How Farcical Is This!?

Rate this Entry

kirby May 15, 2010

Just a very quick word against the farce that is the World Twenty20 tournament.

Not only is it's exceedingly minimal amount of meaning being astoundingly diminished by this tournament being the 3rd in 3 or 4 years (compared to a proper World Cup every four years), but the peculiar case of the English side has just absolutely destroyed the tournament's credibility.

Yeah, yeah, the English side have carried the hopes of a nation on their shoulders, blah, blah, whatever other B.S. the pro-Twenty20 media spew out. But has anyone stopped to consider the manner in which the English side has qualified for the final?

To qualify for the second round (Super 8s or some rubbish) out of their group, England didn't win a game. They had a no result and a loss on the Duckworth/Lewis method. And now, if you subscribe to such trash, they are the best/second best international Twenty20 side in the world. But look, on the rules, the English should have qualified; they got a point for the no result and had a superior run rate to the eliminated team in their group (Ireland), but it makes no logical sense. How can a team qualify past a group stage without winning a game!? What a joke. What an absolute joke.

But you know the worst part of this whole saga? For some extremely sad individuals out there in the big wide world, the World Twenty20, by it's proper name- not the Twenty20 World Cup or World T20- is the most important tournament in the world. And what a farcical piss-take of semi-cricket it is.

Posted in Cricket

Views 927 Comments 36

« The Storm Scandal May Destroy the NRL Main 5 Reasons Why the Socceroos Can Make the Round of 16 in 2010 »

Total Comments: 36

Comments

Page 2 of 2

In case you haven't noticed, I wrote this before the final.

kirby May 17, 2010

"Let them have it, dude. It's England. They need to cling to everything they can"

Boo ****ing hoo.

Choob May 17, 2010

How can you consider that England would have lost in group stages Isn't this a hypothesis.
They beniffted from rain in one game and lost the other due to it. It's fair. Anyhow they defeated the best teams in the world in later stages to win it.

akhourias May 17, 2010

'In case you haven't noticed, I wrote this before the final.'

To be fair I hadn't noticed that, but I have noticed that the 'farcical' qualification happened on 4th May but it took until the day before the final, the 15th May for this fact to be 'realised'.

amigacooke May 18, 2010

That has something to do with my time availability.

kirby May 18, 2010

Originally Posted by Choob

"Let them have it, dude. It's England. They need to cling to everything they can"

Boo ****ing hoo.

Hush, Welshman. Your country isn't even good enough to have its own cricket team, so you had to join someone else's.

Glinn Mgraw May 18, 2010

Ok, England never won a game in their group, but they did do enough to qualify.

Being hypothetical, we could and should have won both games over the full 20 overs. But as somebody says, hypotheticals don't win you games. However, you could still argue that we deserved to go through, and anybody who watched the games and knew we were the dominant side, would agree that we were the best team in the group and had every right to qualify.

In the football World Cup, you have 4 teams playing 3 matches in a group, one team could draw all those 3 games and qualify. Is that "wrong" aswell?

nufc4 May 18, 2010

"As I've said about 5 times now, it's not about the correctness of the system, it's about logic. How can a team now be considered champions when they didn't win a game in the group stage?"

Mate we are considered champions as we beat australia in the final! Yes, we beat AUSTRALIA in the FINAL!
We might not have won a match in the group stages but we didnt lose one over 20 overs either. So, over 20 overs, we were the only team to remain unbeaten throughout the tournament.......thats good enough for us to be considered champions in my opinion.

sachinisking May 18, 2010

Hush, Welshman. Your country isn't even good enough to have its own cricket team, so you had to join someone else's.

Glamorgan isn't it, Tom Jones power POOH. Kung FU. Kung FU.

Simon Jones>>>Glenn McGrath tbf. Yeah I went there.

Choob May 18, 2010

Originally Posted by nufc4

In the football World Cup, you have 4 teams playing 3 matches in a group, one team could draw all those 3 games and qualify. Is that "wrong" aswell?

BIG difference drawing in football to having a no result in cricket.

kirby May 18, 2010

"BIG difference drawing in football to having a no result in cricket."

Not really mate seeing as neither team has won in both cases. Your argument was how can you qualify when winning no games in the group stages? nufc4 is saying that you can qualify in football when winning no matches so there isn't a BIG difference at all.

sachinisking May 18, 2010

"BIG difference drawing in football to having a no result in cricket."

That wasn't the point but yes there's a big difference, and the difference being that a draw in a football match comes down to the performance of the two sides over the entire course of the game.

Whereas in cricket, the no-result comes about because the two teams, through no fault of their own, can't even finish the game.

England may not have won a game in the group stages, but they can't control the weather...

nufc4 May 19, 2010

As I've said about 5 times now, it's not about the correctness of the system, it's about logic. How can a team now be considered champions when they didn't win a game in the group stage?

I know it seems weird, but this ties into how corrupt T20 can be. No matter how many overs are played in a T20 affected by rain, it is very rare that a match can be completely turned around.

This is the situation for England, they were simply unlucky to have a match affected by rain, which could have easily gone their way, but it came down to D/L. Call them losers or whatever, but it states that the top two teams from each group go through, and they made it through. And they did play well enough to make it through. Had they made some loser score against the West Indies, they would have come third. But they didn't. They hung in there. We reward teams for that in Test and ODI, so why not in T20?

Then it was clear sailing for them. They won all of their games, and became the new champions. As I said before, if you call them losers, you call every other team that came second in the group stages losers.

Even though it does confuse me how a team that played so badly in the group stage could completely change their act and win the tournament, it happened, and the reason we're taking it so seriously is because we're all astounded.

Demolition 101 May 21, 2010

Not really mate seeing as neither team has won in both cases. Your argument was how can you qualify when winning no games in the group stages? nufc4 is saying that you can qualify in football when winning no matches so there isn't a BIG difference at all

England got through on their NRR, which involves much more 'numbers' than a simple football scenario. And England were level with Ireland on points when the calculators came out. So what do they do when the points are level? There have been fewer instances in football, but less complicated ones. Don't drag other sports into this.

Demolition 101 May 21, 2010

England got through on their NRR, which involves much more 'numbers' than a simple football scenario. And England were level with Ireland on points when the calculators came out. So what do they do when the points are level? There have been fewer instances in football, but less complicated ones. Don't drag other sports into this.

Yes they are less complicated but equally as decisive. For example, in football, if you finish on the same points as one team, you cannot complain if your goal difference is significantly inferior to this other team, as it shows they have been better than you in getting those points.
My point is although england didnt win a game in the group stages ireland, the author of this article or anyone else cannot complain when their significantly superior net run rate sees them go through at the expense of ireland. It just shows that in getting those points, they played better than ireland and therefore deserve to go through.
I, and presumably nufc4, "dragged" other sports into this as it is easier to make this point.

sachinisking May 21, 2010

England Rule and that is Final!!!!

spitfire12 June 3, 2010

Page 2 of 2

Archive
< September 2010
Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31	1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	1	2