2023 World Cup Qualifier discussion

[sam_ahm]

These formats will have certain loopholes Jaybro, I think we should just accept it. It is like in tennis Player A beating Player B 0-6, 2-6, 7-6, 7-6, 7-6. Such things can happen.

In 2003 WC, ICC tried to even things up a bit by allowing 1 point (out of 4 for a win) to be carried forward from the wins over non super 6 opponents. I think that makes things a little bit better, but still not foolproof.

[jaybro]

These formats will have certain loopholes Jaybro, I think we should just accept it. It is like in tennis Player A beating Player B 0-6, 2-6, 7-6, 7-6, 7-6. Such things can happen.

In 2003 WC, ICC tried to even things up a bit by allowing 1 point (out of 4 for a win) to be carried forward from the wins over non super 6 opponents. I think that makes things a little bit better, but still not foolproof.

Yes, and look Zimbabwe still had a 3-point advantage over Afghanistan going into the Super 6s, but they had a 5 point margin over them during the group stages.

Anyways it is what it is

[Kriterion_BD]

Comparing to the previous qualifiers is stupid, it’s a totally different tournament, and if you argue the Super 6s is totally different from the group stages, then why do they take any points across at all?

Ultimately Zimbabwe won 4 games drew 1 and lost 2 yet they got knocked out. Afghanistan lost 3 games in the group stages yet went through.

Unless you’re being totally stubborn & obnoxious surely you can see that is a flawed format?

The group stage matches that have points carried over are "considered" Super 6 games. Its a quirky system, but its certainly NOT flawed. You can't know for sure which teams will make the Super 6, so you're safest bet is to win every game.

In what world is ‘nearly didnt qualify’ count as a disadvantage? Ultimately they didn’t get knocked out, they didn’t get disadvantaged because the fixtures v Hong Kong & Nepal are erased from the equation once you get to Super 6s.

In the same world where its somehow Afghanistan's fault that ZIM lost that UAE game. You can't blame the format for that. Especially a format thats been going on for years before that tournament.

Afghanistan had next to shot at qualifying...thats the disadvantage.

If you can’t see the problem that’s your issue, don’t make out that I’m the one missing the obvious.

But you are. You can't argue that somehow the tournament result is illegitimate because the format is slightly peculiar or has some extremely rare flaws. There was probably a 100 to 1 odds for all the results to work out in the way they did (name Afghanistan qualifying), without which we wouldn't really be having this debate.

The 2007 and 2003 world cups had a Super 6/8 stage with carry-over points...does it nullify the results of the world cup just because its somewhat quirky? Do we take Australias two championships away just because the points system is slightly odd?

[Kriterion_BD]

These formats will have certain loopholes Jaybro, I think we should just accept it. It is like in tennis Player A beating Player B 0-6, 2-6, 7-6, 7-6, 7-6. Such things can happen.

In 2003 WC, ICC tried to even things up a bit by allowing 1 point (out of 4 for a win) to be carried forward from the wins over non super 6 opponents. I think that makes things a little bit better, but still not foolproof.

Another example from cricket.

Team A scores 310-5 in 50 overs.
Team B scores 310 all out

The match is tied. If its a tourney points would be shared (pre super Over). But by all objective measures, Team A played better because they scored the same amount of runs, but took more wickets.

[jaybro]

You can spin it anyway you like, but ultimately Scotland & Zimbabwe won more points than Afghanistan yet Afghanistan went through.

You’re clutching at straws with your argument about Afghanistan being disadvantaged, where did I say it was Afghanistan’s fault Zimbabwe lost to UAE?

Ultimately it wouldn’t have mattered if Afghanistan won or lost v Hong Kong they went through anyways. Almost being knocked out isn’t the same as being knocked out.

As I said, even if they beat HK they wouldn’t have taken the points across, so it’s FACT they were not disadvantaged.

The fact no other sport in the world uses this format suggests it’s flawed. They only use it because historically there has always been a limited amount of cricketing nations at World Cup events.

IMO you should have knockouts after group stages, that’s how everyone else does tournament events

[sam_ahm]

Let's leave the format at that folks. Yeah it is what it is.

Zimbabwe will have to be wary of Sandeep Lamichanne, the entire Nepal team revolves around him. I know they have a few good players like Aasif Sheikh, Airee but this guy is the key.

[secretzimbo]

He might be in jail by then

[sam_ahm]

He might be in jail by then

No SZ, ideally he shouldn't have been playing until his name is cleared. Their courts have given him all the permissions just so that he can play. You really think even if guilty he will get convicted?

Anyways, a more important point than the format is the fact that there is no DRS for this tournament. That is shameless from the ICC. This could have a huge impact on the tourney. I just hope at the very least they send some good umpires.

[Kriterion_BD]

You can spin it anyway you like, but ultimately Scotland & Zimbabwe won more points than Afghanistan yet Afghanistan went through.

That perspective is no more correct than this one:

Afghanistan went through because they were the best team in the Super 6 stage. They didn't lose a single game, and beat the other finalist twice in 2 meetings. ZIM and SCO both lost games in the Super 6 stage.

One could argue the Super 6 stage is more important, therefore AFG had even greater right to go through than others (ie ZIM or SCO).

Otherwise I can just as well argue Bangladesh should have been crowned 2006 U-19 champions because they beat Pakistan in the group stage, and Pakistan beat India in the Final.

At the end of the day AFG won when it mattered, ZIM didn't...and the points system was well known by all teams. Its not like it was changed midway through the tournament.

[jaybro]

Never said it was changed half way through, never said Afghanistan didn’t deserve to go through, never said Zimbabwe deserved to go through, never said the Super 6s wasn’t more important.

My only gripe is that, to me it doesn’t make sense that you can carry some points over to the Super 6s but not all. It’s not even a biased opinion, because as I said Zimbabwe benefitted from that in the 99 WC.