If India manages to defeat each team comprehensively before KOs , then what's the point of SF and final?

[Trichromatic]

Won't it mean that India is conclusively best team of this WC?

[rkt.india]

Right

[Frustrated]

It is like asking: If a student gets top score in every unit test, then what is the point of having annual exam?  

[Stuge]

Lol

[Stuge]

Trico Bhai playing within himself here .

[SRT100]

22 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

Won't it mean that India is conclusively best team of this WC?

Wrong thats the Dravid Mentality play book.

 

India have achieved nothing yet, we only top the table because of that huge win.

 

The finals is what counts and what will be remembered, not winning meaningless tournament games. India was almost always going to qualify in home conditions.

 

Its all about winning both finals from here.

 

 

[Trichromatic]

5 minutes ago, Frustrated said:

It is like asking: If a student gets top score in every unit test, then what is the point of having annual exam?  

 

WC is the annual exam.

[Trichromatic]

2 minutes ago, SRT100 said:

Wrong thats the Dravid Mentality play book.

 

India have achieved nothing yet, we only top the table because of that huge win.

 

The finals is what counts and what will be remembered, not winning meaningless tournament games. India was almost always going to qualify in home conditions.

 

Its all about winning both finals from here.

 

 

 

I agree that tournament games and topping the table are of less importance.

 

However, this is the tournament where each team is playing all other teams in league games and if India beats each of them, then it means India is conclusively better than everyone else in WC.

[Stuge]

2 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

WC is the annual exam.

Asia Cup was unit test 

[Stuge]

15 minutes ago, SRT100 said:

Wrong thats the Dravid Mentality play book.

 

India have achieved nothing yet, we only top the table because of that huge win.

 

The finals is what counts and what will be remembered, not winning meaningless tournament games. India was almost always going to qualify in home conditions.

 

Its all about winning both finals from here.

 

 

Yes , league games are meaningless... final should be played directly .

 

 

Cries England in the background 

Edited November 3 by Stuge

[Stuge]

21 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Right

England left the chat

[waga]

India already set up the tournament so there were the least amount of knockouts to choke physically possible 

[Trichromatic]

And just to clarify, I am not talking about simply topping the group by getting maximum points, or winning games in a group only, rather it's about beating all the teams playing WC and beating them easily. What does that prove?

[Frustrated]

9 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

And just to clarify, I am not talking about simply topping the group by getting maximum points, or winning games in a group only, rather it's about beating all the teams playing WC and beating them easily. What does that prove?

It proves that the team is better than others in 'league stage'.  If the team is 'really the best', then it should be able to replicate the performance in KO and Final.  

[Trichromatic]

17 minutes ago, Frustrated said:

It proves that the team is better than others in 'league stage'.  If the team is 'really the best', then it should be able to replicate the performance in KO and Final.  

 

Just better? Doesn't it clearly show that team is comfortably best team.

 

Why is there a need to replicate it?

 

Why it is required to do it twice and not thrice?

[SRT100]

8 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

Just better? Doesn't it clearly show that team is comfortably best team.

 

Why is there a need to replicate it?

 

Why it is required to do it twice and not thrice?

 

These tournament games are about qualifying not coming first on the table. Thats the criteria.

 

There is no real tangible value to topping the table.

 

For the record, India are leading, they havent even officially topped the table yet.

[SRT100]

I actually wish there was quarter finals then semi then Final.

[Frustrated]

9 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

Just better? Doesn't it clearly show that team is comfortably best team.

 

Why is there a need to replicate it?

 

Why it is required to do it twice and not thrice?

League stage is similar to bilateral series. In the league stage, there is significantly less pressure on a team to win. Coz every team knows that even if they lose 3-4 matches in a row, there are plenty of matches left for them to make a comeback.  It is the KO and Final where the pressure is ON and players are under the pump.  A team which is capable of winning only in pressure-less games cannot be labelled as Winner/Champ.  That is the reason 'chokers' tag has been introduced in every sport incl cricket.  Having said that,  it's my version.   At the end of the day, I would say "To each, his own"   

[Norman]

That is why this format is absolutely dog ßhit. Even in the last world cup, the final was played between teams that finished 3 and 4 in the league stage. India and Australia looked the best of the lot for 90% of the tournament...

 

It's just pathetic that a team like Paxtan who has lost 4 games on the trot still has a realistically probable chance of lifting the trophy. Just to have 9 India games with hefty advertising slots , ICC has made this tournament a shitfest. There's zero advantage of finishing top of the table...

[neel roy]

1 hour ago, Trichromatic said:

And just to clarify, I am not talking about simply topping the group by getting maximum points, or winning games in a group only, rather it's about beating all the teams playing WC and beating them easily. What does that prove?

Thats the beauty and fallacy of the format. England won 6/9 matches in 2019 grp stage and won the wc. India won 7/9 matches and got one hour of bad play and martin guptas throw to be classified as a choker