Originally posted by diggedy derek
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Cricket World Cup 2019
Collapse
X
-
-
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 PostNot 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.)
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 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.
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
-
Originally posted by Ray de Galles View PostOn 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!
Comment
-
- Mar 2008
- 4915
- Amersfoort. NL
- Bristol City, RC Lens, Borussia Dortmund, Feyenoord, Bath Women's Roller Derby
- Nobosprits.
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
-
- Mar 2008
- 18795
- Revelling In The Hole
- England, Chelsea and Tooting and Mitcham. And Surrey CCC. And Wimbledon Dons Speedway (RIP)
- Nairn's Cheese Oatcake
Originally posted by Janik View PostI 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.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ray de Galles View PostOn 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!
Comment
-
- Mar 2008
- 18795
- Revelling In The Hole
- England, Chelsea and Tooting and Mitcham. And Surrey CCC. And Wimbledon Dons Speedway (RIP)
- Nairn's Cheese Oatcake
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.
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 PostI 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
Comment