Semifinalists?

[TumTum]

The poll is pretty conclusive, although I would have SL instead of NZ.

 

[Chewie]

You can't have SL, Australia and India in the semis at the same time... (well unless Australia lose to Bangladesh in such a way that Pakistan get knocked out).

 

[Dabi]

Pak & SA from Group E (NZ and Eng could come through but my bets are on these two)

Aus & Ind/SL from F. (Don't think WI would qualify, can't seem to decide between SL and Ind).

 

[onionsoup]

Australia & South Africa for sure. I don't really care who else qualifies.

 

[Gurjot95]

Why so less votes for England? They have good team this time.

 

[SaiSrini]

The top votes are for South Africa, India, New Zealand and Australia. That would be a dream lineup for the semis.

 

[McLOVIN]

Sa 22
ind 21
nz 21

suuurre!

MacLovin added 0 Minutes and 57 Seconds later...

The top votes are for South Africa, India, New Zealand and Australia. That would be a dream lineup for the semis.

Compared to how these 3 played so far, HELL NO!

 

[SaiSrini]

Only Australia and England have played very well in this tournament. All other teams have played below average (including New Zealand, SA, India, Pakistan, WI). Pakistan have made it, and if India make it, its not that bad a thing. Our chances are not that good, but so was it for Pakistan today.

 

[Chewie]

I wouldn't say New Zealand, SA or WI have played below average...They've just been average. Very average.

 

[Annoyingdevil]

So How can India make it to the Semis?

 

[1iram1]

So How can India make it to the Semis?

What teams need to do to make the semis | Cricket Features | ICC World Twenty20 2010 | Cricinfo.com

 

[Dabi]

This does highlight a problem with the format I feel in the sense that points (and NRR) from the previous round aren't carried forth. However to accurately do that they needed to make Group E and F based on performance, as in two group leaders and two other teams in each group, rather than pre-determine it. This may have helped tourists in making reservations early on but it does not completely ensure that the best teams make it through to the semi-finals. The fact of the matter is that Pakistan, South Africa and New Zeland played ordinary cricket but New Zeland was the most deserving of the three since they have been marginally better. I am delighted we made it through but I just feel that points should be carried through, what do you guys feel?

 

[SaiSrini]

Without pre-determining, how would they cater to the huge Indian TV market? From now on, World Cups and ICC events will be exclusively catered to the big Indian market that generates maximum revenue. Aakash Chopra has written an article about this on Cricinfo yesterday. Whats with a Twenty20 World Cup having many games starting at 9:30am in the morning? When games played in India are at unusual times for people living in other timezones, why should games played in the other timezones try and cater to the Indian audience? And thats why they have made sure the seedings are pre-determined so that people can know when India will play their matches. Its all crap, but we got to live with it.

 

[ksduded]

I think seeding the teams for the super 8s was a smart move. Spectators need to know where they need to be as the matches are played in different cities. A lot of logistics are involved... it also helps the TV audience know well in advance so that they can plan their days off.....

and it really doesn't matter that much for super 8s... so it was a wise move...

 

[Insomniac]

The best idea may be to go back to a 2003 WC system, where each team plays 6 games (confirmed fixtures) and then move on to the super 6s to play 3 more games.

Then the whole logistics issue can be worked out.