Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Cricket World Cup 2019

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.
 

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.
 

kabbes

"A top 400 poster"
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
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.
 

Teaboy

It definitely looks brighter over there..
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
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.
 

littlebabyjesus

one of Maxwell's demons
It’s also funny that Root getting out was probably vital for England’s victory given how slooooooooowly he was scoring.
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.
 

kabbes

"A top 400 poster"
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.
Morgan scored loads faster than Root. He’d scored at something like a 26 strike rate, if memory serves.
 

littlebabyjesus

one of Maxwell's demons
Morgan scored loads faster than Root. He’d scored at something like a 26 strike rate, if memory serves.
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.
 
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.
 

Teaboy

It definitely looks brighter over there..
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.
I think he'd probably agree with you. He went for the percentage shot but didn't get it right.
 

planetgeli

There's no future in England's dreaming
I only saw the last hour as I was delayed at an obscure Polish airport. Not sure I missed that much
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.
 

Teaboy

It definitely looks brighter over there..
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.
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.
 
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.
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:

Teaboy

It definitely looks brighter over there..
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).
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.
 

alsoknownas

some bloke
It's ambiguous. Note the wording (my bold):

"and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act"

The act which sent the ball for overthrows was the deflection off Stokes' bat, at which point the batsmen had crossed. It was a legitimate award of 6 runs.
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
 

Teaboy

It definitely looks brighter over there..
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.
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

Not that any of this bloody matters any more! :D
...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.
 
Top