Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cricket World Cup 2019

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

    Originally posted by Kevin S View Post

    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.
    Last edited by Ray de Galles; 15-07-2019, 12:44.

    Comment


      Originally posted by Snake Plissken View Post
      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).

      Comment


        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.

        Comment


          Originally posted by jwdd27 View Post
          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.

          Comment


            Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View Post
            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.

            Comment


              Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View Post
              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.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Nocturnal Submission View Post


                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.
                Last edited by Ray de Galles; 15-07-2019, 14:38.

                Comment


                  Well then they could keep playing.

                  Comment


                    England didn't become rubbish at One Day Internationals until after 1992. They were worthy finalists in 79, 87 and 92. If you were to stretch the point across sports, though, it might be karma payback for several 50-50 games in football tournaments they lost. OTOH the country would have been fucking insufferable if they had won any of those compared to a cricket tournament.

                    I also think the 2005 Ashes prepared our generation mentally for sometimes having cricket success after years of drought, whereas there is only failure in football. Conversely again football contains a lot more nations of high enough quality to beat you in a KO game. England were celebrating last year just for winning a last 16 match whereas in cricket you'd be humiliated for losing a last match.



                    Last edited by Satchmo Distel; 15-07-2019, 15:40.

                    Comment


                      Qualifying for 2023 begins on August 14th - Oman v Papua New Guinea in Aberdeen.

                      Comment


                        ICC team of the tournament

                        1. Jason Roy (England) - 443 runs at average of 63.28
                        2. Rohit Sharma (India) - 648 runs at 81.00
                        3. Kane Williamson, capt (New Zealand) - 578 runs at 82.57
                        4. Joe Root (England) - 556 runs at 61.77
                        5. Shakib Al Hasan (Bangladesh) - 606 runs at 86.57, 11 wickets at average of 36.27
                        6. Ben Stokes (England) - 465 runs at 66.42, seven wickets at 35.14
                        7. Alex Carey (wk) (Australia) - 375 runs at 62.50, 20 dismissals
                        8. Mitchell Starc (Australia) - 27 wickets at 18.59
                        9. Jofra Archer (England) - 20 wickets at 23.05
                        10. Lockie Ferguson (New Zealand) - 21 wickets at 19.47
                        11. Jasprit Bumrah (India) - 18 wickets at 20.61

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Nocturnal Submission View Post


                          It was literally one of those games, or finishes, that would be rejected as a drama plotline for being utterly silly and unbeliveable.
                          Except on "Neighbours" apparently, I can't find the link now (it was on the Guardian's live blog of the celebrations today), but there was a cricket match on the show where the exact same thing that happened with Stokes (i.e 4 overthrows being scored) albeit to win the match rather than help take it into a Super Over.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Southport Zeb View Post
                            Qualifying for 2023 begins on August 14th - Oman v Papua New Guinea in Aberdeen.
                            Is this the first time that the holders do not automatically qualify? New format here:

                            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E...p_Super_League

                            Obviously England will still qualify, unless the Netherlands have a "clown" keeper ...

                            Comment


                              All that's mainly changed is that the rankings that were used to determine automatic qualification have been superseded by rankings that will be produced from a limited programme of 156 games that will probably produce the same Top 8 as this World Cup did, unless there's a big collapse by one of them.

                              Looking at the 2023 qualifying format, I wonder if the teams finishing 9-13 have any incentive in terms of 9th getting a more favourable draw in the final qualifying tournament than 13th does? There also ought to be promotion and relegation if there isn't already (Wiki does not clarify this but the game currently has three tiers and there must surely be incentives and disincentives for borderline teams)
                              Last edited by Satchmo Distel; 15-07-2019, 18:14.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by tee rex View Post

                                Is this the first time that the holders do not automatically qualify? New format here:

                                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E...p_Super_League

                                Obviously England will still qualify, unless the Netherlands have a "clown" keeper ...
                                The tournament just gone was the first for which the holders had to qualify - Australia managed it by being one of the top seven sides (other than England) in the ODI Rankings at the end of September 2017.

                                Up to 2015 all full members of the ICC automatically qualified for the World Cup. The only associate nation ever to come vaguely close to winning the trophy - Kenya, who reached the 2003 semi finals - had official ODI status at the time, which gave them automatic qualification for 2007 (it had also been their qualification route in 2003).

                                Comment


                                  Having bought tickets to an Oval Test in 2012 evidently entitled me to receive a personal email from Eoin Morgan today.

                                  Comment


                                    Just looking at the overthrows shenanigans, you could choose to believe a well respected Test Umpire however I've just looked at my 'Tom Smith' (the 1990 vintage) and I think 6 runs can be justified under Law 37 (Obstructing the field).
                                    Within the definitions, it says "A batsman accidentally deflecting a ball from a throw in will not be considered to be obstructing the field, the ball will remain alive, any runs made will be scored.....

                                    Comment


                                      The New York Times explains the final to baseball fans ...

                                      https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/s...w-zealand.html

                                      Comment


                                        We can stroke our chins too much about the way finals are settled, and what's the fairest way to do it it, too much you know. Just as excessive obsessive chin-stroking about football's rules has given us the match-extending atrocity that is VAR. Let's just revel in the chaos and the glory. And I like to think I'd have said the same had New Zealand won, which I spent most of Sunday being convinced they would, and they would have deserved to.

                                        My team of the tournament would be broadly the same as the ICC's, though I put Afridi in for Ferguson (three five-fers isn't to be sniffed at, though Ferguson was excellent throughout) and Babar Azam, who was the most aesthetically pleasing batsmen in the tournament in the classical sense, in for Root, who had an excellent tournament but had a brain-freeze in his ugly dismissal in the final.

                                        Comment


                                          Originally posted by E10 Rifle View Post
                                          We can stroke our chins too much about the way finals are settled, and what's the fairest way to do it it, too much you know. Just as excessive obsessive chin-stroking about football's rules has given us the match-extending atrocity that is VAR. Let's just revel in the chaos and the glory. And I like to think I'd have said the same had New Zealand won, which I spent most of Sunday being convinced they would, and they would have deserved to.
                                          I'm sure you would have, E10. Leyton Orient has taught you well. But the history of reactions to previous England sporting dramas, fair and foul, suggests that might not have been the universal response. (Effigies now on sale, 50% off, no longer required).

                                          Of course feeling hard done by and lovingly polishing a grudge on the mantlepiece is an integral part of following sport. What's so unusual about this event is that there really is nobody to boo. No Maradona, Wayne Barnes, Thierry Henry, Shaun Pollock, assorted Australians. Not even a pantomime villain. Ben Stokes genuinely feels bad, the umpires were no worse than on any other day of cricket, and any Kiwi you can single out for blame has a balance well in credit for all their other contributions.

                                          I'm booing somebody in an ICC office. As catharsis goes, it's just not happening.

                                          Comment


                                            The England cricket team just sucked up the karma for their footballers being shit. The Black Caps have to swallow the karma for the All Blacks being so bloody good. Overall now i think it's balanced.

                                            Wales can win a Rugby World Cup now, bless them.

                                            Comment


                                              I’m most concerned with the possibility that England should have only got five on that overthrow.

                                              I’m also unclear on why four are awarded on overthrows to the boundary as opposed to letting the batters keep running until the fielding team chases it down and throws it back in. Of course, that could be said of hits to the boundary too.

                                              Comment


                                                The number of runs awarded on overthrows is set at four when the ball goes to the boundary, just as it is when the ball is hit to the rope.

                                                Comment


                                                  Right, but why is that? Why not just make the fielders chase it down and let the runners score as many runs as they can?

                                                  Comment


                                                    Reed, originally there were no boundaries. Batters would run until the ball was found, leading to apocryphal stories of teams running dozens of times when a ball got lost or lodged in bramble etc. Which is fine if the game is being played purely for the enjoyment of of the players, and also if you're playing on a large enough field. It becomes an issue when you start to get spectators, especially so if they're gambling on the result and might benefit from either stopping the ball or stopping the fielder getting to the ball. So the boundary is introduced, theoretically at a large enough distance that if you hit the ball that far you'd be able to run four.

                                                    Also, it makes it easier for the batters if they don't have to run as much and all changes to the laws benefit them.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X