[Cricket] Cricket World Cup Final: ENGLAND v New Zealand *** Official Match Thread ***

[colinz]

So shut up about it then

No.

 

[Triggaaar]

No I've never seen a chasing side have their score reduced when they've won by a run. Were talking about a 0ne in 10,000 chance of these things happening.

Well there have been a lot more than 10,000 games of professional cricket, so it should have happened by now. Yet it shouldn't, because it would be totally unfair.

 

[Triggaaar]

The King of Spain had it right on the beeb this morning..

“Whether it was 5 runs or 6 is debatable, what isn’t is that we have the World Cup, and we’re not giving it back”

Here endeth the lesson.

Spain won?

 

[colinz]

together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act = 0

They hadn't crossed at the instant of the throw, so the run in progress should not be given, but the run already ran is given 1+4=5

 

[hans kraay fan club]

That's unfair, it's perfectly reasonable to chew over the bones of the game like this. This thread is naturally partizan and not representative of the cricket community as a whole!

England rode their luck big time on Sunday and a lot of key decisions went their way. To me, the celebrations were muted. They know they got away with one there.

That post itself is partisan bollocks. Decisions went both ways. The non award of a four at fine leg cost England w runs in the chase. At least one wide awarded against Archer in normal time, and the first ball of the superover were wrong. All equally as valid points as the overthrows you’re clinging to.

As for the ‘muted’ celebrations- that’s just stupid. The celebrations at the end of the match reflected the fact they knew NZ were a worthy, honourable foe who’d come up agonisingly short - they were not going to be dicks and rub their noses in it. I’m sure the later celebrations were anything but ‘muted’.

 

[Triggaaar]

They hadn't crossed at the instant of the throw, so the run in progress should not be given, but the run already ran is given 1+4=5

No.

When did the ball become dead - when it hit the ropes.
How many runs had already been completed at that point - 2.
Was there a run in progress at that point (to which we can apply the timing of the throw rule) - no.

You cannot argue that our second run was in progress when the ball hit the ropes. That run had been completed.

Sure, you could say that run was in progress when the ball was thrown, but the rule does not refer to 'runs that were in progress when the ball was thrown', instead it refers to a 'run in progress' [at the time the ball becomes dead] if...
with an extra clause added if a run is in progress when the ball hits the ropes.

 

[Triggaaar]

That post itself is partisan bollocks. Decisions went both ways. The non award of a four at fine leg cost England w runs in the chase. At least one wide awarded against Archer in normal time, and the first ball of the superover were wrong. All equally as valid points as the overthrows you’re clinging to.

Indeed.

As for the ‘muted’ celebrations- that’s just stupid. The celebrations at the end of the match reflected the fact they knew NZ were a worthy, honourable foe who’d come up agonisingly short - they were not going to be dicks and rub their noses in it.

Exactly. As I posted here (to Willow) straight after the game, I felt for New Zealand as it was so close, and particularly with England having the luck of the overthrows (the luck being that the ball hit Stokes's bat). I didn't feel for them because they'd been wronged in any way, they hadn't.

 

[Willow]

That post itself is partisan bollocks. Decisions went both ways. The non award of a four at fine leg cost England w runs in the chase. At least one wide awarded against Archer in normal time, and the first ball of the superover were wrong. All equally as valid points as the overthrows you’re clinging to.

As for the ‘muted’ celebrations- that’s just stupid. The celebrations at the end of the match reflected the fact they knew NZ were a worthy, honourable foe who’d come up agonisingly short - they were not going to be dicks and rub their noses in it. I’m sure the later celebrations were anything but ‘muted’.

I'll trade you back your sundries for Jason Roy first ball

 

[Bold Seagull]

That's unfair, it's perfectly reasonable to chew over the bones of the game like this. This thread is naturally partizan and not representative of the cricket community as a whole!

England rode their luck big time on Sunday and a lot of key decisions went their way. To me, the celebrations were muted. They know they got away with one there.

Didn't look muted to me at all. If you win you win, whether a tight margin or not. What you might see as muted is probably emotional exhaustion and relief plus respect for the opposition.

What key decisions? The LBW on Taylor being the major one I think, partly their own fault given it was such a tricky pitch to read and they used their review when absolutely plumb. The umpires were at least consistent in misreading the bounce on a few of the LBW appeals. Thought Archer in particular was the victim of some harsh wide calls, which is of course 1 run plus whatever the extra ball scored. Interested to know what these other key decisions are.

 

[Willow]

Indeed.

Exactly. As I posted here (to Willow) straight after the game, I felt for New Zealand as it was so close, and particularly with England having the luck of the overthrows (the luck being that the ball hit Stokes's bat). I didn't feel for them because they'd been wronged in any way, they hadn't.

I didn't say NZ were wronged, just England were lucky. No problem at all with England winning the World Cup. Overall, they were the best team in the tournament. However, I do feel they got very lucky in the final.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I didn't say NZ were wronged, just England were lucky. No problem at all with England winning the World Cup. Overall, they were the best team in the tournament. However, I do feel they got very lucky in the final.

The biggest bit of luck either side could have had in that final on that pitch was winning the toss.

 

[dazzer6666]

No.

When did the ball become dead - when it hit the ropes.
How many runs had already been completed at that point - 2.
Was there a run in progress at that point (to which we can apply the timing of the throw rule) - no.

You cannot argue that our second run was in progress when the ball hit the ropes. That run had been completed.

Sure, you could say that run was in progress when the ball was thrown, but the rule does not refer to 'runs that were in progress when the ball was thrown', instead it refers to a 'run in progress' [at the time the ball becomes dead] if...
with an extra clause added if a run is in progress when the ball hits the ropes.

Correct. The ball was still ‘live’ until it hit the rope. 2 runs had been completed at that point.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

I didn't say NZ were wronged, just England were lucky. No problem at all with England winning the World Cup. Overall, they were the best team in the tournament. However, I do feel they got very lucky in the final.

Any team who wins a huge competition will have had the benefit of "luck" going their way, that is often the difference. England did ride their luck but to analyse just one run to death is meaningless. The LBW decisions one was missing but NZ had previously wasted their review and one was umpires call. How many times does it say umpires call? I'd hazard a guess a least once in every game. Every team has either benefited or not from these decisions in every game.

 

[colinz]

No.

When did the ball become dead - when it hit the ropes.
How many runs had already been completed at that point - 2.
Was there a run in progress at that point (to which we can apply the timing of the throw rule) - no.

You cannot argue that our second run was in progress when the ball hit the ropes. That run had been completed.

Sure, you could say that run was in progress when the ball was thrown, but the rule does not refer to 'runs that were in progress when the ball was thrown', instead it refers to a 'run in progress' [at the time the ball becomes dead] if...
with an extra clause added if a run is in progress when the ball hits the ropes.

The ball was dead when it hit the ropes. If the ball was retrieved before hitting the ropes it would still be live.
But the rule isn't about when the ball is dead. It's about whether the batsman had crossed at the time Guptil threw (the act) it.

Your understanding is the same as the mistaken umpires. Or as I mentioned earlier the umpires may have thought the batsmen had crossed before Gupi threw the ball. In that case a bad decision (similar to the 2 bad LBWs decisions etc) and we move on .

 

[CHAPPERS]

The non award of a four at fine leg cost England w runs in the chase..

Is that the one where the fielders foot touched the boundary market thing but they only looked at it for about 20 seconds and they only gave the 2 runs?

 

[Triggaaar]

I didn't say NZ were wronged, just England were lucky.

Ok, fair enough. When you said "To me, the celebrations were muted. They know they got away with one there", it read as more than 'they got lucky with marginal decisions, and more towards 'NZ were wronged'.

No problem at all with England winning the World Cup. Overall, they were the best team in the tournament.

Sure, and I know plenty of people have said that. I'm arguing the point about the 6 runs purely because I'm sure others are reading it incorrectly. I've seen some Indian cricket commentators and an Australian ex-umpire give their verdicts, but I'm willing to bet that my understanding of English punctuation is better than theirs.

However, I do feel they got very lucky in the final.

That's fine. It seems that some of us disagree. We were lucky with the ball that hit Stokes's bat - no argument there (that's 4 runs). We were also lucky with Taylor's wicket (although New Zealand contributed to that by wasting their review). I'm not sure we were that lucky with Roy's lbw decision - it was close and the umpires aren't expect to give it out when it's that close. In contrast, I'd add that we were unlucky with some calls, like wides and the a boundary call as highlighted by hans kraay, and New Zealand were lucky to win the toss (someone has to win it, but let's not pretend that's not lucky).

 

[BensGrandad]

As I read it the deflection by Stokes of the ball to the boundary had to be intentional and I do not think that it was so that rule doesn't come into force. and the 2 runs plus the boundary making 6 was correct. Anything else is clutching at straws. Mind you my interpretation could be wrong as no doubt I will be told.

 

[Bold Seagull]

similar to the 2 bad LBWs decisions etc and we move on .

Which 2 were those?

 

[colinz]

The King of Spain had it right on the beeb this morning..

“Whether it was 5 runs or 6 is debatable, what isn’t is that we have the World Cup, and we’re not giving it back”

Here endeth the lesson.

That's a shame it would have looked nice sitting between the Rugby World Cup & Americas Cup.

2nd thoughts best you look after it for us. Be a shame if it ended up looking like this.
https://www.gettyimages.com.au/deta...ter-blake-sits-beside-the-news-photo/56091851

 

[colinz]

Which 2 were those?

Taylor & Roy