Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Analysis of World Twenty20 2009 Groups

Let me caveat this post right up front. THERE ARE HUGE ASSUMPTIONS I AM USING!!! I have been burned by this before (WC 2007), but apparently I have not learned my lesson.

OK, now I will proceed. In a previous post, I posted the schedule for the 2009 World Twenty20 in England next June. The groups were actually decided many months back, but I never really looked at them until now. So here's a basic analysis.

First off, just like the ODI WC 2007 (and I believe the previous T20 WC as well), teams are assigned a "seeding" which they carry with them into the (poorly termed) "Super-8s".

e.g. Pakistan are B1 in the group stage. They will be B1 for Super-8 purposes too. If one of the seeded teams is knocked out (now, would that ever happen???), then the team that qualifies in its place assumes its seeding. e.g. if West Indies qualify instead of Sri Lanka, they will assume Sri Lanka's seeding of C2.

Logistically, this is pretty good. Competitively, this is not a really great idea. Unlike in the ODI WC 2007, all Super-8 teams will not end up playing each other. So it could be that one Super-8 pool is composed of all second place teams from the group stage, and the other is composed of all first place teams.

Anyhow, here are the initial groups and the "seedings":

A1 India
A2 Bangladesh
A3 Zimbabwe

B1 Pakistan
B2 England
B3 Associate1

C1 Australia
C2 Sri Lanka
C3 West Indies

D1 New Zealand
D2 South Africa
D3 Associate2

Now, the Super-8 groups are already fixed too, and they are:



Using basic algebra, AND ASSUMING THAT THERE ARE NO MASSIVE UPSETS (wow, this sounds so familiar!), this is what the Super-8 groups will look like:

Australia/West Indies
South Africa

Sri Lanka/West Indies
New Zealand

Obviously, Group E is the tougher group. IF (and the "if" is capitalized and bolded for serious emphasis) Pakistan make it to the Super-8s, they could potentially get to the semis without ever playing Australia, South Africa, or India.

Lucky for Pakistan (hey, I shouldn't complain), but not so great from a competition perspective. Given that all the Super-8 matches are in London itself (albeit different grounds), they should have made Super-8 groups based on standings at the end of the group stage. So two first placed teams, and two second placed teams in each group. That would have made more sense.

BTW, many of the second round matches are double headers, so you could, get to see matches like India vs Australia, and Pakistan vs Sri Lanka/West Indies on the same ground, same day.

Once again, please take into account the assumptions I have made. Pakistan and India have shocked and pissed off their fans before - I know this way too well!. They can do it again!

Make your pitch on this post...

Labels: , , , ,

1 Pitched:

  1. Q said...

    That is a major mismatch... I'm trying to think how this is different from the 2007 World 20-20 - they've increased the teams and added 2 associate nations. Thats good as 20-20 is where they belong.

    But the mismatch is not good.

    India have a way too easy Group in the 1st round. Being champions means u get an easy walk to the next round?

    And then India, SA, and Aus pooled together? Man thats tough!

Post a Comment