The Worst Ever World Cup....

[LA ICE-E]

I'm sure the tour operators disagree with you, though. The day after India crashed out, many reported that a major chunk of their reservations were canceled. Many Indian and Pakistani fans are based in the US and this would be the best opportunity for these fans to experience a live World Cup. The average income of a US citizen is probably significantly higher than the average income of a local Caribbean citizen, so the ICC would definitely be losing out revenue from these fans not coming, as well as the local economy would not be getting the boost it expected from the rise of tourism.

Cricket doesn't make money off tickets, and the ICC haven't done much to change that either. Besides, not everyone would have bought their tickets already. They may have "reserved" tickets through tour operators who had specific agreements with the ICC. These reservations would then be canceled.

No that's not what I meant. It doesn't matter much for the tickets. Cricket's money comes from tv revenue

As for television coverage, this could also see future problems for the ICC. With most of the sponsors being Indian brands (or entities based in India) they may feel skeptical about pumping in more money into the game.

This might happen or it might not because the next wc is in india and a smart sponsor wouldn't let that get away; india plays best in india.

Actually, I disagree. If we had one group of 16 teams, then the teams who placed in the first 8 would more accurately be the "best 8 teams". I'm not saying that the format should be changed or is bad or is unfair, but you cannot discern the best teams in the competition on a basis of 3 games per team, where a team plays a select group of teams.

No I said that the best teams who were performing in the group stage went on. Not who were the best teams through out the years.

However, I do think this tournament is good in selecting the most consistent team as the winner. Unfortunately, that means Australia is probably going to take the cake.

No!!!!

That's because England weren't in the top 3 out of 7 teams in their group.

Neither was india or pakistan

Unfortunately, financially it does quite a bit.

well then it was time to move on from that...

Infact,it did help in eliminating the dead matches.
Teams were always on their toes.But in the end,the winner ends up playing 10 matches as compared to this edition where he plays 11 !

Yeah but in this format it gave the associates a chance and is only one more game than that.

I'd like you to just check out the TRP rating for the broadcaster in India.
Who'z watching cricket now ? No one !
Infact,its Formula thats going to heat up in India !

Uh may be not people form india but india isn't the only country that watches cricket...

 

[Harrypotter_fan]

For me cricket will never lost the priority list even if India is out!

I watched the whole SL vs. Eng match( that was till 3 a.m. IST) even though I had Science paper next day!

 

[Mars Maximus]

Thats great! You're like me, you love cricket no matter who plays.

 

[sohum]

No that's not what I meant. It doesn't matter much for the tickets. Cricket's money comes from tv revenue

Most of cricket's money does come from TV revenue. You also have to see the fact that the GCC contract ends with this WC. This means that a new tender will be floated (unless the ICC were smart and floated it already) for sponsoring cricket, in which cases potential sponsors may be slightly reluctant due to the current apathy against cricket. In the long run, this World Cup probably won't affect cricket financially as much as it will affect the interest in the game. I think in general the ICC have messed it up with the high ticket prices and whatnot. Empty stands don't bode well for anyone.

This might happen or it might not because the next wc is in india and a smart sponsor wouldn't let that get away; india plays best in india.

The next WC is 4 years away. I do feel sponsors will take in to concern seriously the present situation before bidding for financing cricket over the next X years. Again, I'm not sure if the ICC have already settled this, in which case this aspect of the discussion is invalid.

No I said that the best teams who were performing in the group stage went on. Not who were the best teams through out the years.

You didn't say the best 8 teams who were performing but the best 8 in the group stage. I think there is no argument that Pakistan is a better team than Ireland, in general, as is India compared to Bangladesh. There are no excuses to be made for not qualifying, but I think anyone who disagrees with the statement that the Super 8's would have been more exciting with India and Pakistan in it need to have their heads checked.

Neither was india or pakistan

You seem to have completely missed the point here completely. Since England had more matches to play (twice as many, in fact), they had to perform badly over a longer period to not qualify. India played badly in 1 of their 3 games (I think their performance against Sri Lanka wasn't that bad--at least the bowling wasn't) and didn't qualify. England had to play badly in more games to miss qualification, so they couldn't really complain. If you still don't understand, take an edge case: a knockout. You play one game to determine who goes through. If you lose it, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are the worser of the two team.

well then it was time to move on from that...

Easier said than done.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Most of cricket's money does come from TV revenue. You also have to see the fact that the GCC contract ends with this WC. This means that a new tender will be floated (unless the ICC were smart and floated it already) for sponsoring cricket, in which cases potential sponsors may be slightly reluctant due to the current apathy against cricket. In the long run, this World Cup probably won't affect cricket financially as much as it will affect the interest in the game. I think in general the ICC have messed it up with the high ticket prices and whatnot. Empty stands don't bode well for anyone.

The ICC already have a deal from 2007 to 2011 or something like that for over 1.5 billion dollars!

The next WC is 4 years away. I do feel sponsors will take in to concern seriously the present situation before bidding for financing cricket over the next X years. Again, I'm not sure if the ICC have already settled this, in which case this aspect of the discussion is invalid.

Yeah they do so this is invalid.

You didn't say the best 8 teams who were performing but the best 8 in the group stage. I think there is no argument that Pakistan is a better team than Ireland, in general, as is India compared to Bangladesh. There are no excuses to be made for not qualifying, but I think anyone who disagrees with the statement that the Super 8's would have been more exciting with India and Pakistan in it need to have their heads checked.

When I italicized group stage that's what i meant the performing top 8 team in the group stage. Well it's may be to you but it's still exciting more irish fans to see their team perform well.

You seem to have completely missed the point here completely. Since England had more matches to play (twice as many, in fact), they had to perform badly over a longer period to not qualify. India played badly in 1 of their 3 games (I think their performance against Sri Lanka wasn't that bad--at least the bowling wasn't) and didn't qualify. England had to play badly in more games to miss qualification, so they couldn't really complain. If you still don't understand, take an edge case: a knockout. You play one game to determine who goes through. If you lose it, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are the worser of the two team.

Yeah but england didn't lose to a "minnow" team and still got out while pakistan and india did. They played didn't play well in any of the games they lost. I don't think india played well against Sri Lanka at all. If they did, then you would figure that they clearly wouldn't do much damage in the super 8s any way if that was called playing well.

Easier said than done.

True that's why they are trying to get china in the game so it ain't dependent on one country.

 

[sohum]

Well it's may be to you but it's still exciting more irish fans to see their team perform well.

I believe this line of argument is invalid. For example, if Ireland, Kenya, Canada and Bangladesh were all in the Super 8, those fans would still be happy but I think we wouldn't see the best cricket out there that we could see.

Yeah but england didn't lose to a "minnow" team and still got out while pakistan and india did.

Weren't England one of the teams that didn't go to Zimbabwe? They really can't complain about not qualifying if they didn't honor their match commitments.

I don't think india played well against Sri Lanka at all. If they did, then you would figure that they clearly wouldn't do much damage in the super 8s any way if that was called playing well.

It's your opinion against mine. I feel India bowled pretty well to restrict Sri Lanka to just about 230 odd. Seeing that this was only our fourth game in the Windies this time around, and only the second non-walkover one, I think there were definitely positives to take from it if we had gone to the next round. Also, it's absolutely incorrect to think that we wouldn't do damage in the second round based on our first round performance. For example, just days before, we bowled the Windies out for 80-odd. The Windies beat Ireland. And Ireland had given South Africa trouble in the warm-up stages. By those accounts, I could claim that India would have given South Africa trouble, but I wouldn't because cricket is not logic.

 

[SaiSrini]

This might happen or it might not because the next wc is in india and a smart sponsor wouldn't let that get away; india plays best in india.

Not necessarily. Didnt India crash out of the Champions Trophy that took place in India? For India, its all about the conditions and the pitch (Unless they improve the quality of pitches in India).

 

[LA ICE-E]

^ ESPN already bought the rights so no worries there...but we are definitely going to get the best crowd there! Its not that india and pakistans out that the crowds are gone(it is partially not not much) its because of poor world cup organizers.

I believe this line of argument is invalid. For example, if Ireland, Kenya, Canada and Bangladesh were all in the Super 8, those fans would still be happy but I think we wouldn't see the best cricket out there that we could see.

If you watched the ICC World Cricket League d1 that was really exciting cricket there for me even though i wasn't a fan of any minnows teams then.

Weren't England one of the teams that didn't go to Zimbabwe? They really can't complain about not qualifying if they didn't honor their match commitments.

And India cant complain for losing to two games out of three. South Africa didn't lose to a minnow team and they were out of the wc. It's not the format it was the team. Everyone expect india and pakistan to go through easily but its their fault they are out. Ok may be you had a bad start but you had to games to make up for it.

It's your opinion against mine. I feel India bowled pretty well to restrict Sri Lanka to just about 230 odd. Seeing that this was only our fourth game in the Windies this time around, and only the second non-walkover one, I think there were definitely positives to take from it if we had gone to the next round. Also, it's absolutely incorrect to think that we wouldn't do damage in the second round based on our first round performance. For example, just days before, we bowled the Windies out for 80-odd. The Windies beat Ireland. And Ireland had given South Africa trouble in the warm-up stages. By those accounts, I could claim that India would have given South Africa trouble, but I wouldn't because cricket is not logic.

And I think Bangladesh did pretty well to retrict India to 190 but you take that away from them saying its just because india had a bad game. And by you last argument- you can't go by logic either when saying india and pakistan would do damage basing on past performance. No its about the performance on the given days. And so if the world cup format thing doesn't suit them for not allowing bad starts, they still have a whole year to win the ICC ODI championship rakings, so that should suit them at least.

 

[sohum]

If you watched the ICC World Cricket League d1 that was really exciting cricket there for me even though i wasn't a fan of any minnows teams then.

I am not saying that the cricket they are playing is bad, but that the games would have been better with India and Pakistan in it. This is not just because I am an Asian person but just because I understand that having a strong cricketing background on the average will provide better games. Don't believe me? Then why is everyone excited when a "minnow" beats a stronger team? Because it doesn't happen often. Which means the chances of it happening again are incredibly small.

And India cant complain for losing to two games out of three. South Africa didn't lose to a minnow team and they were out of the wc. It's not the format it was the team. Everyone expect india and pakistan to go through easily but its their fault they are out. Ok may be you had a bad start but you had to games to make up for it.

Now you're just putting words into my mouth. If you take the trouble of going back and reading my words instead of using your "headliner" statements, you'll notice that I'm not arguing about the reasons India are not in the Super 8. There's no doubt that we didn't deserve to be in the Super 8 based on those 3 games. The point I'm arguing is that you said the best teams in the group stage qualify to the next round. This is not true. India is better than Bangladesh. Pakistan is better than Ireland. In the same way that Australia is better than all countries. Why? Because 9/10 times, India and Pakistan would have won. Thus, I'm not complaining that the group league is too short and India should be complaining, but that the group stage does NOT necessarily select the best teams. Bangladesh had one good game and they got through. They didn't do anything special against Sri Lanka or Bermuda.

And I think Bangladesh did pretty well to retrict India to 190 but you take that away from them saying its just because india had a bad game.

It's funny how I was talking about the Sri Lanka game and you ignored it and brought up the Bangla game. There is no arguing that India played pathetic cricket against Bangladesh--batting, bowling and fielding. Perhaps you have nothing to say against our performance against Sri Lanka?

And by you last argument- you can't go by logic either when saying india and pakistan would do damage basing on past performance. No its about the performance on the given days. And so if the world cup format thing doesn't suit them for not allowing bad starts, they still have a whole year to win the ICC ODI championship rakings, so that should suit them at least.

What are you talking about? I was just pointing out your inaccuracy in assuming India would be useless throughout the Super 8's based on the game they lost against Bangladesh. Which is to say, you could not get an accurate perspective of how India's performance in the Super 8's. The only reason I brought up the logic argument (and evidently confused you) is to show that you cannot use a sequence of 2-3 games to determine how a team will perform in the future. Which is what you were trying to do by claiming that India would have sucked in the Super 8's, had they qualified. And finally, India have shown the habit of having slow starts in tournaments. In 2003, they had two substandard games against Australia and Netherlands before getting in their groove.

I think you are confused with what I am arguing here. Perhaps if you take into consideration the following points, you will realize that you don't need to bring out the sloganistic statements:

1. I am NOT saying that India were unfairly ousted of the World Cup.
2. I am NOT saying that the World Cup format is bad or unfair.
3. I am NOT saying that the cricket being played is bad.
4. I AM saying that you cannot discern the best teams in a group based on 3 games.
5. I AM saying that the Super 8's would have been more exciting and have better games with India and Pakistan in it.
6. I AM saying that comparing England losing in 2003 to India being knocked out here is incorrect analogy.

Cheers.

--
And on another note, people who think we have been complaining about the World Cup popularity just because we are Indians and Pakistanis should have fun reading what Gilchrist said about it all.

 

[LA ICE-E]

I am not saying that the cricket they are playing is bad, but that the games would have been better with India and Pakistan in it. This is not just because I am an Asian person but just because I understand that having a strong cricketing background on the average will provide better games. Don't believe me? Then why is everyone excited when a "minnow" beats a stronger team? Because it doesn't happen often. Which means the chances of it happening again are incredibly small.

Well better for the fans who supports them but not necessarily for others. So this is just point of views.

Now you're just putting words into my mouth. If you take the trouble of going back and reading my words instead of using your "headliner" statements, you'll notice that I'm not arguing about the reasons India are not in the Super 8. There's no doubt that we didn't deserve to be in the Super 8 based on those 3 games. The point I'm arguing is that you said the best teams in the group stage qualify to the next round. This is not true. India is better than Bangladesh. Pakistan is better than Ireland. In the same way that Australia is better than all countries. Why? Because 9/10 times, India and Pakistan would have won. Thus, I'm not complaining that the group league is too short and India should be complaining, but that the group stage does NOT necessarily select the best teams. Bangladesh had one good game and they got through. They didn't do anything special against Sri Lanka or Bermuda.

Well this was the best way for the top teams to qualify, I don't think there's any other way you can come up with that will make it any easier other than like each teams playing each other at least twice which would make it too long. There isn't a better way...And if the best teams always went through and won the trophy don't you think it would be a bit boring? No tournament can make it so that the best teams always go through...it just doesn't happen. At least, Bangladesh had one good game? How is that? They dominated the game against india and won the 20/20 match by 7 wickets I think that's a pretty good win...I don't think you have to do anything special to qualify for the next round in any tournament.

It's funny how I was talking about the Sri Lanka game and you ignored it and brought up the Bangla game. There is no arguing that India played pathetic cricket against Bangladesh--batting, bowling and fielding. Perhaps you have nothing to say against our performance against Sri Lanka?

No that was just a comparison, I was showing you that Bangladesh had a better bowling performance but had they lost it wouldn't matter. You guys didn't perform well in the Sri Lanka game either. Stricting a team to 250 isn't something the bowlers should be real proud of, its ok but nothing to brag about. And being 112/6 isn't a great performance from the batting oder either.

What are you talking about? I was just pointing out your inaccuracy in assuming India would be useless throughout the Super 8's based on the game they lost against Bangladesh. Which is to say, you could not get an accurate perspective of how India's performance in the Super 8's. The only reason I brought up the logic argument (and evidently confused you) is to show that you cannot use a sequence of 2-3 games to determine how a team will perform in the future. Which is what you were trying to do by claiming that India would have sucked in the Super 8's, had they qualified. And finally, India have shown the habit of having slow starts in tournaments. In 2003, they had two substandard games against Australia and Netherlands before getting in their groove.

yeah but do you think they would have made a big impact looking at the other teams and their fitness? Also it isn't the same squad as in the 2003 and so it not like all indians have a slow start before getting into their grove. And that really isn't any excuse(needing time to get into your grove) for professional players who had a lot of ODI's just to prepare them for the wc so they don't have a slow start.

I think you are confused with what I am arguing here. Perhaps if you take into consideration the following points, you will realize that you don't need to bring out the sloganistic statements:

1. I am NOT saying that India were unfairly ousted of the World Cup.
2. I am NOT saying that the World Cup format is bad or unfair.
3. I am NOT saying that the cricket being played is bad.
4. I AM saying that you cannot discern the best teams in a group based on 3 games.
5. I AM saying that the Super 8's would have been more exciting and have better games with India and Pakistan in it.
6. I AM saying that comparing England losing in 2003 to India being knocked out here is incorrect analogy.

Cheers.

Ok 4, But I really dont think you'll get the best teams with playing just 6 games either. So if your looking for the best teams its the rankings championship. I don't think any tournament can assure you that you'll get the best teams to the next round.
5. May be for the indian and pakistani fans but not for irish and bangladeshi fans...so just point of view you know..
6. Compare South Africa out in 2003 with India. I don't think Aus,Zim, Ind, SL, Ken, and Nz were the best teams in 2003. So no tournament will get you the best teams to the next round all the time...

From what i get, it would be a more exciting wc for indian and pakistani fans had they stay in it, and that's obvious. And that 3 games doesn't make out the top teams but neither does 6 at least 10 to 20 games in the group stage would do that, probably not even then, it would just make the bulk like good and bad but it wouldn't make the table in chronological order of the best teams. Plus one final make doesn't make the best team champion either, so only the rankings will tell you the best teams over a year but even for the rankings that's all it does its the best teams performing for that period. While the tournament does the best performing team in its period. So you wont always get the best teams but that's whats fun about sports right?

 

[m_vaughan]

From what i get, it would be a more exciting wc for indian and pakistani fans had they stay in it, and that's obvious. And that 3 games doesn't make out the top teams but neither does 6 at least 10 to 20 games in the group stage would do that, probably not even then, it would just make the bulk like good and bad but it wouldn't make the table in chronological order of the best teams. Plus one final make doesn't make the best team champion either, so only the rankings will tell you the best teams over a year but even for the rankings that's all it does its the best teams performing for that period. While the tournament does the best performing team in its period. So you wont always get the best teams but that's whats fun about sports right?

That is very well said. Slow starts, one bad match, etc. cannot be used as excuses as both Pakistan and India dint do enough to qualify for the Super 8s. What they would have done in the Super 8s is hence irrelevant.

 

[sohum]

You're still arguing about whether I think this is a good format or not--which is not something I have even presented my opinion about. I haven't said anything about whether the qualification is fair or not, but I'm disputing the point that you made that the best teams qualify--something that you now seem to have agreed that you were wrong on by pointing out that you cannot figure out the best team in 6 games either. But surely you agree that 6 games is better than 3? Now, don't turn this statement into me saying "The two group format was better" because I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is that the more games you have the better chance you have of selecting the better team.

No that was just a comparison, I was showing you that Bangladesh had a better bowling performance but had they lost it wouldn't matter. You guys didn't perform well in the Sri Lanka game either. Stricting a team to 250 isn't something the bowlers should be real proud of, its ok but nothing to brag about. And being 112/6 isn't a great performance from the batting oder either.

It's easy to reduce the game to numbers. I was watching from start to finish and we did cause the Sri Lankans to struggle a lot while they were batting. We also had a semi-decent start before our middle-order collapse. Overall, it was not a good batting performance and not a bad bowling performance. You're also ignoring the point I'm making. I'm not saying that the Indian bowlers would have turned their game around in the Super 8 and bowl sides out for under 100. There were positives to take that I think would be more accurate in predicting our performance than what you tried to use (assumption that we would continue to play the way we did).

yeah but do you think they would have made a big impact looking at the other teams and their fitness? Also it isn't the same squad as in the 2003 and so it not like all indians have a slow start before getting into their grove. And that really isn't any excuse(needing time to get into your grove) for professional players who had a lot of ODI's just to prepare them for the wc so they don't have a slow start.

Yes, I do think they would have made a big impact--or at least bigger than Bangladesh and Ireland have, thus far. And if you compare the squads, you will find that our batting line-up is almost identical. Our bowlers are the only people who have changed, and if you again look at 2003, you will find that our batsmen were the ones that started off badly.

Ok 4, But I really dont think you'll get the best teams with playing just 6 games either.

I don't care about that. I'm saying that your statement that we can see the best teams in a group based on 3 games is incorrect. And as an addendum, 6 is better than 3, but that doesn't mean that this format is worse than the previous one.

I don't think any tournament can assure you that you'll get the best teams to the next round.
5. May be for the indian and pakistani fans but not for irish and bangladeshi fans...so just point of view you know..
6. Compare South Africa out in 2003 with India. I don't think Aus,Zim, Ind, SL, Ken, and Nz were the best teams in 2003. So no tournament will get you the best teams to the next round all the time...

See above: all this is equally irrelevant to what I'm saying.

From what i get, it would be a more exciting wc for indian and pakistani fans had they stay in it, and that's obvious. And that 3 games doesn't make out the top teams but neither does 6 at least 10 to 20 games in the group stage would do that, probably not even then, it would just make the bulk like good and bad but it wouldn't make the table in chronological order of the best teams. Plus one final make doesn't make the best team champion either, so only the rankings will tell you the best teams over a year but even for the rankings that's all it does its the best teams performing for that period. While the tournament does the best performing team in its period. So you wont always get the best teams but that's whats fun about sports right?

A nicely crafted conclusion, but if you are responding to my arguments, then you are wasting your time. In fact, point 2 counters that. The World Cup is not expected to choose the best team, but the best team over a sequence of 11 games. However, that is irrelevant to my argument! I think the World Cup format is fine, but I just have a problem with anyone thinking that the best teams are competing in any given non-first round.

That is very well said. Slow starts, one bad match, etc. cannot be used as excuses as both Pakistan and India dint do enough to qualify for the Super 8s. What they would have done in the Super 8s is hence irrelevant.

If you are responding to me, you'll find that I'm not making excuses but making the point that I have a problem with a disputed point that he had made earlier. I don't think anyone here honestly thinks that India were unfairly ousted from the World Cup, and if they do, I disagree with them.

 

[icyman]

I believ the thread was started by either an Indian/Pakistani fan who was disappointed with his team's performance.
As far as this WC is good/bad/ugly,etc,etc is concerned,it depends upon what angle you look at it.

For you,LA-ICe,being an Irish fan,it must be a great Wc coz your team has sailed into the S-8 in its first attempt.

Looking back at 2003,it could have been South Africa's worst.Similarly,the current one is India's worst.

The fact that this has been highlighted is cause no one expected these two teams to crash out so early and it is possibly the first one in which both have crashed out simultaneously.[barring the first two editions]

 

[LA ICE-E]

well said

You're still arguing about whether I think this is a good format or not--which is not something I have even presented my opinion about. I haven't said anything about whether the qualification is fair or not, but I'm disputing the point that you made that the best teams qualify--something that you now seem to have agreed that you were wrong on by pointing out that you cannot figure out the best team in 6 games either. But surely you agree that 6 games is better than 3? Now, don't turn this statement into me saying "The two group format was better" because I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is that the more games you have the better chance you have of selecting the better team.

Never said the best teams qualified but said the best teams in the group stage(meaning the teams performing) qualified. And yes you can not have the best teams go through all the time no matter how many games. But is 6 better than 3? Well its your point of view, to me since you can't always get the best teams why bother with 6 when 3 eliminates uncompetitive games.

It's easy to reduce the game to numbers. I was watching from start to finish and we did cause the Sri Lankans to struggle a lot while they were batting. We also had a semi-decent start before our middle-order collapse. Overall, it was not a good batting performance and not a bad bowling performance. You're also ignoring the point I'm making. I'm not saying that the Indian bowlers would have turned their game around in the Super 8 and bowl sides out for under 100. There were positives to take that I think would be more accurate in predicting our performance than what you tried to use (assumption that we would continue to play the way we did).

Well that's one's point of view again. And so I used mine and you used yours.

Yes, I do think they would have made a big impact--or at least bigger than Bangladesh and Ireland have, thus far. And if you compare the squads, you will find that our batting line-up is almost identical. Our bowlers are the only people who have changed, and if you again look at 2003, you will find that our batsmen were the ones that started off badly.

Uh...not sure...about that WI didn't make much impact thus far and neither has bangladesh and ireland but it isn't over and even if then, it would be a big impact(when i say big i mean india going to the semis). May be that's why they didn't start well- a little out of date(great players though)? Well lets put it this way then there isn't room for bad starts(there is but lets make it simple) in these kind of tournament which makes it fun.

I don't care about that. I'm saying that your statement that we can see the best teams in a group based on 3 games is incorrect. And as an addendum, 6 is better than 3, but that doesn't mean that this format is worse than the previous one.

Again its from ones prospective.

See above: all this is equally irrelevant to what I'm saying.


A nicely crafted conclusion, but if you are responding to my arguments, then you are wasting your time. In fact, point 2 counters that. The World Cup is not expected to choose the best team, but the best team over a sequence of 11 games. However, that is irrelevant to my argument! I think the World Cup format is fine, but I just have a problem with anyone thinking that the best teams are competing in any given non-first round.

Yeah, i get that but don't take it away from the underdogs, they were the best performing teams so far that all.

 

[aussie1st]

Worst WC ever huh? Bangladesh has now knocked off SA the number 1 ranked team in the world to go with India the biggest cricketing nation.