Cricket Thread

[Zapphod]

Yeah umm that's because we didn't win because of a bad umpiring call. That assertion assumes England don't get enough in the next two balls. Your putting a defintive statement on it the call.

If it were the last ball of the game you'd be right but it wasn't.

Ok so next ball the batsman was caught behind, just as valid an argument and by your own admission you got more runs than you should have in a tied game so yes it was determined by an umpiring call because it was that incorrect call that made it a tie.

You can not argue hypotheticals only on the facts you have in front of you, England didn't score more runs than NZ and were awarded more than they should have got.

 

[ncurd]

FFS you are agrueing hypotheticals because your saying what would of happened if correct amount of runs would had be given.

I'm saying you can't because any scenario is hypothetical. Therefore no one can say who would of won, lost or even if it remained a tie.

Bloody hell.

 

[Which Tyler]

Meh, it was a bad call by the umpires. No worse than a bad call of out or not-out; and like many a reffing error, it'll be largely forgotten about by the vast majority within a few weeks (maybe longer given that it was a world cup final).

Bad calls are always more annoying at the end of a game than earlier, but they're no more important.

All fans have the right to vent about bad calls, and it always takes a few days to calm down and move on when it happens. I think the important thing is that it was a bad call based on a arcane little bit of law that basically nobody knew. Maybe a McCaw like laws nerd could have talked the umpires around, but between the four of them, they just forgot that piece of trivia that's basically never actually mattered before.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Meh, it was a bad call by the umpires. No worse than a bad call of out or not-out; and like many a reffing error, it'll be largely forgotten about by the vast majority within a few weeks (maybe longer given that it was a world cup final).

Bad calls are always more annoying at the end of a game than earlier, but they're no more important.

All fans have the right to vent about bad calls, and it always takes a few days to calm down and move on when it happens. I think the important thing is that it was a bad call based on a arcane little bit of law that basically nobody knew. Maybe a McCaw like laws nerd could have talked the umpires around, but between the four of them, they just forgot that piece of trivia that's basically never actually mattered before.

I'm not bothered at all about the call, it seems like a relatively minor thing. The luck of it hitting the bat and going to the boundary is obviously a bigger thing to be gutted about, at the time. Now I'm just like, "**** happens, we lost, but what a great game". But Calls or incidents at the end of the game are worse than calls at other times because the teams have less chance to adjust to the new game situation. In this situation I agree with ncurd that if the umpires ruled differently stokes would have gone for a boundary on the last ball, and probably would have failed, but might still have succeeded and won.

I'm still glad i stayed up all night and watched it. It was a great game, one of the best in history.

In terms of tiebreakers I reckon just keep going with super overs, with different batsmen and bowlers. But if you had to have a tiebreaker I'd just make it either the team that finished higher in pool play or the team with the higher icc ranking.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Ok so next ball the batsman was caught behind, just as valid an argument and by your own admission you got more runs than you should have in a tied game so yes it was determined by an umpiring call because it was that incorrect call that made it a tie.

You can not argue hypotheticals only on the facts you have in front of you, England didn't score more runs than NZ and were awarded more than they should have got.

Like ncurd said , they didn't argue hypotheticals. You are though, by Suggesting the facts in front of you are valid to a different, hypothetical, scenario.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Anyway we have a rugby world cup to deal with coming up and I still can't decide who is going to win it.

Don't worry, Wayne Barnes will decide that for you....

Whatever the rights and wrongs it's great that previously disinterested people are talking about cricket. Really need to get more on terrestrial TV.

 

[smartcooky]

Yeah umm that's because we didn't win because of a bad umpiring call. That assertion assumes England don't get enough in the next two balls. Your putting a defintive statement on it the call.

If it were the last ball of the game you'd be right but it wasn't.

You're missing an import point - it not just a one run difference.

The batsmen didn't cross, so only five runs should have been awarded - that leaves two balls to score four runs instead of three. But but more importantly, the batsmen would then have to go back to their correct ends, so instead of Stokes facing the second to last ball, it would be your no 11. That would hugely change the chances of England winning.

 

[ncurd]

You're missing an import point - it not just a one run difference.

The batsmen didn't cross, so only five runs should have been awarded - that leaves two balls to score four runs instead of three. But but more importantly, the batsmen would then have to go back to their correct ends, so instead of Stokes facing the second to last ball, it would be your no 11. That would hugely change the chances of England winning.

You have absolutely no arguement from me that it completely changes the scenario, probably sticks the chances in NZ favour. But we don't actually know what would of happened and that's all I'm saying.

And yes the fact Rashid would be on strike makes a far greater difference than the 1 run. But everyone is bringing up the 1 run as if that's the most important factor.

Rashid whilst not the greatest batsman in the world does has strike rate above 100, but an average of 19 helped by 12 not outs (it's closer 13.5 per inning). He does have an ODI 50. He's a typical modern day limited overs 11 who's actually capable with the bat but not great. One of England's strengths is they claim to bat all the way down to 11 and so that at the expense of better bowlers.

So Williamson almost certainly sets a field to protect singles as you don't want Stokes on strike for the last ball, and Boult goes for a Yorker length. Does he get it right? Does he bowl a full toss? Does Rashid pick it? Does he find the gap? Does he just find a guy in the deep? Do they run 2? They probably run a safety 1 to make sure Stokes is on strike for last ball.

And that's just one hypothetical scenario that take assumptions on field placements and ball you'd bowl. With tons of variables of what could and couldn't happen and all legitimate and no inplausable.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Man oh man, I think most South Africans feel the pain of all the New Zealanders after that final. What is it with England hosting a CWC and having major controversy in a playoff game where the teams finish with a tied score, but someone has to win???

I think the ICC have made a lot of work for themselves to make the result of a tie more fair when it comes to knockout games. I for one think the boundary rule is one of the dumbest rules ever. Neesham hitting a six in the Super over was way better than the 2 fours England scored, yet, no reward is given.

I'm very interested to see what's going to happen. Because what has now happened has created an even bigger divide between the "big 3" and the other nations.

 

[ncurd]

Yeah boundaries are a complete nonsence, the answer to your question is England scored 8 and NZ scored 6. But 2 6's V 3 4's yeah why do yhe 4's count morem

But actually neither of those mattered because England had scored something 9 more boundaries in the game itself. That's why England were certain in the super over they'd won at the tie. NZ barring lots of boundaries from Wide's and No Balls couldn't win in a tie.

Yeah it's going to have to change H2H in group or group league position would of been more sensible led to same result and been less galling. Reality is whoever wrote the rule didn't think it would come to that.

I still prefer sharing or more super overs.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Yeah boundaries are a complete nonsence, the answer to your question is England scored 8 and NZ scored 6. But 2 6's V 3 4's yeah why do yhe 4's count morem

But actually neither of those mattered because England had scored something 9 more boundaries in the game itself. That's why England were certain in the super over they'd won at the tie. NZ barring lots of boundaries from Wide's and No Balls couldn't win in a tie.

Yeah it's going to have to change H2H in group or group league position would of been more sensible led to same result and been less galling. Reality is whoever wrote the rule didn't think it would come to that.

I still prefer sharing or more super overs.

I've hated the super over ever since it was introduced.

But for me the one thing that they're not looking at at all is wickets, which is a much more important part than boundaries. England was bowled out in their 50 overs whereas NZ wasn't.

Had the Super Over been just an extra over to follow the 50 overs, NZ would have been the only team able to bat... Even if it was their tailenders.

I think that's makes it so frustrating when you weigh it up against other team sports and how they use extra time and penalty shootouts as opposed to cricket. Extra time should be compared to the super over, but it's not like the teams start afresh. They continue where they left off after the final whistle of regular time.

 

[ncurd]

I sort of dont have an issue with that but I think it fraught with peril.

DLS basically goes that wickets are a commodity to achieve runs. You can use that commodity as little or as much as you like. The principal is that at 50 over you can't use that commodity anymore.

So your two problems are say NZ was bowled out setting a target they use their resources to set a target. Now suddenly 50 overs of bowling they were supposed to keep a few spare on case of a very unlikely tie? On the flip side England don't kamikazes run 2 in the hope of midfields with Wood or Rashid because they definitely know a tie is on and they might need those resources.

As for wickets straight up how do you resolve a rain effected match in either scenario. NZ bat 50 overs and lose 8 wickets. England bat 20 lose 3 wickets. Rain wipes out the match and it's deemed a tie by DLS. Either England win because they only lost 3 wickets or they get more established batsman in the super over.


Asynchronous and Asymmetric games such as Cricket do not lend themselves to a sensible way to resolve the game in the advent of a tie. You can't continue the game as was because the team setting a target have little to no foreknowledge whilst the team chasing do.


Look it's better than boundaries but it's still not a fair way of resolving it.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I get that. But DLS makes provision not only for runs scored, but also wickets lost. It doesn't however look at boundaries scored, but more so on run rate.

In fact nowhere else does the amount of boundaries scored have any weight other than a Super Over tie.

It just doesn't make any sense why they use this system.

 

[ncurd]

It only makes the provision for wickets lost for the team chasing it nowhere in the calculation does it consider the wickets lost by the team setting the target. If the wickets lost by the team setting a target don't matter in DLS but the wickets by the chasing side do why do they suddenly matter in the event of a tie? The answer is they can't wickets to chasing side mean something very different to a team setting a target. This is essentially what DLS proves.

My point is simply wickets are yes a commodity and should be given a greater weight than boundaries they are still a terrible way of resolving a tie. It looks simple on the face but reality is they just problematic when you actually dig down.


Honestly the more and more I think about it a shared ***le has to be the only way. But then how do you resolve earlier knockouts?

 

[TRF_heineken]

Honestly the more and more I think about it a shared ***le has to be the only way. But then how do you resolve earlier knockouts?

The Net RR should then play a role. Why else would it then be there??? Same as a Rugby Pool where bonus points and points for and against plays a role...

 

[ncurd]

NRR is also horlicks.

Okay Pakistan were never overhauling NZ but why was it in the Bagladesh game if they batted second they could never overhaul it but if they batted first they could? there is something fundamentally wrong with it as a tie breaker if whether you bat first or second directly effects it.

Honestly group stages, Head to head should matter first. Then just go by ICC rankings.

 

[TRF_heineken]

NRR is also horlicks.

Okay Pakistan were never overhauling NZ but why was it in the Bagladesh game if they batted second they could never overhaul it but if they batted first they could? there is something fundamentally wrong with it as a tie breaker if whether you bat first or second directly effects it.

Honestly group stages, Head to head should matter first. Then just go by ICC rankings.

Oh come on. You know just as well as I do that ICC rankings means absolutely nothing when it comes knockout tournaments. Actually that counts for most sports and their WC events.

anyway, here's an interesting article on the matter:

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27201128/nine-better-ways-deciding-2019-world-cup-winner

 

[ncurd]

Oh I hate rankings other than an indicator to who is most likely to win a one off match. Way way too much stock is put into them.

I just don't know what you do after head to head that can called 'fair'

 

[smartcooky]

The answer is really simple to me - ditch the super over and either

a. share the ***le, or
b. replay the match, and if they still end up in a tie, then share the ***le

PS: I still think that the ball should be dead if a fielder throwing the ball hits a batsman or his bat, or the stumps.

 

[TRF_heineken]

The answer is really simple to me - ditch the super over and either

a. share the ***le, or
b. replay the match, and if they still end up in a tie, then share the ***le

PS: I still think that the ball should be dead if a fielder throwing the ball hits a batsman or his bat, or the stumps.

Agreed.

And I think for the betterment of Cricket it would have been the best to let them share the ***le. All they did now was to polarize the nations even more between the "big 3" and the other nations. Everyone is saying that New Zealand didn't lose, but they can't have the ***le.

As for the ball hitting the batsmen or his bat. That is another point of contention. I know the rules have recently changed that if a fielder is trying to run out a batsmen and the batsmen changes his line of running or in some way prevents the ball from hitting the stumps, the fielding team can appeal and the batsmen can be given out. But yeah, if the batsmen or his bat changes the natural direction of the ball after hitting him, the fielding team shouldn't be penalised. But then again I guess the same can be said when it hits the stumps. Here I say that being accurate should also not be the fielding team's fault and overthrows are being way too generous to batting teams.