Of the 45 matches scheduled for the group-stage of the 2019 World Cup, four of them were abandoned without a result. Two of them impacted the make-up of the four teams playing in the semi-finals.
On 7 June, persistent rain and a wet outfield caused the match between Pakistan and Sri Lanka to be abandoned without a ball being bowled. Pakistan would have entered this game feeling very confident of their chances.
In the past two years, Pakistan have played six completed matches against Sri Lanka and won them all in convincing fashion. In the closest match, Pakistan still chased down Sri Lanka’s total with three wickets and 31 balls to spare.
On 13 June, the match between India and New Zealand was also abandoned due to rain. India would have entered this game as clear favourites against the Black Caps.
India have emerged victorious in six of the last eight completed matches against New Zealand. India’s recent strong record against New Zealand applies regardless of the match conditions. In January 2019, they played a five-game one-day series in NZ, which was won 4-1 by India.
As conditions in New Zealand are reasonably similar to England, India would have been favourites to beat their antipodean opposition.
New Zealand and Pakistan finished the group stage of the 2019 World Cup tied on 11 points with the Kiwis’ superior net run rate seeing them qualify for the first semi-final against India.
However, had either one of these abandoned matches been played, the situation could have been different. If Pakistan has been able to defeat Sri Lanka or had New Zealand lost to India, then Pakistan would have qualified for the semi-finals instead of New Zealand.
(Harry Trump-IDI/IDI via Getty Images)
None of this is to say that New Zealand didn’t deserve to qualify for the final four. All teams went in to this tournament knowing there were no reserve match days and that net run rate would be a tiebreaker.
It was Pakistan’s heavy loss to the West Indies and New Zealand’s thrashing of Sri Lanka that played a great role in the final standings.
This result shows the flaws in the ICC’s decision not to schedule reserve days for the duration of the tournament.
ICC chief Dave Richardson said these abandonments were due to “extremely unreasonable weather”.
This statement would be reasonable if the World Cup was being played in the drier climates of the sub-continent. However, the amount of rain seen in this tournament is not unusual for an English summer.
In May, June and July, the major cities in England have an average of ten to 14 rainy days. Not all of these rainy days cause abandonment of a cricket match, but it is also far from unlikely that matches in England will be impacted by the weather.
The other ICC argument against scheduling reserve days is that it would increase the length of the tournament. This is another claim that does not stand up to scrutiny.
During the group stage, no teams played on consecutive days and they generally had breaks of three to five days between matches. It may not have been necessary to add days to the overall schedule.
Also, as England is a relatively small nation with a strong transport network, it is less impactful on the teams if a reserve day is used and there is a shorter time to travel to the next match.
Ultimately, it is the ICC’s responsibility to organise a tournament that gives each of the competing nations the fairest possible chance to lift the trophy.
The decision not to schedule reserve days for the group stage was inconsistent with this responsibility and could have potentially impacted the final standings of the 2019 World Cup.
deepoz
Roar Rookie
fair enough.... :-)
Pedro The Fisherman
Roar Rookie
Why? NZ's Semi Final win (well played) does not change the fact that the weather helped them qualify to play that match in the first place. That is what the article is saying! Chip ... Shoulder ... NZ.
Pedro The Fisherman
Roar Rookie
Nope, not for mine. The Ashes are a must win, and the biggest event in World Cricket for Aussies (and I suspect for the English). The rest are simply nice-to-have trophies!
deepoz
Roar Rookie
I live in Australia since long and understand the passion for Ashes. But it doesn't change the fact that a world event has to be given higher billing than a bilateral series.
Danny
Roar Pro
Well this article certainly didn't age well.
Pedro The Fisherman
Roar Rookie
Is the World Cup really more important than the Ashes? I guess it depends upon where you live!
Paulo
Roar Rookie
“New Zealand maintained a good NRR only because of one match.” But isn’t the argument Pakistan only had a poor NRR because of one game?
Jeff
Roar Rookie
I’m no maths whiz either, but it looks like Pakistan’s tournament performance compared to New Zealand’s performance was the equivalent of losing a game by about 300-350 runs (i.e. the equation Pakistan was left with against Bangladesh, to jump over NZ).
deepoz
Roar Rookie
Length of a series shouldn't dictate its importance. World cup is more prestigious and important than ANY bilateral series. PERIOD! If ICC can't ensure that it's a pity. Ashes could have been shifted.
Brasstax
Guest
Could have, would have and if my aunty were as man she would have been my uncle. The only reason Pakistan found themselves out was because they played poor cricket and were unprofessional as usual not just on thee field but their support and planning staff off it. The rules were known to them prior to the tournament and thee fact that NRR could become crucial. And inspire of the heavy defeat against WI there seemed to be absolutely no intent to try and improve their NRR throughout the subsequent games they played.
Paul
Roar Guru
Cameron, did you do any maths to support this article? I'm no numbers whiz, but I do know the Black Caps finished with an NRR of +.175 and Pakistan finished with an NRR of - .430. In other words, Pakistan had to make up a difference of 0.605 just to equal the Kiwis. You're suggesting this could have been done in just one game, which I find very difficult to believe. I completely agree that there should have been no abandoned games, but all sides knew the rules before the tournament started, so 4 teams suffered the fates of the weather. To suggest though, one game could have turned around this NRR to make Pakistan a semi's contender, doesn't sit with me at all. In other words, I'd love to see the numbers that would support this claim. To me, Pakistan loses were too large compared to Kiwi loses in the early games, which meant New Zealand rightly took it's place in the finals.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
NRR - which is determined by runs scored vs balls faced, for and against - across a large sample size (the tournament) is a better indicator of a team's "worthiness" to advance based on overall tournament performance against all participants. Remember, it is "net" run rate, so within a game both teams, mostly, have the same conditions affecting them. Granted, across a tournament you could have a situation where one team has a run of conditions/pitches that are difficult to bat on, where as another team has the opposite. But the same principle applies - a team with "low-scoring" pitches may score low runs, but so does their opponent, so the "net" outcome is the same.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
That's not called for, Gurliveen.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
In that situation, then the next tier of classification would be NRR to break the deadlock. However NRR ahead of head-to head, as it is now, is the correct approach.
La grandeur d'Athéna
Roar Rookie
Hi, sorry i am not familiar with Australian Rules Football. But i believe there is an option similar to NRR in which a team has to defeat another team by particular numbers of goals to go through in case of being tied. But my query about this, is how fair it will be to cricket given Cricket is dictated by pitch condition that is in turn, dictated by weather? Football is not nearly as dependent as cricket on surface, so it ensures equality. But in cricket, is that really possible?
La grandeur d'Athéna
Roar Rookie
Hi, i believe you are saying the same thing i was trying to say. A team which has a good match can not be counted over a team that has performed consistently. But that one match has two likely scenario. First is NRR booster. If you take a look at points table, You can see England has highest NRR though they are third position in the table. NRR does not take pitch,weather or ranking into consideration. Number four team in point table has no win against any of team that ranks higher than them when number five team has three wins from five matches against teams that rank higher than them. The another scenario is the one i was trying to draw your attention to. Here two teams have same amount of win and battling for semi final. When we are talking about semi final we would like to believe teams that have performed against all possible odds and are somehow similar in all over strength. Do not you believe result of straight shootout between them would be more fair? This is just my thinking. Another thing you have said, surface and weather is not in our control. Then why are we expecting a team to perform against this odds that is not in our control? If NRR can somehow be designed to take take pitch and weather in consideration ,condition that overwhelmingly dictates game of cricket than possibly any other games , only then NRR can be more fair i believe ???? The scenario of India and New Zealand being tied in 11 points due to a washout is more of ICC’s fault i would say :-p
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Hi Ruchika, I agree it could be an improbable scenario, but still probable so you have to have a solution for that. Actually in Australian Rules football we use the same concept as NRR to separate teams on the same points. We call it percentage - points kicked for and against, across the season.
PB
Guest
Head to head was the only fair tie-breaker in a sport so affected by weather and the toss. The mistake was making net RR the higher priority for 4th v 5th.
Nik
Roar Rookie
How do you ensure that the surface doesn't change or for that matter weather doesn't change? None is in your control. You play on the surface provided. NZ's NRR was boosted because of one match...true...but you are forgetting that they played extremely well in that match. Unfortunately they couldn't do it for the remainder of the matches and in case of India's match it didn't happen at all due to rain. So how do you decide who goes ahead if it was India and NZ tied on 11 points? A team which had just one good match or a team which consistently had secured resounding victories?
La grandeur d'Athéna
Roar Rookie
NRR tells how well a team played during league stage only if you ensure all surface's quality are measured in same matrix and it remains same for all the teams and matches regardless of weather. After first one or two matches New Zealand and West Indies's NRR was sky high. New Zealand maintained a good NRR only because of one match.