Why the World Twenty20 draw is all wrong
Columnist
By Kersi Meher-Homji, 11 May 2010 Kersi Meher-Homji is a Roar Expert
I don’t like to brag that “I told you so,” but I did write strongly in The Roar last month when I heard that Australia was seeded no. 9 in the ongoing World Twenty20, even below Bangladesh.
This writer had also predicted: “The Australians reserve their best when under-estimated; the underdog status brings out the red-hot among the Aussies. Remember, how the under-rated Allan Border-led Australians shocked the cricketing world by winning the Fifty50 World Cup in India in 1987?”
Is history going to repeat itself in the 2010 World Twenty20?
With their opening batsmen, David Warner and Shane Watson, hitting sixes galore (against India), Mike Hussey and Cameron White doing rescue acts with their run-rich bats, quickies Dirk Nannes, Shaun Tait and Mitchell Johnson breaking stumps and batsmen’s spirits, and the all-round excellence of 20 year-old Steven Smith, Australia is playing like a champion team.
Ninth seeded? Bah, forsooth, balderdash!
The ICC should be eating seeds with their humble pies. Why go by Australia’s previous record in World Twenty20 and not their recent results against top-seeded Pakistan in Australia only a few months ago?
Remember how the Aussies thrashed them, despite a ball-biting act? As they also did the fourth seeded West Indies?
Here is my other grouse against the ICC. The Super-8 scenario is wrong.
How come three countries which finished on top in Groups A, C and D (Australia, India and the West Indies) were lumped together in Group E, along with Group B runner-up Sri Lanka?
Also, three countries who finished runner-up in Groups A, C and D (Pakistan, South Africa and England) were in Group F, along with Group B winner New Zealand.
Is this logical? I think not.
The sensible way to go about it would be to have Super-6 instead of Super-8.
So here is my plan for the future ICC World Twenty20s or for the 2011 Fifty50 World Cup, as well
The winner of Gr. A should meet the runner-up of Gr. B and the runner-up of Group A to meet the winner of Group B. Likewise, the winner of Gr. C to meet the runner-up of Gr. D and the runner-up of Gr. C to meet the winner of Gr. D.
Simple, eh?
Then there is some advantage in winning two out of three matches in the earlier round. According to this writer’s logical system, in the current World Twenty20, Australia should have met Sri Lanka; Pakistan against New Zealand; India against England; and South Africa against the Windies.
The winners would then meet each other in the semi-finals. No rigmarole, as in the current system.
The winners of Groups A, C and D (Australia, India and the West Indies) should NOT have played each other in the Super series. Nor the runners-up of Groups A, C and D (Pakistan, South Africa and England).
Hope this makes sense, Roarers. Your views for and against are welcome.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
The Crowd Says (14) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Cricket articles
- What we do and don’t know about our Baggy Greens (112)
- Success of Twenty20 spells trouble for ODI cricket (106)
- Channel 9 commentators an annoyance this summer (102)
- One Day Cricket is suffering from Middle Child Syndrome (89)
- Cricket Australia must take a stand against racist spectators (89)
- Dave’s Warner-ful switch-hit panned by precious critics (84)
- Khawaja shouldn’t have been Shaun from the Test side (71)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (197)
- Hall of Fame for Indian legend Gavaskar
- Sri Lanka to target ‘weak’ Aussie bowlers
- India backing Rohit Sharma to find form
- Game-by-game preview of round 19
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (6)
- Like father, like son: Alister McDermott on a fast track to the Test team (30)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (197)
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (6)
- Pakistan’s win over England a triumph of character (21)
- Steve Waugh is right about cricket’s succession plan (5)
- India vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (180)
- Let’s talk about selection, Test fans (28)
- Pakistan win shows what’s beautiful about the game (13)
- Explore:
- Australian Cricket, Cameron White, Cricket, David Warner, ICC, Mike Hussey, Shane Watson, World Twenty20
vinay verma said | May 11th 2010 @ 9:52am | Report comment
Kersi, I think for once the ICC got the group and Super 8′s stages right. Your idea of Super Six needs to be explained. We had four groups of 3 and the top 2 in each group progressed to the Super 8. The initial groupings were based on results of the last World Cup only 11 months ago so I see nothing wrong with that. However I do agree that seedings become irrelevant after the initial 2 matches each.
As it stands now Pakistan have made the Semis and will probably play Australia in the semifinals. South Africa is out of the reckoning. India and Sri lanka can still make it. India has to beat Sri lanka by 21 runs . But if sri lanka beat India then England will play Sri lanka in the other semi. West Indies have a mathematical chance if they beat Australia by a huge margin and the Sri lanka/India match is close.
I am pleased that the cricket is taking centre stage. The quality of the cricket is also superior to the IPL. The only thing wrong is the matches starting at 9.30 AM West Indies time . This means tourists and locals have to get to the ground at 8AM. and if the locals are working,and some West indians do work, the crowds will be poor. This was done so the matches would be primetime on INDIAN TV> But the broadcasters have not considered the audiences in England and Australia.
Another instance of th BROADCASTER having too much say.
Ken said | May 11th 2010 @ 9:56am | Report comment
Your draw system makes much more sense, I hadn’t realised how silly the Super 8 groups were until you pointed it out.
I think Australia’s seeding was a little immature thrill by those running the ICC who loved that they could find a way to justify ranking Australia so low. There can’t be much surprise that they have made that look silly
Kersi Meher-Homji said | May 11th 2010 @ 11:14am | Report comment
Vinay,
My objection to the Super 8 in the current World T20 is that the Group winners; Australia, India and WI were put together in Gr. E in Super-8. The winner of a group should meet the runner up from another group, and NOT winner against a winner. Otherwise, what’s the advantage of being no. 1 in a group after winning 2/2 matches?
I’m pleased Ken prefers the suggested logical system.
Sportz said | May 11th 2010 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
Kersi,
It’s all down to the results of last year’s tournament. Australia was seeded 9th simply because they didn’t get past the group stage last time. That’s it. The ICC officials didn’t just get together and say that Australia was the 9th best team in the comp. They seeded Australia 9th because they didn’t make the Super 8 stage last time. Whether that’s fair or not, that’s the way it is.
And with regards to the other part of your argument, that’s a REALLY weird one. But again, it’s all down to last year’s results and the fact that Australia was seeded last in their group behind Pakistan and Bangladesh. I was looking this up the other day to find out who would play who in the Super 8s. And what happens is this – teams basically qualify in the positions that they’re seeded. So, because Pakistan was seeded highest in their group, as long as they qualified for the Super 8s, then they were guaranteed to qualify as the top team from their group. It didn’t matter how well Australia played. Now this system is just plain silly I agree, but apparently it was done so that people would have more certainty over which Super 8 group their team would be in and where they would be playing their matches.
Here’s an explanation: http://www.cricinfo.com/world-twenty20-2010/content/page/412884.html
I agree that this is just plain dumb. Theoretically, you could have ended up with all 4 group winners in the same Super 8 group and there has to be something terribly wrong with a system that allows that to happen!!!
If the Super 8s were based on performance in the groups, then it would have looked like this:
Group E
Aus
S.L
Ind
Eng
Group F
Pak
N.Z
S.A
W.I
Kersi Meher-Homji said | May 11th 2010 @ 12:52pm | Report comment
See what you mean, Sportz.
But the system is faulty.
In Wimbledon, you don’t seed players 1 to 16 in 2010 by how they went in Wimbledon 2009 but how they fared in all major tournaments throughout the year. Or am I wrong?
sheek said | May 11th 2010 @ 4:31pm | Report comment
Kersi,
Is there a T20 world cup at the moment?
As you know, I love my cricket, but I haven’t followed a single moment of this tournament.
No doubt the ICC will make stack of money from TV rights, sponsors & merchandising, which perhaps is the only purpose of the exercise, but a T20 world cup?
Sorry ICC, but I couldn’t care less…..
vinay verma said | May 11th 2010 @ 5:14pm | Report comment
Sheek,I must confess that I watched Australia play India,and it reinforced my opinion about the lack of quality cricket in the just concluded IPL..except the fielding. At least in this world cup the quality of the cricket is better than the IPL.
The Indian weakness against the short ball is not so much a matter of technique as it is mental. Raina and Gambhir,all 5 foot nothing of them,tried to play the short ball at the body by jumping two feet in the air. They would be better off keeping their feet on the ground and flicking the ball over the keeper. But in their keeness to score of every ball they lashed out when they should have been using the pace of the ball.
Rohit Sharma looks the best equipped against the short ball and played a good knock after the first few overs.And he was an afterthought selection. Dhoni and Kirsten,the coach.have to take the blame.
India will want to beat Sri lanka today otherwise the players will not fetch the premium at the next slave auction.
amy_p said | May 11th 2010 @ 6:27pm | Report comment
Since the 2009 competition, Australia has performed brilliantly in Twenty20 games not to mention their unrivalled dominance in the fifty over form of the game. Kersi, your point about tennis Grand Slams is exactly right: seedings are based on current form as well as their history on the surface. Australia has clearly been dominant recently and our reputation is impeccable. The competition is now paying for their lack of foresight, which isn’t helping their cause during football season.
vinay verma said | May 11th 2010 @ 7:14pm | Report comment
amy_p, its a good point you make about the Aussie domination of the 50 over game. Ponting’s team went through undefeated in the last World Cup in the West Indies. Aussie sides have a special affinity for the West Indies and it probably suits their laid-back style. This side is now four from four and three more games to go. Coincidentally you also have to win SEVEN matches to win a grandslam tennis tournament.
Rabbitz said | May 12th 2010 @ 10:09am | Report comment
When did we revise history and rename ODI’s or “One Dayers” as Fifty50 games? Especially those played in 1987?
There also seems to be a Twenty20 World Cup each year, is that correct or is the fact that Twenty20 has completely blunted my interest in cricket the reason it feels like it?
Sportz said | May 12th 2010 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
It’s not called a “World Cup” though. That’s the name given to the 50 over version at the moment (which as you point out are supposed to be called ODIs). And that event is every 4 years. This is simply called the “World Twenty/20″ and it seems to be an annual event. And I can only think of one reason why….. greed. Having it every year devalues it. But then, all cricket seems to be devalued by 20/20 cricket.
amy_p said | May 12th 2010 @ 1:55pm | Report comment
That’s a great point. The World Twenty20, along with the IPL, is a competition cashing in on the shorter action-packed version of the game. To give it some potential for a tiny bit of credibility a 4 year or even 2 year gap would suffice and possibly generate further interest and profit; but, any likelihood of that seems to be taken away by the dancers and poorly-selected medley of songs.
Timmuh said | May 15th 2010 @ 3:12pm | Report comment
Both 50 and 20 over cricket are “limited overs”, just the limit changes. Both are also usually, but not always, held in “one day” Sometimes after rain the game was continued rather than re-started on the following day, which is presumably why they are officially listed as Limited Overs mathces instead of One Day matches. It does make sense to differentiate between the two somehow, calling the limited overs doesn’t do that because they are both in that category.
The main problem with labelling them as 50 over games is that many of the early “limited overs” games, including the first three world cups, were 60 over matches.
Kersi Meher-Homji said | May 12th 2010 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
Well, more of an evolution than a revolution, Rabbitz. Like travelling time, length of one-day internationals is decreasing from 60 overs in the initial World Cups 1975, 1979 and 1983 to 50 overs in the following World Cups. And now running parallel is the 20 overs tamasha (Indian word for ornate gaudy show). Why World T20s should be staged every year is beyond me. It should be once every four years.
As both the 50 over and 20 over versions are running parallel these days I used Fifty50 to distinguish between the two limited over internationals. Officially it is NOT renamed. Just my perhaps clumsy way of differentiating the two one-day internationals.
But World T20 should teach ICC a lesson in seeding counties for the 2011 World Cup (50 overs variety). Excuse me for beating on the same drum, seeding Australia 9 (below Bangladesh) was a huge faux-pas. You just cannot go only by the previous World Cup results. Else for the 2011 50Fifty World Cup, Ireland and Bangladesh will be seeded above India and Pakistan, going by the 2007 shock results.
Like in tennis grandslam events, overall performances should be considered in seeding, and not performance only in the previous World Cup.