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

[Sussex Nomad]

I'm a Pom with an Aussie passport living in NZ.

You're a bit confused then? It shows.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Some fair comment there, pulled apart by the usual suspects.

Technically it was a draw, and an England win declared on count back. It seems clear to me a second super would have been the fairest way to produce an outright winner, it's a shame they didn't add that condition to the rules to begin with. Boundary count back is just daft.

Everyone knows the scores were tied. The super over was tied. The 2 teams knew in the event of a tie there would be a super over, at the start of that super over, both teams knew that in the event of a tie England would win. NZ started the super over knowing they needed 16 runs. Whether those rules are daft can of course be debated before the next major tournament. Under the rules of this tournament England won.

A 2nd super over couldn't work really, how long does the light last in a 50 over game during the day, what would have happened, another 10mins while England pad up 3 batsmen and NZ get ready to field, then swap again? What happens if that is a tie again? Another over after that tied? Do you propose to go into the night?

Pakistan felt the same going out on the equally arbitrary net run rate to NZ who they beat.

 

[colinz]

I have visions of colinz driving his car off a bridge after ripping all his pictures of Brendon McCullum off the wall.

Most people down here would swap both the America's Cup & Rugby world cup for the cricket world cup. A lot of people are struggling to get over it. There's only 2 degrees of seperation down here.

BTW McCullum wasn't playing, but 4 years ago I would have felt like that when he threw his wicket away 3rd ball.

 

[colinz]

That wouldn't have happened. He would have been at the same end but needing 4 from 2 balls to win (3 to tie).

If one run was awarded plus 4 for the over throw, Stokes would of had to go to the none striker's end,it is my understanding of the rule, but if someone can post a link showing otherwise then maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Everyone knows the scores were tied. The super over was tied. The 2 teams knew in the event of a tie there would be a super over, at the start of that super over, both teams knew that in the event of a tie England would win. NZ started the super over knowing they needed 16 runs. Whether those rules are daft can of course be debated before the next major tournament. Under the rules of this tournament England won.

A 2nd super over couldn't work really, how long does the light last in a 50 over game during the day, what would have happened, another 10mins while England pad up 3 batsmen and NZ get ready to field, then swap again? What happens if that is a tie again? Another over after that tied? Do you propose to go into the night?

Pakistan felt the same going out on the equally arbitrary net run rate to NZ who they beat.

Although I agree with your explanation of the rules, they could have played all night, due to that modern conception of floodlights.

 

[colinz]

Everyone knows the scores were tied. The super over was tied. The 2 teams knew in the event of a tie there would be a super over, at the start of that super over, both teams knew that in the event of a tie England would win. NZ started the super over knowing they needed 16 runs. Whether those rules are daft can of course be debated before the next major tournament. Under the rules of this tournament England won.

A 2nd super over couldn't work really, how long does the light last in a 50 over game during the day, what would have happened, another 10mins while England pad up 3 batsmen and NZ get ready to field, then swap again? What happens if that is a tie again? Another over after that tied? Do you propose to go into the night?

Pakistan felt the same going out on the equally arbitrary net run rate to NZ who they beat.

Agreed, but this debate is basically about umpires match referees etc not understanding the rules (well at least one rule)

 

[Bold Seagull]

Although I agree with your explanation of the rules, they could have played all night, due to that modern conception of floodlights.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Agreed, but this debate is basically about umpires match referees etc not understanding the rules (well at least one rule)

We don't know, and probably will never know whether they understood the rules but mistakenly thought theyd crossed before the throw, or their understanding was wrong. Certainly all the ex-players, pundits and commentary didn't know either. It's only Taufel who has bought it to light, and no ex-umpires, players or anyone else seems to have backed him up at this point.

I think it is one of those freak occurrences in cricket where because it hit the bat, it was accepted they'd run 2 and then got the 4. Ian Smith, Nasser Hussain, Jonathan Agnew, various other people didn't dispute this on radio or TV, and still no one in cricket including many ex-player journalists have made anything of it.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

If you are talking sportsmanship, apparently Stokes asked the umpires to remove the 4 runs from hitting his bat, but they told him that was the rules and there was nothing they could do.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...n-after-england-s-world-cup-victory-qzdd8j5bv

I wonder how Stokes would have felt if the umpire called it a 5, and he had to go to the none strikers end.

That wouldn't have happened. He would have been at the same end but needing 4 from 2 balls to win (3 to tie).

No. In colinz's scenario (five runs awarded) we'd have needed 4 to win from 2 balls, with Wood on strike.

In malta's scenario (if the umpire's agreed to Stokes' request to discount the 'four' off his bat) we'd have needed 7 to win from 2 balls, with Stokes on strike.

 

[Willow]

Whether those rules are daft can of course be debated before the next major tournament. Under the rules of this tournament England won.

Agreed! Doesn't make it fair or right. Both teams strained every sinew in search of victory, it's not fair to either side that they are denied the chance of an outright victory based on RUNS SCORED.

A 2nd super over couldn't work really, how long does the light last in a 50 over game during the day, what would have happened, another 10mins while England pad up 3 batsmen and NZ get ready to field, then swap again? What happens if that is a tie again? Another over after that tied? Do you propose to go into the night?

Have you been to an international recently? The lights come on at every match, even when the sun is out! First sign of a shadow and the players are lit up like Christmas trees. Time is not an issue. And it's like rolling two dice, you aren't going to come up with 12 each time. Someone is going to win sooner rather than later.

Pakistan felt the same going out on the equally arbitrary net run rate to NZ who they beat.

I would agree Net Run Rate can go, there needs to be system that reduces the chances of a dead rubber at the end of the group stage. Re: Pakistan, I don't feel too sorry for them. They were woeful against West Indies and I think there is a good chance Sri Lanka would have turned them over at Bristol if it hadn't rained. And of course, NZ were capable of beating India in their rained off game, as they later proved

 

[maltaseagull]

I'm a Pom with an Aussie passport living in NZ.

Blood immigrant then

 

[Bold Seagull]

Agreed! Doesn't make it fair or right. Both teams strained every sinew in search of victory, it's not fair to either side that they are denied the chance of an outright victory based on RUNS SCORED.

They were given the chance to win on runs scored having 51 overs each. NZ knew they needed another run to win. Could have been given 52 overs but they weren't. NZ were only in the knockout stage through net run rate, not runs scored.

Have you been to an international recently?

Yep, CWC19 England v West Indies at The Rose Bowl. And a great day out it was too.

The lights come on at every match, even when the sun is out! First sign of a shadow and the players are lit up like Christmas trees. Time is not an issue. And it's like rolling two dice, you aren't going to come up with 12 each time. Someone is going to win sooner rather than later.

Accept that, but you just cannot run a day game into a night game because you have lights. There has to be a limit to the game set some where. Another super over would have taken at least another 30mins, possibly a bit more. It's not like rolling the dice because the team batting 2nd has a target and will bat accordingly. The lower that target the less risks they'll take so it will generally still be close.

I would agree Net Run Rate can go, there needs to be system that reduces the chances of a dead rubber at the end of the group stage. Re: Pakistan, I don't feel too sorry for them. They were woeful against West Indies and I think there is a good chance Sri Lanka would have turned them over at Bristol if it hadn't rained. And of course, NZ were capable of beating India in their rained off game, as they later proved

Agreed, and that is all sorts of hypothetical scenarios. Australia beat England fairly comfortably, then England thrashed them. Hardly conclusive that NZ would have beaten India, and Pakistan would have lost to Sri Lanka.

 

[Frankie]

Hands up who knew about the boundary count back rule before it was actually mentioned as the way the match were to be decided in the event of being a tied super over ? , personally not a clue the rule existed , but there are some pretty strange rules floating around in sport in the event of tied games , i think most people not knowing the cricket rule would of expected another super over not the count back malarkey .

 

[Geestar]

One sport is cricket, one is Rugby Union. What is the need to possibly compare which is bigger?! They were both great [emoji106]

Rugby was bigger.

You don't need to compare, I just enjoy too.

Sent from my TA-1020 using Tapatalk

 

[Bold Seagull]

Hands up who knew about the boundary count back rule before it was actually mentioned as the way the match were to be decided in the event of being a tied super over ? , personally not a clue the rule existed , but there are some pretty strange rules floating around in sport in the event of tied games , I think most people not knowing the cricket rule would of expected another super over not the count back malarkey .

There have only been 40 tied ODIs in the history of the game, only 5 at world cups, this was only the 2nd time for a tie in a knockout game. In the previous knockout situation, a semifinal between Aus and SA, Aus went through on their record in the previous group phase. One of the other times in a group game was decided on D/L and the team batting didn't realise they needed an extra run to win it.

So Cricket simply hasn't ever tested a way of resolving a tie in a major final before. They've taken a format that was worked well in other competitions and applied it here.

I wouldn't call it count back. Like Duckworth Lewis Method, the team batting second had a target. In this case NZ knew at the start of the super over the tie was England's, they needed +1. It was what it was.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Most people down here would swap both the America's Cup & Rugby world cup for the cricket world cup. A lot of people are struggling to get over it. There's only 2 degrees of seperation down here.

BTW McCullum wasn't playing, but 4 years ago I would have felt like that when he threw his wicket away 3rd ball.

Whoosh.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Not that I was able to see it in the dark from the Edrich Stand, but talking of epic Lord's finals and New Zealand international's needing 2 runs off the last ball to win, out of interest what would happened in the 1993 NatWest Trophy Final had Roger Twose only hit one run and it finished a tie? Would Warwickshire have won on fewer wickets lost, the title shared with us, a bowl-out? I can't remember what the rules were for that.

 

[Mellotron]

Technically it was a draw.

No it wasn’t. England won by the rules of the game as set at the START of the game. At no point was it declared a draw.

England won the match as per the rules of ODI cricket. That’s the start and end of it, as much as you might understandably wish otherwise.

 

[Willow]

No it wasn’t. England won by the rules of the game as set at the START of the game. At no point was it declared a draw.

England won the match as per the rules of ODI cricket. That’s the start and end of it, as much as you might understandably wish otherwise.

I'm not arguing that England didn't win the match, they did, quite obviously! However, England were chasing a winning target of 242 and they failed to reach that total. Not ideal, is it? What I am saying is, the law is an ass. I would say exactly the same if the Black Caps benefited from the same daft boundary count ruling. Cricket matches should be won by the team that scores the most runs.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I'm not arguing that England didn't win the match, they did, quite obviously! However, England were chasing a winning target of 242 and they failed to reach that total. Not ideal, is it? What I am saying is, the law is an ass. I would say exactly the same if the Black Caps benefited from the same daft boundary count ruling. Cricket matches should be won by the team that scores the most runs.

It used to be bowl at 1 stump!