Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cricket World Cup 2019

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

  • Kevin S
    started a topic Cricket World Cup 2019

    Cricket World Cup 2019

    We don't need a fancy title for this one.

    So it's nearly here. The first World Cup not to feature any associate nations and the first not to include all the current Test playing nations. Just the ten coming - no Ireland and no Zimbabwe.

    All ten teams play each other in a round robin (45 matches) and then it's into the semi final for the top four, so there are only three knockout matches (and no bronze medal match).

    The round robin format will help the hosts England, whose approach to ODIs is to maximise the batting strength. This works on most occasions but can come unstuck against crafty attacks or on unpredictable pitches. But with nine matches, England will win enough to make the semi finals.

    They've been batting very well against Pakistan in the current ODI series too. So far 16 players have been used so one of them will get a phone call in the next couple of days to tell him he's not going to play in the World Cup. The Guardian think that Curran or Willey will be cut, though Denly is a possibility if they want more choice of seamers.

    I expect New Zealand to make the final four; they are a fantastic one day team. And then it should really be two from India, Australia and South Africa.

    And it's a shame there isn't some kind of quarter final stage because in a one off game sides like Pakistan, West Indies, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka could do over any of those I've mentioned already, but in the round robin I expect they'll all take wins off each other rather than one of them making the final four. But obviously that would have required a completely different format with more teams (the only team that has not been mentioned yet is Afghanistan).

    There are also ten warm up matches to be played between now and the end of the month, so that's two games each. These are not official ODIs as teams can utilise the whole squad rather than just an XI in them.
    Last edited by Kevin S; 18-05-2019, 22:58.

  • 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:


  • Janik
    replied
    Not a cricket idea, for sure. I think golf uses it sometimes. Basically take the last ball of the super over for both sides - the team that scored the most off it wins (would have been England in this case). If the sides scored the same on the last ball, compare the second last, etc.
    Just as with boundaries scored, it involves chopping up two equal sized cakes and saying that one is superior because this portion is bigger, even though that necessitates that some other metric must be smaller for the side you are picking as the winner.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hot Pepsi
    replied
    Originally posted by Janik View Post
    Re: the use of number of boundaries to decide the winner - it could have been worse.

    Super Over rules
    • In the event of the scores being level in the Super Over, the first satisfied of the following criteria will determine the winner:
    • The team with the most number of boundaries combined from the main match and the Super Over is the winner.
    • The team with the most number of boundaries from the main match (that is, not including the Super Over) is the winner.
    • A count-back from the final ball of the Super Over shall be conducted. The team with the higher scoring delivery is the winner. Runs scored from illegal deliveries count towards the total for the following legal delivery.
    Good job it didn't go to count-back. That would have been really arcane.
    What’s a count back?

    Leave a comment:


  • Nocturnal Submission
    replied
    Originally posted by Levin View Post
    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.

    I've run the odd 23-er or so as a kid when nobody could be arsed to go and get the ball on a hot day or a springer spaniel had slobbered all over it and the ball was being gingerly kicked around in the grass to dry it off.

    I didn't know you played first class cricket for Derbyshire, etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • Janik
    replied
    Re: the use of number of boundaries to decide the winner - it could have been worse.

    Super Over rules
    • In the event of the scores being level in the Super Over, the first satisfied of the following criteria will determine the winner:
    • The team with the most number of boundaries combined from the main match and the Super Over is the winner.
    • The team with the most number of boundaries from the main match (that is, not including the Super Over) is the winner.
    • A count-back from the final ball of the Super Over shall be conducted. The team with the higher scoring delivery is the winner. Runs scored from illegal deliveries count towards the total for the following legal delivery.
    Good job it didn't go to count-back. That would have been really arcane.

    Leave a comment:


  • Janik
    replied
    Yeah, it's similar. Though as we saw, overthrows don't demand an error, even if an errant throw or misplaced fielder is the usual cause. They can result from simple bad luck for the fielding side.

    Cricket doesn't count fielding errors, in fact. Wicketkeeper errors, yes. Those are byes and don't go against the bowler. They are very much the equivalent of passed balls in baseball. However overthrows are credited to the batsman and debited to the bowler in just the same way as runs off the bat. So the 6-that-should-have-been-5 went onto Stokes score and against Boult's statistics.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hot Pepsi
    replied
    Reminds me of this.

    Leave a comment:


  • Greenlander
    replied
    HP - in effect when the ball hits or crosses the boundary it then ceases to be in play and becomes dead either as a four or a six. It matters not how it got there. There are many instances of an errant throw not being backed up properly and hitting the boundary. There have been instances in the past with batsmen stealing extra runs as a result of a direct hit on the stumps and the ball shooting off in an unexpected direction (I'm unsure if this has ever resulted in a four though) and calls that accurate fielding shouldn't be punished by overthrows.

    If my memory serves NZ were unlucky in that the fielder at fine leg had moved around to cover the throw not being gathered by the wicketkeeper. If he'd stayed put, well who knows.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hot Pepsi
    replied
    That makes sense.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X