Carry on about carry over
So NZ is out of the World T20. On the field they never looked like they were going to win it. However, three wins to two losses is not a bad record. And in the super 8s they finished very close behind Pakistan – a mere 0.414 behind on net run rate, which amounts to about 24 runs, or 8 runs a game in the super 8s.
The real mind fuck though is that Pakistan is going through to the semis with a worse overall record in the tournament. Their 1 win and 2 losses in the super 8s add to a poor 1 win, 1 loss in the first round. So Pakistan is going into the semis having lost more games than they have won.
So what was the advantage of NZ topping their group in the first round? You might expect that it would determine who they play in the super 8s. That isn’t the case however, as a team’s place in the super 8s is determined by their seeding. So topping a group in the first round actually means absolutely nothing. The first round is simply an opportunity for a decent team to be tripped up by a minnow. And it’s fine for the threat of a trip up to be a part of the tournament, but it is nuts for that to be the only purpose of a whole round of the tournament.
It should not have come to pass that a 2-3 record should advance ahead of a 3-2 record. That is a fault in the design of the tournament. And it is easy to remedy: teams should carry over points from the first round. And not necessary all their points, only points earned against teams who also advanced.
Under this scheme, this is how the points in the super 8 would look like this (with two super 8 games still to play):
| Group E | |
| England | 6 |
| New Zealand | 4 |
| Pakistan | 2 |
| South Africa | 2 |
| Group F | |
| Australia | 6 |
| West Indies | 4 |
| Sri Lanka | 2 |
| India | 2 |
Compared to the actual points table, this pushes New Zealand and the Windies up and Pakistan and Sri Lanka down.
May 12th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Ben, I disagree with you for two reasons:
1) The match-up between major teams was not pointless, it affords the winner protection against a loss against the “minnow”. And in case you think that isn’t important, note that, before this tournament, only the 1975 and 1987 World Cups didn’t include at least one upset by a non-test playing nation.
2) It ensures the second best team is the runner-up. If one team, lets call them Australia, are clearly superior to every other team, and points were carried forward then the team that played them is at a disadvantage. Even if they win every second round game, there is a good chance they could have to match-up against the best team again in the semi-final.
3) It doesn’t solve the problem anyway. If you go back to the last T20 Cup, England, by virtue of losing to the team that didn’t qualify (the Netherlands) and thrashing the team that did (Pakistan) would probably have qualified for the semis with a 2-3 record over the West Indies 3-2 record.
May 12th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Make that three reasons. It was two, then I thought of another one.
May 12th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Yeah, nice points Russ. I still think the format is poked.
I still maintain that the only point to the first round is to allow upsets by minnows. Finishing first or second in the first round means nothing for the super 8s.
I do see you point re England in 2009, though I can’t believe you could figure all that out off the bat.
Maybe all the first round points should be carried over. I know that gives the advantage to teams that play the real minnows in the first round, but at least we won’t get teams getting into the semis having lost more than they won.
May 13th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Ben, to be honest I don’t understand your complaint. The first round is a qualification for the second; the second for the semis; the semis for the final. They are distinct, and a team has to perform in each round. World Cups in other sports are no different, and all first rounds are, in essence, a way of removing the minnows.
Also, the only reason other world cups have carried points over has been to avoid replaying games. As if those tournaments weren’t long enough already. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to include victories over teams that aren’t in your group in later rounds. Admittedly, I have a general aversion to carrying points over. It can easily lead to manipulation – recalling Australia’s attempt to knockout New Zealand in 1999 by slow-batting against the West Indies.
Cricket is unique in that it has (at the moment) exactly eight decent sides, which makes the gap between rounds more stark. But having eight teams qualify to a second round/quarter final is pretty standard. Two alternatives come to mind:
1) Only seed the top four sides. This would almost always produce a group of death, and an easier group, to mix things up a little. On the other hand, you’d have to put up with endless whining from the side that missed the second round, regardless of that teams’ lack of credentials for tournament victory, and a minnow making up numbers. Both happen occasionally anyway.
2) Reverse the split: three groups of four in the first round; two groups of three in the second. This is a lower quality tournament: fewer games in the second round, more for the minnows in the first. But it makes at least two groups interesting.
May 13th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Ben, to be honest I don’t understand your complaint. The first round is a qualification for the second; the second for the semis; the semis for the final. They are distinct, and a team has to perform in each round. World Cups in other sports are no different, and all first rounds are, in essence, a way of removing the minnows.
My experience of world cups for other sports is that the first round determines the seeding for the quarter finals, so that it isn’t simply a qualifier. There is a progression through the tournament. Whereas in cricket the seeding for the second round has already been decided. And qualification is a near fait accompli for most of the teams.
Cricket with its 8+ geometry is hard to fit into a tournament, so nothing is going to be ideal. A tournament has to balance the inclusions of minnows and emphasising the major 8 teams. I think that in the World T20, chasing that balance has upset the tournament as a whole. Every other structure, including carry overs in the 50-over world cup, the knock-out format of the early Champions Trophy and the 8-team more recent Champ Trophy are better systems.
May 13th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Not only did Pakistan qualify for the semis with less wins than losses, they finished in the top 4 despite not winning a game against any of the teams that finished in the top 6.
May 14th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Ben, I agree. The pre-seeding is a strange decision, although it doesn’t make a huge difference, and even favoured NZ here (they played three second place sides).
I like the balance of this tournament. It is a good length, there aren’t many games against minnows, and the games between test sides in the first round have limited consequences. Ultimately, the longer a tournament goes, the more important the games should be.
The last 50-over tournament was massively too long, with an endless second round. The 2011 WC is worse, with two 7 team (21 game) groups to deliver the eight test sides into the quarter-finals. 42 games of pointlessness, and 7 games of interest. And the group winner cops the third best team in the other group!