2019 World Cup General Discussion

[frankrizzo]

I pointed out that in past world cups like 2011 we had seven team groups with four going through and three of the teams were Zimbabwe Kenya uae so from the start the four big teams know they are already in the knockouts and they are doing exactly what people are taking about here all the games are basically just about securing favourable knockout games.

Is it better to punish teams for consistently playing poorly early or should mediocre sides like sl sa wi ect just get a free ride into the knockouts because they beat Kenya or Zimbabwe?

 

[The Speaker]

Absolute rubbish.


I mean go through the history of the tournament, pretty much every one has had a load of dead rubbers, except for funnily enough 1992!

This is just whataboutism.

Mathematically, this is the format most likely to produce the highest number of dead rubbers. That cannot be argued with, it is a mathematical truth.

Probability being what it is, something that has a high likelihood to happen is not guaranteed to happen (ie. 1992), but that lack of guarantee does not change the mathematical truth of the matter, which is being reflected in this tournament.

Furthermore, other formats having x probability of dead rubbers also does not change that this format has the highest probability of it, especially given there is one more team in this tournament than there was in 1992.

The bigger the groups, the more probable it is that you create more dead rubbers.

EDIT: Also, 1992 did have dead rubbers. There's a lot of myth surrounding that tournament.

 

[The Passenger]

I mean go through the history of the tournament, pretty much every one has had a load of dead rubbers, except for funnily enough 1992!

1999 didn't very many dead rubbers. 12 is the ideal number of teams for me, and 1999 was - nearly - the ideal format I believe.

16 teams was a bridge too far, and 14 probably still a bit too high at the moment, but we aren't far off that level.

2011 and 2015 with QF's just turned it - more or less - into a Champions Trophy.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I don't think anyone in the know really underrates Shakib, he's been the number one all-rounder in the world for the last 5 or so years, at least since Kallis retired.

Correct. Can't see how he is under-rated if people regard him the best all-rounder in the world

 

[frankrizzo]

1999 didn't very many dead rubbers. 12 is the ideal number of teams for me, and 1999 was - nearly - the ideal format I believe.

16 teams was a bridge too far, and 14 probably still a bit too high at the moment, but we aren't far off that level.

2011 and 2015 with QF's just turned it - more or less - into a Champions Trophy.

Yeah 99 would be fine, issue is we are going to have this system which does have its flaws or the quarter final format which is flawed because both of these allow important sides to either progress to the knockouts or play tons of pool games before they are knocked out.

We can't really get the full choice of formats as it's dictated by revenue and will be from this point on.

India and Pakistan bombing out in 2007 will have a long lasting impact on world cups.

 

[The Passenger]

We can't really get the full choice of formats as it's dictated by revenue and will be from this point on.

Unfortunately it all rolls back to this point.

The worst thing to ever happen to the world cup was India getting knocked out after 3 games in 2007.

 

[Kram]

1999 didn't very many dead rubbers. 12 is the ideal number of teams for me, and 1999 was - nearly - the ideal format I believe.

16 teams was a bridge too far, and 14 probably still a bit too high at the moment, but we aren't far off that level.

2011 and 2015 with QF's just turned it - more or less - into a Champions Trophy.

That 99 was one I was looking at last night, I think that was pretty good and would have been fine with that.

Must have said it 50 times but personally I would've been happy keeping the 14 teams 2 groups of 7 just remove quarter finals. Top 3 advance, 1st straight to the semi, 2 v 3 play off for the second spot. Only 3 teams in each group through means no teams can play poorly and sneak in, plus the extra prize for top spot should keep things interesting to the end. And enough smaller nations get a look in.

This is just whataboutism.

Mathematically, this is the format most likely to produce the highest number of dead rubbers. That cannot be argued with, it is a mathematical truth.

Probability being what it is, something that has a high likelihood to happen is not guaranteed to happen (ie. 1992), but that lack of guarantee does not change the mathematical truth of the matter, which is being reflected in this tournament.

Furthermore, other formats having x probability of dead rubbers also does not change that this format has the highest probability of it, especially given there is one more team in this tournament than there was in 1992.

The bigger the groups, the more probable it is that you create more dead rubbers.

EDIT: Also, 1992 did have dead rubbers. There's a lot of myth surrounding that tournament.

'Mathematically' and 'can't be argued with', please lmao. What can't be argued is that anyone with a functioning brain can see looking through the history of the tournament it is loaded with dead rubbers. You are just pissed because you wanted to see 24 teams in it or something as you have some weird fetish for wanting to see a group of glorified club cricketers from Bermuda, Namibia, Iceland or somewhere get belted on the world stage by pros.

 

[The Speaker]

Unfortunately it all rolls back to this point.

The worst thing to ever happen to the world cup was India getting knocked out after 3 games in 2007.

Jonathan Liew made the point recently that if they had made it through it would've been worse, because we'd have been stuck with the Super 8s.

 

[The Speaker]

That 99 was one I was looking at last night, I think that was pretty good and would have been fine with that.

Must have said it 50 times but personally I would've been happy keeping the 14 teams 2 groups of 7 just remove quarter finals. Top 3 advance, 1st straight to the semi, 2 v 3 play off for the second spot. Only 3 teams in each group through means no teams can play poorly and sneak in, plus the extra prize for top spot should keep things interesting to the end. And enough smaller nations get a look in.

There are many ways they could get creative with numbers - the key is to make sure the groups aren't too big or small.

'Mathematically' and 'can't be argued with', please lmao. What can't be argued is that anyone with a functioning brain can see looking through the history of the tournament it is loaded with dead rubbers. You are just pissed because you wanted to see 24 teams in it or something as you have some weird fetish for wanting to see a group of glorified club cricketers from Bermuda, Namibia, Iceland or somewhere get belted on the world stage by pros.

Lots of bluster, nary a citation in sight.

 

[The Passenger]

That 99 was one I was looking at last night, I think that was pretty good and would have been fine with that.

Must have said it 50 times but personally I would've been happy keeping the 14 teams 2 groups of 7 just remove quarter finals. Top 3 advance, 1st straight to the semi, 2 v 3 play off for the second spot. Only 3 teams in each group through means no teams can play poorly and sneak in, plus the extra prize for top spot should keep things interesting to the end. And enough smaller nations get a look in.

No arguments from me. I like the super sixes, but would be happy to forego in favour of a knockout final 6.

The problem with the QF (and super 8's) is it's basically the point in world cricket where there's a split in quality, and it more or less renders anything before it irrelevant.

Having 4 teams at the business end is too restrictive for mine.

6 is the sweet spot.

 

[JezzasOnTheAsphalt]

I pointed out that in past world cups like 2011 we had seven team groups with four going through and three of the teams were Zimbabwe Kenya uae so from the start the four big teams know they are already in the knockouts and they are doing exactly what people are taking about here all the games are basically just about securing favourable knockout games.

Is it better to punish teams for consistently playing poorly early or should mediocre sides like sl sa wi ect just get a free ride into the knockouts because they beat Kenya or Zimbabwe?

From a small sample size of World Cups which used that format, it's simply not true, unless you consider England in 2015 as not one of the four big teams in their group.

Could argue that a big 4 in pools of 7 wouldn't be so clear cut currently either with teams like West Indies, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka developing at different rates

 

[frankrizzo]

Isn't this wc a small sample as well though?

In 92 with this format things weren't settled until late in the group stage in this one the dominance of four teams meant that wasn't possible.

With quarter finals you sometimes get weak groups like I pointed out but nearly every time you will surely get a team making a knockout game even though they struggled to beat many if any tough teams.

We are all lamenting the poor form of sa wi sl pak but a quarter final system wouldn't have improved their play it simply wouldn't have punished them as heavily for their poor play.

I'm not against other systems but with how few teams are playing well right now a 14 team world cup which only knocks out 6 teams in the first round is even worse, it's giving most of the class an A when half of them can barely read.

 

[eth-dog]

Best thing would be a 16 team tournament, four groups of four.

 

[Kram]

Best thing would be a 16 team tournament, four groups of four.

Rightly or wrongly they'll never ever risk any of the big boys getting knocked out after only 3 games like what happened in the West Indies

 

[JezzasOnTheAsphalt]

Isn't this wc a small sample as well though?

In 92 with this format things weren't settled until late in the group stage in this one the dominance of four teams meant that wasn't possible.

With quarter finals you sometimes get weak groups like I pointed out but nearly every time you will surely get a team making a knockout game even though they struggled to beat many if any tough teams.

We are all lamenting the poor form of sa wi sl pak but a quarter final system wouldn't have improved their play it simply wouldn't have punished them as heavily for their poor play.

I'm not against other systems but with how few teams are playing well right now a 14 team world cup which only knocks out 6 teams in the first round is even worse, it's giving most of the class an A when half of them can barely read.

My point was solely in relation to your claim that the big 4 in a pool of 7 know they are already in the knockouts. As evidenced by England 2015.

In the current cricket climate, the inconsistency of the West Indies, the development of Bangladesh, and the stagnation of Sri Lanka means the lines are blurred between say the 7th and 10th best teams in the world. Consequently it could definitely be competitive for finals spots in a World Cup with 8 spots for the knockouts.

 

[frankrizzo]

But then that goes to the other point I made which is you are rewarding many mediocre teams with spots in the next round.

We can do this a million times and the same issue remains there are only four teams playing decent consistent cricket right now so it's either this format with dead rubbers or a format that allows poor sides to progress simply because there are extra even worse sides for them to beat.

Every format will look ordinary when the gap between the top four and the rest is this big.

 

[RFCGloryJC]

Weather should play a part of course in benefiting weaker sides with one point for cancellation.
There are one sided outcomes in all sporting tournaments, early rounds of tennis, et cetera.
Anyway, visiting Dubai.
Just wondering if any of you have visited Sharjah stadium to see cricket there?

 

[90N90S]

Chinnaswamy Cricket Stadium India - Sub Air System ( KSCA )

England sucks balls.

 

[Santana]

The favorites as they stand imo


1) England


2) India







3) Australia


4) New Zealand

 

[The Speaker]

Afghanistan is the first mathematical elimination of the tournament, with three matches left to play. If SA loses tonight, they'll also be eliminated.

 

[Hamingja]

New Zealand - Pakistan, Australia, England
Australia - England, New Zealand, South Africa
India - West Indies, England, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka
England - Australia, India, New Zealand
Sri Lanka - South Africa, West Indies, India
Bangladesh - Afghanistan, India, Pakistan

If India were to defeat WI & England do you think they would consider dropping one of their last two games if it meant potentially eliminating Australia or England from the semi finals?

I really hope we can knock the Poms off. They would be shitting bricks if we can.

 

[scotty13]

Weather should play a part of course in benefiting weaker sides with one point for cancellation.
There are one sided outcomes in all sporting tournaments, early rounds of tennis, et cetera.
Anyway, visiting Dubai.
Just wondering if any of you have visited Sharjah stadium to see cricket there?

Ive played cricket there a number of time... Super International Cricket was a gem of a game and Sharjah was the best oval to play one!

 

[Santana]

If India were to defeat WI & England do you think they would consider dropping one of their last two games if it meant potentially eliminating Australia or England from the semi finals?

They should be more worried about getting most of their batsmen in some kind of form in those games

 

[Hamingja]

View attachment 697220

They should be more worried about getting most of their batsmen in some kind of form in those games

They don't have to win to do that.

 

[Santana]

If they are really that worried about Australia, let alone England, that they'd throw a pool match (against two very average teams) to avoid them in the knockouts then they may as well get on a plane back to India today. A team that mentally poor isn't winning high-pressure world cup finals anyways.


We are wasting our time talking about who's getting into the top 4 anyways guys. The 4 teams in there aren't dropping out. It's as set as it can get.