Jump to content

Smith Questions Format after Exit!

Prudent

By Prudent
in Cricket Talk

Recommended Posts

The Outsider Newbie

The Outsider

Posted
Posted
He has every right to question the format. The goal of any tournament is for the 4 best teams to qualify for the semis. Saffies are a way better team when compared to NZ..
How are the South Africans better than NZ on the basis of the performance in the tournament? And why did Smith not question the format earlier if he did not like it?
Link to comment
Guest dada_rocks

Guest dada_rocks

Posted
Posted
He has every right to question the format. The goal of any tournament is for the 4 best teams to qualify for the semis. Saffies are a way better team when compared to NZ..
Well they why go through drama of playing any match before semi-final..it's sports one can't go with pre-conceived notion of teams in top four must qualify....
Link to comment
Ram Newbie

Ram

Posted
Posted
How are the South Africans better than NZ on the basis of the performance in the tournament? And why did Smith not question the format earlier if he did not like it?
The answer to your first question - http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/twenty20wc/engine/current/match/287872.html And for the second one , why would anyone question the format even before the tournament started ? Now that SA have been at the receiving end of such a stupid qualifying methodology , it makes sense for him to raise the issue now.
Link to comment
Ram Newbie

Ram

Posted
Posted
Well they why go through drama of playing any match before semi-final..it's sports one can't go with pre-conceived notion of teams in top four must qualify....
Fair enough , but the point is , every team has a bad day , but that one bad day shouldnt mean they are out of the tournament. India was at the receiving end during WC 2007. Because of that, some really useless teams qualified , making the tournament boring in the latter stages.
Link to comment
yoda Newbie

yoda

Posted
Posted
Fair enough , but the point is , every team has a bad day , but that one bad day shouldnt mean they are out of the tournament. India was at the receiving end during WC 2007. Because of that, some really useless teams qualified , making the tournament boring in the latter stages.
you can have a bad day. but can't afford to have a bad day of gigantic proportions where you score a pathetic 100 runs in 20 overs and expect to continue in the tournament.
Link to comment
Ram Newbie

Ram

Posted
Posted
you can have a bad day. but can't afford to have a bad day of gigantic proportions where you score a pathetic 100 runs in 20 overs and expect to continue in the tournament.
Saffies didnt have a bad day. They had a bad hour and that was that. How can anyone explain how the only unbeaten team in the tournament till yesterday isnt in the semis is beyond me. I say kick out these super 8's. Play an extended league phases ,so that a couple of fluke victories/defeats doesnt mean pathetic teams qualify.
Link to comment
The Outsider Newbie

The Outsider

Posted
Posted
The answer to your first question - http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/twenty20wc/engine/current/match/287872.html And for the second one , why would anyone question the format even before the tournament started ? Now that SA have been at the receiving end of such a stupid qualifying methodology , it makes sense for him to raise the issue now.
Huh? Just because South Africa beat NZ with 5 deliveries to spare they become a much better team. How about this logic. NZ beat India marginally and India thrashed South Africa. Now how are they a much better team than NZ? Second part is called whining.
Link to comment
yoda Newbie

yoda

Posted
Posted
Saffies didnt have a bad day. They had a bad hour and that was that. How can anyone explain how the only unbeaten team in the tournament till yesterday isnt in the semis is beyond me. I say kick out these super 8's. Play an extended league phases ,so that a couple of fluke victories/defeats doesnt mean pathetic teams qualify.
One hour? They were downright pathetic the entire second half. Gave an almost 100 run partnership on a pitch helpful to bowlers. I would say they were pathetic for about 2 out of the 3 hours.
Link to comment
Ram Newbie

Ram

Posted
Posted
Huh? Just because South Africa beat NZ with 5 deliveries to spare they become a much better team. How about this logic. NZ beat India marginally and India thrashed South Africa. Now how are they a much better team than NZ? Second part is called whining.
I am not basing my claim that Saffies are a better team than NZ on just that one match alone. In a Tournament where even the world champions have been beaten twice , SA raked up one easy victory after another. And Smith would have looked real spoilsport if he were to question the format of a tournament that was staged in his home country, if he were to question its format even before the tourney began.
Link to comment
veer Newbie

veer

Posted
Posted

Sriram in sports, anything can happen.. France reached football world cup final even though they were not the best.. and brazil got the boot on their rare bad day.. and in 20/20 even 5 overs can cost you games... they should have easily made 126.. but they choked again..

Link to comment
Ram Newbie

Ram

Posted
Posted
One hour? They were downright pathetic the entire second half. Gave an almost 100 run partnership on a pitch helpful to bowlers. I would say they were pathetic for about 2 out of the 3 hours.
Okie , so you have bad 2 hour period and you are out ? Then , what about the good 10 hours of cricket you had played earlier ?
Link to comment
Ram Newbie

Ram

Posted
Posted
Sriram in sports, anything can happen.. France reached football world cup final even though they were not the best.. and brazil got the boot on their rare bad day.. and in 20/20 even 5 overs can cost you games... they should have easily made 126.. but they choked again..
Precisely Veer. We all dont question this because we have this idea in mind that - " Anything can happen in sports , if its your day it is etc etc" . That doesnt make sense to me. I want to see two equally matched teams compete in the knockouts. Not some two-bit team like Kenya which made it to the semis in 2003. And i dont agree with this chokers thingy Veer. Every ball you bowl/face in international cricket is pressure filled. Saffies played superbly till now , but are out because they played badly in one session.
Link to comment
The Outsider Newbie

The Outsider

Posted
Posted
I am not basing my claim that Saffies are a better team than NZ on just that one match alone. In a Tournament where even the world champions have been beaten twice , SA raked up one easy victory after another.
It was clear from the start that to qualify for the semis teams would need to win at least 2 out of 3 games in the Super 8s and in the event of a three way tie, NRR would be accounted for, which is a fair enough call. Knowing all this if a team allows the opposition to score at 8 an over and can't even score at 6 RPO to qualify on a pitch doctored to suit them, then the only place they deserve is their living rooms.
Link to comment
The Outsider Newbie

The Outsider

Posted
Posted
And i dont agree with this chokers thingy Veer. Every ball you bowl/face in international cricket is pressure filled. Saffies played superbly till now , but are out because they played badly in one session.
Please explain how South Africa in every major tournament have managed to crash out in do or die situations if you don't believe the choker thing?
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...