Group D - India, Pakistan, Scotland

[nightprowler10]

I'm talking about the front page of cricinfo. Read what I said carefully.

Still makes a difference in points, though. It makes no sense to me why India is still D2 yet leading in the group. Poor format.

I read what you said. My point was that it doesn't matter what a headline says, its the records that count.

BTW, India are D2 based on their rankings when the schedule was made. This is for scheduling purposes only, so people will know what matches to buy tickets for.

 

[sohum]

Still makes a difference in points, though. It makes no sense to me why India is still D2 yet leading in the group. Poor format.

It's not a poor format just because it isn't what you expected it to be. In fact, from a spectator point of view, it is great because they would have known beforehand exactly what tickets to buy in the case that their country made it to the next round. If fans had to wait till the day before to find out, it would have been a logistical nightmare when planning their trip.

If Pathan has a couple of poor games people will be calling for Agarkar.

Almost no one, anywhere will be calling for Agarkar, excepting the selectors.

 

[manee]

If Pathan has a couple of poor games people will be calling for Agarkar.

Noone will be calling for Agarkar to come back into the team - trust me.

 

[playkid12]

It's not a poor format just because it isn't what you expected it to be.

Yes, it is. Because everything that I say is my opinion. When I say its a poor format, its implied that its my opinion on the matter because I'm the one saying it.

In fact, from a spectator point of view, it is great because they would have known beforehand exactly what tickets to buy in the case that their country made it to the next round. If fans had to wait till the day before to find out, it would have been a logistical nightmare when planning their trip.

That's from a spectator pov, but from trying to make the tournament as even as possible (and hence of the highest quality), I still think its a bad format. Teams have different compositions than when they were ranked, especially India so their performance in the tournament should determine which pool they go into and who they play - just like the ODI World Cup, the Playoffs in the NFL, and almost every other sport.

I mean, to throw you a bone, it really doesn't matter because very little separates the teams in cricket (exception: Aus), so it wont really affect the quality as much as another sport, but IF the teams were separated by bigger margins, this could speak disaster of the tournament because of completely uneven matches.

 

[sohum]

Yes, it is. Because everything that I say is my opinion. When I say its a poor format, its implied that its my opinion on the matter because I'm the one saying it.

You're already leaping to the last shred of backing you have. I mean you can even use this argument to validate a theory such as, "The sun is pink because I say so and it is my opinion".

That's from a spectator pov, but from trying to make the tournament as even as possible (and hence of the highest quality), I still think its a bad format. Teams have different compositions than when they were ranked, especially India so their performance in the tournament should determine which pool they go into and who they play - just like the ODI World Cup, the Playoffs in the NFL, and almost every other sport.

It may be a bad format from a competition point of view but it still isn't ridiculously so. It was used in the ODI World Cup in the Super 8 stages and it is even used in many other sports. Seedings are used in tennis, which is the most obvious example.

 

[playkid12]

You're already leaping to the last shred of backing you have. I mean you can even use this argument to validate a theory such as, "The sun is pink because I say so and it is my opinion".

No, because thats nonsensical in its own essence. Unless my definition of pink would differ from yours, I would just be wrong. What we're talking about is a matter of opinion on something that isn't fact, something I'm entitled to. Anyway, you even admitted it yourself that it can be arguable that its a bad format from a competitive point of view, so really you trying to persuade me that its not even arguable after saying that it is in your quote below is contradictory.

It may be a bad format from a competition point of view but it still isn't ridiculously so. It was used in the ODI World Cup in the Super 8 stages and it is even used in many other sports. Seedings are used in tennis, which is the most obvious example.

Tennis has a completely different layout though. Seeding is used so top players wouldn't meet each other until the later stages of the tournament. However, this form is used because a single game exits the player out of the tournament. I wouldn't mind using seeds in a cricket tournament where each match determines whether your progress or depart, but it seems a little bad that they're using this. The ODI world cup didn't use this format. In the ODI world cup, the top two teams from the initial pools progressed into the super 8. Their standings were determined just from the context of the competition (however their initial pools were based from rankings and thats fine because you can't have it go by anything else). In the super 8, all the teams were in one group. It became the first four teams that progressed and 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 for the semis.

My problem wasn't that in 20-20 the initial pools were determined by rankings, but how they progress into two separate pools was already determined, regardless of their performance. If it had been one large pool like the super 8 stage of the ODI world cup, I would've been fine with it.

 

[sohum]

The ODI world cup didn't use this format. In the ODI world cup, the top two teams from the initial pools progressed into the super 8. Their standings were determined just from the context of the competition (however their initial pools were based from rankings and thats fine because you can't have it go by anything else).

You're wrong. The scheduling for Super 8 depended on the pre-tournament seedings. For example, if South Africa beat Australia, for the sake of the Super 8 fixtures, they would still have been the second qualifying group (D2 or whatever group they were).

 

[baburao]

I hope Agarkar retires.Or he can go to ICL.Everyone will be happy.We dont want those players who are in the team just for their so called experience but they dont show it on the field.: