The Worst Ever World Cup....

[Will_NA]

Eat your words.

 

[sohum]

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.

Look. I'm not arguing whether the format should be one way or another or whether we should play X games or Y games. This has now become a mathematical thing. The probability that you select the best teams rises with the more games you play. That's not to say that we should play more games. I'm just making a mathematical point which you seem to be ignoring and thinking that I am saying that we should have a 16-team group because I'm an Indian fan that cannot take defeat.

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 May be that's why they didn't start well- a little out of date(great players though)?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.
Again its from ones prospective.

Again, I'm not arguing that the tournament should be longer so that people can get into their groove. All I'm saying is that had the tournament been longer, the probability that the best teams would have gone into the next round would have been greater. You can't argue against that if you agree that some sides are better than Australia. Bangladesh beat South Africa today. However, if they played 10 games, would you expect Bangla to beat South Africa the majority of the times? Now, I'm not saying that the tournament should be longer. I'm not saying Bangladesh/Ireland are undeservingly in the next round, either.

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

Yup, they were. But my point is still valid. They were the best performing in a stretch of 3 games. Whether that is enough is another argument (I think it is because if you want to win the World Cup, you have to be on top of your game from the start).

Great job from Bangladesh today. As Zorax predicts, I feel this team could actually be dangerous in a few years--the next World Cup. They unraveled a Proteas team in essentially home conditions. Since Bangla may end up playing their matches at home in the next one, I could see a lot of "upsets".

 

[LA ICE-E]

well those wouldn't be upsets. But anyways bottom line this isn't the worst world cup ever.

 

[sohum]

well those would be upsets. But anyways bottom line this isn't the worst world cup ever.

I think that was established in post #6 of this thread.

 

[LA ICE-E]

then it should be closed by now, but just to finish again- It's not the worst world cup!

 

[Shevchenko]

The fact is that this isn't the worst World Cup ever, if you talk about worst then let me take you back in 1992 where SA neede 20 runs of 1 ball, after they needed just like a few runs of a few balls, now that is bad! Bob Woolmer's death is a shock to all of us, but is his death of nature or murder? a bookie wanting his way, strangling Woolmer to death or an obsessed cricket fan of Pakistan?...

Ireland deserves every right to be in super eight and so does Bangladesh, the world cup is a game about chances, you get it once per game! Ireland and Bangladesh took those chances and they are in the last eights of the tournament...bang! Bangladesh beats the South Africans...THAT SHOULD MAKE INDIA FEEL BETTER! the number one side in the world being beaten by a couple of Bangladeshi's, I like this WC, but I feel yeah it's been a dark one with the sudden death of Woolmer but the upsets are making it great!

So go New Zealand beat the Aussies and win that world cup, they've always been the better side!

 

[Sagacious]

"You can't get away from the fact that this has been a disappointing World Cup, I don't thnk anyone would say any different..."
Barry Richards on TMS

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/6538447.stm

More and more people thinking the same way as I think :cool:

 

[Master Khan]

1992 was the best world cup for me.

and no one seen to came and watch any matchs in the studium to be honest?

 

[Skater]

1992 was the best world cup for me.

and no one seen to came and watch any matchs in the studium to be honest?

There has been low crowds at this current World Cup because most of the West Indian population can't afford ticket prices and strict regulations have been set.

 

[Master Khan]

There has been low crowds at this current World Cup because most of the West Indian population can't afford ticket prices and strict regulations have been set.

They shoudn't play in the west indies again or just low the tickets price

 

[Skater]

They shoudn't play in the west indies again or just low the tickets price

There is no reason that the World Cup should not be hosted in the West Indies again. Ticket prices need to be lowered and regulations need to be relaxed to attract large attendances.

 

[manee]

That being said, the cricketing atmosphere in the West Indies have been waning recently, with their performances.

 

[BigCrickNan]

1992 was the best world cup for me.

And i'm 110% sure if England won you wouldn't of said 1992.

 

[Will_NA]

1992 was the best world cup for me.

and no one seen to came and watch any matchs in the studium to be honest?

Did you play well?

 

[Cricketman]

1983 was the best World Cup for me. It was 10 years before I was born :