06 - so team B team advances. Now you decide who is more dominant & who is more entertaining.

I understand that NRR method isn’t popular today in PP and there is a reason for it; but the guy instrumental in introducing NRR was among very few of the best cricket minds ever - it’s the nearest perfect method for a tie breaker.

H2H has merits, but demerits as well. Overall, NRR and GD are the best way for tie breaker.

Your post is too long for me too be bothered to go through it properly, as its 4.30 am where i am( no offence)!
But goals scored would be more entertaining than goal difference , as you stated, but people will complain that a team that wins 5 - 4 has not been penalised for conceding 4 goals!
Basically, gd and nrr are used for making games more entertaining, but without reducing the quality!
But that does NOT make it a fair or even the best system to decide between teams that are tied on points!
You can disagree, thats your choice!

 

[Captain caveman]

H2H takes a very small sample size. And in a tournament like world cup where there are 10 teams, a small sample size will give skewed results.

In a triangular series, h2h may work but in world cup, NRR is what more fair.

All the teams knew it before hand. And hence played accordingly. It is pakistans fault that the team management cant make simple calculation and tell the team in last few matches that, winning isnt enough now, you have to win big.

Absolutely, everyone knew the rules before the tournament and ties will be determined by nrr followed by h 2 h if nrr is the same!
My point is really for future competitions, as i genuinely believe it should be h 2 h followed by nrr, if h 2 h cannot distinguish between the teams tied on equal points.

It is irrelevant to consider any other teams apart from the teams tied on points, unless you have a ranked competition, then tied teams can be separated by who has beaten the more highly ranked teams.

 

[ak619]

If 3 teams or more are tied, you should first try h 2 h to decide who goes through, if this can't resolve the situation then you go to nrr.
At the moment its decided first by nrr and then by h 2 h, if nrr is the same

If you're going to have to resort to NRR anyway, then what's the justification for H2H?

There has to be some justification as to how H2H is a better method than NRR.

So far, I've not seen that justification come up in this thread.

I'm not saying NZ deserves a SF spot more than PAK or anything like that.

But like [MENTION=90888]Itachi[/MENTION] said, we're only talking about H2H because the NRR method has resulted in Pakistan's exit from the WC. If PAK lost out because of H2H, we would be talking about how NRR is a better method.

Point is that neither is a perfect method. But NRR makes things far less complicated than H2H. And if you ask me, for a format like this WC, NRR makes much more sense than H2H.

 

[Indiafan]

No, because multiple teams can end up on the same points which makes H2H useless

 

[Captain caveman]

If you're going to have to resort to NRR anyway, then what's the justification for H2H?

There has to be some justification as to how H2H is a better method than NRR.

So far, I've not seen that justification come up in this thread.

I'm not saying NZ deserves a SF spot more than PAK or anything like that.

But like [MENTION=90888]Itachi[/MENTION] said, we're only talking about H2H because the NRR method has resulted in Pakistan's exit from the WC. If PAK lost out because of H2H, we would be talking about how NRR is a better method.

Point is that neither is a perfect method. But NRR makes things far less complicated than H2H. And if you ask me, for a format like this WC, NRR makes much more sense than H2H.

Really has got nothing to do with paks plight,; thats sealed. Its for future competitions.
NRR is simply all the runs you have scored in the competition divided by the number of overs you took to score them MINUS all the runs you have conceded by the number of overs you bowled to conceive them!
So basically, you are taking into account every other team and their players performances, to decide between 2 or more teams who are tied on points, to work out who is more WORTHY of qualifying!
Surely, it should only be decided on performanes of those teams tied on the same points and their players against each other and what other teams and their players performances , who are not in the tied points situation should not come into the decision!

 

[Captain caveman]

No, because multiple teams can end up on the same points which makes H2H useless

Yes, but you go from the best solution to the next best solution etc.
Even nrr can be the same and then h 2 h will be used to decide in this wc!
I pesonally think there have got this the wrong way round!

 

[pakistani pride]

You can bet on it. It's just sour grapes. Nothing else.

Its frustration because PAK played much better cricket than NZ. We know when we play bad and dont deserve something. But this time it really is hard too accept.

NZ played in May/ early June vs the weaker teams and in the end only needed to protect their NRR vs the bigger teams cause thats all they had in them.

 

[Manager101]

Much better solution was given by the commentator during England vs New Zealand match, he suggested to have a play-off match between two equal points team fighting for 4th position, who ever wins, gets to the semis, no need of broadcasting and all that. It will serve justice.

 

[Captain caveman]

Much better solution was given by the commentator during England vs New Zealand match, he suggested to have a play-off match between two equal points team fighting for 4th position, who ever wins, gets to the semis, no need of broadcasting and all that. It will serve justice.

Better solution if only 2 teams tied, what happens if more than 2 teams tied, how many games will you have to play to sort that out?

 

[Manager101]

Better solution if only 2 teams tied, what happens if more than 2 teams tied, how many games will you have to play to sort that out?

Good point, but atleast the commentator initiated an Idea which can be further refined by ICC in case they noticed it which is highly unlikely.

 

[ak619]

Its frustration because PAK played much better cricket than NZ. We know when we play bad and dont deserve something. But this time it really is hard too accept.

NZ played in May/ early June vs the weaker teams and in the end only needed to protect their NRR vs the bigger teams cause thats all they had in them.

I can understand that. But that doesn't mean that system itself is flawed.

 

[Captain caveman]

Good point, but atleast the commentator initiated an Idea which can be further refined by ICC in case they noticed it which is highly unlikely.

This is just the same as h 2 h in the tournament, my prefered system. If more than 2 teams tied and you can't decipher berween them using h 2 h, then you go to nrr. In this wc, they use nrr first and then
h 2 h if they can't decide by using nrr. I think this is the wrong way round!

 

[ak619]

Really has got nothing to do with paks plight,; thats sealed. Its for future competitions.
NRR is simply all the runs you have scored in the competition divided by the number of overs you took to score them MINUS all the runs you have conceded by the number of overs you bowled to conceive them!
So basically, you are taking into account every other team and their players performances, to decide between 2 or more teams who are tied on points, to work out who is more WORTHY of qualifying!
Surely, it should only be decided on performanes of those teams tied on the same points and their players against each other and what other teams and their players performances , who are not in the tied points situation should not come into the decision!

In a tournament, where every team has played every team, the NRR method makes a lot of sense.

If the league stage groups were smaller, like 4 or 5 teams per group, then I can see how H2H is a better choice.

But every team played every team in this format. Every team had equal opportunity to work on their NRR.

Every team played Afghanistan this WC. Both India and Pakistan dragged the match down to the last over. But England improved their NRR by beating Afghanistan by 150. Should they not be beneficiaries of that?

If NZ had crumbled against WI like Pakistan did, Pakistan would still have a very realistic chance of qualifying. Should Pakistan then not be penalized for losing a 100 overs match in just 35 overs?

 

[Captain caveman]

In a tournament, where every team has played every team, the NRR method makes a lot of sense.

If the league stage groups were smaller, like 4 or 5 teams per group, then I can see how H2H is a better choice.

But every team played every team in this format. Every team had equal opportunity to work on their NRR.

Every team played Afghanistan this WC. Both India and Pakistan dragged the match down to the last over. But England improved their NRR by beating Afghanistan by 150. Should they not be beneficiaries of that?

If NZ had crumbled against WI like Pakistan did, Pakistan would still have a very realistic chance of qualifying. Should Pakistan then not be penalized for losing a 100 overs match in just 35 overs?

Forget about pakistans situation, the rules were set before the competition, everyone knew what they were!
I am talking about future competitins and h 2 h followed by nrr if necessary, is a fairer method than nrr followed by h 2 h if necessary, as in this competition.
The teams tied should be differentiated by their perforkances against each other rather than performances against teams who are not tied for qualification. There is no merit in including other teams who are not tied for qualification and their player's performances in deciding between tied teams vying for qualification.

 

[jagatk]

Forget about pakistans situation, the rules were set before the competition, everyone knew what they were!
I am talking about future competitins and h 2 h followed by nrr if necessary, is a fairer method than nrr followed by h 2 h if necessary, as in this competition.
The teams tied should be differentiated by their perforkances against each other rather than performances against teams who are not tied for qualification. There is no merit in including other teams who are not tied for qualification and their player's performances in deciding between tied teams vying for qualification.

You are qualifying on basis of winning multiple games not 1 single game, so why should one single game be given preference? NRR is far more fair as it takes into consideration your overall performance than 1 single game.

 

[Captain caveman]

You are qualifying on basis of winning multiple games not 1 single game, so why should one single game be given preference? NRR is far more fair as it takes into consideration your overall performance than 1 single game.

Because you are tied with say one team not all the teams in the tournament!

 

[cricketfanfirst]

I feel NRR is better than head to head, as NRR gives overall picture of a team's performance. If we simply take NRR into account, then a strong team having an off-day against a weak team might sneak in.

 

[Captain caveman]

I feel NRR is better than head to head, as NRR gives overall picture of a team's performance. If we simply take NRR into account, then a strong team having an off-day against a weak team might sneak in.

So your justification for nrr vs h2h is that the so called "strong team" may get knocked out!!
You do realise both are on equal points, so much for your strong team theory!!!

Indian fan by any chance?!!

 

[Barragan]

No, nrr creates much more exciting scenario's and that would lead to a more exhilarating game.

Just because Pak got knocked out on nrr, doesn't mean something that works should be changed.

It is entirely Pakistan's fault for losing against the rubbish wi's and that too with such a huge deficit.

 

[cricketfanfirst]

So your justification for nrr vs h2h is that the so called "strong team" may get knocked out!!
You do realise both are on equal points, so much for your strong team theory!!!

Indian fan by any chance?!!

When your opinion is not agreed on, then why you need to be defensive and bring on in Nationality, that's not a sensible way to debate.

My theory here to have NRR as the criteria was, let's say a generally regarded strong team gets docked by some points in its games due to rain/or some other conditions, then in such cases it is on equal footing with the comparatively weaker team, then on an off-day lost to that team (which generally happens time to time), so in such cases your overall NRR will give better picture. The opinion you have regarding having head to head in such cases might not be very much off, but in my view NRR would be more fairer indication in such cases.

 

[sweep_shot]

NRR is good. It shows how the team did in the whole tournament.

 

[cricketfanfirst]

So your justification for nrr vs h2h is that the so called "strong team" may get knocked out!!
You do realise both are on equal points, so much for your strong team theory!!!

Indian fan by any chance?!!

Also, don't bring India every time which gets boring, try to debate on cricketing aspects which is more interesting, looks like you are new member here. I have been here for long, reason being some fantastic posters here. Though I come here only rarely nowadays due to time constraints but this is a great forum, so let's keep it that way and debate sensibly on cricket.

 

[Captain caveman]

When your opinion is not agreed on, then why you need to be defensive and bring on in Nationality, that's not a sensible way to debate.

My theory here to have NRR as the criteria was, let's say a generally regarded strong team gets docked by some points in its games due to rain/or some other conditions, then in such cases it is on equal footing with the comparatively weaker team, then on an off-day lost to that team (which generally happens time to time), so in such cases your overall NRR will give better picture. The opinion you have regarding having head to head in such cases might not be very much off, but in my view NRR would be more fairer indication in such cases.

First of all, i didn't mean to offend you, i apologise if i did!
I asked if you were an indian fan, as india is one of the strongest teams in the competition and hence nrr would favour them!
Both my parents were born in india, i was born in the uk and the rest of our family live in pakistan, so i don't hate anyone!

Anyway, you have some confusing arguments about the rain affected games etc.
Still looks like you are trying to protect the big teams from the lesser teams.
The important point is that both teams are on the same number of points and one of the teams has beaten the other!
I can't see a better way of deciding who should qualify than this!

 

[Snatch]

No NRR is the best and fairest and some Pakistan fans who are raising these sort of questions now are just bad losers.

If your team were good enough and consistent enough they would have made it without relying on NRR.

Also, when Pakistan had chances to get their NRR up against NZ & the Afghans, they didn't... again that's Pakistan's fault, not the rest of the world

 

[cricketfanfirst]

First of all, i didn't mean to offend you, i apologise if i did!
I asked if you were an indian fan, as india is one of the strongest teams in the competition and hence nrr would favour them!
Both my parents were born in india, i was born in the uk and the rest of our family live in pakistan, so i don't hate anyone!

Anyway, you have some confusing arguments about the rain affected games etc.
Still looks like you are trying to protect the big teams from the lesser teams.
The important point is that both teams are on the same number of points and one of the teams has beaten the other!
I can't see a better way of deciding who should qualify than this!

No worries, all good. Yeah, as I said your opinion is not far-off, but to me looks like NRR will show how dominant you have been throughout, instead of sneaking in close games.

NRR will show overall dominance exhibited over oppositions teams throughout and may eliminate chance wins, wherein some weaker teams sneak in due to some very close games. That is my point over here.

 

[saeed5646]

No NRR is the best and fairest and some Pakistan fans who are raising these sort of questions now are just bad losers.

If your team were good enough and consistent enough they would have made it without relying on NRR.

Also, when Pakistan had chances to get their NRR up against NZ & the Afghans, they didn't... again that's Pakistan's fault, not the rest of the world

atleast do your homework before spewing nonsense .The op is not pakistani

 

[Snatch]

atleast do your homework before spewing nonsense .The op is not pakistani

99% of the comments whinging about the NRR are though, and it's not only happening in this thread.

Such bad sportsmanship. No one likes bad losers who look to make excuses after they've failed. Where's your pride man?

 

[saeed5646]

99% of the comments whinging about the NRR are though, and it's not only happening in this thread.

Such bad sportsmanship. No one likes bad losers who look to make excuses after they've failed. Where's your pride man?

are you for real ?I just pointed out op is neutral fan and he does have point .but if you are telling me we should shut our mouth just because nz are reaching on NRR instead of points than that is quite obnoxious of you

 

[Snatch]

are you for real ?I just pointed out op is neutral fan and he does have point .but if you are telling me we should shut our mouth just because nz are reaching on NRR instead of points than that is quite obnoxious of you

You're out of the WC. Be a good sport about it. I understand you're emotional, but it is time to put it behind you, accept your team weren't good enough to control their own destiny in making the semis without relying on other results, and hope they are better next time.

 

[saeed5646]

You can bet on it. It's just sour grapes. Nothing else.

i can bet on that too if nz and pak were in opposite situation you guy would have said opposite thing
how nz are robbed of semis as pakistan match against tough side india was washout and nz have easy win on the cards against sl if not rain

 

[Snatch]

i can bet on that too if nz and pak were in opposite situation you guy would have said opposite thing
how nz are robbed of semis as pakistan match against tough side india was washout and nz have easy win on the cards against sl if not rain

That's where I think you are wrong, and I said this before. Had it been NZ and England who missed out on the semis. I'm sure most (not all, but most) of their fans would have accepted they weren't good enough. If they then started moaning about other teams who did make it and saying they were lucky, it just comes across as bad sportsmanship.

I mean I don't know if it's a cultural thing or not, but where I come from it's considered bad sportsmanship to moan and make excuses and put down other teams ahead of you, even if you really do think luck was involved.

It's just a pride thing to accept defeat gallantly like a man.

 

[saeed5646]

You're out of the WC. Be a good sport about it. I understand you're emotional, but it is time to put it behind you, accept your team weren't good enough to control their own destiny in making the semis without relying on other results, and hope they are better next time.

Most pakistani fans were critical of this team when worldcup was not started you must have miss those days. anything but most of pakistani fans don,t use excuses for there failure but if they are cursing there luck then one cannot blame them for there frustration it was really close for pakistan

 

[saeed5646]

That's where I think you are wrong, and I said this before. Had it been NZ and England who missed out on the semis. I'm sure most (not all, but most) of their fans would have accepted they weren't good enough. If they then started moaning about other teams who did make it and saying they were lucky, it just comes across as bad sportsmanship.

I mean I don't know if it's a cultural thing or not, but where I come from it's considered bad sportsmanship to moan and make excuses and put down other teams ahead of you, even if you really do think luck was involved.

It's just a pride thing to accept defeat gallantly like a man.

i am talking from indian fans prospective .

btw i remember morgan whinning after ct final and botham sour grapes statement just few days ago .so don,t lecture me how good england are

 

[Snatch]

Most pakistani fans were critical of this team when worldcup was not started you must have miss those days. anything but most of pakistani fans don,t use excuses for there failure but if they are cursing there luck then one cannot blame them for there frustration it was really close for pakistan

Read my prior post above on the luck thing.

 

[Captain caveman]

No worries, all good. Yeah, as I said your opinion is not far-off, but to me looks like NRR will show how dominant you have been throughout, instead of sneaking in close games.

NRR will show overall dominance exhibited over oppositions teams throughout and may eliminate chance wins, wherein some weaker teams sneak in due to some very close games. That is my point over here.

Fair enough bro, neither system is perfect, it is open to peoples preferences.

 

[Mamoon]

Teams that finish level on points should be differentiated based on their rankings going into the World Cup. This will add meaning to rankings and give bilateral ODIs context. Moreover, it will reward consistency.

 

[Captain caveman]

Teams that finish level on points should be differentiated based on their rankings going into the World Cup. This will add meaning to rankings and give bilateral ODIs context. Moreover, it will reward consistency.

I think it is lower in the pecking order, if i am not mistaken -
NRR
H2H
Rankings

 

[DeadlyYorker]

Just answer me for this...
All this is just to put down nz and justify pak being in top4
But world doesnt revolve around pak.

Imagine a scenario where all teams have same points ,now how will you justify H2H when comparing to morethan 1 team when 2-3-4 or more teams are in contention.
NRR has 4 digits which will never give exact same value for 2or more teams thus you can easily differntiate between many teams.

H2H is meaningless when other scenarios are considered

 

[Sami92]

No. NRR takes into account the overall performance of the tournament whereas H2D takes into account only one contest.

 

[Snatch]

No. NRR takes into account the overall performance of the tournament whereas H2D takes into account only one contest.

Yes I agree which it why the NRR is the best and fairest and is only being questioned now because a certain team didn't get through because of it.

 

[Mamoon]

I think it is lower in the pecking order, if i am not mistaken -
NRR
H2H
Rankings

It should be at the top.

 

[Captain caveman]

Just answer me for this...
All this is just to put down nz and justify pak being in top4
But world doesnt revolve around pak.

Imagine a scenario where all teams have same points ,now how will you justify H2H when comparing to morethan 1 team when 2-3-4 or more teams are in contention.
NRR has 4 digits which will never give exact same value for 2or more teams thus you can easily differntiate between many teams.

H2H is meaningless when other scenarios are considered

There is a list of criteria used to differentiate teams that are tied for qualification, starting with
NRR
H2H
rankings
etc

Some people think NRR should be used first, others like myself think h2h should be used first and then nrr, if teams can't be separated. Obviously, its icc choice.
But teams can have the same nrr as well, thats why they have the other criteria in place as well!
In reality, theres no system thats perfect, different people will have different preferences, usually depending on their teams situation.
Personally, regardless of paks situation, i would prefer in the next tournament h2h be the first criteria applied!

 

[Bewal Express]

If PK had gone through on NRR, no one would be complaining.

 

[Majestic_Inzi]

NRR is not fairer, some teams got flatter pitches than others.

Both nz vs sa and pak vs nz got difficult wicket in edgebaston then eng gets a flat one.

Likewise eng got a flat wicket against afg and both ind and pak got spinning wicket.

If wickets were identical then nrr is fair, first and foremost it should be h2h if more than 2 teams on identical points then nrr should be used.

For the next tournament it should be h2h first.

These two games ind vs eng and nz vs eng were not played to highest standards imho.

 

[Majestic_Inzi]

If PK had gone through on NRR, no one would be complaining.

Had nz known they had to win alot more intensity would have been shown it was like a warm up game.

 

[DeadlyYorker]

NRR is not fairer, some teams got flatter pitches than others.

Both nz vs sa and pak vs nz got difficult wicket in edgebaston then eng gets a flat one.

Likewise eng got a flat wicket against afg and both ind and pak got spinning wicket.

If wickets were identical then nrr is fair, first and foremost it should be h2h if more than 2 teams on identical points then nrr should be used.

For the next tournament it should be h2h first.

These two games ind vs eng and nz vs eng were not played to highest standards imho.

Just explain how H2H will justify who goes through if 4 teams have same points.

Why pitch cries will not come up if H2H is Preffered.

Getting flat pitches doesnt affect your NRR.at best you will only fall short of few runs.if you get all out for 105 thats means you laked intent beacuse other team chased it within 13 over thus looks like semi flat pitch to me..

Getting flat pitch doesnt mean you get boost in NRR,since how you overall you and your opponent perfomred decides NRR,if you cant score on so called flat pitches and five NRR boost to your opposition that only means you are not good enough

 

[DeadlyYorker]

There is a list of criteria used to differentiate teams that are tied for qualification, starting with
NRR
H2H
rankings
etc

Some people think NRR should be used first, others like myself think h2h should be used first and then nrr, if teams can't be separated. Obviously, its icc choice.
But teams can have the same nrr as well, thats why they have the other criteria in place as well!
In reality, theres no system thats perfect, different people will have different preferences, usually depending on their teams situation.
Personally, regardless of paks situation, i would prefer in the next tournament h2h be the first criteria applied!

H2H can and never will be applied first since its full of flaws.

Yes it can be used as secondary option when NRR is same.because getting same nRR would have equal chances to winning a lottery

 

[Hawkeye]

Yes, only if it suits us, our fans will say head to head is better.

It's about what benefits us, ultimately.

Trust me, if our NRR was better and we were leaving NZ out, our fans would have preferred NRR.

 

[Captain caveman]

H2H can and never will be applied first since its full of flaws.

Yes it can be used as secondary option when NRR is same.because getting same nRR would have equal chances to winning a lottery

Impossible to calculate the odds of the same nrr!
All of the criteria have flaws, none are perfect, comes down to personal preference and i prefer h2h!
I have a feeling icc may well change this next time!

 

[DeadlyYorker]

Impossible to calculate the odds of the same nrr!
All of the criteria have flaws, none are perfect, comes down to personal preference and i prefer h2h!
I have a feeling icc may well change this next time!

Reasons for change? Problems with current format? Dont see it getting changed

 

[Captain caveman]

Yes, only if it suits us, our fans will say head to head is better.

It's about what benefits us, ultimately.

Trust me, if our NRR was better and we were leaving NZ out, our fans would have preferred NRR.

True!
But regardless of paks situation, i think all future contests should use h2h as a criteria to decide which team qualifies when they are level on points!

 

[Captain caveman]

Reasons for change? Problems with current format? Dont see it getting changed

Just a feeling, thats all.

 

[DeadlyYorker]

Impossible to calculate the odds of the same nrr!
All of the criteria have flaws, none are perfect, comes down to personal preference and i prefer h2h!
I have a feeling icc may well change this next time!

So you mean having same NRR has more chances than having non-existent H2H vs multiple team?
Just explain why do you prefer H2H,apart from justfiyig pakistans inclusion from pre-decided selection method.

There must be a reasom why H2H will be better than NRR.

 

[Majestic_Inzi]

H2H can and never will be applied first since its full of flaws.

Yes it can be used as secondary option when NRR is same.because getting same nRR would have equal chances to winning a lottery

What if one teams played 9 games and another only 7, the team played 9 will have better chance of getting better nrr.

This world cup is done we are talking about the next.

 

[DeadlyYorker]

Just a feeling, thats all.

Oh well then..

 

[ak619]

Forget about pakistans situation, the rules were set before the competition, everyone knew what they were!
I am talking about future competitins and h 2 h followed by nrr if necessary, is a fairer method than nrr followed by h 2 h if necessary, as in this competition.
The teams tied should be differentiated by their perforkances against each other rather than performances against teams who are not tied for qualification. There is no merit in including other teams who are not tied for qualification and their player's performances in deciding between tied teams vying for qualification.

But that's my point. In a format, where every team is playing every team, why should H2H come into play?

In such a format, it's a level playing field for everybody.

If the tournament has multiple groups, where some groups may end up being stronger/weaker than another group, then okay H2H makes sense.


You have been saying that H2H is a fairer measurement. But you haven't explained why it's fairer. You must give the explanation also, isn't it?

 

[DeadlyYorker]

What if one teams played 9 games and another only 7, the team played 9 will have better chance of getting better nrr.

This world cup is done we are talking about the next.

Getting positive or negative effect on NRR is decided by the result of the match.
Since winning and losing has equal chances ,so is to change the NRR.

Also more you play more the chances are to lose aswell as winning.

So in short you can only better you NRR as much as you can worsen it by playing One more game.

In case others 7 got Draws vs certain teams. In that case H2H will be meaningless when 2 or even more than 2 teams are in contention to a spot that have got washouts vs some and not vs others.

Just makes it more complicated.

 

[ak619]

i can bet on that too if nz and pak were in opposite situation you guy would have said opposite thing
how nz are robbed of semis as pakistan match against tough side india was washout and nz have easy win on the cards against sl if not rain

SL smashed WI, the same team that finished their match against PAK in 13 overs. So I don't know where you are getting this impression that PAK would have surely beaten SL if the game wasn't a washout.

 

[Captain caveman]

But that's my point. In a format, where every team is playing every team, why should H2H come into play?

In such a format, it's a level playing field for everybody.

If the tournament has multiple groups, where some groups may end up being stronger/weaker than another group, then okay H2H makes sense.


You have been saying that H2H is a fairer measurement. But you haven't explained why it's fairer. You must give the explanation also, isn't it?

I have explained it several times in my posts above!
Very briefly, the teams tied on the same points, should be differentiated on their performances against each other and not by other teams and their players performances, because these teams are not tied on the same points!
You are deciding between the teams tied on points, you are NOT deciding on every team performance!

 

[DeadlyYorker]

SL smashed WI, the same team that finished their match against PAK in 13 overs. So I don't know where you are getting this impression that PAK would have surely beaten SL if the game wasn't a washout.

Its just to justify thier chances while in truth teams they are in contetion with also have washout match and also would have won that match by thier logic just to have the same situation they have right now.

 

[geraltofrivia]

Apart from the teams that are tied on the same points, all other teams are not relevant in deciding which team qualifies!
Unless you introduce a ranking system into the competition, and such, this would be an alternative method for distinguishing ties, by having additional points for beating higher ranked
teams(only for teams that are tied)!

The other teams are relevant. That's why it's a competition!

 

[DeadlyYorker]

I have explained it several times in my posts above!
Very briefly, the teams tied on the same points, should be differentiated on their performances against each other and not by other teams and their players performances, because these teams are not tied on the same points!
You are deciding between the teams tied on points, you are NOT deciding on every team performance!

Again you are only talking about situation like pakistan is in this wc....where it has better H2H vs contendor,

But what would you do when team from 3 to 6 all have same points and all have almost 1-1 win vs eachother...

When you decide a selecrion method it should have less limitations and more usefulness like with NRR.

H2H can only help in case when 2 teams fight for 1 spot and have not got washout vs eachother