Group A Advantage?

[Gotham Cronie]

Through the group stages, it was a clear concession that group B was the tougher group. Group B had 6/7 teams fighting for quarter-final spots with even Netherlands at #7 giving England a scare. Over in Group A, however, there were just 4 teams that were ever going to make the quarter-finals. Canada scared Pakistan but Kenya might as well have not showed up. Zimbabwe was a huge disappointment. A team in Group B that missed the quarter-finals (Bangladesh) had recently whitewashed the #4 seed in Group A (New Zealand). Besides all of this however, 3 of the 4 semi-final spots belong to Group A members. Could it be that teams from Group B were wore out after beating each other up in the group stages?

[ShahidAfridi]

You play the same amount of games.

[NareshK]

Through the group stages, it was a clear concession that group B was the tougher group. Group B had 6/7 teams fighting for quarter-final spots with even Netherlands at #7 giving England a scare. Over in Group A, however, there were just 4 teams that were ever going to make the quarter-finals. Canada scared Pakistan but Kenya might as well have not showed up. Zimbabwe was a huge disappointment. A team in Group B that missed the quarter-finals (Bangladesh) had recently whitewashed the #4 seed in Group A (New Zealand). Besides all of this however, 3 of the 4 semi-final spots belong to Group A members. Could it be that teams from Group B were wore out after beating each other up in the group stages?

You must be joking.:haha:

[Manny_Pacquiao]

i agree with that. nobody would have given NZ and pakistan a hope in hell of getting this far. not even their own fans. their group was definitely easier, especially with the matches against minnows that never tested them. india, england and south africa knocked the stuffing out of each other, and their matches against minnows weren't smooth sailing either. the best teams have more pressure on them, and that can take its toll. the lower ranked sides of group A were playing with more of a care-free attitude. that wont work anymore, now that they are in the semis.

[Clarke]

Could it be that teams from Group B were wore out after beating each other up in the group stages?

England certainly was worn out, one can see their injury/depression list. The long Ashes tour did not help them either. SA just performed as expected while WI was pathetic more often than not.

[yoda]

Disagree, if anything teams in Group B got some pretty good match practice playing better teams.

[Square Drive]

I think because of the fact that group A teams played lot of their matches in Sri Lanka, more sporty tracks have fine tuned their game :proud: :winky:.

[Ranjha]

All these Group A teams will lose to India as India goes on to win their second world cup title.

[WC2011INDIA]

All these Group A teams will lose to India as India goes on to win their second world cup title.

Don't jinx India man.

[Ranjha]

Don't jinx India man.

I dont believe in jinxing. You think something I write here will affect Indias persformance in Mohali.:haha:

[Midfielder]

On paper group A is stronger but fortunately game is not on paper.

[Gotham Cronie]

On paper group A is stronger but fortunately game is not on paper.

On paper, I think everybody would have said Group B was stronger.

[Midfielder]

On paper' date=' I think everybody would have said Group B was stronger.[/quote'] Group A has 3 teams in semis, makes them stronger.

[Gotham Cronie]

Group A has 3 teams in semis' date=' makes them stronger.[/quote'] When you're looking at teams on paper, you don't look at their actual results. You look at them on paper...

[Switchblade]

I thought tha Group B teams will go as favourites minus Windies i say this coz they had nailbiter matches against each other so they might be able to handle the pressure well but its the other way group A has 3 semi finalists

[Watson87]

So if Group B wins the world cup, group B should be considered stronger

[Bumper]

I agree that Group B as a whole was lot more competitive than Group A. Just a team by team comparison would show that Group B was a far tougher group. Everyone expected Australia/SL to top Group A & Ind/SF to top Group B. Had things went according to expectations, SAF vs Pak, Ind vs NZ, Aus vs WI, SL vs Eng would have been the match ups and Aus, SAF, Ind & SL were expected to get to the semis. But given the current QF match ups, only surprising result was NZ upsetting SAF. Rest were expected. So i dont think there are too many surprises on the semi-finalists.

[urbestfriend]

Worst part is Srilanka will be in final without beating any of the strongest ODI teams i.e India,Pak,Australia or SA.

[SriLankanLion]

Worst part is Srilanka will be in final without beating any of the strongest ODI teams i.e India' date='Pak,Australia or SA.[/quote'] What's your point? India lost to SA. ENG was nearly thrashing you out. If Windies didn't generously hand over the match to you, you would be in the QF without beating any of the better teams. And what else could Ponting's pace attack could do in that flat batting pitch? Now you've a match against Pakistan on Wednesday and it's not over yet.

[IndianRenegade]

What's your point? India lost to SA. ENG was nearly thrashing you out. If Windies didn't generously hand over the match to you, you would be in the QF without beating any of the better teams. And what else could Ponting's pace attack could do in that flat batting pitch? Now you've a match against Pakistan on Wednesday and it's not over yet.

SL beat the english on a green top I guess... :giggle: