ITCHY EYEBALLS
I see you watching me watching you
NZ need to lodge an appeal.
Disgrace and a farce.
Disgrace and a farce.
World Cup Final New Zealand v England Sunday July 14 @ Lords
- Thread starter Gough
- Start date
- Tagged users None
So you think the NZ batsman who left the last ball was correct to do so rather than risk getting out? Interesting
I get that .
I guess it worth the risk going for the catch.
At least it was not a Paul Rifle of hands for six
.
No, that's a little different. But the idea of making sure you don't get out to ensure a better result for your team is something pretty familiar.
Exactly, is there anything more frustrating than a team failing to chase down a total with wickets in hand at the end?
"We lost the game, but we still had 10 wickets in hand, a great innings"
Really in terms of ODIs, wickets mean nothing other than for D/L, tables use NRR, no wickets count there, just how many runs and how quickly did you do it.
In test cricket where a draw is as good as a win, sure, but not in limited overs cricket.
- Sep 11, 2018
- 40,969
- 41,648
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Storm|V/OzCricket|NBA-P|NHL-P|V8|F1
but we're talking about two teams who have scored the same amount of runs in the same amount of overs, so their NRR is identical, unless one team happens to be bowled out not on the last ball and in that case I most certainly wouldn't want to split them on NRR, would you?
Kennedy Parker
🎨𝖆𝖗𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙🎨
- Moderator
- #3,511
Crazy game.
Unfortunately will count for nothing but NZ in the field put together one of the all-time greatest performances as a team, built relentless pressure with the ball and fielded brilliantly. Took an incredible effort from Stokes and an insane run of luck to hold them off.
The last over with the throw deflecting off Stokes' bat for 4 is rough and extremely unlucky but that's a part of the laws of the game and it's a shame but sometimes luck is a factor in sports. Didn't have to come to that if Boult managed to pull off a brilliant catch like Cottrell in the outfield or pass it to Guptill, would've been game-set-match NZ are champions in that penultimate over.
The tiebreaker of boundaries being hit is a farce. A result shouldn't be decided on who is leading an arbitrary stat, a boundary shouldn't inherently considered more valuable than 4 or 6 singles. I wouldn't have an issue if they went with higher ladder positions as the decider; which would have deemed England the winners anyway. In a round-robin format that would make a lot of sense. Deciding on who has more boundaries is just gimmicky so hope they change that.
Unfortunately will count for nothing but NZ in the field put together one of the all-time greatest performances as a team, built relentless pressure with the ball and fielded brilliantly. Took an incredible effort from Stokes and an insane run of luck to hold them off.
The last over with the throw deflecting off Stokes' bat for 4 is rough and extremely unlucky but that's a part of the laws of the game and it's a shame but sometimes luck is a factor in sports. Didn't have to come to that if Boult managed to pull off a brilliant catch like Cottrell in the outfield or pass it to Guptill, would've been game-set-match NZ are champions in that penultimate over.
The tiebreaker of boundaries being hit is a farce. A result shouldn't be decided on who is leading an arbitrary stat, a boundary shouldn't inherently considered more valuable than 4 or 6 singles. I wouldn't have an issue if they went with higher ladder positions as the decider; which would have deemed England the winners anyway. In a round-robin format that would make a lot of sense. Deciding on who has more boundaries is just gimmicky so hope they change that.
Kennedy Parker
🎨𝖆𝖗𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙🎨
- Moderator
- #3,512
Also, Kane Williamson was all class in the post-game after such gutting result. A world of respect for him.
- Jul 31, 2010
- 8,765
- 12,130
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- S'roos, New Jets, Cronulla
- Moderator
- #3,513
Kane Williamson has been brilliant in the aftermath of this final handled a devastating loss with grace and class that will win him further glowing respect that he deserves... however can we just point out that as a known walker he has absolutely smashed the cover off a ball in a World Cup final and not moved a muscle 
. It was fantastic! The will to headbutt the line is in all of us in our most desperate moments.
. It was fantastic! The will to headbutt the line is in all of us in our most desperate moments.
Last edited:
Park cricketer
Club Legend
- Nov 29, 2018
- 1,771
- 2,367
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Well that was certainly the most farcical end to a world cup final I've ever seen. The match itself was a cliffhanger but the way it got decided made it a bit of a farce for me.
This is not a slight or a dig on England and they were rightly were adjudged the winners based on the rules in play. It's just that the said rules are ridiculous and hopefully we don't have those rules to spoil an another world cup final like this.
I can never understand the logic behind the fielding team being penalised for the ball ricocheting off the bat of the batsman. Sure, the batsman had genuinely no intention of blocking the throw and so shouldn't be penalised for obstructing the field. In the same vein, the fielding team should also not get penalised with the resulting extra runs because it was not their fault that the batsman came in the way of the throw.
Secondly, deciding a world cup final based on boundary count is a bit of a joke as well. It's like awarding the Wimbledon final to the player who won his points by hitting more aces against a player who won the same amount of points through long rallies. NZ were declared the losers in the world cup final despite having scored the same number of runs as the world cup winners in both the stipulated 50 overs and the super over because some old bloke in the ICC office thought boundaries matter more than wickets. In both tennis and football, when things are equal, they continue to play on until you get a winner via the tiebreak or the penalty shootout and don't get decided via who had the most number of shots taken at goal or who had the most number of aces in the match. Ideally l would have liked another super over, surely it's not hard to make time for another 1 or 2 overs especially given the magnitude of the prize to be worn. I think even a shared trophy would have been a better option, this was just too cruel on NZ imo. Hopefully these rules come under the scanner in the next ICC meeting.
This is not a slight or a dig on England and they were rightly were adjudged the winners based on the rules in play. It's just that the said rules are ridiculous and hopefully we don't have those rules to spoil an another world cup final like this.
I can never understand the logic behind the fielding team being penalised for the ball ricocheting off the bat of the batsman. Sure, the batsman had genuinely no intention of blocking the throw and so shouldn't be penalised for obstructing the field. In the same vein, the fielding team should also not get penalised with the resulting extra runs because it was not their fault that the batsman came in the way of the throw.
Secondly, deciding a world cup final based on boundary count is a bit of a joke as well. It's like awarding the Wimbledon final to the player who won his points by hitting more aces against a player who won the same amount of points through long rallies. NZ were declared the losers in the world cup final despite having scored the same number of runs as the world cup winners in both the stipulated 50 overs and the super over because some old bloke in the ICC office thought boundaries matter more than wickets. In both tennis and football, when things are equal, they continue to play on until you get a winner via the tiebreak or the penalty shootout and don't get decided via who had the most number of shots taken at goal or who had the most number of aces in the match. Ideally l would have liked another super over, surely it's not hard to make time for another 1 or 2 overs especially given the magnitude of the prize to be worn. I think even a shared trophy would have been a better option, this was just too cruel on NZ imo. Hopefully these rules come under the scanner in the next ICC meeting.
Not at all, but if NZ won on boundaries, none of those posters on here whinging about it would be calling it farcical and calling for rule changes...
Park cricketer
Club Legend
- Nov 29, 2018
- 1,771
- 2,367
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
The good thing though is that hopefully this England win will spread the game more among the kids in England now that it was shown in FTA television.
- Sep 11, 2018
- 40,969
- 41,648
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Storm|V/OzCricket|NBA-P|NHL-P|V8|F1
we would still call for rule changes, but accept the outcome much more readily, that's all. It's a farce of a rule design/application etc whomever is the beneficiary.
- Oct 20, 2014
- 18,436
- 19,590
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
Cricket's cricket. Bowling will always be the attack, and deserves the rewards.
Park cricketer
Club Legend
- Nov 29, 2018
- 1,771
- 2,367
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Sep 11, 2018
- 40,969
- 41,648
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Storm|V/OzCricket|NBA-P|NHL-P|V8|F1
does everybody think Williamson was a fair choice for Man Of The Series? I would have thought Starc for his "most wickets in a single tournament ever" or Rohit Sharma for his "most centuries in a single tournament ever".
Boxhead_31
The Greatest Team Of All
- Oct 12, 2007
- 36,824
- 51,302
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- South BHFL
You would hope that the four professional umpires in charge of the ICC’s signature event would have an understanding of the rule
A former leading Australian umpire took the long handle to the umps on a mate's FB post. Said it was clear it should have been five for the overthrows and not six and that there was no reason for the umps to be caught out like that on the laws and playing and conditions. Also said allowing the boundary to stand is an anachronism which should have been addressed given that batsmen don't run when hit by ball.
