Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cricket World Cup 2019

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

  • George C.
    replied
    Originally posted by tee rex View Post

    Oh great. Just when I was getting over it too.

    Do sports administrators ever say "Sorry, we got it wrong, and what's worse, we got it avoidably, predictably wrong. We just couldn't be arsed to think it through, because we knew it wasn't ever going to happen. Our bad!"

    And it's not even a full solution. You've got to have a back-up regulation in place to separate teams after they're still tied after the 2nd or 3rd or 4th super over, or for some reason that nobody has anticipated yet. "It's OK, that would never happen" ... yeah, we've been there, what did happen wasn't going to happen either.

    Anyway, as I said before, it's not the decisions, it's the shameful ducking for cover. Every player and umpire under the spotlight, crushingly so, exposed and vilified on social media, as ever. But some committee in Dubai? Nope. Just a little footnote to the news, months later.
    See my #1692

    Flawed irrational decision making continues.

    Pathetic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Satchmo Distel
    replied
    Originally posted by Janik View Post
    Or it gets dark, which would probably have been the case if these had been the rules back in the summer.
    Have a rule that all SF and Finals must be played in grounds with access to lights?

    Leave a comment:


  • Kevin S
    replied
    Jimmy Neesham: "Breaking news: better binoculars for ice-spotters on the Titanic."

    Leave a comment:


  • tee rex
    replied
    If I read the statement correctly, group games now get ONE Super Over as a tie-breaker. After that, the final result is ... still a tie.

    Seems like a solution looking for a problem.

    Leave a comment:


  • tee rex
    replied
    Oh great. Just when I was getting over it too.

    Do sports administrators ever say "Sorry, we got it wrong, and what's worse, we got it avoidably, predictably wrong. We just couldn't be arsed to think it through, because we knew it wasn't ever going to happen. Our bad!"

    And it's not even a full solution. You've got to have a back-up regulation in place to separate teams after they're still tied after the 2nd or 3rd or 4th super over, or for some reason that nobody has anticipated yet. "It's OK, that would never happen" ... yeah, we've been there, what did happen wasn't going to happen either.

    Anyway, as I said before, it's not the decisions, it's the shameful ducking for cover. Every player and umpire under the spotlight, crushingly so, exposed and vilified on social media, as ever. But some committee in Dubai? Nope. Just a little footnote to the news, months later.

    Leave a comment:


  • Janik
    replied
    After board meetings in Dubai, the ICC resolved that in semi-finals and finals in future world tournaments, if the teams score the same number of runs in their Super Overs, the Super Over will be repeated until one team wins.
    Or it gets dark, which would probably have been the case if these had been the rules back in the summer. And then what do they do? Ill-thought through. And when my idea, which is based on an inherent, ever-present asymmetry in the game, exists as both a fair and entirely simple method of picking a winner from tie situations. I should have written in to the ICC to suggest it, I suppose...

    Leave a comment:


  • Levin
    replied
    Not that its ever going to be needed now. I am interested to know if you can keep picking the same batters and bowlers though or if you have to choose different players each time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Etienne
    replied
    That's obviously much fairer, though god knows I'm not sure my nerves could have taken another Super Over.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ray de Galles
    replied
    No more boundary countback as ICC change Super Over regulations

    After board meetings in Dubai, the ICC resolved that in semi-finals and finals in future world tournaments, if the teams score the same number of runs in their Super Overs, the Super Over will be repeated until one team wins.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hot Pepsi
    replied
    Reed is my favorite cricket club

    Leave a comment:


  • Janik
    replied
    Not all Finals at Lords generate the same levels of interest. But seeing as we were talking about this just a few posts ago, Reed won the National Village Cup again today. And did so very comfortably, only needing slightly over half their overs to chase down the total.
    Sadly the biggest story of the match is that one of their opponents, from Houghton Main in Yorkshire, sounds like he sustained a serious injury; he got struck in the face by a delivery, and suffered a fractured eye socket and cheekbone and needed surgery to remove a blood clot behind his eye. Not how an amateur sportspersons biggest ever day should end.
    Last edited by Janik; 15-09-2019, 22:45.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ray de Galles
    replied
    A great post script to the tournament in The Guardian's Spin mailout today ;
    The game remains the same


    Well, how are we? The question is pluralised, not in the way of the patronising nause, but because the Spin is addressing itself just as much as anyone else. Last week, we endured and enjoyed the most thrilling cricket match of all-time. This week, we need to live our permanently changed lives with the knowledge that cricket can never matter again. Except it can, because such is sport: you see the best that it has to offer, hang around anyway because you’re a hopeless addict with no options, then quickly realise that even in these unprecedented circumstances it’s still better than pretty much everything else.
    Ellyse Perry of Australia plays a shot as Amy Jones of England jumps in front of her. Photograph: Harry Trump/Getty Images
    Since we last spoke, we’ve had bestowed upon us yet more genius from Ellyse Perry in the women’s Ashes, an absolute day out from Ed Barnard in the Blast and the news that Ian Chappell’s cancer prognosis is good.

    We must still mourn the World Cup because ecstasy demands grieving every bit as much as agony – what goes up must come down – but the strange and majestic nature of sport means that it offers us solace at the very same time as forcing us to seek it. We can get through this.

    Quote of the week


    “We do, however, still have our WhatsApp group, where each day we greet each other with ‘morning, champions’” – Mark Wood with a different perspective on how to handle the World Cup comedown. Don’t knock it till you’ve tried it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Janik
    replied
    He played on Saturday and wasn't at Squash training today. I doubt it's one he would have voluntarily missed.

    Reed are at home in the Semis in two weeks time against Hampshire side Sarisbury Athletic.

    Leave a comment:


  • ad hoc
    replied
    The other opener got out cheaply so the fact that I didn't hear anyone from the large Reed contingent shout "Well played, Matt" doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't there

    Leave a comment:


  • Janik
    replied
    Not him. If the other opener was called Matt, that was he.

    Leave a comment:


  • ad hoc
    replied
    Originally posted by Janik View Post
    Oooh, local punch up! Vaguely tempted to go and watch, particularly if my mate who sometimes appears for Reed 1sts is playing.
    [I think he is an automatic pick as opening bat, but his availability isn't consistent]
    Bit one sided to be honest. Foxton struggled to score many and Reed knocked them off easily. If your mate is called Richie, Janik, he was just shy of a century when the winning runs were knocked off. He batted well.

    Leave a comment:


  • George C.
    replied
    Hmm. Says it all.

    Flawed official determines a flawed result in a flawed tournament run by a flawed organisation.

    https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_...mar-dharmasena

    But yeah, everything is 'legitimate' .

    Leave a comment:


  • San Bernardhinault
    replied
    I do find the four overthrows a little odd - that there's some dividing line in the action of the fielder that adds extra runs.

    If the fielder dives for the ball and deflects it to the boundary rope - it's four runs, and not the extra ones run by the batsmen.

    If the balls nearly going for six, the fielder - Boult like - catches it but realises he's going to step on the boundary rope so throws the ball and it rolls onto the rope, that's four runs, and not any extra run by the batsmen.

    But if the fielder throws towards the stumps and then it goes for four, at that point they're counted as additional runs.

    It has always seemed odd to me - my feeling is that if the ball hits the boundary, then it should be just a boundary (or maybe the max of boundary or runs run by the batsmen)

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    That's what I thought and almost certainly what Stokes thought.

    Is Stokes going to become the new Flintoff? Or has he learned from Freddie's mistakes as well as his own?

    Leave a comment:


  • E10 Rifle
    replied
    I'm pretty sure the answer is no. And nor should they

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    Guptil was batting because he is the fastest runner in the XI by some distance. Which is also why he began as the non-striker.

    The "overthrows" were a complete fluke. I wouldn't have wanted him to forsake a throw in that situation.

    Do we believe these stories that Stokes asked for the umpires to take the four runs off the board? Do they actually have the discretion to do that?

    Leave a comment:


  • Satchmo Distel
    replied
    Should Guptill have just gone for a safe throw rather than risking overthrows?

    Did Guptill volunteer to bat so he could get redemption for the overthrows?

    Leave a comment:


  • Etienne
    replied
    Originally posted by jwdd27 View Post
    Couldn't Guptill have just left the last delivery from Archer? It looks more like a leg side wide on every repeat viewing.
    Theoretically, if he could have got out of the way of it. Stokes could have done the same to the last ball of the 50 overs which was also heading well down leg. In reality it would have been well nigh impossible for them to do it given they way they were set.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sporting
    replied
    There's countback in high jump competitions, for example.

    Leave a comment:


  • tee rex
    replied
    Which further illustrates the nonsense of the boundary rule. Sixes and fours are counted the same. And then they aren't.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X