June 9, 2009 at 23:19 #11684crizzyParticipant
- Total Posts 788
Can anyone please tell me how the hell this works? Who plays who and why?
I am so confused!!
Cheers, CrizzyJune 10, 2009 at 00:06 #233045
It is a slightly strange system. The allocation of the teams to the two Super Eight groups was decided before the tournament, based on their seedings. So, for example, it was already decided that if England went through to the Super Eights, whether or not they won their first round group, they would go into Group E. If one of the seeded teams did not go through, then the non-seeded team who went through would take their place.
It is a counter-intuitive method which means that tonight’s game and both of tomorrow’s games are essentially meaningless.
England’s match with South Africa on Thursday is described on some web sites (such as Cricinfo) as B2 v D2. Most people would assume this means the runner-ups of Groups B and D. In fact, it refers to the second seeded team in each of those groups (In England’s group Pakistan were seeded higher and in South Africa’s, it was New Zealand).June 12, 2009 at 01:02 #233451crizzyParticipant
- Total Posts 788
Thank you Andrew, just what I was looking for. Great answer.
CrizzyJune 12, 2009 at 02:02 #233457
After today’s performances from England and Ireland, we should probably already be calling it the Super Sixes.June 14, 2009 at 05:20 #233792GetzippyParticipant
- Total Posts 1152
I was thinking about this the other night, before my desert island dream with Kerry Katona…
Would it not have been more competitive and exciting to have:
Two initial groups of 6 teams with the top four from each group going through to…
4 X Q/F
2 X S/F
That means they would have played more games in the group stage to get into it and then straight into the knockout phase. The better the teams did in the league determining who they play in the Q/F’s.
ZipJune 14, 2009 at 22:14 #233897
Dismal/clueless batting performance from England. Not enough fours and sixes and not enough intent to play any ‘big shots’. It never seemed likely at any stage that they would produce any 20 plus overs. The Indians bowled well but were never put under any real pressure. England look decidely second rate.June 15, 2009 at 01:58 #233937GetzippyParticipant
- Total Posts 1152
Can’t believe England won that…
They did bowl & field exceptionally well. They could not afford to give India one big over – and they didn’t. Broad was superb in the penultimate one.
I really cannot see England winning this thing, but if they do…well, then I’m off to the England World Cup footy thread to pledge my allegiance!!
ZipJune 15, 2009 at 21:57 #234111
The bowlers saved the day yesterday and if the rain relents it looks like they will have to do the same again. Even if we have a solid base without Pietersen there doesn’t seem to anyone who can provide any impetus from the second third of the innings onwards. Running between the wickets is also very poor – more ones should be turned into twos.June 16, 2009 at 00:34 #234164
Well they didn’t get lucky again. How much have they missed an on-song Flintoff?
.June 16, 2009 at 00:35 #234165
Getzippy, that is probably a better format – one or two bigger groups then straight into the knockout.
Well played West Indies. Much underestimated, much ridiculed in some sections of the English press, but they had the class out there today and won even without Fidel Edwards.
England weren’t good enough. Didn’t reach semi-finals. No-one should be surprised. Actually, they gave it rather more of a go than I thought they would.June 16, 2009 at 00:43 #234171Nathan HughesParticipant
- Total Posts 25871
I think West Indies would of been happier of the two sides with only having to bat the 9 overs with 10 wickets they could afford to risk it a bit more. Foster has been very impressive behind the stumps and should have cemented his place in the one day side at least.Member since March 2008June 16, 2009 at 00:49 #234174
True, but then England knew it was going to rain and knew it was quite likely that the side batting second would be chasing a cut down total.
Agree about Foster. His one day place should be secure.June 16, 2009 at 01:08 #234175AnonymousInactive
- Total Posts 17716
After tonight’s performance Paul Collingwood is surely due his MBE, though I fear it will be for services to West Indian cricket. I don’t like to lay blame at the feet of one man, but some of the decisions he has made throughout the last 7-10 days beggar belief.
If there was ever an indication that English cricket needs overhauling, the T20 World Cup was it. How can such a prominent country in the sport be so reliant on one man, two if we count Bopara? How can young players being given a chance on the international stage – Rashid, for example, who was left to fend for himself by Broad the other night – receive no help whatsoever when put in positions they’ve never been in before? And how can our captain (who seemed quite content to nick the occasional single rather than swing his bleedin’ bat) be satisified with an innings devoid of boundaries for almost 10 overs, the only two since the second ball of the 11th coming from our number eight?
Unbelievable stuff.June 16, 2009 at 01:32 #234178
He’s an ordinary captain. He does his best, but it isn’t quite good enough.
I’d add another question to your list of reasonable queries. Why was he satisfied with the form of Luke Wright? He is a hacker, nothing more and his sole purpose appears to get out quickly so Pietersen can get in. Complacency rules, as ever.June 16, 2009 at 03:49 #234211AnonymousInactive
- Total Posts 17716
The sad thing is he’ll never have to answer these questions because, as is the case with so many England players, he knows his place in the team is all but assured. The selection committee took the decision to drop Bell from the international set up – the right decision on balance, but he has at least shown a natural propensity for the game (he certainly looked at one time to have the potential to be a world class batsman) – but it would seem that too many changes may be viewed unfavourably.
A disappointing end to a disappointing tournament (on a patriotic note at least, as some of the cricket being played by Sri Lanka and South Africa has been a joy to behold).June 16, 2009 at 17:08 #234325
Agree about Wright and leaving the captaincy aside hard to see exactly what Collingwood contributed. Even Bopara who scored a few runs failed to accelerate and almost seemed to be playing for a fifty.
On a different subject (I am probably completely out of touch here) but how long has spitting been part of cricket? It has to be said Luke Wright was excellent in this department.June 16, 2009 at 17:27 #234330
Mrs Hughes said the same thing, Stilvi. I really don’t see why it is necessary. It hasn’t quite yet reached baseball proportions but it doesn’t add anything to the spectacle.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.