Cricket Thread

[Every Time Ref]

The wicket thing is mainly because 50 over cricket is considered a game of resources. If you get to 50 overs without using all your batsman up tough. If you require to use them all it doesnt matter it's all about getting to the score.

Super Overs were to stop statistical reasons for determining ties of which very few make sense and can be argued against on way or another. Sadly it didn't work today.

Big argument that you should just keep doing super overs until there's a winner ... excellent drama, fair test of cricketing skill, the main down side is the high mortality rate of fans by heart attack. I certainly couldn't have coped with another

 

[ncurd]

Big argument that you should just keep doing super overs until there's a winner ... excellent drama, fair test of cricketing skill, the main down side is the high mortality rate of fans by heart attack. I certainly couldn't have coped with another

As an Ice Hockey fan who has seen 5th overtime there is a point it also becomes farceical.

I think it's that or sharing the spoils though.

 

[die_mole]

idk i loved the 5OT games as a kid but from a player/commercial point of view it makes no sense. Guys shouldn't be skating marathons but if a playoff game went to a shootout it would be a travesty.

The super over makes sense cause you are actually playing cricket unlike a shootout. It's also great entertainment. The best part of cricket to my untrained eye is the chase and super over has the best chase. I just think it would make sense to have to use the batters who hadn't gotten out during the teams' innings.

 

[ncurd]

Nah best part of Cricket is watching a bowler on top form running throught sides either swinging it all over the place or spinning it square.

But you have to watch red ball cricket to really get it. But if you watch NZ opening overs today that's the Cricket I love.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Wow...Cookie coming into a thread and feeding the whole arrogant kiwi fan image...at least its a different sport this time

Its not a genuine complaint...a genuine complaint would be made to the ICC, this is just venting on a forum

i'm just really sad about it, and don't like several tings that happened...but every single one of them is in the rule book and you (SC) are the VERY FIRST one to come in to rugby complaints and talk about the rules are the rules...quite often with quotes


**** i'm gutted...and to clarify...i typed the actual word...no self censoring here

 

[smartcooky]

Wow...Cookie coming into a thread and feeding the whole arrogant kiwi fan image...at least its a different sport this time

If that was your take, then you need comprehension lessons.

Its not a genuine complaint...a genuine complaint would be made to the ICC,

Nope. A genuine complaint is a complaint that the person believes is a genuine one

A complaint made to the ICC would be an "Official Complaint"

I'm just really sad about it, and don't like several tings that happened...but every single one of them is in the rule book and you (SC) are the VERY FIRST one to come in to rugby complaints and talk about the rules are the rules...quite often with quotes

Nope. I rationalise my questions and answers on Law, and explain the reasons for them.

**** i'm gutted...and to clarify...i typed the actual word...no self censoring here

I must be just a grumpy old fart who doesn't like the new ways we do things. I despise this whole American idea that a draw or a tie is not a valid result, and that someone MUST win, so they contrive stupid and farcical ways of breaking the tie; penalty shootouts, golden points, golden goals, bowl offs, super overs. Its all bullshit IMO. I am old school, I believe if two teams are tied/drawn at the end of a game, it means they were so closely matched that they could not be separated.

Why can't we just leave it at that and share the prize?

Why do we have to make up these senseless, artificial ways of creating a winner?

(Oh, and if you think I'm just sounding off about this now because of this match, you'd be wrong. Those of us who have been here long enough will remember my position on that stupid Penalty Kicking shootout to decide the Heineken Cup final about 10/12 years ago. What a f**king travesty that was!)

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Absolute scenes,

Easily the best game of cricket I've ever watched

It was ok I guess. Watched every darn ball and every darn ball was interesting. If I believed in god I'd have to wonder if England were destined to win

 

[Umaga's Witness]

That's natural it's a horrible way to lose. There are few good ways to resolve it at that point though.

Williamson player of the tournament and it's deserved.

He must have felt so **** to get that.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Nah best part of Cricket is watching a bowler on top form running throught sides either swinging it all over the place or spinning it square.

But you have to watch red ball cricket to really get it. But if you watch NZ opening overs today that's the Cricket I love.

Some Bloody great pitches in this World Cup, I gotta say

 

[Kiwiwomble]

If that was your take, then you need comprehension lessons.



Nope. A genuine complaint is a complaint that the person believes is a genuine one

A complaint made to the ICC would be an "Official Complaint"



Nope. I rationalise my questions and answers on Law, and explain the reasons for them.



I must be just a grumpy old fart who doesn't like the new ways we do things. I despise this whole American idea that a draw or a tie is not a valid result, and that someone MUST win, so they contrive stupid and farcical ways of breaking the tie; penalty shootouts, golden points, golden goals, bowl offs, super overs. Its all bullshit IMO. I am old school, I believe if two teams are tied/drawn at the end of a game, it means they were so closely matched that they could not be separated.

Why can't we just leave it at that and share the prize?

Why do we have to make up these senseless, artificial ways of creating a winner?

(Oh, and if you think I'm just sounding off about this now because of this match, you'd be wrong. Those of us who have been here long enough will remember my position on that stupid Penalty Kicking shootout to decide the Heineken Cup final about 10/12 years ago. What a f**king travesty that was!)

this is the problem, you've come in so hot you miss the point that most people would probably agree with you, that the rules are rough and that a draw or another super over or something like though would been more fair

I'm okay with the super over, that was pure drama; but after that? Nothing wrong with sharing the honours.

Seems like both finals today we're won by the "wrong" side

I think sharing the honours after a super over is fair. After that is debating over some statistical ********.

people literally agreeing a draw would be more fair

I fully expect you to come back hot again but honesty man, most of the conflict i see you in is based around how aggressively you come across and not what you're actually saying...but you think people have a problem with what you're saying and keep it going...chill bro

Interesting point now showing on loads of news sites saying England should have only got five for the over throw

seems to originate from this cricinfo article https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27191816/should-england-got-five-not-six-overthrows

 

[Kiwiwomble]

So England are the first country to win World Cups in cricket, football and rugby...

probably fitting considering you invented them all!...hilarious its taken so long though

 

[Zapphod]

Seriously folks who cares, both teams will now go back to losing on a regular basis and by the end of next month everyone will be moaning about selection.

The only thing I will give the RWC and the CWC is that they marginally more accurate than the NFL where a bunch of American franchises play each other until one declares themselves "world champion"

Personally I think "world" cups should go to the team leading the world rankings each year and these events should just be renamed something like "challenge" trophies that can count towards world rankings.

 

[ncurd]

Interesting point now showing on loads of news sites saying England should have only got five for the over throw

seems to originate from this cricinfo article https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27191816/should-england-got-five-not-six-overthrows

Interesting....

Umm my copy of Tom Smith's (Crickets definitive guide to the laws interpretation and application) is from 2003 so it might be wrong but law 19,6,iii clearly states "the runs completed by the batsman, together with the run in progress if they have crossed at the instance of the throw or act"

So ESPN didn't bloody check the law book as law 19.8 still states this.

https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws/boundaries

 

[Bean]

Well done NZ, 2019 CWC winners.

Sure, history will say England won, but we all know NZ won the match and the hearts of many viewers.

What an awful way for a classic match to end.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Seriously folks who cares, both teams will now go back to losing on a regular basis and by the end of next month everyone will be moaning about selection.

The only thing I will give the RWC and the CWC is that they marginally more accurate than the NFL where a bunch of American franchises play each other until one declares themselves "world champion"

Personally I think "world" cups should go to the team leading the world rankings each year and these events should just be renamed something like "challenge" trophies that can count towards world rankings.

love it when people post to say "who cares"...they obviously do, having opened the thread, read the posts and replied

 

[ncurd]

probably fitting considering you invented them all!...hilarious its taken so long though

Honestly it's more amazing we ever managed and still compete in Football considering how bloody huge it is globally.

 

[Bean]

New Zealand lost less wickets but lost this match because they didn't hit enough boundaries, and the ruling around Stokes' accidental boundary was incorrectly applied...

Let that settle in and tell me England won the game.

 

[ncurd]

I have decided it far easier to put Bean on my ignore list.

 

[Zapphod]

New Zealand lost less wickets but lost this match because they didn't hit enough boundaries, and the ruling around Stokes' accidental boundary was incorrectly applied...

Let that settle in and tell me England won the game.

Removing the Stokes over throws element from the equation for now as that it a different argument to the mechanics of deciding who wins.

Did the rules change after the game started?
Were the rules different for the teams?
Is there any reason NZ didn't know the rules?

If the answer to all of those questions is "no" then I hate to break it to you but NZ lost the game.

Long and diplomatic version:
It doesn't matter whether the winning criteria was well thought out or not as it was the same for both teams and they knew what those criteria were when they went into the game therefore it was fair.

Short and blunt version:
We lost suck it up.

 

[ncurd]

Having watched the replay its clear the batsman hadn't crossed when Guptil let go of the ball. However the laws aren't clear when the throw is deemed to have occurred (the law does state instant). So its purely umpire interpretation and considering all four umpire's were involved and they took their time we have to assume they got it mostly correct.

Either way as it occured on ball 4 of he over not ball 6 that would of left England requiring 4 from 2 instead of 3. Honestly if England required 2 from the last ball instead of 1 to tie Stoke would of likely played a glory shot and we'd have ended up with defintive winner.

Ifs, buts and maybes it was a key moment but 1 run didn't lose NZ the match in the instance as the game wasn't over.