More »
Courtesy a friend of mine, I am just posting one scenario in which the brand new format, a solution from IPL honchos to the problem faced earlier when a team that emphatically topped the group only to lose in the Semis in a two-hour heist.
I think it can make it worse with a scenario where an even bigger injustice can be done. I will edit this later to add my summary on why this is so but here;s the scenario for now
SCENARIO A:
League Stage
MI - 1st - 24 Points
CSK - 2nd - 16 points
RCB - 3rd - 16 Points
KKR - 4th - 16 Points
Say, it is like this:
MI beat CSK in both league games and finish first in the group stages:
Game A - MI vs CSK (1st vs 2nd) - Winner goes to the final. Say MI is the winner .
Game B - RCB vs KKR (3rd vs 4th) - Winner goes to Game C. Say RCB is the winner.
Game C - CSK vs RCB (Game A loser vs Game B winner). Winner goes to the final. Say CSK is the winner .
Final - MI vs CSK.
Suppose CSK wins final
As I said, in this scenario, a team that has outshone all others through the tournament, and also played a one-off crunch game(play off) and beaten an opponent (already crushed by them in 2 league games)in that crunch game.
What are you telling them now? One MORE crunch game.
This is a bit like playing the tournament until your #2 wins a singe game against #1 and calling a stop when that happens, literally. In no way can we tell that #2 had proven themselves in crunch situations better than #1 nor can we say that #2 had a overall good record compared to #1.
This is clearly injustice, far worse than what happens when a #1 team loses a one-off semi finals(one CRUNCH game) after topping the group. Here, #1 won the group convincingly, won a crunch game, and still were told, win one more game. I just don't see it as #2 is better than #1 in any aspect at all, including facing crunch situations.
Get Entertained with all our IPL cartoons + posts, click here
I think it can make it worse with a scenario where an even bigger injustice can be done. I will edit this later to add my summary on why this is so but here;s the scenario for now
SCENARIO A:
League Stage
MI - 1st - 24 Points
CSK - 2nd - 16 points
RCB - 3rd - 16 Points
KKR - 4th - 16 Points
Say, it is like this:
MI beat CSK in both league games and finish first in the group stages:
Game A - MI vs CSK (1st vs 2nd) - Winner goes to the final. Say MI is the winner .
Game B - RCB vs KKR (3rd vs 4th) - Winner goes to Game C. Say RCB is the winner.
Game C - CSK vs RCB (Game A loser vs Game B winner). Winner goes to the final. Say CSK is the winner .
Final - MI vs CSK.
Suppose CSK wins final
As I said, in this scenario, a team that has outshone all others through the tournament, and also played a one-off crunch game(play off) and beaten an opponent (already crushed by them in 2 league games)in that crunch game.
What are you telling them now? One MORE crunch game.
This is a bit like playing the tournament until your #2 wins a singe game against #1 and calling a stop when that happens, literally. In no way can we tell that #2 had proven themselves in crunch situations better than #1 nor can we say that #2 had a overall good record compared to #1.
This is clearly injustice, far worse than what happens when a #1 team loses a one-off semi finals(one CRUNCH game) after topping the group. Here, #1 won the group convincingly, won a crunch game, and still were told, win one more game. I just don't see it as #2 is better than #1 in any aspect at all, including facing crunch situations.
Get Entertained with all our IPL cartoons + posts, click here
