World Cup Final New Zealand v England Sunday July 14 @ Lords

[Lebbo73]

Geez imagine if that happened to India at the next one at home, nobody with any relationship with the ICC would get out of the joint alive before the stadium got razed to the ground.

Please let this happen

 

[Oaktree]

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".

I personally had it Shakib, then Sharma, Williamson, Starc, Warner.

Williamson carried his team a bit like Shakib.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Park cricketer]

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".

I thought Shakib would have got it because what he achieved was honestly something that has not been done in world cups as far as I can remember.

 

[SirBont]

Class

 

[Lebbo73]

I look forward to the ceremony where England hand over the World Cup trophy to the rightful winners New Zealand.

.

heck me you are a lunatic

 

[Lebbo73]

I just watched the replay. They were no-where near crossed when Gutrill threw the ball. That had to be a 5.

Look at the scorecard, it was 6 runs.

 

[Boxhead_31]

But when is the throw completed though? When it hits stokes or when it leaves the arm.

Instant of the throw

 

[The Speaker]

Look at the scorecard, it was 6 runs.

Which it should not have been.

 

[Oaktree]

The problem with this World Cup outcome is the unlikelihood of it occurring in the first place for the ruling to be heavily scrutinised.

A tied result followed by a tied super over.

The people who agreed to most boundaries wins clearly deserve the criticism directed towards them.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Voice of the G]

Instant of the throw

I would have thought when it hit Stokes and they had crossed when that happened.

 

[big_e]

Fun fact: ICC regulations (here) refer to the super over as a One Over Per Side Eliminator, or an Oopse for short. (Page 35 of the PDF at the link.)

 

[lazy77]

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...

This might be true, but it's not some huge revelation that most Australians would rather see New Zealand win than England. They're our neighbours and friends, plus everyone loves an underdog. It's only natural that we sympathise after they lose in such a farcical manner more than we would if the shoe were on the other foot.

But even if NZ had won in those circumstances, the points would still stand. The overthrow rule would still be all kinds of ridiculous and winning the world cup by tieing the game would still be unfortunate.

 

[King Elvis]

let's list the priorities in limited overs cricket...
1. score the most runs
2. lose the least amount of wickets in the process of scoring runs.
3. nothing; absolutely nothing.

if 1 is equal, surely we defer to #2?

if people still want to de-value wickets so much past #2 to past NOTHING ELSE, then we should stick with "boundaries" as an arbitrary point as a classifier. But seriously, does anybody think our priorities are straight with this rule?

We all collectively realised we had bad rules when the tied was automatically reverted to higher ladder position (this has it's own issues with "no result" games etc).

My opinion is do super overs until you eventually get a winner. The only downside is the time it takes. Not as though any World Cup Finals match should ever be held in a stadium with no lighting and they already use a ball that's visible at night so who cares if they run out of natural light.

Seems obvious that if runs are tied, wickets become the deciding factor.

A lot more authentic and meaningful that most boundaries - which is a pretty crap approach.

 

[lazy77]

There's too much focus on the countback rules imo. It is silly that the number of boundaries decided the world cup, but it never should have got to that stage. The real killer were the ridiculous overthrows, where Stokes was effectively allowed to have two run scoring shots off the one ball. That should never have been allowed to stand.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

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.

It won't. It will disappear again behind a paywall and all the people who have lost their minds this week will forget about it when footie season starts. Terrible, but awesome that people got to see it at all really.

 

[RW]

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.

I don't think that allowing the boundary to stand in that situation was fair to either side really. If the boundary results from an overthrow, the fielding side deserves to be penalised for bad fielding, but that wasn't the case here.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Wickets lost in the super over is probably the fairest outcome. It probably should have played out that way, that or another super over.

I would have preferred that. It would have made more sense. England would have won anyway but somehow it wouldn't have felt as dumb.

But one of the glories of cricket is its stupidity. Anyone remember the 2007 final with Sri Lanka batting pointlessly in the dark at the end of the match?

 

[King Elvis]

BTW - interesting decision as to how the Kiwis sent out?

 

[melanChronic]

Having had the day to reflect on that game, I now can see the beauty in this result even if I was heavily cheering on NZ.

It just sums up the historical incapabilities of both cricketing nations to get it done in a WC. Like two magnets being forced towards each other, each equally repelled away from the winning position. Eventually they settled at balance with neither side able to claim the trophy, and it came down to England's tendency to benefit from distinctly 'cricket' administrative incompetence, and NZs habit of getting totally stitched up by them.

In one sense it is probably good that the shoe isn't on the other foot; the stropiness from Morgan if they had've copped what NZ did would have been incredibly ugly. Williamson is so classy.

 

[to1994]

BTW - interesting decision as to how the Kiwis sent out?

I don't think it was really an issue, Williamson and Taylor just aren't big hitters and Guptill looked to be timing them well in his brief stay in NZ's innings. CDGH is the only other guy but he was so bad he wouldn't have been an option.

They simply didn't have anyone else to fulfill that job and to be honest Neesham did a brilliant job as a super over is far more suited to England then it is NZ with their players.

 

[lazy77]

BTW - interesting decision as to how the Kiwis sent out?

Do you mean who they sent out? It possibly should've been Henry or Ferguson bowling, but Boult is their big man. It wasn't exactly controversial. As for the batting, they picked players who could hit sixes. It was sound thinking. Can't legislate for bad luck.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Having had the day to reflect on that game, I now can see the beauty in this result even if I was heavily cheering on NZ.

It just sums up the historical incapabilities of both cricketing nations to get it done in a WC. Like two magnets being forced towards each other, each equally repelled away from the winning position. Eventually they settled at balance with neither side able to claim the trophy, and it came down to England's tendency to benefit from distinctly 'cricket' administrative incompetence, and NZs habit of getting totally stitched up by them.

In one sense it is probably good that the shoe isn't on the other foot; the stropiness from Morgan if they had've copped what NZ did would have been incredibly ugly. Williamson is so classy.

Oh well said. That's how I've been feeling this morning. Neither of them wanted it, but the dumbest of laws forced one of them to take it! Hilarious really.

 

[CazC30]

Like an onion the more you peel it back the more it stinks.

Bitter much? Those onions can taste harsh.

 

[Hawks_4478]

Instant of the throw

It doesn’t exactly state that in the rules though

 

[Sarcoidevo]

All these articles about Stokes redemption? - please spare me - winning a cricket match should absolutely never redeem him for his sh1t act outside a nightclub - maybe go visit and volunteer time in a hospital with survivors of nnocent bashings and educate youth about the dangers of assault - once a flog mostly always a flog