Cricket World Cup 2019

[tee rex]

It looks like the classic case of NZ using the lesser bowlers to rebuild, not plunder. The false reassurance of getting "respectable" which India then knock off with overs to spare.

If/when a wicket falls, might as well roll the dice and tell de Grandhomme/Neesham to go hard or home. For our entertainment as much as anything.

[diggedy derek]

Jadeja’s wicket of Nicholls appears to have drastically checked what little momentum New Zealand had built up. They need to get after one of the bowlers, probably Pandya or Chalal.

[diggedy derek]

Or even possibly Bumrah. Surely they can't just decide to see him off at two or three an over.

[tee rex]

It's even more frustrating after NZ won the toss. They might as well have been chasing, with no option but to go for the runs. This is just parking the bus when you're already 2-0 down.

Oh well, Boult and Ferguson to skittle India out for 150.

[Satchmo Distel]

Is there a possibility of India getting shafted by Messrs Duckworth and Lewis?

[Levin]

From CricInfo

"So, as a guide to how this might pan out, if New Zealand didn't bat again in their innings, India's 20-over score would be 148. And their DLS-adjusted target for 46 overs would be 237"

[Ray de Galles]

How can that be?!

[ursus arctos]

The theory is that NZ held on to wickets in anticipation of a big finish which should be taken into account in setting India's target.

That's the theory.

The possibility that this may be settled in 20 overs when there is a scheduled reserve day tomorrow strikes me as more ludicrous.

[E10 Rifle]

Rain isn't due to relent till at least 6, apparently

[Ray de Galles]

Which, worryingly, is still probably enough time to put India in for 20 overs and once they start them that's the maximum they can play even if we come back tomorrow.

[Hot Pepsi]

You should be more worried about matching success for the Turquoises. Their star batter Widdy Widdecombe has something of the day-night about her



Winning team in each game (drawn/abandoned games are blank), plus the margin. Distinguishing between winners batting first and second.

I did roadtest the chart with some grade schoolers, probably should have simplified it further for corporate lawyers

I get what it shows literally, but I don't quite understand the significance of what it shows. Perhaps I'd be better off seeing how the actual scores were different from the projected scores based on run-rate.

[Sporting]

Wrong thread?

[Satchmo Distel]

Which, worryingly, is still probably enough time to put India in for 20 overs and once they start them that's the maximum they can play even if we come back tomorrow.

But then imagine the wrath of the BCCI. I think the umpires will have an eye on the politics, which means NZ won't get any chance to level this to a 20 over slog.

You're also worried England get a soft NZ final, I guess.

And why is this fucking final clashing with Wimbledon?

[Ray de Galles]

Didn't the football World Cup Final clash with Wimbledon Mens' Final last year? It's actually Wimbledon that's recently moved back a week from it's traditional slot in the calendar though.

I'm more worried that we get a farcical semi-final than England getting a softer opponent but obviously the latter is a concern too.

[Hot Pepsi]

Wrong thread?

No, just late.

[Hot Pepsi]

Didn't the football World Cup Final clash with Wimbledon Mens' Final last year? It's actually Wimbledon that's recently moved back a week from it's traditional slot in the calendar though.

I'm more worried that we get a farcical semi-final than England getting a softer opponent but obviously the latter is a concern too.

I don't know how weather could impact that, but late July through the end of August is a pretty barren time on the sports calendar. I can understand why FIFA doesn't have events then, but it seems like this cricket world cup could have been shifted later, no?

[Gangster Octopus]

No, just late.

Sporting was replying to a post that's now been deleted...

[Etienne]

Looks like they are going to be coming back tomorrow, which is fairer, though if its under clear skies that'll be harsh on nz.

[Ray de Galles]

Starting to take covers off now though. If I was anything to do with India I'd be stalling like hell for the next hour or so.

[tee rex]

I think NZ would be happy enough to come back tomorrow. India's batsmen can slog 20 overs in their sleep.

More to the point, if it's the sport's showpiece event then rushing to get it out of the way today is ridiculous, there's nothing urgent about sitting around for the rest of the week. Play some cricket instead.

[Hot Pepsi]

I don't want to dig up something that's been buried or concern-troll, but I would like to know how much the specter of cheating and shenanigans is really hurting the game.* Like, for example, I'm sure there are people out there who believe India took a dive against England in the round-robin phase to help England into the semis. I'm sure of it because I saw something about that on Instagram. Taken further, one could believe that Australia tanked it against SA to help ensure India an easier draw into the final.

Of course, I don't really believe either of those. Because an easier way to get England into the final would have been to pay off Pakistan or Sri Lanka (or was it Bangladesh) to not beat them or for England to just play better in those matches. And having New Zealand rather than Pakistan in the semis isn't ideal from a commercial stand-point, I wouldn't think.

But are these sorts of ideas seem to be out there and I'm wondering if the the very real cheating scandals and the general corruption of letting the BCCI run everything is fueling cynicism among fans and if there's any real concern that it could do real damage to the sport. I hope not, but cheating doesn't seem to be punished very harshly in cricket and the blazerati that run it appear to be pretty corrupt, so I'm asking as an interested newcomer.

*Cheating really was threatening baseball until the Black Sox scandal happened and the commissioner was given great powers.

And there was a bit of this in the NBA, as I recall. "They rigged the lottery so that the Knicks could get Patrick Ewing" is the "Mikey died from eating pop-rocks and Coke" of 90's sportstalk radio. And there's an idea that Stern made Michael Jordan quit for a few years as a "quiet" suspension for his gambling issues (because a punishment that nobody knows is a punishment is soooo effective). And then an actual NBA ref got caught taking bribes. But the NBA is obviously doing just fine, even though the management of some of the big market teams is terrible, so I don't think there's much threat from a scandal, either real or imagined.

[Ray de Galles]

Play stopped for the day.

[San Bernardhinault]

With the different conditions over two days, wouldn't it be wiser just to start fresh tomorrow?

[ursus arctos]

Reed, it is a complicated situation for a number of reasons.

On the one hand, there have been major match-fixing scandals that are still within the memory of most people who follow the sport. In 2000, the South Africans engaged in various shenanigans against India in full internationals that led to their captain being banned for life.

More recently, some less prominent T20 leagues have been plagued by match fixing, and Pakistan were found to have engaged in spot-fixing while touring England in 2010.

That partially reflects the fact that a very large number of matches are played, and there is significant betting available on virtually all of them, with much of the betting coming from the Subcontinent and Subcontinent diaspora communities. I have long thought that spot fixing would exist in North American sports if there was real money to be made on betting whether there would be a wild pitch in a particular inning, given how inconsequential such things can be on the final result of the match. We do have a deep market for prop bets of that sort on the Super Bowl, but the sheer number of people watching the game (which creates the prop bet market) also makes it hard to get away with shenanigans.

All of this means that conspiracy theorists have more to deal with than they usually do, but it doesn't mean that there is a spectre over outcomes in a tournament of this magnitude that is meaningfully interfering with its popularity or meaningfulness anymore than that is the case with the NBA.

[Satchmo Distel]

T20 has made players a lot wealthier than they were in 2000 and it tends to be less secure players on the margins who would be tempted. The World Cup is under too much scrutiny for players to just chuck games and I don't see how the risk to future career earnings would make sense.

Dhoni is very wealthy so anyone accusing him of chasing a bookie handout is discredited immediately.