World Cup 2019 - Format Discussion Thread

[Chokli]

How many people believed India could win against West Indies in the World cup Final? Not alot, especially when they capitulated for a small total.

How was Srilanka's performance in the previous 2 editions of the world cup? If they were miles better than Zimbabwe then please do tell.

sure but that doesn't mean India were minnows.

sri lanka were far from minnows in the 96 world cup, they may have been minnows before years ago.

 

[Chokli]

Yes and Pakistan can chase totals in England correct?

they did chase down 300 odd in 2016..

 

[MMHS]

How many people believed India could win against West Indies in the World cup Final? Not alot, especially when they capitulated for a small total.

How was Srilanka's performance in the previous 2 editions of the world cup? If they were miles better than Zimbabwe then please do tell.

IND was the 2nd best team in that small period between 1982-1986 - won 2 Global events, won a Series in ENG as well. You probably don't know that in that WC itself IND beat WIN in an active game, before that won an ODI in WIND tour. Those days, Indian attack of Kapil, Binney, Madan, Shandhu, Chetan & Ghavri was perfectly suited for English condition and they won a Test series 2-0 as well in 1986. It was the flattening of ODI tracks that exposed their military medium pace attack in late 80s, till early 2000s; batting was never much of a big issue. They were deserved Finalist, beating ENG in SF and AUS twice in Group stages - then it was a matter of one great day. Upset win - definitely, underdog - now way .... minnows - you were not born then, so pardoned.

SRL was the team in form between 1994-1998: in Asian condition, they were by far the best team, got better of PAK often and smashed IND regularly, almost ending careers of Prashad & Probhakar. Either side of that WC, just before they won Asia Cup, won Sharjah Cup and would have been first Asian team to win WSC (1995-96), unless some of the worst and shameful cheating by Australian Umpires in B&H WSC Finals. After that, they won Indian Independence Cup, made Final of PAK's Independence Cup and won several Singer Cups at their home. Previous WC (1992) was in AUS and it's a bit foolish to refer that to compare SRL's prospect in Asia in 1996. Previous Asian WC was played in 1987 - you better check how many players of that WC made it for SRL 8 years later.

PAK was joint 3rd or max 4th favorite for 1992 WC. Actually, there was only standout team - AUS. SAF was unknown and among IND, PAK, ENG, NZ, WIN, you can pick any one for 2nd favorite. Only SRL & ZIM were outsiders and they ended as last. Before that 1992 WC, PAK won Neheru Cup in 1989 (I know it'sin Asia, but team composition of SRL & PAK are different), made Finals of WSC in 1990, made Finals of Perth Challenge Cup 1987 and won ODI Series in NZ.

What I have noticed here in PP that often you argue against the trend with some bizarre logic - most cases the reason being either to defame your current PM or pamper your current cricket Captain ......... not sure what's the reason here, but you are just exposing yourself here.

 

[waleed88]

IND was the 2nd best team in that small period between 1982-1986 - won 2 Global events, won a Series in ENG as well. You probably don't know that in that WC itself IND beat WIN in an active game, before that won an ODI in WIND tour. Those days, Indian attack of Kapil, Binney, Madan, Shandhu, Chetan & Ghavri was perfectly suited for English condition and they won a Test series 2-0 as well in 1986. It was the flattening of ODI tracks that exposed their military medium pace attack in late 80s, till early 2000s; batting was never much of a big issue. They were deserved Finalist, beating ENG in SF and AUS twice in Group stages - then it was a matter of one great day. Upset win - definitely, underdog - now way .... minnows - you were not born then, so pardoned.

SRL was the team in form between 1994-1998: in Asian condition, they were by far the best team, got better of PAK often and smashed IND regularly, almost ending careers of Prashad & Probhakar. Either side of that WC, just before they won Asia Cup, won Sharjah Cup and would have been first Asian team to win WSC (1995-96), unless some of the worst and shameful cheating by Australian Umpires in B&H WSC Finals. After that, they won Indian Independence Cup, made Final of PAK's Independence Cup and won several Singer Cups at their home. Previous WC (1992) was in AUS and it's a bit foolish to refer that to compare SRL's prospect in Asia in 1996. Previous Asian WC was played in 1987 - you better check how many players of that WC made it for SRL 8 years later.

PAK was joint 3rd or max 4th favorite for 1992 WC. Actually, there was only standout team - AUS. SAF was unknown and among IND, PAK, ENG, NZ, WIN, you can pick any one for 2nd favorite. Only SRL & ZIM were outsiders and they ended as last. Before that 1992 WC, PAK won Neheru Cup in 1989 (I know it'sin Asia, but team composition of SRL & PAK are different), made Finals of WSC in 1990, made Finals of Perth Challenge Cup 1987 and won ODI Series in NZ.

What I have noticed here in PP that often you argue against the trend with some bizarre logic - most cases the reason being either to defame your current PM or pamper your current cricket Captain ......... not sure what's the reason here, but you are just exposing yourself here.

Pakistan lost the world series of cricket 2-0 in the Final against Australia in 1990.
New zealand weren't a great team back then so I wouldn't count them judging by their test record against us whenever we visited them.

Indians had the better of Pakistan until the final of the Sharjah cup against Miandad turned it around. But it around around in faovr of pakistan afterwards

Aamer Malik, Aaqib Javed, Abdul Qadir, Ijaz Ahmed, Javed Miandad, Mansoor Akhtar, Maqsood Rana, Mushtaq Ahmed, Nadeem Ghauri, Rameez Raja, Saeed Anwar, Saleem Malik, Saleem Yousuf, Shoaib Mohammad, Tauseef Ahmed, Waqar Younis and Wasim Akram.

This is the team that Pakistan played with in the start of early 90s.

Saeed Anwar the breakout star of 1990 series hand a couple of centuries against Srilanka in Australia, but he was injured before 1992 so he didn't participate.

Waqar Younis the lethal strike bowler for Pakistan back then didn't participate either.

If Pakistan were favorites against a very consistent English side then you only have to see the same tournament we were bowled out for 72 against the same team.

What I have noticed is your die hard fandom for Imran Khan, and your ability to distort facts without proper analysis, and skewing it to favor your arguement.

And I don't need to defend Sarfraz all the time but when you make blanket statements like saying Sarfraz has fitness worse than Zulfiqar Babar then obviously you are yourself making a mockery of your extensive and credible knowledge on PP

The only arguement I made here are the teams that change their perception over the years after they have performed well in the world cup.

The term minnow is arbitrary, Srilanka and Zimbabwe were both minnows in 1987 and 1992 world cups. However perceptions change over the years and their resultant victory in 1996 cemented their place as a top side.

Excluding the choking nations and the founders of the great game, the game itself has not categorized any team as a minnow or a great team. The team's performances dictate that.

It is a loose term and it does not just refer to test playing nations only.

Some teams started off as minnows but improved their reputation over a period of time. Bangladesh and Ireland are prime examples.

India was not a minnow, but nobody thought they could beat the great WI side in 1983, nor did they expect Pakistan to finish off NZ and England in knockouts.

Minnow is a word that requires context, and without comparison it is not a word that should exist in definition. In your dictionary minnow means the top 8 playing nations, which is why you are going at lengths to explain something that in cricketing terms doesn't really have a meaning.

 

[amvbfm]

This tournament reminds me of the PSL, where it is just so boring to watch the games you can hardly recall any memorable ones in the group stages. You almost always remember the knockouts.

Not because of the format of this tournament but mostly because of the glut of cricket that we have these days. With matches being played and televised almost every day, we only tend to remember the more exciting ones or ones which count (your PSL knockouts). This is by far the best format for the World Cup that you can have. Each match will be meaningful unlike the past 3-4 editions where half the games mean nothing at all. Having 6 weak teams in a two group format means that 80% of the matches will be one-sided snoozefests. Adding more teams makes it even more meaningless. With this format you provide a level playing field to all teams with each match having meaning. The only addition i would like to see to this format is to have the sort of eliminators that we have at the end in T20 tournaments to reward the top 2 teams for their consistency.

 

[amvbfm]

Pakistan lost the world series of cricket 2-0 in the Final against Australia in 1990.
New zealand weren't a great team back then so I wouldn't count them judging by their test record against us whenever we visited them.

Indians had the better of Pakistan until the final of the Sharjah cup against Miandad turned it around. But it around around in faovr of pakistan afterwards

Aamer Malik, Aaqib Javed, Abdul Qadir, Ijaz Ahmed, Javed Miandad, Mansoor Akhtar, Maqsood Rana, Mushtaq Ahmed, Nadeem Ghauri, Rameez Raja, Saeed Anwar, Saleem Malik, Saleem Yousuf, Shoaib Mohammad, Tauseef Ahmed, Waqar Younis and Wasim Akram.

This is the team that Pakistan played with in the start of early 90s.

Saeed Anwar the breakout star of 1990 series hand a couple of centuries against Srilanka in Australia, but he was injured before 1992 so he didn't participate.

Waqar Younis the lethal strike bowler for Pakistan back then didn't participate either.

If Pakistan were favorites against a very consistent English side then you only have to see the same tournament we were bowled out for 72 against the same team.

What I have noticed is your die hard fandom for Imran Khan, and your ability to distort facts without proper analysis, and skewing it to favor your arguement.

And I don't need to defend Sarfraz all the time but when you make blanket statements like saying Sarfraz has fitness worse than Zulfiqar Babar then obviously you are yourself making a mockery of your extensive and credible knowledge on PP

The only arguement I made here are the teams that change their perception over the years after they have performed well in the world cup.

The term minnow is arbitrary, Srilanka and Zimbabwe were both minnows in 1987 and 1992 world cups. However perceptions change over the years and their resultant victory in 1996 cemented their place as a top side.

Excluding the choking nations and the founders of the great game, the game itself has not categorized any team as a minnow or a great team. The team's performances dictate that.

It is a loose term and it does not just refer to test playing nations only.

Some teams started off as minnows but improved their reputation over a period of time. Bangladesh and Ireland are prime examples.

India was not a minnow, but nobody thought they could beat the great WI side in 1983, nor did they expect Pakistan to finish off NZ and England in knockouts.

Minnow is a word that requires context, and without comparison it is not a word that should exist in definition. In your dictionary minnow means the top 8 playing nations, which is why you are going at lengths to explain something that in cricketing terms doesn't really have a meaning.

Pakistan knocking out NZ and England in the semis and finals wasn't really as earth shattering an event as you make it out to be. Pakistan was an established side with experienced hands like Imran, Javed, Malik and Raja and a group of talented youngsters. England themselves weren't an extraordinary side, a number of key players were over the hill, and there were quite a few bits and pieces players. Also they lost to the only actual minnows of the tournament Zimbabwe. Yes, Pakistan had their fair share of luck (that match against England) but so have many other teams over the years. Will you discredit Australia's 1999 victory because Gibbs dropped Waugh? Do we raise questions about SL's 1996 win where they got 2 walkovers? Luck is an integral part of the game and it comes in many guises. But by no means was Pakistan a minnow in that tournament or in any other edition regardless of how you define the term.

 

[MenInG]

Given current stat of Pakistan ODI side, does this format suit us?

 

[Chokli]

Given current stat of Pakistan ODI side, does this format suit us?

Well the only cup they did win was in this format.