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

[hart's shirt]

Kane Williamson - the embodiment of how to meet with triumph and disaster...and treat those two imposters just the same.

"A bit of a shame isn't it? That's the game we play. You can't nitpick."

"While the emotions are raw it's pretty hard to swallow when two teams work so hard to get to this moment."

"We had two attempts to separate us and still couldn't - it is what it is, the rules are there at the start and they probably never thought they would have to use them."

"Someone had to walk away with the title and we're gutted that it's not us. England had a very good campaign and they deserve the victory."

 

[Bold Seagull]

Enjoyed the game and thrilling climax but as someone who isn't a cricket aficionado it strkes me as rather bizarre that they go to the lengths of a super over rather than base it on least wickets lost?

I think the game lost it's way a while back and the 50 over game became very cagey, sometimes very boring, especially through the middle of innings. So rules have evolved to make the game more exciting and reward scoring, such as power plays and ultimately rewarding the number of boundaries scored in the event of a tie after a super over.

If you had a rule that rewarded a tie to the side with the least number of wickets down, you are encouraging more conservative play, rather than deciding a tie, firstly on a viewer grabbing exciting super over, then deciding that on boundaries scored; encouraging positive more risky play.

I'm not saying it's ideal, but all the rules of ODI cricket in particular have been to encourage excitement, protecting your wickets doesn't necessarily achieve that.

 

[Gazwag]

Just this moment been speaking to a mate who works for Sky sport, they all say it was a 5.

Maybe you should look at the ball before and the dreadful bit of fielding to allow a 6 to be scored instead of Stokes wicket, the following 6 would then never have happened and you would have won by a dozen or so runs.

 

[colinz]

I think the game lost it's way a while back and the 50 over game became very cagey, sometimes very boring, especially through the middle of innings. So rules have evolved to make the game more exciting and reward scoring, such as power plays and ultimately rewarding the number of boundaries scored in the event of a tie after a super over.

If you had a rule that rewarded a tie to the side with the least number of wickets down, you are encouraging more conservative play, rather than deciding a tie, firstly on a viewer grabbing exciting super over, then deciding that on boundaries scored; encouraging positive more risky play.

I'm not saying it's ideal, but all the rules of ODI cricket in particular have been to encourage excitement, protecting your wickets doesn't necessarily achieve that.

I partly agree I think wickets are as exciting as runs, to make the 50 over game more spicy, I would do away with the 10 over maximum for bowlers, and let a bowler bowl as many overs as the captain would like.
A batsman isn't restricted by the number of balls he's allowed to face.

 

[Willow]

I think the game lost it's way a while back and the 50 over game became very cagey, sometimes very boring, especially through the middle of innings. So rules have evolved to make the game more exciting and reward scoring, such as power plays and ultimately rewarding the number of boundaries scored in the event of a tie after a super over.

If you had a rule that rewarded a tie to the side with the least number of wickets down, you are encouraging more conservative play, rather than deciding a tie, firstly on a viewer grabbing exciting super over, then deciding that on boundaries scored; encouraging positive more risky play.

I'm not saying it's ideal, but all the rules of ODI cricket in particular have been to encourage excitement, protecting your wickets doesn't necessarily achieve that.

But there's no logic in your argument. On the flip side the fielding side would need to attack more to take more wickets than they lost themselves? No side has ever gone out hunting boundaries in case there is a double tie, they just try and score more runs that the other team!

 

[Gazwag]

Enjoyed the game and thrilling climax but as someone who isn't a cricket aficionado it strkes me as rather bizarre that they go to the lengths of a super over rather than base it on least wickets lost?

I suppose for a cricket fan who isn't a football aficionado (I'm sure they are some) looking at knockout football match it may strike them as rather bizarre to go to the lengths of a penalty shootout rather than base it on shots on target. You could have one team who defend for 120 minutes show no attacking intent beat a team who have 25 shots on target but can't score.

 

[colinz]

Maybe you should look at the ball before and the dreadful bit of fielding to allow a 6 to be scored instead of Stokes wicket, the following 6 would then never have happened and you would have won by a dozen or so runs.

It looked to me as if Boult slipped. Under such pressure players make mistakes. Umpires and match referees should know the rules.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Enjoyed the game and thrilling climax but as someone who isn't a cricket aficionado it strkes me as rather bizarre that they go to the lengths of a super over rather than base it on least wickets lost?

It still would have been a tie, in all probability. Both sides lost 8 wickets, but for the two suicidal second runs England took off the final two balls - which they wouldn't have, had wickets counted.

 

[Springal]

It looked to me as if Boult slipped. Under such pressure players make mistakes. Umpires and match referees should know the rules.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I partly agree I think wickets are as exciting as runs, to make the 50 over game more spicy, I would do away with the 10 over maximum for bowlers, and let a bowler bowl as many overs as the captain would like.
A batsman isn't restricted by the number of balls he's allowed to face.

Wickets are as exciting as runs, I agree, however, you get more wickets when batsmen take more risks to score. England lost wickets yesterday trying to hit boundaries. Risk and reward. If you take wickets as a deciding factor, then you perhaps take out the risk of going over the top. Going over the top creates more wicket taking opportunities.

Not sure about the bowlers, even back in '79 when it was 60 overs per side, bowlers were still restricted to 12 each. Has there ever been a time when ODIs haven't had restrictions on bowling? Only thing I can see that achieving is sides taking an extra batsmen or 2.

 

[Guinness Boy]

It still would have been a tie, in all probability. Both sides lost 8 wickets, but for the two suicidal second runs England took off the final two balls - which they wouldn't have, had wickets counted.

Exactly. So many ifs and buts going around, but the bottom line is both captains should have known the rules and playing conditions before the start and would have played to them throughout - ditto the batsmen and fielders.

It's a shame we have one kiwi on here getting all bitter when the New Zealand captain has shown magnificent and magnanimous sportsmanship when he must be wanting to kick the proverbial cat. By now Kohli would have cried an entire Ganges and launched an appeal to the United Nations if that had been India.

 

[Bold Seagull]

But there's no logic in your argument. On the flip side the fielding side would need to attack more to take more wickets than they lost themselves? No side has ever gone out hunting boundaries in case there is a double tie, they just try and score more runs that the other team!

Well obviously you don't play a game of cricket thinking about the tie. I was talking about generally what the rules have tried to encourage. So why set out to settle a tie on wickets taken? Makes no sense when the game is about scoring more runs.

 

[drew]

It still would have been a tie, in all probability. Both sides lost 8 wickets, but for the two suicidal second runs England took off the final two balls - which they wouldn't have, had wickets counted.

But it's not as simple as that. If that was the rule then they would approach the end of innings possibly with a different mindset. England only needed one extra run so they still might have gone for suicidal runs if that was the only way of winning?

 

[studio150]

https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/icc-world-cup/cricket-world-cup-2019-final-simon-taufel-claims-grave-error-made-awarding-england-six-runs/news-story/df8fb4f013f4f6fa4ae04cff9b7cb105

Typical Australian trying to take the gloss off the England win

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Even if that was the case, then Stokes would have played the last balls differently than he did. Knowing he'd save the game with a single, he played for safety as it was. Had he needed 3 to win, 2 to save it, he'd have gone for a different shot off the last ball.

I think he premeditated he was going to just hit it to ensure he got 1 run. Had the scorers made it a 5 as you are arguing, then thereafter is a different hypothetical situation. He wouldn't have played the shot he played because the match situation would have been different. So we'll never know what would have happened if it had been called a 5.

In a nutshell, THIS!

 

[Bold Seagull]

https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/icc-world-cup/cricket-world-cup-2019-final-simon-taufel-claims-grave-error-made-awarding-england-six-runs/news-story/df8fb4f013f4f6fa4ae04cff9b7cb105

Typical Australian trying to take the gloss off the England win

What they don't do in that article, and what has been discussed on here and posted by [MENTION=15605]knocky1[/MENTION] is what is meant by 'act' in that rule? Does the moment the ball hits Stokes bat take it from being an overthrow from the fielder, to another event or act? If that is how the umpires saw it, then clearly they'd crossed when the act took place and 2 runs therefore achieved. Be interesting to hear from other sources other than Kiwis and Aussies.

 

[ConfusedGloryHunter]

Now that I have finished celebrating and calmed down, I think it would have been better to crown them joint champions.

 

[Titanic]

It looked to me as if Boult slipped. Under such pressure players make mistakes. Umpires and match referees should know the rules.

Rules

 

[colinz]

Wickets are as exciting as runs, I agree, however, you get more wickets when batsmen take more risks to score. England lost wickets yesterday trying to hit boundaries. Risk and reward. If you take wickets as a deciding factor, then you perhaps take out the risk of going over the top. Going over the top creates more wicket taking opportunities.

Not sure about the bowlers, even back in '79 when it was 60 overs per side, bowlers were still restricted to 12 each. Has there ever been a time when ODIs haven't had restrictions on bowling? Only thing I can see that achieving is sides taking an extra batsmen or 2.

A few years ago Shane Warne said that Test Cricket & T20 will eventually replace the 50 over game because of it's boring format, World Cups seem to have saved it.

Over the years the 50 over game has produced the dibbly dobbly all rounder. Someone who can concede 40 runs off their 10 overs and score 25 off 30 balls.
It sort of dumbs down the game.. Not much use if your a Test player

You get more wickets when you play wicket taking bowlers, especially if you can bowl them for more than 10 overs. I suppose you would choose 4 frontline bowlers, 3 of them may bowl 15 plus if one takes a tanking. Then as you say play more batsmen.
.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Rules

I've thumbed that up as colinz seemed to be referring to laws of the game. Of course, when I used it I was referring to the rules of the tournament