Women's T20 World Cup 2020

[Alviro Patterson]

Schedule wise there was little wriggle room for reserve days when the final group stage match was completed on Tuesday. Lengthening the tournament to accommodate reserve days was probably not an option when the women's game generates so little income.

Logistics also play a part too. Say if Semi Final 2 had a reserve day on Saturday at Adelaide but the winning team experienced delays en-route to Melbourne for Sunday's Final, the complaints and criticism would be greater.

[sussexpob]

A competition is only as good as the level of integrity and fair play on display, so I think its fair to say this tournament has been rendered a joke. In the past when it rained for a week solid, you dont see Wimbledon's organizers removing rounds of the tournament to progress people of higher rank or who won by bigger margins in early rounds.... just so the tournament can finish on time. Nope, they move the final back and make sure all the matches are played, regardless of how many tickets you sell on a work day.

If you are telling me the ICC and Australia are incapable of finding a venue to host 3 hours of cricket in 3 days, then I dont believe you. Anything is better than kicking a team out of a tournament, so quite literally if that means sending them to the only available school field to have a match to decide it, do it. Its a game of cricket, if 22 old guys in rural Devon can arrange to play teams at late notice when others pull out, I struggle to understand how the world's authority and a powerhouse nation cant find a single venue to complete a game at short notice. And if they cant, move the final back.

Lets be honest here, this is about money. Cant have a premier final moved to accommodate a worthwhile competition because tickets have been sold. The ICC care more about refunding tickets than the integrity of the game.

Its only cricket that seems to have this issue. I couldnt imagine any other sport deciding the destiny of its showpiece tournament final on the basis of a game to decide being postponed. Could you imagine the Champions League semi-final being decided because a game had to be called off for a freak storm?

Nah. They'd play it on a school field somewhere at 8am in the morning if they had to.

[Durhamfootman]

wasn't there a case where 2 countries in the FIFA WC had to draw straws or something? Was it the last WC? They were equal in every way to progress to the KO's but only one of them could.

I'll have to look it up, but yeah..... this situation could have been avoided if there had been the will to do it. I can virtually guarantee that future tournaments will incorporate more safeguards to avoid this happening again

[Durhamfootman]

Ah........ 2014 WC

If Iran and Argentina had won their final group matches by the same margin, then Iran and Nigeria would have had to draw lots to see which team progressed to the KO's. As it happened Iran could only draw their final match 0-0, so it was averted

Apparently back in 1954 Spain failed to qualify for the WC because they were in a 2 team group (just them and Turkey) they won one 4-1 and lost the other 1-0, but goal difference didn't count so they had to contest a play off match at a neutral venue which ended up 2-2 and so lots were drawn and Spain lost

[Durhamfootman]

Liverpool beat Cologne in a Euorpean Cup match in 1965 on a coin toss

Both legs finished 0-0, then the playoff in Rotterdam ended 2-2 after extra time, so the match was decided on a coin toss after 300 minutes of football

Reflecting on the incident, Yeats said: "I got in first to the referee and said 'I'll have tails'. Lucky for me the referee said, 'OK. Liverpool tails, Cologne heads.'

"Up it went and it stuck in a divot. I said to the referee, 'Ref, you're going to have to retoss the coin'. And he went 'You're right, Mr Yeats.'

"I thought the German captain was going to hit him. He was going berserk because it was falling over on the heads. He picked it up, up it went again, and came down tails.

"We were coming off and who is standing there but Bill Shankly. I was first off the pitch and he went 'Well done, big man. I am proud of you. What did you pick?'

"I said 'I picked tails, boss'. I was waiting for the adulation but he just went 'I would have picked tails myself' and walked away."

obviously they hadn't come up with the concept of a penalty shoot out back then



nothing to do with the Women's World T20, of course, but I thought it was quite interesting.

[sussexpob]

There was the 2015 African Cup of Nations, but its not really comparable. Mali or Guinea got knocked out, I cant remember which one, but both had to flip a coin or draw a lot. But its not the same, Morocco had been due to host the tournament but pulled the plug when Ebola kicked in, so the tournament was moved at the very last minute at much haste. I think the story went that they removed the usual rule that if the sides are equal on points/goals etc, they would meet somewhere before the knocks for a penalty shoot out.... but because the tournament was arranged on the fly, they removed it logistical problems.

All the others would be settled by penalties now, I think

[GarlicJam]

you lot - and especially you, Sussex, I think - were fine when England drew their way to the world championship. "that's the roolz".

A bit of compassion for the Kiwis to be so unlucky, but thems the breaks, eh?


I'm just pleased that Aus got to play their game....

[Alviro Patterson]

A competition is only as good as the level of integrity and fair play on display, so I think its fair to say this tournament has been rendered a joke. In the past when it rained for a week solid, you dont see Wimbledon's organizers removing rounds of the tournament to progress people of higher rank or who won by bigger margins in early rounds.... just so the tournament can finish on time. Nope, they move the final back and make sure all the matches are played, regardless of how many tickets you sell on a work day.

If you are telling me the ICC and Australia are incapable of finding a venue to host 3 hours of cricket in 3 days, then I dont believe you. Anything is better than kicking a team out of a tournament, so quite literally if that means sending them to the only available school field to have a match to decide it, do it. Its a game of cricket, if 22 old guys in rural Devon can arrange to play teams at late notice when others pull out, I struggle to understand how the world's authority and a powerhouse nation cant find a single venue to complete a game at short notice. And if they cant, move the final back.

Lets be honest here, this is about money. Cant have a premier final moved to accommodate a worthwhile competition because tickets have been sold. The ICC care more about refunding tickets than the integrity of the game.

Its only cricket that seems to have this issue. I couldnt imagine any other sport deciding the destiny of its showpiece tournament final on the basis of a game to decide being postponed. Could you imagine the Champions League semi-final being decided because a game had to be called off for a freak storm?

Nah. They'd play it on a school field somewhere at 8am in the morning if they had to.

When the final group stage game was completed 48 hours before Semi Finals (Tuesday) and the Final being played 72 hours afterwards (Sunday), yes it is difficult to find three days to ensure a Semi Final fixture is fulfilled.

DIfference is, Wimbledon is played in one location and has something like 20 tournament standard courts. Any matches delayed to weather (particularly early tournament), can be rearranged and not adversely affect the overall itinerary.

It is unreasonable to play a Semi Final of an ICC event on a school playing field when facilities and playing surfaces are not suitable.

Like it or not, it is about money because tournaments are not cheap to host and especially in a huge country like Australia. Say if the T20 Final got moved back to Monday and the ICC are forced to issue refunds approaching seven figures (emember 50k tickets already sold), chances are prize money would be slashed to recover the shortfall, *cue faux outrage that women are not getting equal prize money to men*

[Alviro Patterson]

you lot - and especially you, Sussex, I think - were fine when England drew their way to the world championship. "that's the roolz".

A bit of compassion for the Kiwis to be so unlucky, but thems the breaks, eh?


I'm just pleased that Aus got to play their game....

Quite right, if it was England who got through to the final on a washout rule it would barely get mentioned. IIRC, these tiebreakers apply in the Royal London Cup knockout stages.

Strange how when a rule gets criticised, it is always just before/after the affected match is played and not before the tournament takes place.

[ianp1970]

Another bizarre ending to a football match, courtesy of Wikipedia:

On January 27, 1994, the Barbados national football team and Grenada national football team played against each other as part of the qualification round for the 1994 Caribbean Cup. Due to an unusual scoring rule, as well as the two teams' respective positions in the tournament, it was alternately in the best interest of first Barbados, then Grenada, to score an own goal. The result has been described as "one of the strangest football matches ever".[1][2]

The organizers of the tournament imposed a rule requiring all matches to have a winner and had chosen an unusual variant of the golden goal rule, which meant that the first goal scored in extra-time not only won the match, but also counted as double. Barbados started the match needing to win by a margin of at least two goals to qualify for the final tournament. When Grenada scored late in normal time to bring the scoreline to 2–1, Barbados deliberately scored an own goal to force extra-time, where they could get the two-goal winning margin they needed thanks to the unconventional golden goal rule.[1] This meant that for the last 3 minutes of the match, Grenada was trying to score on either their own goal, or the Barbados goal, as either outcome (either 3–2 or 2–3) would have advanced them to the finals. Ultimately, Barbados was able to prevent Grenada from scoring, obtained the 30-minute time extension, and scored the golden goal as hoped.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbados_4%E2%80%932_Grenada_(1994_Caribbean_Cup_qualification)

[Durhamfootman]

you lot - and especially you, Sussex, I think - were fine when England drew their way to the world championship. "that's the roolz".

An unfortunate situation and one that could have been avoided with better scheduling, but I don't think I have tried to suggest that England woz robbed, guv

England should have beaten SA in the first match. They have the better team, the better players (Knight and Sciver have out performed Kapp and Van Niekerk, and Ecclestone is better than anything SA have) and management made sure they were thoroughly prepared and acclimatised by playing the tri series before the warm ups. They can have no excuses. They were just a bit dozy in the first match, which in such a short tournament they couldn't afford to be. Maybe they'll learn this lesson

[sussexpob]

you lot - and especially you, Sussex, I think - were fine when England drew their way to the world championship. "that's the roolz"

I actually stated a preference for a system that would have won NZ the game, and would argue that my point is consistent with the current one; that a game must be decided on the basis of what happens in that game alone, and not what happens in other games. See below.

The method of victory would upset me as a kiwi, but someone has to win. This idea I've seen some places that it should be a tie....sorry, you can't have a tie in a world cup final.
.
You can't also have results in previous games as a tie breaker. Such things can decide leagues, but cannot decide one off games; it has to be something inside that game that seperates....I grant it, wickets should be the method, in fact I'd have no super over unless runs and wickets are tied (is NZ win).....but they chose boundaries, those the rules.

I imagine some rules will change after today...namely runs off the bat from overthrows, and maybe tiebreaker ones too.

You have to feel for the Kiwis.....

[sussexpob]

When the final group stage game was completed 48 hours before Semi Finals (Tuesday) and the Final being played 72 hours afterwards (Sunday), yes it is difficult to find three days to ensure a Semi Final fixture is fulfilled

The current major league baseball champions played 28 matches in 30 days in the last month of their season, that included a 3,000 mile round trip with playing days either side, and 4 other 2,000 mile trips for away games. If you are seriously telling me its not possible for a cricket team to travel a little over an hour between two cities that have one of the most flight connections in the world while fitting in a 3 hour match somewhere in either, then I am failing to believe it.

DIfference is, Wimbledon is played in one location and has something like 20 tournament standard courts. Any matches delayed to weather (particularly early tournament), can be rearranged and not adversely affect the overall itinerary.

How many cricket grounds do you think Melbourne and Sydney has? The Victorian Premier League took place today with several venues hosting cricket games. Take Carlton Cricket Club, a mere 15 minutes from the MCG by car. They play at a ground with a near 25,000 capacity, and as for suitability of their facilities for a decent enough standard, have had plenty of International caps play for them; in fact, one squad at this tournament has 7 of their former players in their team, so I think that would be pretty conclusive as to the likelihood the pitch is to a good enough standard to host an emergency game.

You telling me that it would have been impossible to play this match on that ground this morning? Fans travelling to see the potential final would likely already be in Melbourne, a small cricket club would be flat out mad not to reschedule to play at the away teams ground on the hope of selling a bucket loads of tickets and making a pretty penny. And even if they rejected, it leaves you half the teams in the league playing away, so you have a massive choice of venues that would be empty. And again, why would those clubs reject to host the game if the ground is not being used? Id imagine ground would fight tooth and nail for the right to get a decent crowd in.

[sussexpob]

Like it or not, it is about money because tournaments are not cheap to host and especially in a huge country like Australia. Say if the T20 Final got moved back to Monday and the ICC are forced to issue refunds approaching seven figures (emember 50k tickets already sold), chances are prize money would be slashed to recover the shortfall, *cue faux outrage that women are not getting equal prize money to men*

Could you blame women observers for questioning the ICCs commitment to women's cricket when they scheduled a marquee double header at a venue which turns into a rainforest in the month of March. When is the last time the Australian cricket board scheduled an international in Sydney in March?

1985.

If the reasons why Australia dont play cricket in Sydney after February dont instantly become obvious, then the fact all four matches scheduled in this tournament in its second week (or March) in Sydney were subject to terrible weather might illuminate it. Two called off without a ball bowled, a third called off with no run chase taking place, and a fourth only 9 minutes from being called off. South Africa got a point for their washout, it knocked out England because their game was washed out. Thailand scored the highest women's T20 score made in a match in Sydney, then the rain came and they now no longer qualify for the 2022 tournament automatically because they were unable to defend it.

How does this look for the sport? Of course, I doubt the ICC care because they made some money. Not that the reputation hit will lead to less of it in the future, none of these people can see past tomorrow with their decision making. But its a sham still. It makes the sport look incompetent, and no short term profit can make that up. As a fan, I am now left wondering if I can fully invest in the T20 World Men's cup knowing this sham can replayed with no reserve days. I certainly wouldnt make plans to go to a tournament again, knowing the ICC would put their bottom line over my interests. Could you imagine traveling to watch the semi at massive cost, and being served up that? I'd never pay to watch a match again.

The ICC's opinion was that scheduling was too tight to make this tournament more than two weeks. The men play more than the women, so why is their tournament over double the length and double the matches when they have less time? This is pretty much saying the women arent worth the extra time and effort, which is a puzzling conclusion to make. They had the time to get this right and slot in the right tolerance for the weather, added to everything its absence is telling.

Im not obliged to give a sport my time, and you are perfectly entitled to make whatever decisions you want, as am I. But I wont be investing my time in sports that are so badly administered, it renders marquee tournaments a joke.

[GarlicJam]

As the ICC have their dream Final, considerations for any changes might be muted.

It was long stated (over a year ago, I first heard of it) that today, the ICC want to see a new world record set for attendance at a women's sporting event. Current record is 90,185 at the Pasadena Rose Bowl Stadium. Football WC Final, USA/China, 1999.

Forecast is for a sunny 23 degree day, with a 10% chance of rain, and less than 1mm. So, all the cards are in place, with the hosts v India being just what the ICC wanted. I heard last week that 60K tickets had already been sold, and this is before the final spots had been decided.

I reckon the crowd tonight will be close on 50/50 support for both sides. Probably slightly more Aus fans, but louder India fans. Should be a great occasion.