Oz should have had to beat India 2-0

it is quite unfair that India went unbeaten and then lose the WC to Oz who were beaten in the qualifiers

if weighted correctly India would have had only to beat OZ 1-0 or 1 clear game and OZ beat India 2-0 or 2 clear games to win

In reply to sudden

Lol

The anomalies in sports that truly confound.

I always wondered why you are fouled by an opponent in soccer your team is penalized by having to play with 10 players after you are given marching orders by the Ref to leave the playing for treatment. I guess it would seem absurd to have the guilty party leave the field as well.

In reply to Discourse

The vagaries of rules in sports

In reply to sudden

Indeed

If India lost the second game, what's next? Best of five?

imagine in a tournament to determine which is the best team, the team that lost one match loses

and the team that lost 3 matches wins the tournament

India just has to send a thank you note to Afghanistan for letting Oz through.

In reply to sudden

morale of the story. Just win the important ones. India now has learnt the lesson.

that is why such important finals should be at least a 3 game series

KMT

In reply to KTom

Best of whatever till India wins

It should be a best of overall head to heads. So if australia has won 300 games against india and India has won 250. Then they should play 50 matches to decide the overall winner

The rules are set before the tournament begins.

Unbeaten New England Patriots played New York Giants in Superbowl 42.
Guess which team won.
By the way, the Patriots defeated the Giants in the last regular season game that season.

The rules are the rules.

Ozz are the World champs and deserving champs.
Stop this nonsense.