PDA

View Full Version : How the WCT20 works


Raynman
April 28, 2010, 10:32 AM
Inevitably, there will be numerous posts and threads wondering who is playing who in the 2nd round so here is a proactive measure to put this out there for everyone's benefit.

The teams are as follows:

PAK (A1), SL (B1), SA (C1), WI (D1), ENG (D2), IND (C2), NZ (B2), BD (A2).

If Australia qualifies they become A1 if it is at the expense of PAK and A2 if at the expense of BD. BD will be A2 regardless of qualifying as champion or runners up in the group.

If the points are split Net RR will be used as a tie breaker but again only for qualifying purposes and not to determine A1 or A2.

The 2nd round opponents in that case would be:

D1 (WI or IRE), B1 (SL or ZIM), C2 (IND or AFG)

Semifinals will then be decided based on being able to finish amongst the top 2 in the
2nd round.

Dilscoop
April 28, 2010, 10:41 AM
Old news, We figured it out during 1st WC back in 07

Raynman
April 28, 2010, 10:43 AM
Old news, We figured it out during 1st WC back in 07

you're welcome ;)

Tigers_eye
April 28, 2010, 10:44 AM
Old news, We figured it out during 1st WC back in 07
No way you could figure out Australia to be #9 seed back in 2007.

Dilscoop
April 28, 2010, 11:00 AM
(after winning v the WI) I remember reading in cricinfo or something that, even if we had won vs SA, we wouldnt have been the group leader. We'd still be A2 or B2, which ever group we were in.

So its still the same, even if we win both the matches, we wont be A1, we will be A2. Its been like that from 2007, T20-1

Raynman
April 28, 2010, 11:34 AM
(after winning v the WI) I remember reading in cricinfo or something that, even if we had won vs SA, we wouldnt have been the group leader. We'd still be A2 or B2, which ever group we were in.

So its still the same, even if we win both the matches, we wont be A1, we will be A2. Its been like that from 2007, T20-1

DIfference is that had it been us and WI that qualified in 2007, we would have been A1 as the replacement to SA. In this scenario we don't have a chance of being either/or but only A2 as we are seeded which we were not in 2007.

AK420
April 29, 2010, 06:09 AM
All is well, if we win the wc

al-Sagar
April 29, 2010, 04:21 PM
No way you could figure out Australia to be #9 seed back in 2007.

but i could figure it out after the 2009 WC.

this is how it works.

champions- seed 1
runners up seed 2
semi finalists with higher relative place in 2nd group round - seed 3
semi finalist with lower relative place in 2nd group round - seed 4

5-6-7-8 are the teams that qualified to 2nd round but missed semifinals in the order of relative position in the 2nd group round

9-12 are the teams did not qualify for second round.

BUT ACTUALLY ONLT THE TEST TEAMS ARE RANKED, NOT THE ASSOCIATES as only test teams are sure to play WC. associates have to qualify.

thats why u wont find ireland in the top 8 seeds although they finished in the top 8.

now bd and aussies both were unable to win a game last season and u may find out that bd had a better run rate. thats why bd are ranked 8th and aussies 9th.

in short, test teams are ranked 1-9 according to their relative position in the last tournament

Ajfar
April 29, 2010, 08:46 PM
Raynmann bhai milestone thread er ki hoilo?

Raynman
April 30, 2010, 02:11 AM
Raynmann bhai milestone thread er ki hoilo?

http://www.banglacricket.com/alochona/showthread.php?p=1141578#post1141578

I opened it but it fell back as no one put comments there
<br />Posted via BC Mobile Edition

zman
April 30, 2010, 02:37 AM
but i could figure it out after the 2009 WC.

this is how it works.

champions- seed 1
runners up seed 2
semi finalists with higher relative place in 2nd group round - seed 3
semi finalist with lower relative place in 2nd group round - seed 4

5-6-7-8 are the teams that qualified to 2nd round but missed semifinals in the order of relative position in the 2nd group round

9-12 are the teams did not qualify for second round.

BUT ACTUALLY ONLT THE TEST TEAMS ARE RANKED, NOT THE ASSOCIATES as only test teams are sure to play WC. associates have to qualify.

thats why u wont find ireland in the top 8 seeds although they finished in the top 8.

now bd and aussies both were unable to win a game last season and u may find out that bd had a better run rate. thats why bd are ranked 8th and aussies 9th.

in short, test teams are ranked 1-9 according to their relative position in the last tournament
The above analysis tells me if we had won against Ireland--it would've eventually come down to net RR--there would've been a 75% chance of having one of the so called minnows (Ireland, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan) in our group. In other words we're still paying the price for our stupid mistakes in the last world cup. :hairpull:

auntu
April 30, 2010, 04:28 AM
Thanks Raynmann bhai.

Tigers_eye
April 30, 2010, 10:44 AM
Yes offstump (only when Australia bowed out), and zman. Ashrafuillah pura dubaisilo. We talked about it at time, at least I did.

al-Sagar
April 30, 2010, 11:00 AM
The above analysis tells me if we had won against Ireland--it would've eventually come down to net RR--there would've been a 75% chance of having one of the so called minnows (Ireland, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan) in our group. In other words we're still paying the price for our stupid mistakes in the last world cup. :hairpull:

u r right.

Ajfar
April 30, 2010, 07:49 PM
The above analysis tells me if we had won against Ireland--it would've eventually come down to net RR--there would've been a 75% chance of having one of the so called minnows (Ireland, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan) in our group. In other words we're still paying the price for our stupid mistakes in the last world cup. :hairpull:

actually if you think about it, it might be a blessing in disguise, do we really wanna face Afghanistan/zimbabwe? our team performs better when our backs are against the wall, thats one of the main reason why we made it to the 2nd round in world cup 2007 and T20 world cup 2007.