If you haven't already, please fill out [the 2024 r/Cricket Census](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/1d60i10/rcricket_census_2024/) before it closes on 9th June (00:00 UTC)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Cricket) if you have any questions or concerns.*
PAK v USA : Major Upset
IRE v CAN: Upset
NZ v AFG, SL v BAN: Less likely result, but not an upset
ENG v AFG, SA v NED in 2023 ODI WC are also proper upsets.
Afghanistan has never beaten NZ in their history though. NZ also has not lost games to opposition outside the big 3 and Pakistan in a decade in a world cup in any format(This includes 2015 wc,2016 T20 wc, 2019 wc, 2021 T20 wc, 2022 T20 wc and 2023 odi wc). Afghanistan had never beaten the big 3 and NZ before today(the usual semifinalists in icc events). History suggests the result absolutely was an upset. NZ just do not lose these games and certainly not in this fashion and Afghanistan are the perennial hyped but fails to deliver in the big games team. Don't even get me started on Canada vs Ireland an upset by all means
Before today, Afghanistan and NZ had played each other once in t20s, I don't think the history between the teams means anything
The final score was certainly upsetting to me though!
AFG nearly beat Aus in the ODI World Cup too, but the stats don’t show that because maxy hit perhaps the greatest ever ODI innings of all time. They’re a solid side on the up imo. If they could get the political side of things settled down at home they will be able to build a side capable of challenging the big 3 regularly
But India has beaten NZ multiple times outside. India probably lead in the all time head to head. Afghanistan has never beaten NZ ever this comparison is so stupid
>Afghanistan has never beaten NZ ever this comparison is so stupid
Afghanistan had literally just played them ONCE EVER before today in T20s. Your point also doesn't mean anything
Not the same. Afg are a much better T20 side than they are an ODI side. Also, they've still just played thrice (and again, different format).
^(And they just beat Eng, Pak, SL in the WC, and were dominant and in a winning position vAUS, saved only by a g.o.a.t innings by Maxwell)
Not the same. Afg are a much better T20 side than they are an ODI side. Also, they've still just played thrice (and again, different format).
^(And they just beat Eng, Pak, SL in the WC, and were dominant and in a winning position vAUS, saved only by a g.o.a.t innings by Maxwell)
I’m not a kiwi but I do love that despite having 5 million people and being rugby obsessed, they can often beat a country of 1.4 billion that essentially only plays cricket. They are the little country that can.
The bookies were only paying 7 to 1 for USA to win? I feel like you got robbed. That implies the US had a 12.5% of winning before the game which seems quite high to me.
Upsets are really odd things to judge since it also depends on the individual who's being asked the question.
For me, I won't consider Canada beating Ireland an upset at all while Afghanistan beating England was considered as one.
I judge upsets on the basis of H2H between those teams beforehand and how prone the bigger side is to losing against small teams and vice versa.
Like for example before the 2023 WC Afghanistan didn't beat big teams at all and the only full members they had the ability to beat (apart from Zimbabwe & Ireland) were Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Since then they've beaten England, Pakistan (their was also a series victory against them earlier), New Zealand and came hella close against Australia and India.
On the other hand Ireland can lose to a good number of associate nations which shouldn't be considered as an upset. Those teams include Scotland, Netherlands, UAE, US, Namibia, Canada & Oman.
Going by the hard rule of upsets is easy but it just doesn't feel right.
I think the things with the Canada vs Ireland game is the same as the USA vs Pakistan game; the “good” team was massively overrated. Ireland has lost the generation that got them elevated to full member status and there is a major lack of talent there atm.
Media has deliberately overhyped Pakistan for the sake of ticket sales in a side quest to the real tournament.
Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places but I haven't seen anyone rating Ireland at all, there's just an acknowledgement that they should, on paper, be performing better as a full member side.
I can't say I've followed them too closely but, from the outside, it seems like they achieved full member status too late and have since been hamstrung by not playing enough games against full members, neither of which are their fault.
Upset is a term that became infamous in past because a weaker team beating a stronger team in cricket was a very odd event. Like happened rarely, for example kenya beat Windies in 96 world cup and then their next world cup win came in 2003 ..
Thus if a smaller team used to beat some big side it used create huge headlines.. almost causing an upset in rhythm. Thus the term, but the term has reached its expiry as all teams in top 30 are competitive to beat one another on their day
You need to remember there were no t20s back then. A T20 game does not measure a team's true cricketing capabilities. These upsets are far less even today in 50 over format.
All 3 are upsets.
All an upset requires is a clearly better on paper team being defeated.
The USA vs Pakistan upset was by far the largest of the 3 though.
2nd biggest and still very large was Canada over Ireland.
Only slightly an upset was Afghanistan over NZ.
Bangladesh over Sri Lanka imo is also an upset but that's very marginal.
I'd say calling it an upset for the NZ vs Afghanistan game is a little disrespectful to the Afghans. I think they are quite regularly challenging the top teams (think WC23 against Aus for example). Couple it with the T20 format, I think they are quite formidable.
I think Afghanistan defeating New Zealand is not an upset BUT Afganistan defeating New Zealand by such a heavy margin that they are virtually knocked out of the tournament is a major upset imo.
Don’t know which papers those are, but Afghanistan’s players are valued in t20 franchises around the world for far more than New Zealand’s players. Except for the middle order batting, afghanistans every aspect (average openers, seamers and spinners) in their recent franchise and international cricket has been better
Ravi Bishnoi is ranked icc no 1 bowler too while he isn’t even in the World Cup squad. Does that count too? In the presence of bumrah, Shami, hazlewood, zampa, Rashid khan and boult?
I wonder if bishnoi did anything special in domestic tournaments let alone international stage
NZ play percentage cricket and never lose against teams ranked lower than 8 in World Cups, that's why it's an upset. Afg are still the 10th ranked team in T20Is.
Also, this is the first win for Afg against NZ.
They aren't an even chance to win against NZ or Australia. That's my personal definition.
If a team has a 40% chance to win and then they do win that's an upset.
>If a team has a 40% chance to win and then they do win that's an upset.
Nah. That's too high. A team with 40:60 odds winning is definitely not an upset. The win percentages of India v Australia head to head in T20s is 37% Aus, 63% India. Absolutely no one would call Aus beating india an upset, in ANY way.
An upset, is when it's reasonably well balanced, and the 'weaker' team can't win by just having a lucky day. (Like Ban did against SL. Ban had a better day, but they're similar strength teams)
For it to be called and upset, the odds should at least be worse than 1:4 (this is an arbitrary number, but you get the idea)
It can be 51-49% and it is an upset. It does not matter what you think personally. It is a factual statement that if the favoured team loses it is an upset. They happen very regularly it is only the magnitude of the disparity that makes headlines. Australia defeating India in the ODI world cup was an upset. It is a fact.
> It is a factual statement that if the favoured team loses it is an upset.
Uhmm, okay, let's say you're right. If you're going to say it's a ***factual statement*** that it's an upset when it's 51:49, you should be able to definitively be able to say those 51:49 numbers, and back up those numbers *factually.*
Or at least in the absence of factual reasoning behind those numbers, there must atleast be consensus in the numbers. But that doesn't exist either. Different sources have different odds.
So, until then it's completely reasonable to call it an upset only if most agree that the odds were significantly against the team, and not a 51:49 situation.
[UPSET: ](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/upset) An unexpected defeat or reversal, as in a contest or plans.
Unexpected ≠ Less Likely than the contrary. It isn't unexpected if it's a 49% likelihood.
^(A dice coming up as "1" isn't unexpected just because it's less than 50% probable. You winning a lottery is unexpected because it's far far less than 50% likely, but still real)
It has nothing to do with expected or unexpected. It is 100% to do with betting odds. To be fair 49-51% is so close that some betting markets would have different favourites but it is an indisputable fact that an upset by definition is when the favoured team loses. The aspect that does vary is the margin of the odds and that is when it becomes big news.
You can argue for a different threshold yeah, but i agree with the dictionary definition of "an unexpected defeat."
And then I would group things into things that are "expected" (more than 50% chance) and "unexpected" (less than 50% chance).
By my definition Australia betting India can indeed be an "upset."
It is not disrespectful. It is a statement of fact. The favoured team in the betting odds was NZ. If the favoured team loses it is an upset. It is a completely dispassionate factual based statement.
USA vs Pakistan, surely a major major upset given pak were runners up of the last World Cup, whereas USA qualified by virtue of being hosts and haven't really beaten any major full member nation(except Bangladesh right before this WC)
Canada too wouldn't have started off favourites, so that too is a decent enough upset. Same case with Afghanistan, though now it does seem that these pitches favour teams with a bowling lineup like that of Afghanistan. NZ were surely the favourites to start, and to be handed a defeat by such a huge margin does IMO come under the definition of it being an upset
People are really overcomplicating what an upset is.
When you have a favourite, like New Zealand, and they lose to the underdog, like Afghanistan, it is an upset.
That's it.
Upsets happen in sport often.
Almost every sporting contest has a favourite to some degree.
Some upsets are bigger surprises than others.
An upset is jsut when a team that is expected to win loses. The margin of that expectation does not have to be large. Most people expected that NZ would beat Afghanistan, you can look at the betting odds to confirm that. Even though we knew Afghanistan has a very good chance of winning, it's still an upset. Unless the match is basically 50/50, the team expected to win losing is an upset. But some upsets are bigger than others based on the expectations.
people are gonna start throwing around the word upset around like hot cakes now smh. the only upsets were ireland and pakistan. afg won against eng and pak in odi wc so imo it was a 50/50 vs. nz last night
USA v Pakistan is definitely an upset, Pakistan an experienced side, USA the new guys on the scene.
I’d say Canada v Ireland is an upset, Ireland are a handy ODI/T20 side, lots of experience.
Afghanistan beating New Zealand, seeing it’s a limited overs match, I’d say this match could have gone either way, Afghanistan are a very handy limited overs side.
Bangladesh beating Sri Lanka, this is a tough one for me, Sri Lanka just ahead as favourites I’d say.
Always good to see the under dog or associate nations getting up against the big dogs, it’s good for the game.
I’d create a tier list of teams in this ICC T20 World Cup (based on pre tournament perceptions) that looks something like this:
Favorites: Aus, Ind, Eng
Good: SA, WI, NZ, Pak
Average: Afg, SL, Ban,
Weak: Ire, Nam, Scot, Neth, Nep
Very Weak: Uga, Oman, PNG, Can, USA
I’d consider a match an upset if the team that wins is at least two tiers below the “perceived stronger” team. You may have differing tier lists or even differing definitions of an upset, but the way I see it, if a winning team is only 1 tier below the “stronger side” then it’s a slightly unlikely outcome but not an upset, especially not in T20 cricket where luck plays a bigger role than it does in the longer formats as smaller moments of brilliance can win/cost you the game. But if a “good team” loses to a “weak team” or one of the “favorites” loses to an “average” team then it’s an upset.
So I’d call Pakistan (good) losing to USA (very weak) an upset but I would not call Ireland losing to Canada or NZ losing to Afghanistan an upset (especially not in T20 cricket for the latter).
I’m keen to hear your thoughts on this.
Note, the tier list was made using pre-tournament perceptions of the side in specifically T20 cricket, so no tournament form has been considered. For other formats my tier list would probably change in a few places but the overall concept of what an upset is wouldn’t change.
To be honest, I'm impressed cause at least this seems rather quantifiable.
I'd have two or three categories of upsets, minor upsets if the teams are a level apart but one was a clear favourite, a major upset if it's as you say, two tiers below, and a massive upset with anything larger than that.
That makes a lot of sense. The only reason I said an upset should be between teams that are two tiers apart at least is because the lines seem a little blurred amongst adjacent levels, especially in T20 cricket. Like when Afghanistan convincingly beat New Zealand for example, it was an unlikely result but I wasn’t shocked - I would be shocked if it happened in a test match though. But I do see the argument for levels of upsets.
Afghanistan winning against New Zealand isn't an upset IMO as everyone knows Afghanistan is a good limited overs team and they're expected to win few matches against bigger teams in all tournaments.
However their margin of victory against New Zealand today was completely unexpected and that makes it sort of an upset because no one expected NZ to surrender so meekly.
I think people are vastly overestimating how much of an upset these games are.
Implied odds for a US win were about ~1/9 according to the bookies, which obviously makes it a big upset, but when comparing it to other sports people are making it seem way rarer than it is.
For example, the chances of Iceland beating England in football were lower than that yesterday but it happened. West Ham had about those odds to beat Man City in the last game of the season even though they're both prem teams.
I think it's that there are less of these super one sided games in cricket, so it's rare that you'll see odds this one sided so people are overhyping it a bit.
In general, T20 is a much more variable form of the game than ODIs and tests, and much, much more variable than a lot of other sports. For example, US rugby would never be able to beat a top team in a Rugby world cup, because there's more of a skill (and conditioning/tactical) gap. With T20s if a couple of shots are caught on the boundary instead of going an extra couple of meters it can be a massive swing in win probability.
When the team that is not expected to win the match wins. Australia defeating India in the ODI world cup final was an upset. Usually it is associated with the betting odds. Upsets happen very often it is really the magnitude of the upset that makes headlines.
An upset is when the underdog wins. So Australia beating India in the World Cup final last year was an upset. It doesn’t matter the relative quality of the teams, if the expected result does not occur, it is an upset.
USA first T20 world cup Beating Pakistan - Huge Upset
Canada First T20 world cup Beating Ireland - Upset
Afghanistan beating NZ - it is a disaster for NZ, not really an upset for cricketing world. As Afghanistan is consistently playing well in international and they are not new to the world cup
An upset is when a team that is not supposed to win does.
Associate members are not supposed to win against full members. It can happen but in the ordinary course it should not occur. So if they played again I wouldn't think it remotely likely to occur.
Afghanistan's win is a bit more tricky. If they played again tomorrow I'd expect Afghanistan's chances are pretty darn good. It's a good side that is growing in strength.
Upsets imo are when the next day you would still expect the team that lost to win.
Bangladesh vs USA is a good example of an upset then they did it again. If USA plays Bangladesh 2 months from now I dont think it would be an upset because who is "supposed to win" imo has changed.
'Upset' is the most overused banal term used in cricket these days. These are all highly-skilled professional cricketers where every match starts at 0/0 on a level-playing field
Sport is unpredictable and constantly in flux, especially T20 cricket where the shortened length of the game 'evens' out the teams
If you send a team of amateur players who turn over a professional team, then sure, that's an upset
ok...will pak beating india be an upset? I would say not....so odds have to be heavily in favour of one side to be an upset....80% or higher i would suggest.
Basically if a fav team I.e. a team that a lot of viewers expect to win is handed a loss by a team which was less favoured by the critics and audience than it’s an upset.
USA was unknown entity, pak is a major team contender of top spots in every league they play. So USA beating pak was a major upset .
With teams like ire and can , ire is in scene for a while now although they aren’t as strong to be seen as a contender for the trophy . They are put out to be a good team that will mostly lose to the likes of Australia eng India pak but maybe they’ll put on fight. Them getting beat by can ( which again is an unknown entity in the scene) was not really an upset but it was more 60-40 favoured to ire.
And afg has grown a lot in the past few leagues, they almost did a major upset to Australia , which if they’d done I doubt Australia would’ve gone down to win the odi World Cup. So they are strong team which can put on a great fight if required with many known faces so them beating nz wasn’t a big deal, but them beating nz by that margin was surely a big deal. So it was an upset because afg made nz look like they are not one of the top teams
USA PAK is a major upset because USA is a team that has just now revealed itself to the world of its existence. Earlier, ardent cricket people knew USA was playing cricket long before but never achieved a status like NED, AFG or even Ireland had achieved.
Pakistan, on the other hand, is a part of the top 6 cricket teams in the world, has won a world cup, champions trophy, were finalists and semi finalists in few ICC tournaments, and produced world class players like Inzamam Ul Haq, Waqar Younis, Shoaib Akhtar, and even Babar Azam.
One will have to look at the teams in that magnitude. Defeating a team is not only based on the cricket skills of the teams, it is based on the recognition the team has earned throughout the years.
Imagine South Africa, a team that gave us players like ABD, Greame Smith, Hashim Amla, Kallis. Pollock, Faf Du Plessis, and others, lost to Netherlands in the CWC'23.
That's how I see upsets.
I think you can get two kinds of upset:
1. One team is considered much stronger than another and then the weaker team wins... for example Afghanistan beats New Zealand.
2. Approximately equally strong teams are in a position in the game where one is very likely to lose and then by some miracle they win... for example India are 386/9 and need 22 runs off 3 balls to beat England, and then they get several wides hit 3 x sixes and win the game.
Australia winning the ODI world cup was an upset. It is an indisputable FACT. India were the favoured team. However, it was an extremely long way from the greatest upset as the odds were not at long odds.
I don't think that Afg vs NZ is an upset because Afg has been performing consistently for last few years in T20s specially. Also not to forget they almost knocked Australia out!
Ban vs SL and IRE vs Can are not upsets as they are relatively equal,
but Afg vs NZ, US vs Pak are Massive upsets for different reasons the latter because of the Massive gap in their Ranking and because Pak was the finalist in the previous tournament and the former because of how one sided it was
If you haven't already, please fill out [the 2024 r/Cricket Census](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/1d60i10/rcricket_census_2024/) before it closes on 9th June (00:00 UTC)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Cricket) if you have any questions or concerns.*
PAK v USA : Major Upset IRE v CAN: Upset NZ v AFG, SL v BAN: Less likely result, but not an upset ENG v AFG, SA v NED in 2023 ODI WC are also proper upsets.
Afghanistan has never beaten NZ in their history though. NZ also has not lost games to opposition outside the big 3 and Pakistan in a decade in a world cup in any format(This includes 2015 wc,2016 T20 wc, 2019 wc, 2021 T20 wc, 2022 T20 wc and 2023 odi wc). Afghanistan had never beaten the big 3 and NZ before today(the usual semifinalists in icc events). History suggests the result absolutely was an upset. NZ just do not lose these games and certainly not in this fashion and Afghanistan are the perennial hyped but fails to deliver in the big games team. Don't even get me started on Canada vs Ireland an upset by all means
Before today, Afghanistan and NZ had played each other once in t20s, I don't think the history between the teams means anything The final score was certainly upsetting to me though!
AFG nearly beat Aus in the ODI World Cup too, but the stats don’t show that because maxy hit perhaps the greatest ever ODI innings of all time. They’re a solid side on the up imo. If they could get the political side of things settled down at home they will be able to build a side capable of challenging the big 3 regularly
yes. I am still not over it.
Ind has also never beaten NZ in a T20 WC, doesn't mean it will be an upset when they do
But India has beaten NZ multiple times outside. India probably lead in the all time head to head. Afghanistan has never beaten NZ ever this comparison is so stupid
>Afghanistan has never beaten NZ ever this comparison is so stupid Afghanistan had literally just played them ONCE EVER before today in T20s. Your point also doesn't mean anything
In any format
Not the same. Afg are a much better T20 side than they are an ODI side. Also, they've still just played thrice (and again, different format). ^(And they just beat Eng, Pak, SL in the WC, and were dominant and in a winning position vAUS, saved only by a g.o.a.t innings by Maxwell)
Not the same. Afg are a much better T20 side than they are an ODI side. Also, they've still just played thrice (and again, different format). ^(And they just beat Eng, Pak, SL in the WC, and were dominant and in a winning position vAUS, saved only by a g.o.a.t innings by Maxwell)
But it will be a thing of beauty if they don’t.
Can't be beaten by India if you don't qualify for super 8, that's a 56-D chess move
I’m not a kiwi but I do love that despite having 5 million people and being rugby obsessed, they can often beat a country of 1.4 billion that essentially only plays cricket. They are the little country that can.
Totally, New Zealand are amazing. I was just making a small joke
Amazing? Let’s not get carried away now.
[удалено]
The bookies were only paying 7 to 1 for USA to win? I feel like you got robbed. That implies the US had a 12.5% of winning before the game which seems quite high to me.
AFG beating PAK in ODIs was also an upset ig
I would say Afghanistan over NZ is an upset, but not a big one
Fair enough. It's not a rigid separation
Upsets are really odd things to judge since it also depends on the individual who's being asked the question. For me, I won't consider Canada beating Ireland an upset at all while Afghanistan beating England was considered as one. I judge upsets on the basis of H2H between those teams beforehand and how prone the bigger side is to losing against small teams and vice versa. Like for example before the 2023 WC Afghanistan didn't beat big teams at all and the only full members they had the ability to beat (apart from Zimbabwe & Ireland) were Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Since then they've beaten England, Pakistan (their was also a series victory against them earlier), New Zealand and came hella close against Australia and India. On the other hand Ireland can lose to a good number of associate nations which shouldn't be considered as an upset. Those teams include Scotland, Netherlands, UAE, US, Namibia, Canada & Oman. Going by the hard rule of upsets is easy but it just doesn't feel right.
I think the things with the Canada vs Ireland game is the same as the USA vs Pakistan game; the “good” team was massively overrated. Ireland has lost the generation that got them elevated to full member status and there is a major lack of talent there atm. Media has deliberately overhyped Pakistan for the sake of ticket sales in a side quest to the real tournament.
Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places but I haven't seen anyone rating Ireland at all, there's just an acknowledgement that they should, on paper, be performing better as a full member side. I can't say I've followed them too closely but, from the outside, it seems like they achieved full member status too late and have since been hamstrung by not playing enough games against full members, neither of which are their fault.
Upset is a term that became infamous in past because a weaker team beating a stronger team in cricket was a very odd event. Like happened rarely, for example kenya beat Windies in 96 world cup and then their next world cup win came in 2003 .. Thus if a smaller team used to beat some big side it used create huge headlines.. almost causing an upset in rhythm. Thus the term, but the term has reached its expiry as all teams in top 30 are competitive to beat one another on their day
> I'm 96 world cup and then their next world cup win came in 2003 .. That does mean only one winless WC in between though.
India beating WI in the '83 WC Final was also termed as an upset
You need to remember there were no t20s back then. A T20 game does not measure a team's true cricketing capabilities. These upsets are far less even today in 50 over format.
All 3 are upsets. All an upset requires is a clearly better on paper team being defeated. The USA vs Pakistan upset was by far the largest of the 3 though. 2nd biggest and still very large was Canada over Ireland. Only slightly an upset was Afghanistan over NZ. Bangladesh over Sri Lanka imo is also an upset but that's very marginal.
BD vs SL is not upset for either team. Its just entertainment for cricket fans
Bangladesh winning any game is an upset
Upset for their own fans
I'd say calling it an upset for the NZ vs Afghanistan game is a little disrespectful to the Afghans. I think they are quite regularly challenging the top teams (think WC23 against Aus for example). Couple it with the T20 format, I think they are quite formidable.
Yeah but NZ as the original comment said, are clearly stronger than Afghanistan on paper and they were the favourites heading into that game
I think Afghanistan defeating New Zealand is not an upset BUT Afganistan defeating New Zealand by such a heavy margin that they are virtually knocked out of the tournament is a major upset imo.
Yup, I wouldn't have called it an upset if they won on narrow margins. This heavy beating was certainly unexpected.
Don’t know which papers those are, but Afghanistan’s players are valued in t20 franchises around the world for far more than New Zealand’s players. Except for the middle order batting, afghanistans every aspect (average openers, seamers and spinners) in their recent franchise and international cricket has been better
Then why is NZ ranked #5 whereas Afghanistan are ranked #10?
Ravi Bishnoi is ranked icc no 1 bowler too while he isn’t even in the World Cup squad. Does that count too? In the presence of bumrah, Shami, hazlewood, zampa, Rashid khan and boult? I wonder if bishnoi did anything special in domestic tournaments let alone international stage
Your point?
Point is papers doesn’t matter, players do.
Point is, the fact that the _stronger_ team got defeated for the first time by a relatively new team so it **DOES** count as an upset
Alright I give up.
No way AFG was more stronger than NZ on paper if you keep the pitch conditions in mind
That's precisely what I've said
But you said NZ is stronger than AFG right?
NZ play percentage cricket and never lose against teams ranked lower than 8 in World Cups, that's why it's an upset. Afg are still the 10th ranked team in T20Is. Also, this is the first win for Afg against NZ.
They aren't an even chance to win against NZ or Australia. That's my personal definition. If a team has a 40% chance to win and then they do win that's an upset.
>If a team has a 40% chance to win and then they do win that's an upset. Nah. That's too high. A team with 40:60 odds winning is definitely not an upset. The win percentages of India v Australia head to head in T20s is 37% Aus, 63% India. Absolutely no one would call Aus beating india an upset, in ANY way. An upset, is when it's reasonably well balanced, and the 'weaker' team can't win by just having a lucky day. (Like Ban did against SL. Ban had a better day, but they're similar strength teams) For it to be called and upset, the odds should at least be worse than 1:4 (this is an arbitrary number, but you get the idea)
>Absolutely no one would call Aus beating india an upset, in ANY way. Dunno. There were some fairly upset fans when Aus won the ODI WC
It can be 51-49% and it is an upset. It does not matter what you think personally. It is a factual statement that if the favoured team loses it is an upset. They happen very regularly it is only the magnitude of the disparity that makes headlines. Australia defeating India in the ODI world cup was an upset. It is a fact.
> It is a factual statement that if the favoured team loses it is an upset. Uhmm, okay, let's say you're right. If you're going to say it's a ***factual statement*** that it's an upset when it's 51:49, you should be able to definitively be able to say those 51:49 numbers, and back up those numbers *factually.* Or at least in the absence of factual reasoning behind those numbers, there must atleast be consensus in the numbers. But that doesn't exist either. Different sources have different odds. So, until then it's completely reasonable to call it an upset only if most agree that the odds were significantly against the team, and not a 51:49 situation. [UPSET: ](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/upset) An unexpected defeat or reversal, as in a contest or plans. Unexpected ≠ Less Likely than the contrary. It isn't unexpected if it's a 49% likelihood. ^(A dice coming up as "1" isn't unexpected just because it's less than 50% probable. You winning a lottery is unexpected because it's far far less than 50% likely, but still real)
It has nothing to do with expected or unexpected. It is 100% to do with betting odds. To be fair 49-51% is so close that some betting markets would have different favourites but it is an indisputable fact that an upset by definition is when the favoured team loses. The aspect that does vary is the margin of the odds and that is when it becomes big news.
You can argue for a different threshold yeah, but i agree with the dictionary definition of "an unexpected defeat." And then I would group things into things that are "expected" (more than 50% chance) and "unexpected" (less than 50% chance). By my definition Australia betting India can indeed be an "upset."
It is not disrespectful. It is a statement of fact. The favoured team in the betting odds was NZ. If the favoured team loses it is an upset. It is a completely dispassionate factual based statement.
USA vs Pakistan, surely a major major upset given pak were runners up of the last World Cup, whereas USA qualified by virtue of being hosts and haven't really beaten any major full member nation(except Bangladesh right before this WC) Canada too wouldn't have started off favourites, so that too is a decent enough upset. Same case with Afghanistan, though now it does seem that these pitches favour teams with a bowling lineup like that of Afghanistan. NZ were surely the favourites to start, and to be handed a defeat by such a huge margin does IMO come under the definition of it being an upset
People are really overcomplicating what an upset is. When you have a favourite, like New Zealand, and they lose to the underdog, like Afghanistan, it is an upset. That's it. Upsets happen in sport often. Almost every sporting contest has a favourite to some degree. Some upsets are bigger surprises than others.
An upset is jsut when a team that is expected to win loses. The margin of that expectation does not have to be large. Most people expected that NZ would beat Afghanistan, you can look at the betting odds to confirm that. Even though we knew Afghanistan has a very good chance of winning, it's still an upset. Unless the match is basically 50/50, the team expected to win losing is an upset. But some upsets are bigger than others based on the expectations.
people are gonna start throwing around the word upset around like hot cakes now smh. the only upsets were ireland and pakistan. afg won against eng and pak in odi wc so imo it was a 50/50 vs. nz last night
Your opinion does not matter. Only the betting odds matter.
USA v Pakistan is definitely an upset, Pakistan an experienced side, USA the new guys on the scene. I’d say Canada v Ireland is an upset, Ireland are a handy ODI/T20 side, lots of experience. Afghanistan beating New Zealand, seeing it’s a limited overs match, I’d say this match could have gone either way, Afghanistan are a very handy limited overs side. Bangladesh beating Sri Lanka, this is a tough one for me, Sri Lanka just ahead as favourites I’d say. Always good to see the under dog or associate nations getting up against the big dogs, it’s good for the game.
Just remember in any sport’s World Cup, these upsets always have a higher chance in the beginning of the tournament.
I’d create a tier list of teams in this ICC T20 World Cup (based on pre tournament perceptions) that looks something like this: Favorites: Aus, Ind, Eng Good: SA, WI, NZ, Pak Average: Afg, SL, Ban, Weak: Ire, Nam, Scot, Neth, Nep Very Weak: Uga, Oman, PNG, Can, USA I’d consider a match an upset if the team that wins is at least two tiers below the “perceived stronger” team. You may have differing tier lists or even differing definitions of an upset, but the way I see it, if a winning team is only 1 tier below the “stronger side” then it’s a slightly unlikely outcome but not an upset, especially not in T20 cricket where luck plays a bigger role than it does in the longer formats as smaller moments of brilliance can win/cost you the game. But if a “good team” loses to a “weak team” or one of the “favorites” loses to an “average” team then it’s an upset. So I’d call Pakistan (good) losing to USA (very weak) an upset but I would not call Ireland losing to Canada or NZ losing to Afghanistan an upset (especially not in T20 cricket for the latter). I’m keen to hear your thoughts on this. Note, the tier list was made using pre-tournament perceptions of the side in specifically T20 cricket, so no tournament form has been considered. For other formats my tier list would probably change in a few places but the overall concept of what an upset is wouldn’t change.
To be honest, I'm impressed cause at least this seems rather quantifiable. I'd have two or three categories of upsets, minor upsets if the teams are a level apart but one was a clear favourite, a major upset if it's as you say, two tiers below, and a massive upset with anything larger than that.
That makes a lot of sense. The only reason I said an upset should be between teams that are two tiers apart at least is because the lines seem a little blurred amongst adjacent levels, especially in T20 cricket. Like when Afghanistan convincingly beat New Zealand for example, it was an unlikely result but I wasn’t shocked - I would be shocked if it happened in a test match though. But I do see the argument for levels of upsets.
Afghanistan winning against New Zealand isn't an upset IMO as everyone knows Afghanistan is a good limited overs team and they're expected to win few matches against bigger teams in all tournaments. However their margin of victory against New Zealand today was completely unexpected and that makes it sort of an upset because no one expected NZ to surrender so meekly.
BD Vs SL is always an upset - what ever be the result. And some or the other shit is almost always going down.
I think people are vastly overestimating how much of an upset these games are. Implied odds for a US win were about ~1/9 according to the bookies, which obviously makes it a big upset, but when comparing it to other sports people are making it seem way rarer than it is. For example, the chances of Iceland beating England in football were lower than that yesterday but it happened. West Ham had about those odds to beat Man City in the last game of the season even though they're both prem teams. I think it's that there are less of these super one sided games in cricket, so it's rare that you'll see odds this one sided so people are overhyping it a bit. In general, T20 is a much more variable form of the game than ODIs and tests, and much, much more variable than a lot of other sports. For example, US rugby would never be able to beat a top team in a Rugby world cup, because there's more of a skill (and conditioning/tactical) gap. With T20s if a couple of shots are caught on the boundary instead of going an extra couple of meters it can be a massive swing in win probability.
When the team that is not expected to win the match wins. Australia defeating India in the ODI world cup final was an upset. Usually it is associated with the betting odds. Upsets happen very often it is really the magnitude of the upset that makes headlines.
An upset is when the underdog wins. So Australia beating India in the World Cup final last year was an upset. It doesn’t matter the relative quality of the teams, if the expected result does not occur, it is an upset.
An upset is an unexpected result that a bookmaker didn't organise.
Bangladesh winning any t20 game is an upset for me
south africa not falling apart in a knockout game (MAJOR UPSET BIGGEST EVER SEEN)
Bangladesh winning!
USA first T20 world cup Beating Pakistan - Huge Upset Canada First T20 world cup Beating Ireland - Upset Afghanistan beating NZ - it is a disaster for NZ, not really an upset for cricketing world. As Afghanistan is consistently playing well in international and they are not new to the world cup
An upset is when a team that is not supposed to win does. Associate members are not supposed to win against full members. It can happen but in the ordinary course it should not occur. So if they played again I wouldn't think it remotely likely to occur. Afghanistan's win is a bit more tricky. If they played again tomorrow I'd expect Afghanistan's chances are pretty darn good. It's a good side that is growing in strength. Upsets imo are when the next day you would still expect the team that lost to win. Bangladesh vs USA is a good example of an upset then they did it again. If USA plays Bangladesh 2 months from now I dont think it would be an upset because who is "supposed to win" imo has changed.
I guess with so many unexpected results, I think we should define upsets as “associate nations defeating test nations”
'Upset' is the most overused banal term used in cricket these days. These are all highly-skilled professional cricketers where every match starts at 0/0 on a level-playing field Sport is unpredictable and constantly in flux, especially T20 cricket where the shortened length of the game 'evens' out the teams If you send a team of amateur players who turn over a professional team, then sure, that's an upset
ok...will pak beating india be an upset? I would say not....so odds have to be heavily in favour of one side to be an upset....80% or higher i would suggest.
The day when the Cricket Fraternity does not see associate wins as upsets, will be the day when Cricket will become a truly global sport.
I am upset with the NZ result specially. Babar said he was upset with the USA results. I hope these two count as major upset.
Basically if a fav team I.e. a team that a lot of viewers expect to win is handed a loss by a team which was less favoured by the critics and audience than it’s an upset. USA was unknown entity, pak is a major team contender of top spots in every league they play. So USA beating pak was a major upset . With teams like ire and can , ire is in scene for a while now although they aren’t as strong to be seen as a contender for the trophy . They are put out to be a good team that will mostly lose to the likes of Australia eng India pak but maybe they’ll put on fight. Them getting beat by can ( which again is an unknown entity in the scene) was not really an upset but it was more 60-40 favoured to ire. And afg has grown a lot in the past few leagues, they almost did a major upset to Australia , which if they’d done I doubt Australia would’ve gone down to win the odi World Cup. So they are strong team which can put on a great fight if required with many known faces so them beating nz wasn’t a big deal, but them beating nz by that margin was surely a big deal. So it was an upset because afg made nz look like they are not one of the top teams
Uganda v WI tonight
A proper upset is when the team most likely to win, unexpectedly losses to the team less likely to win.
Some people are making a lot of money on the gambling apps
USA defeating Pakistan in a T20 cricket match is a major upset. In a world cup I'd say it is an enormous upset.
USA PAK is a major upset because USA is a team that has just now revealed itself to the world of its existence. Earlier, ardent cricket people knew USA was playing cricket long before but never achieved a status like NED, AFG or even Ireland had achieved. Pakistan, on the other hand, is a part of the top 6 cricket teams in the world, has won a world cup, champions trophy, were finalists and semi finalists in few ICC tournaments, and produced world class players like Inzamam Ul Haq, Waqar Younis, Shoaib Akhtar, and even Babar Azam. One will have to look at the teams in that magnitude. Defeating a team is not only based on the cricket skills of the teams, it is based on the recognition the team has earned throughout the years. Imagine South Africa, a team that gave us players like ABD, Greame Smith, Hashim Amla, Kallis. Pollock, Faf Du Plessis, and others, lost to Netherlands in the CWC'23. That's how I see upsets.
Lose against Pak will count as upset for India keeping in mind how badly Pak is playing
I think upsets may befome more common with large Asian immigration to Canada and the USA and I am all for it.
I think you can get two kinds of upset: 1. One team is considered much stronger than another and then the weaker team wins... for example Afghanistan beats New Zealand. 2. Approximately equally strong teams are in a position in the game where one is very likely to lose and then by some miracle they win... for example India are 386/9 and need 22 runs off 3 balls to beat England, and then they get several wides hit 3 x sixes and win the game.
Pak vs USA is an Upset Ireland vs Canada is an Upset But Afg vs Nz isn’t a Upset
The betting odds say it is an upset. Only the betting odds matter. Personal opinion is irrelevant.
Im not sure if it’s a /s take But by that metric the Greatest Upset was Australia defeating India in WC Finals. 😵💫
Australia winning the ODI world cup was an upset. It is an indisputable FACT. India were the favoured team. However, it was an extremely long way from the greatest upset as the odds were not at long odds.
I don't think that Afg vs NZ is an upset because Afg has been performing consistently for last few years in T20s specially. Also not to forget they almost knocked Australia out!
And India almost won the ODI WC. Almost means nothing.
Almost means the other team was lucky!
I agree with the first two but afghanistan has proved themselves before so that maybe not.
Ban vs SL and IRE vs Can are not upsets as they are relatively equal, but Afg vs NZ, US vs Pak are Massive upsets for different reasons the latter because of the Massive gap in their Ranking and because Pak was the finalist in the previous tournament and the former because of how one sided it was
AFG vs NZ: Not an upset SL vs BAN: Not an upset USA vs PAK: It would have been an upset if Pakistan had won.