Cricket World Cup 2019

Discussion in 'general sports' started by Monkeygrinder's Organ, May 30, 2019.

  1. alsoknownas

    alsoknownas some bloke

    Not sure. He dived from miles out. Wicket Keeper was right on top of the stumps, expecting it very close.
     
  2. Teaboy

    Teaboy It definitely looks brighter over there..

    I only saw the last hour as I was delayed at an obscure Polish airport. Not sure I missed that much as it seems pretty attritional stuff up to that point.

    Amazing how sport can time and again come down to such tiny margins. Boult gets his radar slightly wrong and steps on the boundary. In the semi Buttler managed to thread a ball between Smith's legs as he was at full sprint yet in the final it hits Stokes bat and off to the boundary. That Archer wide in the super over was fine margins as well.
     
  3. kabbes

    kabbes "A top 400 poster"

    It’s also funny that Root getting out was probably vital for England’s victory given how slooooooooowly he was scoring.
     
    marty21, SpookyFrank and S☼I like this.
  4. butchersapron

    butchersapron blood on the walls

    I think was going well to the right of the stumps (from guptil's angle - left from keeper). That's my view after watching it on every slo-mo speed on YT.
     
  5. S☼I

    S☼I walk the water like a sun

    Also funny how everyone on the TV and radio and many on this thread said run rate wouldn't be a problem yet it took two gargantuan flukes to even take it to the super over. Experts, eh :D
     
    QueenOfGoths, Spymaster and kabbes like this.
  6. kabbes

    kabbes "A top 400 poster"

    We had the tennis on at the same time and tennis commentators make cricket commentators look incisive, perspicacious and downright visionary in their predictions.

    “Tim, Roger now has to win two straight sets. Can he do it?”
    “He can do it. But I don’t think he will do it”

    Well, thanks for that brilliant insight, Tiger Tim. No point in even watching it now.
     
    S☼I and marty21 like this.
  7. Teaboy

    Teaboy It definitely looks brighter over there..

    Two?

    If you're talking about Boult's catch that was just an error of judgement as much as Roy's fumble in the super over with a run out beckoning or Guptill wasting the batting review which shafted Ross Taylor later.

    ETA: I suppose it was pretty lucky that an obscure rule to settle a tied super over favoured an aggressive batting side like England but then again you'd say it was pretty fortunate for NZ that so many pitches in the WC (especially the semi and final) were perfect for their style.
     
  8. planetgeli

    planetgeli There's no future in England's dreaming

    I am finding these whataboutery conversations increasingly absurd.
     
    tommers and Spymaster like this.
  9. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    Not sure I agree. Morgan scored slowly too. Tbh everyone struggled to score except Buttler. It was a very unrootlike innings . At that point I felt England were getting it wrong trying to hit the ball too hard. Not just root. Whole top four really.
     
  10. kabbes

    kabbes "A top 400 poster"

    Morgan scored loads faster than Root. He’d scored at something like a 26 strike rate, if memory serves.
     
  11. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    He scored 7 off 30 . Yes very slow. had two almighty heaves the first of which he missed the second he got out. Think there had been 12 dots in a row at that point. Credit to NZ for that too of course but rare to See root do that basically to give up belief in himself.
     
  12. Teaboy

    Teaboy It definitely looks brighter over there..

    Agreed. Only natural though given how close it was and some of the weird things that happened.
     
  13. SpookyFrank

    SpookyFrank If it's alive, don't lick it.

    At the time I did think yeah, no big loss there.
     
  14. Casual Observer

    Casual Observer binoculars

    Can't help feeling that Stokes hammed it up. The last ball of the 50 overs was a gentle legside full toss on the short boundary side. Should have gone clean out of the ground. Shameful.
     
  15. Teaboy

    Teaboy It definitely looks brighter over there..

    I think he'd probably agree with you. He went for the percentage shot but didn't get it right.
     
  16. planetgeli

    planetgeli There's no future in England's dreaming

    Erm, sorry but you did. The ecstasy was in direct proportion to the agony of what went before. That’s why this “100” bollocks, is, er, bollocks. Yesterday that game built and built over the time it was given. Which is why everything that happened was so brilliant. And why test match cricket is even better. Though over 100 (102) overs, you’re never going to get anything better than that. And certainly not over 100 balls.*


    *yes, 200, I know.
     
  17. planetgeli

    planetgeli There's no future in England's dreaming

    And btw, just give us the 1986 football World Cup already. Would definitely have won if, but, God.
     
  18. Teaboy

    Teaboy It definitely looks brighter over there..

    I'm reserving judgement on the 100, one thing is for sure they'll need different pitches to these.

    It is an interesting question where these WC pitches came from. I mean, surely there was a specific instruction handed down as ODI's have been played on pretty quick pitches more recently. It's clear that England didn't have much a say in them as slow pitches don't suit our batting. Must have been the ICC I suppose.
     
  19. Casual Observer

    Casual Observer binoculars

    All World Cup pitches were prepared as per ICC instruction as opposed to home bilateral series which are prepared to ECB/England's wishes. The rainy summer (particularly in the first half of the tournament) compounded the issue.

    Going into this, England had won 15 and lost 1 on home soil (on pitches of our choosing). After 7 games of the World Cup on home soil, it was won 4 and lost 3 (on pitches not of our choosing).
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2019
    Teaboy likes this.
  20. Teaboy

    Teaboy It definitely looks brighter over there..

    Makes sense. Though England have been very effective way on tour as well but usually on fast and true pitches as at home. It just seems this was a deliberate approach to change the way odi cricket has been played over the last few years.
     
  21. Lord Camomile

    Lord Camomile Lemonade socialist

    Argonia and redsquirrel like this.
  22. alsoknownas

    alsoknownas some bloke

    I don't disagree, but the wicket keeper looks pretty confident it's heading nearer.
     
  23. 1927

    1927 Funnier than he thinks he is.

    England and Wales this time tho!
     
  24. strung out

    strung out (",)

    About time they renamed the team England and Wales imo
     
  25. mx wcfc

    mx wcfc Well-Known Member

    err, not England and Wales and Ireland?
     
    Badgers likes this.
  26. planetgeli

    planetgeli There's no future in England's dreaming

    The governing body is called the England and Wales cricket board.

    Ireland has it's own team.
     
  27. mx wcfc

    mx wcfc Well-Known Member

    Yeah, but we have their best player!:thumbs:;)
     
    S☼I and Badgers like this.
  28. 1927

    1927 Funnier than he thinks he is.

    English mother, he turned his back on Ireland.
     
    Badgers likes this.
  29. alsoknownas

    alsoknownas some bloke

    There isn't any ambiguity in my view. The opening of the rule (law?) says (my bold) - “If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder...".
    The concluding use of 'throw' and 'act' are clearly meant to echo and refer back to this opening sentence. It's not the most opaque bit of legislation ever, but I think its meaning is pretty undeniable.

    Not that any of this bloody matters any more! :D
     
    Badgers likes this.
  30. Teaboy

    Teaboy It definitely looks brighter over there..

    I've played the game for years and didn't know the law. None of the commentators knew the law, neither did anyone on the pitch. I think it's fair to say its come as a bit of a suprise. Logic would seem to be that it's the amounted runs completed before the ball becomes dead (when it crosses the boundary). Its a bit bizarre to start talking about whether the batters have cross at the point of the throw coming in, what if teh fielder drops the ball? Does that count as a throw?

    Its clearly a bit of a crap law that someone needs to take a look at

    ...and well said.

    Incidentally I see the kiwi coach is suggesting sharing the trophy in future. It was an odd way to lose and sharing seems much fairer but I can't see how that passes the entertainment test. I'm not sure many sports have got a satisfactory conclusion to level scores in a knockout game.
     
    alsoknownas likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice