Well this can happen only if the world cup is being hosted by the sub-continent teams namely India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. For the first time in the history of a world cup or any other tournament, all the hosts have been into the semi-finals for the world cup. Of course, Pakistan is not a host but still a little bit of consideration can be given for it was once upon a time scheduled to host a few important games in this world cup before all teams starting from India started boycotting their tour to the trouble-torn nation since 2008.
Of course, Bangladesh have not been able to make it to the semi-finals (or even the quarter-finals) of the tournament. A little bit of hard work from them could have seen them scroll over against West Indies. West Indies are as good as Ireland or Bangladesh in this tournament needless to say. Both West Indies and Bangladesh had equal number of wins in the league stages of the tournament. One can consider Pakistan to be a replacement for Bangladesh for, long back Bangladesh was considered as East Pakistan and now, we can adjust those words calling Pakistan some West Pakistan.
Coming to the fourth and the final quarter-final between Sri Lanka and England, England were crushed by the Sri Lankans the way West Indies were done so by Pakistan. Then, West Indies were no match for Pakistan which was not the case yesterday at Colombo. And, just imagine what a lucky thing that the Sri Lankans were facing the Englishmen in their own land when they could have been either at Dhaka or Ahmadabad. More luckily, the Sri Lankans will be facing the Kiwis once again in their home land with the first semi- finals scheduled at Colombo a couple of days later.
I just cannot imagine why teams from only one group have been able to hold the upper-hand with Sri Lanka, Pakistan and New Zealand qualifying from group A with only India getting to the rank from group B. However, things were better this time compared to the 1996 edition where all four teams from group A qualified to the semis with Pakistan, England, New Zealand and South Africa losing out to India, Sri Lanka, Australia and West Indies respectively. Coming to the match, losing just four wickets, how could England end up with just 229 on board? Are England that bad bowlers that they couldn't scalp even a single Sri Lankan wicket?