Are the World Cup semi-finalists already locked in?

Totally disagree bobbo and I have no idea where your getting your vibes from. This side is enjoying success but know they can do better. Of course they're going to be disappointed when things don't go their way, but Finch has them playing good, positive cricket. Sure they'd love to have had Jhye Richardson and Hazlewood in the team but not to be.

I didn't think Bangladesh would get close to the Windies score either bobbo, but they made those runs easily. On paper, your right for sure but as is the case in this sort of event, upsets can and will happen. I certainly wouldn't write off the Saffers in this game, as it doesn't take much for one side to beat another.

I think they are an unhappy side. Finch's reaction to the runout the other day was telling. Finch had finally built a winning side before Warner and Smith returned and with Kawaja moved now from his favoured opening spot and others discarded, I just get the vibe they are not a tight unit. To beat India in India was a fine effort and they should have taken that side to the WC. They finally looked settled and blokes knew their role - the shuffling to bring the big guns in has upset the dynamic.

If NZ play anywhere near its potential, SA will not win. The NZ top 6 is much stronger and more reliable, they bat deeper and I would argue bowl and field better than an aging SA with injuries. Amla was a superstar who is fading and I just don't see enough runs in the top 6. Maybe if deKock or Du plessis have a blinder but without Steyn, and ABD, NZ is the much better side. I called it that SA would struggle before the WC and they worse than I thought.

I think the format for the WC is okay. I preferred the super sixes approach, but it is not ideal for ticketing to have so many unknown match-ups. Had the rain affected the top-4 sides playing against the others, it would have flattened it out, but not in a good way. Instead, we have a fairly clear top-4 and top-2 which pretty much everyone would have expected. What has sucked is the under-performance of SAF, SL, WI, AFG and PAK (excl. Mohammad Amir). Only BAN has exceeded expectations.

Yeah I haven't done the math either. I guess let's see what happens with Bangladesh tomorrow (and maybe NZ tonight). May result in the "meaningless" games being about 1/3 for the tournament, which seems about on par.

All tournaments (except straight knock-out I guess) can have a share of dead games, but without doing the maths I think this set-up allows for a greater share. Take the FIFA WC, it would be hard for more than one-third of group games to be dead rubbers. More often than not, even that only occurs in about a quarter of the groups.

If you want to get Aussie cricket captains blood pressure to rise by 100 points, ask Mark Taylor, Allan Border, Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting about "dead rubbers". They absolutely hated losing that last game of a series and even today, will still be angry if asked about the ones they did lose.

agreed. As I said below to another poster, a game of cricket is still a contest in itself. It's why I dislike the reference in Test cricket to "dead rubbers".

Yes, but aren't all (sports) tournaments like that? There will always be a gradation of better teams to lower-preforming teams. So there's a natural progression of the cream rising to the top. You can expand the field of teams, but run the risk of even more "meaningless" games at the back end of the group stage (though I don't subscribe to the notion of meaningless games; any game of cricket is a contest in itself and should be enjoyed for the intra-game tussles and performances it throws up). But if you do expand the field of participating teams and want less "meaningless" matches, then you need to go back to a Super Sixes scenario or Quarter Finals approach, prior to the SFs. The problem with this (at least with QFs) is you have a really long lead-in group stage (or you play "pools" where not every team plays every other teams, which I think impacts on the integrity of the comp) and are then faced with a series of "cut-throat" games where one bad day means you are out. The soultion to that would be to play best of 3 QFs/SFs, but that isn't practical because you end up with a 3 month tournament overall. I'm ok with the format for this WC. Scheduling it in June in England may have been the bigger issue.

I've mentioned elsewhere, perhaps the ICC could at least give the higher-ranked SF winner the choice to bat/field in the Final and do away with the toss. At least then there is some context/incentive to finishing higher in the SF stage.

I don't think our batsmen are that bad - particular reference to UK, S Marsh, Maxwell - it's our lack of flexibility to have players play in positions that suit - or more to the point, don't suit - them, depending on the circumstances of the match at hand. That's why it has to be one of UK/SM only, with 2 big hitters/fast scorers in middle/lower order. But that's the problem - our lynchpin issue is we decided that Stoinis would come off, but he hasn't (yet) and that is severely limiting our ability to adapt to the match situation. Plus we don't bat deep.

so I assume you're not going to bother to watch any of this McBumble? After all, according to you, this Australian cricket generation is so bad, we're going to not make the final of the WC and lose the Ashes. Hope you enjoy the various codes of footy or perhaps the womens cricket instead?

completely agree Brian. I think every team in this sort of tournament needs a "wake up" loss and NZ is yet to have theirs. No reason why the Saffers can't beat them if they play to the best of their ability.

I'm not sure they are locked in yet, but it does show yet another downside of this format. A World Cup which not only excludes the world, but also could have almost half the matches being meaningless.

Ya right now, this semifinals qualifications make no sense, u can just squeeze into and win world cup like Pakistan did in 1992. What is the point of teams coming no 1 in the table. They should have either implemented IPL format, or give team whoever qualifies as no 1 to finals, all other three teams, 3 vs 4, winner plays 2, winner goes to finals play team 1. This way u are giving motivation for teams to qualify as no 1.

Yeah you’re right it would. However the most likely outcome is wins for Aust and NZ and we can probably the shut the book on the top 4. Despite being mid way through the group. Unless semis are rained out there is much difference in where abouts you finish in the top 4 either.

If aus don't win against Bangladesh, I think they going to semi will be very very hard, all the next three oppenents they face, are difficult matches. Even though SA might look easy, what motivation they require than throw Aus out of world cup, like aus did to them 20 yrs ago. But for tournament sake, if Bangladesh beat Aus and Sa beat Nz, would keep interest in semi finalists for few more days.

Still would be nice if South Africa beat NZ tonight and throw things open.

Our problem is that our last three matches are against dangerous opponents. England, NZ and SA have all troubled Australia at various times since the last World Cup. We can't look too far ahead though. The Bangladesh game will be no gimme.