Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cricket World Cup 2019

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by diggedy derek View Post
    I think the biggest piece of luck of all was the first ball of England's innings. That was out with a capital O. You want umpires to be giving those. The context I think made him hesitate.
    Or the memory of the seemingly stone dead ball to Nicholls early in the New Zealand innings that also looked out with a capital O and was overturned on review? And possibly also learning from his mistake in the Semi and once he hesitated doing what Umpires should in that circumstance and saying 'I'm not sure, so not out'.

    Comment


      Couldn't Guptill have just left the last delivery from Archer? It looks more like a leg side wide on every repeat viewing.

      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.

      Comment


        Originally posted by Snake Plissken View Post
        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. There is always going to be an outlier, and trying to rule around that would undoubtedly have a knock-on effect elsewhere. (I mean, I would have thought a second Super Over would be a reasonable idea, but then wouldn't that add on at least 20 minutes as the light is disappearing? I mean, England got a 2 because the fielder lost the ball in the setting sun.)
        Ice Hockey runs multiple overtimes, playing on and on until a winner is found. Is the record in the NHL something like five extra periods? And super overs are more likely to end up with a tie than any other form of cricket. If you went for two, why not unlimited numbers of them? Having a period of extra-time, but just one of them makes some sense. Give it one more go at trying to resolve the match, then apply your more arbitrary tie-breakers.

        Some people have argued for having a toss of a coin* prior to the match in Football, and having that come into play at the end of extra time if the scores are still level. So there is always one team always pushing to score. This is a horrendous idea of course, but that it is being suggested shows the problems sports like Football and Cricket, where a draw is usually regarded as a completely legitimate result, have when it comes to knock-out competitions.

        * - it wouldn't be as bad in cricket, mind. Because the pre-match toss gives an advantage, the choice of batting first or second. I see a reasonably argument for saying you get that benefit for calling right, but in return for the privilege of choosing you have to deliver the clean win. If it's a tie, it goes to the side who lost the toss.

        Comment


          I like that idea actually.

          Comment


            What do we make of this?
            Last edited by Janik; 15-07-2019, 10:31.

            Comment


              Two decades of karmic payback then?

              Comment


                Originally posted by Janik View Post
                What do we make of this?

                I thought five had had actually been awarded right up until my wife showed me the video of the incident on the way home. I thought it was my limited understanding of the law that was wrong.

                It's interesting that Taufel mentions the possibility of "obstructing the field" too because (and this is genuinely not out of any animus towards Stokes or England, I assure you) I did wonder when I saw the video why that wasn't even entertained as a possibility, even to be dismissed. Stokes seems to be concerned that it might have been in his gestures - though I've seen that interpreted as trying to waive the runs too.

                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!
                Last edited by Ray de Galles; 15-07-2019, 10:52.

                Comment


                  God, that would have been another twist. But who knows, Rashid might have hit the next one for four. Stokes actually struggled horribly against yorkers throughout the innings, he only got hold of two, and should have been caught off one of them. Plunkett looked more likely to hit them in fact.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Janik View Post

                    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?

                    Comment


                      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.

                      Comment


                        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.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Ray de Galles View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Snake Plissken View Post
                            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?

                            Comment


                              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.

                              Comment


                                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.

                                Comment


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

                                  Comment


                                    Originally posted by Janik View Post
                                    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.

                                    Comment


                                      Originally posted by Ray de Galles View Post
                                      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.

                                      Comment


                                        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.

                                        Comment


                                          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.

                                          Comment


                                            Originally posted by Janik View Post
                                            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.

                                            Comment


                                              Originally posted by longeared View Post

                                              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.

                                              Comment


                                                Originally posted by Snake Plissken View Post
                                                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.

                                                Comment


                                                  Originally posted by Ray de Galles View Post

                                                  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.

                                                  Comment


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

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X