is bullshit,each game played should have equal weight!

just like UEFA getting rid of the away goal outweigh over home goal!

first round result should only be used as a tie breaker.

In reply to camos

What are you talking about?

It was a good system before West Indies shit the bed. Now it’s crap.

In reply to Maispwi

the point system used in the qualifiers.

In reply to WIForever

was not aware of it, I know they utilized it in a 90s cup but thought it was discontinued.

Nothing is wrong with the points system used in the qualifiers. ICC first used this system for the super 6 at the 1999 world cup, and it was also used in the 2003 and 2007 world cups (super . There are 6 teams in the super 6 and each team plays 3 matches against the teams in the opposite group and they carry over the points from the 2 teams that qualified with them from their group. So each team ends up with points from 5 matches (from the matches they played against the other teams in the super 6).

In reply to Arlo Yeah but this system punishes late starters, your points in a current grouping should be independent of the pervious rounds results, it makes a mockery of a playoff. May as well make it sudden death knockout.

In reply to camos

Why you think the weighting is off? How does the system punish late starters?

WI won dere ist 2 matches so dey were not late starters.

In reply to Maispwi
each round in a playoff should be a fresh start with each participant on 0 points to start.

In reply to camos

Unless the teams from the same group were going to play each other again in the Super Sixes there is nothing wrong with the system

In reply to camos

Time is of the essence. If you propose a straight knockout then 1 bad game and you are out. At least with the super 6 system one loss does not mean you are out. WI are not slow starters, WI planned badly and played badly and are now paying for it.

WI problems did not start in the qualifiers, throughout the super league they were doing crap. That in itself is another topic.

How does Afghanistan qualify and WI don't. How does Bangladesh qualify and WI don't.

In reply to Arlo
This is not about WI, the idea is bad ,you can win all the super six games and be out, advancing is not based only on performance in the round,how a true playoff system works.

In reply to camos

A team would be out if they win all their 3 super six games if they lost both games against the 2 teams that qualified with them from their group.

Bringing forward points gained against the 2 teams you qualified with from your group allows for the 6 teams to have played each other once for the super six and it makes every games including the first round games more meaningful.

In reply to Arlo

Have you spoken to ICC about this?

In reply to Arlo

IN a fair playoff system nothing that took place in prior rounds should matter in a way other that influencing seeding for that round.

In reply to camos

Assume, I buy in 100% of your argument, you solution to not "punish" "late starters" is to then punish early starters?

Why should a team like Zimbabwe, who has played excellent, not able to carry over their reward? And flip it, why should WI in this exapmle, be rewarded with an equal chance in the super 6, for playing horrible cricket in the first round?

In reply to Emir

You do what you need to do to get in the next round; ALL teams in a round should start with the same chance of topping the round.

In reply to WI_cricfan

Do I need to? I don't disagree with their system, Camos does.

This setting is ideal for match fixing, teams get to play games they can afford to lose.

In reply to camos

Did everybody know the rules going in?

Your argument is baseless, sir.

In reply to newdread

Everyone knowing a rule does not make that rule fair!

for example every team knew that an away goal had more weight in champions league but people thought it unfair.

In reply to Arlo

There are many systems.

One most used is you play a bunch of teams in a round robin style. The best teams play the worst in a single elimination setup. NBA, MLB, NHL.

A hybrid of this is to give a bye to the best and they also play the worst. CPL and NFL.

But this giving the best a head start makes one ask the question why have a Super Six? It is nearly impossible for the 3rd team in each bracket to qualify. They should have just taken the top 2 from each group and do an elimination. It would have put us out of our misery faster

In reply to nick2020
someone shows up that sees the flaw, thanks!

Super Six is a disguised four team competition.

In reply to nick2020

This format was first used in 1999 for the world cup. If any board had an argument that this super 6 format is unfair they had ample time to bring this to the ICC and propose a better format.


If you look at the format the super six is technically a round robin as each team would have played the other 5 teams (the 3 teams from the opposite group for the super 6 and the 2 teams from their group in the first round).

It is not about giving the best a head start but it is about awarding consistent play throughout the tournament. This tournament is 3 weeks long so if you play good cricket over the 3 weeks and you are one of the 2 best teams you will qualify for the WC.

I fail to see how this format is unfair, also, every team knew the format and knew of any perceived flaws before hand.

Also this was the same system used in the last qualifiers. There was no issue then, so why now.

In reply to Arlo

there are rules and laws in all aspects of our lives that are constantly changing as we reexamine them.

In reply to camos

True, the ICC meets every year to do that. If any board feels that the super 6 format needs to be changed they are free to bring it up. But until such time the super 6 format is here to stay

In reply to camos

In reply to Arlo

The system is awarding consistent play by giving them a higher seed. Higher seeds play worse qualifying teams. They are getting additional help with a points headstart.

You get to the point where you ask why not just crown the 2 leaders in each group and done with that?

In reply to nick2020

How it's looking that the 2 leaders from each group will make the WC. At least the other 4 teams are still in it despite the odds

Only change I would make is if a game is tied then that's it, 1pt each.

Super-Over should start in the Super6 stage onwards.

In reply to Arlo

How does the current system promotes consistent play when results from the prelim are more important than results from the super six?

In reply to camos


How are the results from the prelims more important? Should they disregard the 2 games against the teams that qualified from the same group?

In reply to Arlo

I think there is a scenario where Zimbabwe lose and another team does not but that 2 point head start helps them tie and NRR comes into play.

In reply to nick2020

West indies need to win their 3 games and hope that Zimbabwe or Sri Lanka loses 2. Either Zimbabwe or Sri Lanka will lose at least 1 since they have to play each other

I think that the current rules are very fair. It allows you the ability to recover from one bad match against the top teams either in the first round of super sixes. It penalizes you for not playing well consistently well against the top teams but only beating up the super minnows. If CWI is ever able to re-start a domestic T20 leagues inviting each island to play, I think that the tournament should be organized along these rules with two groups leading to a super six round

In reply to PalsofMine

i think it is a good system

teams like wi and netherlands must work harder (with 1 win each) than SL and Zim (with 2 wins each) to go forward

like you and others said, there should be no place for a one-off upset to cause a better overall team to lose out to a lesser overall team

that seems fair to me...