Cricket World Cup 2019

[Hot Pepsi]

Well then they could keep playing.

[Ray de Galles]

It looked like the lights were on at the end of the game.

Yes, the floodlights were fully on before the end of regulation play.

[Walt Flanagans Dog]

IAnd maybe start the matches an hour earlier in the morning to reduce the chances of that being a factor.

Yesterday's game started late due to rain, which is a whole other force to factor in when planning these things. Also start it too early in the morning and there is the problem of dew on the field.

[Nocturnal Submission]

I've now been convinced that wickets shouldn't be the deciding factor. That would encourage less aggressive batting while deciding it on boundaries encourages more aggressive batting. At least, theoretically. A tie is so unlikely in any event that I can't imagine teams think about the tiebreaker when devising a strategy.

They should do another super over. And another if necessary. Pick it up again the next day if necessary. Does anyone have anywhere better to be?

They could also make the tie-breaker the number of boundaries within the super over, but that could easily end in a tie.

Could they turn on the lights? Are there lights? And maybe start the matches an hour earlier in the morning to reduce the chances of that being a factor.

It looked like the lights were on at the end of the game.

[Hot Pepsi]

Anyway that super over has put paid to any understanding Mrs D has of cricket. It didn't help that the commentary was only saying "England will win if New Zealand only get 15", without saying why they would win. Which meant I also didn't know.

Baseball has had the problem for years. Commentators assume that everyone watching knows as much about it as they do, but that's increasingly not true. Fox did introduce an animated talking baseball a few years ago to explain the fundamentals, but I don't think that went over well.

[Hot Pepsi]

I've now been convinced that wickets shouldn't be the deciding factor. That would encourage less aggressive batting while deciding it on boundaries encourages more aggressive batting. At least, theoretically. A tie is so unlikely in any event that I can't imagine teams think about the tiebreaker when devising a strategy.

They should do another super over. And another if necessary. Pick it up again the next day if necessary. Does anyone have anywhere better to be?

They could also make the tie-breaker the number of boundaries within the super over, but that could easily end in a tie.

Could they turn on the lights? Are there lights? And maybe start the matches an hour earlier in the morning to reduce the chances of that being a factor.

[Etienne]

Yes, but wasn't England being rubbish in the 1980s and 1990s just a function of, well, being rubbish rather than being unlucky?

England could easily have won in 1987 and 1992, though they weren't particularly unlucky in either (Pakistan were lucky that their group game against England was rained off in 1992 when they would surely have lost, but if they hadn't then England would probably have faced NZ in the final who had been the best team in the group stages in the final).

[Ray de Galles]

I may be misunderstanding, but I took longeared to mean any World Cup in any sport, too.

Ooh, well now, not sure I can say that - although I now have a 12 year old son who has seen one of his countries win a World Cup live in a sport he loves and was walking on air yesterday so that counts for a lot.

One of my Welsh friends who is an MCC member and fully buys in to "England & Wales" (as do most, if not all, of my Welsh cricket-loving friends actually) was there yesterday and said it was up with being at Bordeaux for Wales opening match in Euro 2016 and I had to tell him "Steady on". I presume he wasn't at Toulouse or Lille or I would have had him certified.

[Snake Plissken]

Yes, but wasn't England being rubbish in the 1980s and 1990s just a function of, well, being rubbish rather than being unlucky?

[Kevin S]

Same here, though from a far smaller sample, I'm sure.

I may be misunderstanding, but I took longeared to mean any World Cup in any sport, too.

[hobbes]

England had enough luck to win several World Cups and Test series combined. They've got some serious karmic payback due for the next decade or so. But it was amazing drama.

Nah. This was payback for the 1980s and 1990s at last.

[Ray de Galles]

Breathtaking game, this has been and now forever will be my favourite World Cup ever.

Same here, though from a far smaller sample, I'm sure.

[longeared]

I don't think it's been mentioned on here, but I spotted it on the replays. And yes, it was great sportsmanship. It also made the boundary review a waste of time, they should have just taken Guptil's word for it the same way they would have taken a fielders word if he said a catch didn't carry.

Umpires don't seem to take the players word for it any more, even if the fielder is indicating an outcome not beneficial to them. At a game I went to a fielder dived to stop a boundary, touched the rope, signalled to the umpires it was a four, and they still went upstairs for the third umpire to review.

[tee rex]

On the Taufel interpretation, he might be right (opinions seem to vary) but once you start looking for one extra run scored or saved, the labyrinth will drive you (me) mad. A couple of wides given or not, and then the players' actions themselves, like ducking the last ball in the NZ innings, or throwing to the wrong end ... aargh. Must. Stop.

Not entirely sure why people are getting so wound up about a situation that is likely to happen in, what, <1% of games? If that.

True, but not that unusual in the world of sports obsessives. The point I was trying to make is that this particular retrospective action is unsatisfying because it has little connection with what players are doing in the game. I may be wrong, but it's hard to believe a message went out from the coaches in the 35th over of the England innings saying "OK lads, if the game is tied, and then the super over is tied, then it's boundaries, and we're one behind, better get a couple just in case". (If that message did go out then somebody really does deserve the gong).

Whereas coaches do issue such instructions in similarly tight and rare circumstances: e.g. the football tournament where points and goal difference and goals are level and the team will qualify on yellow cards, provided they don't get another one. It's not their main priority, they still want to score and not concede, but they're made aware of it and adjust.

A retrospective tie-breaker based on corners in football or boundaries in cricket or tries in rugby (all of which you may have not scored for valid reasons) is not satisfying if there are other options, and there are plenty, as discussed.

[Nocturnal Submission]

And a super over was a terrific way to decide the game, involving batting, bowling, fielding and tactical nous. The game in microcosm. Much better than bloody penalties in football.

[Hot Orange]

On the subject of such sportsmanship, has it been mentioned here that Guptil signalled the six himself when Boult trod on the boundary, what a man!

It was certainly mentioned at the time on the TV coverage and referred to many times in the post-match TMS chat. The New Zealanders all seem thoroughly decent and I'm glad Nasser Hussain made a point of telling Kane Williamson what a great bloke he was in the interview at the end.

[Nocturnal Submission]

I don't think it's been mentioned on here, but I spotted it on the replays. And yes, it was great sportsmanship. It also made the boundary review a waste of time, they should have just taken Guptil's word for it the same way they would have taken a fielders word if he said a catch didn't carry.

All through the game and afterwards the Kiwis were superb. As I said, they're a credit to their nation and to sport itself.

[Logan Mountstuart]

The toss loser winning is the best solution I've heard so far.

[Snake Plissken]

Actually, there is a point in the "coulda, woulda, shoulda" - NZ got seven balls to Englands 6 and didn't get the job done.

I only mention this because Archer looked like he was about to physically collapse at the end under the pressure. A horrible situation to be put in.

[Logan Mountstuart]

Now I completely understand the logic of not using wickets lost as a determining factor in a tied one day game. Thank you.

And I'm certainly not against the idea of a super over. It's a spectacular, entertaining solution. I think maybe in the context of cricket, a 2 over shoot out might be fairer, and a better option. Cricket is a two end game, played in pairs where conditions are a huge factor. I'm also not keen that in team sports the ultimate responsibility for failure rests on the shoulders of one person (a bowler, or a penalty taker in football). But I suppose that adds to the drama and the tension of the situation.


I also except the bad light argument.

[Janik]

Two decades of karmic payback then?

But are those future decades? Or were England just cashing in their credit at the karmic bank for many previous years?

[Janik]

On the subject of such sportsmanship, has it been mentioned here that Guptil signalled the six himself when Boult trod on the boundary, what a man!

I don't think it's been mentioned on here, but I spotted it on the replays. And yes, it was great sportsmanship. It also made the boundary review a waste of time, they should have just taken Guptil's word for it the same way they would have taken a fielders word if he said a catch didn't carry.

[Etienne]

Guptill was the obvious choice in every respect other than he's had a dog of a tournament, he's a consistently fast scoring big hitter.

[Etienne]

It would certainly have been considered whether Stokes was obstructing, but he clearly wasn't. He ran a straight line, and didn't look over his shoulder. I think he was making it clear it was an accident and there was nothing he could do about either his bat being hit or the end result.

[Ray de Galles]

The super over does betray it's origins in T20. It isn't quite the game in microcosm, any more than T20 is. What it is is a slogging contest. Note the batsmen that both teams sent out to face the first ball, Stokes and Neesham. The whole fevered atmosphere around that part of the game was very reminiscent of the strident loudness and crassness of the IPL. It would be a more balanced contest of bat and ball if it was one wicket, not two.

We all said as the Super Over started that we were basically in T20 territory now, which is why I'm still a little surprised at the choice of Guptil - though someone will no doubt tell me he has a stellar T20 record now?