Not a lot of countries play cricket. Even in World Cups a maximum of 16 teams have played. This was in the 2007 50-50 world cup in the Windies.
I therefore question the logic of having 4 different groups in the league stage instead of the traditional 2 groups. This means that per group there are only 3-4 teams. This also means that one upset can ensure that a good team has no chance of coming back and the freaky team which caused the upset has a good chance of qualifying for the next stage.
If it were 2 groups and 6-8 teams, then teams have more matches to play and hence the chance to make a comeback increases after one bad day in the field. West Indies lost to Kenya in the 1996 50-50 World Cup and yet qualified for the semis because there were only 2 league groups then.
India and Pakistan in the 2007 50-50 World Cup, and Australia and Bangladesh in the 2009 20-20 World Cup paid the price for a bad day on the field. I'm glad in a way as I have never been a fan of the Aussie brand of cricket but the perils of multiple groups need to be pointed out.
I therefore question the logic of having 4 different groups in the league stage instead of the traditional 2 groups. This means that per group there are only 3-4 teams. This also means that one upset can ensure that a good team has no chance of coming back and the freaky team which caused the upset has a good chance of qualifying for the next stage.
If it were 2 groups and 6-8 teams, then teams have more matches to play and hence the chance to make a comeback increases after one bad day in the field. West Indies lost to Kenya in the 1996 50-50 World Cup and yet qualified for the semis because there were only 2 league groups then.
India and Pakistan in the 2007 50-50 World Cup, and Australia and Bangladesh in the 2009 20-20 World Cup paid the price for a bad day on the field. I'm glad in a way as I have never been a fan of the Aussie brand of cricket but the perils of multiple groups need to be pointed out.
No comments:
Post a Comment