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

[Trichromatic]

6 minutes ago, Serpico said:

It proves that India is a great team in winning when the stakes are slightly less. They're still world cup games against best opponents ofcourse, these wins showcase great set of skills and coordination, but the stakes of a single match are still low.

 

Keep in mind that, competitive sports test both physical and mental aspects before deciding the champion. Ofcourse we already know that kohli is good enough to chase 275 against Newzealand, we have countless examples to prove that. But is he good enough to handle the nerves if one loose shot will throw him out of the world cup and put a stinker on the last 4 years of his preparation?? Playing his trademark cover drive against Henry is great skill no doubt, but can he do that when his legacy is directly on the line? When is 0*(4) in a semi final? If he can do that in that situation, he will be the true champion. That is why semis and finals are important

 

Nature of cricket as game is different than other games.

 

Other games are very less condition dependent, so there is more of stakes being high test. However cricket is condition dependent and stakes may not be determining factor in result.

 

Take WTC for example.

 

India had beated Australia in last 4 test series. Losing only 2 games and winning 8 tests conclusively proving India is far better than Australia.

 

Are we really to believe that stakes were lower in Gabba test than in WTC final? Was mental aspect reason for defeat for Indian team and Gabba was mentally weaker win?

[rish]

Sort of agree with this. 

 

If you are already playing in round robin, then the winner is decided.

 

 

[Serpico]

For me, knockouts are very important to feel that significance of the world cup. Removing them will simply take away all the romance.

 

Winning the world cup is not for the statistics or trivia books.. it is for the satisfaction and gratification. You only get that kick when a single mistake can ruin everything. 

[putrevus]

Unlike other sports cricket other than tennis is completely dependent of conditions. 

 

Australia won three world cup on trot but they were lucky also, those world cups were played in England, SA and WI.They were great but India and other Asian countries (SL and Pakistan) would have beaten Australia in sub continent if the world cup was in Asia.

 

India beat them in CT in Bangladesh and also in Kenya. SL beat them in CT in SL.

 

England were not winning the world cup in 2019 if it was played in Asia/Australia/SA.NZ would not have won ICC test finals if it was played anywhere else.

[Trichromatic]

8 minutes ago, Serpico said:

For me, knockouts are very important to feel that significance of the world cup. Removing them will simply take away all the romance.

 

Winning the world cup is not for the statistics or trivia books.. it is for the satisfaction and gratification. You only get that kick when a single mistake can ruin everything. 

 

Knockouts are great when teams have lot to prove.

 

When a team has already beaten each and every other team in the tournament, then it serves only romance purpose.

[Serpico]

14 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

Nature of cricket as game is different than other games.

 

Other games are very less condition dependent, so there is more of stakes being high test. However cricket is condition dependent and stakes may not be determining factor in result.

 

Take WTC for example.

 

India had beated Australia in last 4 test series. Losing only 2 games and winning 8 tests conclusively proving India is far better than Australia.

 

Are we really to believe that stakes were lower in Gabba test than in WTC final? Was mental aspect reason for defeat for Indian team and Gabba was mentally weaker win?

WTC is bad comparison since winning WTC trophy is not that prestigious, yet. Maybe it'll gain that status in future. If you ask Cummins to choose between BGT in India and WTC , he'll choose away BGT since it is more exclusive and rare

[Vickydev]

5 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

But his argument is that the SF/F KO format works when you have groups and teams have only proven themselves against others in their groups. When everyone plays everyone else, that is out of the picture. At least a double-elimination format for the KOs is warranted if we are doing this kind of all-play-all league.

TBH I disagree. The actual World Cup is about the semifinal and final( or quarter final if the format allows) where the best teams play sudden death. What happened in the league stage shouldn't matter IMO apart from the seedings for the KOs. It's the beauty of knockout competition

 

For instance based on the 2003 format, Australia had won every game in their group and then beaten the 3 qualifiers from the other group, so they should have been champions there and then before semifinals as they had proven to be better than all the teams left. 

But still India and SL had as much an opportunity to win the WC as them and only winning on that day mattered. 

 

Its an altogether different ball game than having the cusion of 6/7 wins on your back and taking on the next strongest opponent knowing the worst is just a kick to the backside rather than on the next flight home. It's where the best tournament teams are tested. 

 

What the current format allows is just to have absolute clarity on the best 4 teams to go through. There is no strong or weak groups like maybe possible in the WT20. The other way is probably the 2003 format. 

 

 

[prinzo]

all good in highend sight , before the tournament we did not know which team will win every match.
i say the final should be a best of 3 matches

[Lord]

8 hours ago, Norman said:

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...

 

There is, you get to play the 4th team which often barely qualifies on NRR. If you still can't beat them on the day, it means you can't handle big pressure. That is why Aus and not SA is regarded as greatest team.

[prinzo]

i guess rules are rules , they could of made this world cup into a league format. but then there is no excitement and big money sponsors for semi and finals 

[Lord]

5 hours ago, putrevus said:

That is why I wanted IPL style playoffs. You need to get rewarded for topping the group.

Some  have argued why to change the format for semis.Formats have to change for better.

 

Why did they change format of 2007. India was out of the world cup after losing just two games. 

 

2019, champion lost 3 and finalist lost 4. It would not have made into semis if not for rain out.

 

Same thing happened in 1992, NZ were best team by a mile but were beaten by a fluke innings and fluke team.

 

 

IPL style playoffs have their own cons. There is no incentive to top the group instead being top 2 is enough. Top 2 are treated equally.

 

Also while there is a 2nd chance, the game is held between top 2 teams and not 1st v 4th.

[prinzo]

2 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

There is, you get to play the 4th team which often barely qualifies on NRR. If you still can't beat them on the day, it means you can't handle big pressure. That is why Aus and not SA is regarded as greatest team.

Australia are the greatest World Cup team above anyone , most world cup wins

[Lord]

1 minute ago, prinzo said:

Australia are the greatest World Cup team above anyone , most world cup wins

 

Its only knockout performances that majorly distinguishes them, apart from the period SA weren't playing international cricket.

[putrevus]

4 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

IPL style playoffs have their own cons. There is no incentive to top the group instead being top 2 is enough. Top 2 are treated equally.

 

Also while there is a 2nd chance, the game is held between top 2 teams and not 1st v 4th.

But it is better than one they have now.

 

 

[Lord]

2 minutes ago, putrevus said:

But it is better than one they have now.

 

 

 

no this is more exciting. Every sport has this style knockouts only.

[putrevus]

8 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

There is, you get to play the 4th team which often barely qualifies on NRR. If you still can't beat them on the day, it means you can't handle big pressure. That is why Aus and not SA is regarded as greatest team.

Being 4th team does not mean they are a bad team.Australia will end up 4th for one main reason injuries.

 

SA did not qualify for semi final in their home turf, so them being great does not arise.

[putrevus]

15 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

no this is more exciting. Every sport has this style knockouts only.

Every sport has 32 or 64 teams that is why they have this style.

 

Cricket has only 10 team, it does not need his style. It needs its own style.

 

Bring back super 6s then it has some value.

 

You are playing 45 days to weed out two teams technically.What is so fun in it.Teams are allowed to lose games upfront and still be okay with it makes nosense.

Edited November 3 by putrevus

[Lord]

2 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Every sport has 32 or 64 teams that is why they have this style.

 

Cricket has only 10 team, it idoes not need his style. It needs its own style.

 

Bring back super 6s then it has some value.

 

You are playing 45 days to weed out two teams technically.What is so fun in it.Teams are allowed to lose games upfront and still be okay with it makes nosense.

 

yeah the league stage can be in different format. I liked super six of 2003 best. It also allows 12-14 teams to compete.

[Lord]

8 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Being 4th team does not mean they are a bad team.Australia will end up 4th for one main reason injuries.

 

It means the gap is big between the two teams. 1st placed team should be able to win if they can handle the nerves.

8 minutes ago, putrevus said:

 

SA did not qualify for semi final in their home turf, so them being great does not arise.

 

When?

[Lord]

9 hours 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?

 

We haven't beaten everyone easily.

 

Aus had us 2/3 chasing 200 and could have been 20/4

 

NZ had us 170/5 with only tail left with 80+ to score.

 

Eng has us 3 down early too.

 

It is worth seeing how they respond to such situation in a must win game.