How is this fair?

[Precambrian]

Hypothetical. India could exit the tournament even if they win their remaining matches. This is possible if Sri Lanka beat Aus and Aus beat West Indies. Both Aus and Sl have to have better runrates than India, which they already have by a huge margin. On the other hand, Pakistan will enter semifinals if they beat South Africa, and England beat NZ, regardless of net runrates. That would mean a team who won 4 out of it's 5 games exit but another team which won just 2 out of it's 5, one of which was against Bangladesh, will enter the semis. How is that justifiable? How can a team who has lost more than won, can enter semis of a World Cup! Happens only in cricket. Stupid ICC.

[Zap_Brannigan]

How about this.Aus win the next 2 games, pak win just 1 more and beat Aus in the semifinals...Aus win 5 out of 6 and doesnt go to finals, while pak just wins 3 out of 6 and goes to finals. That is the whole point of a semifinal - final structure. Its not fair but it matters who wins the big games. We shouldnt be complaining. Neither would Aus if the above scenario happened. Besides, its how Aus won the 99 WC.

[Bradman99]

How about this.Aus win the next 2 games, pak win just 1 more and beat Aus in the semifinals...Aus win 5 out of 6 and doesnt go to finals, while pak just wins 3 out of 6 and goes to finals. That is the whole point of a semifinal - final structure. Its not fair but it matters who wins the big games. We shouldnt be complaining. Neither would Aus if the above scenario happened. Besides, its how Aus won the 99 WC.

No, it's different. In the group stages it should be whoever accumulates the most points who goes through and if it's even then go by runrate. I don't understand.. how can a team who wins 2 out of 5 go through over a team that wins 4 out of 5 ? If you make it to the semis that is all you have to do, whoever wins that game is worthy winners.. because it is the big games that count.

[Zap_Brannigan]

No, it's different. In the group stages it should be whoever accumulates the most points who goes through and if it's even then go by runrate. I don't understand.. how can a team who wins 2 out of 5 go through over a team that wins 4 out of 5 ? If you make it to the semis that is all you have to do, whoever wins that game is worthy winners.. because it is the big games that count.

Because the objective of the 1st stage was to get to the 2nd stage and the objective of the 2nd was to get to the semifinals. The idea is that the best team in each group goes thro. India is not in competition with Pakistan but in competition with SL, Wi and Aus. It sounds unfair if you look at the whole tournament Win-Loss ratio and not at group level but thats how the structure is. Any team could have been in the same position as Pakistan. Would the OP start a similar thread if India was in the same position.

[Precambrian]

How about this.Aus win the next 2 games, pak win just 1 more and beat Aus in the semifinals...Aus win 5 out of 6 and doesnt go to finals, while pak just wins 3 out of 6 and goes to finals. That is the whole point of a semifinal - final structure. Its not fair but it matters who wins the big games. We shouldnt be complaining. Neither would Aus if the above scenario happened. Besides, its how Aus won the 99 WC.

Did you even read my post clearly? There is a difference between a knockout game and a group level game. Go read my post again. Slowly this time. Group and super 8 games are supposed to carry equal weight for all teams. So how does Pak winning half of such games as India, amount to them winning more games that count sunshine? Not only India would've won more super 8 matches, they'd have also beat more test quality teams in the process. Either make it round robin with semifinals for top 4 or make the entire Damn thing knockout. But please don't allow massive farces like these, even if so far it's only in theory.

[Zap_Brannigan]

Did you even read my post clearly? There is a difference between a knockout game and a group level game. Go read my post again. Slowly this time. Group and super 8 games are supposed to carry equal weight for all teams. So how does Pak winning half of such games as India, amount to them winning more games that count sunshine? Not only India would've won more super 8 matches, they'd have also beat more test quality teams in the process. Either make it round robin with semifinals for top 4 or make the entire Damn thing knockout. But please don't allow massive farces like these, even if so far it's only in theory.

Why dont you go and read the rule very very slowly and then read them again. The objective of the group stages were clear. The 1st stage was to find the best 2 teams in a group and advance them to 2nd stage. Knockout or group are just names and it is ICC which decides what they mean. Next time, dont fking insult anyone. If you cannot speak like a grown up then find something else to do.

[Precambrian]

Because the objective of the 1st stage was to get to the 2nd stage and the objective of the 2nd was to get to the semifinals. The idea is that the best team in each group goes thro. India is not in competition with Pakistan but in competition with SL, Wi and Aus. It sounds unfair if you look at the whole tournament Win-Loss ratio and not at group level but thats how the structure is. Any team could have been in the same position as Pakistan. Would the OP start a similar thread if India was in the same position.

Fail. In my situation above, India has won more matches than Pakistan both at Group AND super eight stage. So your theory of winning key moments doesnt hold true. Further, it is not India's fault they're grouped in this group. If number of wins shouldn't be the key criteria to determine semifinalists in such a tourney, could you please advise what it should be, in your infinite wisdom? India is getting basically for other teams not being consistent, or Pakistan gets away with it because they had England who has decimated other teams in the group. Sorry, if a tournament is structured in a format that your fate gets determined by other teams like this, then it's bs really.

[Precambrian]

Why dont you go and read the rule very very slowly and then read them again. The objective of the group stages were clear. The 1st stage was to find the best 2 teams in a group and advance them to semifinals. Knockout or group are just names and it is ICC which decides what they mean. Next time, dont fking insult anyone. If you cannot speak like a grown up then find something else to do.

Ha so touchy aren't you? Where is the insult man? Lol. Btw, aim of first group is to find 2 teams to advance them to semis? Seems you're the one who needs reading glasses mate, no offence. And please pray how we determine these best teams? As far as I know till today, it used to be on the basis of number of wins, Guess what, India would have won more matches than Pak at Both group as well as Super 8 in my above situation. So care to explain how Pakistan outdid India to earn a place in the semi then?

[Jai Ho]

Hypothetical. India could exit the tournament even if they win their remaining matches. This is possible if Sri Lanka beat Aus and Aus beat West Indies. Both Aus and Sl have to have better runrates than India, which they already have by a huge margin. On the other hand, Pakistan will enter semifinals if they beat South Africa, and England beat NZ, regardless of net runrates. That would mean a team who won 4 out of it's 5 games exit but another team which won just 2 out of it's 5, one of which was against Bangladesh, will enter the semis. How is that justifiable? How can a team who has lost more than won, can enter semis of a World Cup! Happens only in cricket. Stupid ICC.

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: plz stop crying.

[Bradman99]

Oh wait a minute, just realised they are in different groups! Ok, now I find it hard to justify your comments.

[bhanu]

isn't pakistan out of tourny now? they lost 2 games mate

[cowboysfan]

How about this.Aus win the next 2 games, pak win just 1 more and beat Aus in the semifinals...Aus win 5 out of 6 and doesnt go to finals, while pak just wins 3 out of 6 and goes to finals. That is the whole point of a semifinal - final structure. Its not fair but it matters who wins the big games. We shouldnt be complaining. Neither would Aus if the above scenario happened. Besides, its how Aus won the 99 WC.

fanned,couldn't have said it better.

[Ranjha]

isn't pakistan out of tourny now? they lost 2 games mate

No, since they are in an easy group just like last year. If England beats Nz and Pak beats SA, then Pak will make it to the semis since England will have 6 points, and the other three teams will be tied on 2 points but Pakistan has an superior NRR. This scenario is not very unlikely since only the result of 1 game is not in their hand and for tht game , england do look favourities. The groups are unfairly divided for whatever reasons now 2 years in a row.

[Ranjha]

I agree with precambrian here...Yes, semifinals and finals are big games and as long as you scrape thru to it, then anything can happen. But the point he is making is not about the do or die games but the divison of groups. Pakistan for whatever reasons have got easy groups twice in a row now in 2 years.

[cricket786]

Pakistan hasn't even qualified for the semis yet. Even if Pakistan does beat SA, it's not in our hands whether or not England surely beat NZ, that too without KP. Quit the whining and worry about your own respective teams. I don't see Australians, Sri Lankans or the West Indies whining about how they've been victimized by being placed in a "harder" group.

[Precambrian]

Oh wait a minute' date=' just realised they are in different groups! Ok, now I find it hard to justify your comments.[/quote'] Even if they're in diff groups the teams they beat haven't changed much. Both India and pakistan would have beat SA. Both got their behinds whooped by Aussies. Both cantered to wins over Minnows. In addition, India would've managed to beat two more test class teams, namely West Indies, and Sri Lanka, while Pak have lost against NZ and Eng. The flaw here is not really with the teams but the structure of Super 8.

[hari504504]

Srilanka beating Australia ????...on that Barbados pitch??...I highly doubt that is even a remote possibility...

[saneindian]

In the 2007 t20 world cup, SA only lost a match to India in the super 8 stage and were knocked out. So it has happened in the past too. Goes to show that in t20s, one cannot afford to lose by a huge margin esp in the super 8 stage. We may regret not playing out the 15 balls of our batting innings against Australia. Rather than going for glory, Bhajji and Zaheer should have helped Rohit score another 20-25 runs and reduce the margin of defeat. But then again hindsight is always 20/20.

[Precambrian]

Pakistan hasn't even qualified for the semis yet. Even if Pakistan does beat SA' date=' it's not in our hands whether or not England surely beat NZ, that too without KP. Quit the whining and worry about your own respective teams. I don't see Australians, Sri Lankans or the West Indies whining about how they've been victimized by being placed in a "harder" group.[/quote'] Don't be an idiot. This is not whingeing. Reserve that for your team. I am pointing out a flaw with the structure of the competition. I don't care much about whether India is at receiving end of this, but a scenario where one team can make it to semi by losing more than winning, is just horrible. I am not blaming Pak here. If they gothrough, all power to them

[Precambrian]

In the 2007 t20 world cup, SA only lost a match to India in the super 8 stage and were knocked out. So it has happened in the past too. Goes to show that in t20s, one cannot afford to lose by a huge margin esp in the super 8 stage. We may regret not playing out the 15 balls of our batting innings against Australia. Rather than going for glory, Bhajji and Zaheer should have helped Rohit score another 20-25 runs and reduce the margin of defeat. But then again hindsight is always 20/20.

Yeah agreed. But I don't remember any team reaching semi by losing more than what they won either. You won't find a situation in any tournament in the world, take football world cup for instance. I don't have a problem with Ind losing out despite winning 4 out of 5. But then, it makes no sense when another team makes it with just 2 out 5. Nuts.