ICC Cricket World Cup - Part 4

First topic message reminder :

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

alfie wrote:Good to see Morgan handling the short ball.  Has seen Behrend - orff...now taking to Lyon.

Keep the foot down lads I fancy an "early" night

Alfie I'm afraid this is the worst thing I have seen posted all World Cup.

I do my best

wow. this is the only way either country was going to finally win one of these and in the end it came down to boundaries scored.

redemption for Stokes, heartbreak for NZ. 2 straight finals, twice they've had to play as the "away" team.

It’s mad that after what is a bloated tournament of 48 games for 10 teams, it came down to a run out on the last ball while a team pushed for 2 to win.

Then after 12 bonus deliveries it came down to a run out on the last ball while a team pushed for 2 to win.

The game became tighter and tighter from 30 overs on-wards...and NZ kept tightening screws...bit by bit.....and I am sure millions like me watched frozen to screens, keeping everything aside.......the surreal final, that will now go down as the gold plated-best-ever-final    
The 1975 and 1987 run a distant second now.

After Butler fell and then last 5 odd overs it was a single handed Stokes vs. NZ.....he had, nerves, confidence and sense of destiny so firm that NZ lost their nerve in the last 2 overs.....and two lucky breaks went Stokes's ways.
Stokes finish under pressure would do a youg Dhoni proud....as others around him were choking.

Redemption for Stokes after losing the T20 final to WI and failing to pull off vs Lanka what he did today.
Stokes, Butler and Roy are the pillars of English batting......Bairstow needs support of Roy.....and Morgan gets a free ride....but stands exposed.

a BIG applause for NZ....they played exceptional 240-runs-brand-of-cricket throughout & did not lose the world cup.  

If the Super Over was tied, another over should have been played
If you have to award by default to Eng on boundary count,why even play the Super Over. But it is what it is and this rule will go away, like the ugly rain rule of 1992

Congratulations to England and all their fans.....it's their moment of glory

its harsh, but the game has to end eventually. after 102 overs they couldnt be separated. at least it gave clarity at the end that NZ knew what they had to get.

Good post KPF. What would it take for that final to ever be bettered? Not a high quality match particularly, but for drama at the end, no one will really remember what went before. Like no one remembers much about that Aus vs SA tie apart from the last over.

As Robbo says its mad to have a tie, then another. As an England fan it would hurt like hell to be the loser after that, NZ took the defeat very well

Will that boundary rule go away though, as in, will it realistically ever be needed again?

I doubt anyone thought it would ever come to this anyway when they came up with it, let alone in a world cup final

VTR wrote:Will that boundary rule go away though, as in, will it realistically ever be needed again?

that's what my brother said.....when we were discussing in the aftermath...then those who framed the rule never had the remotest inclination that it will be used and that too in the final.

But now that it stands exposed it will go.

it's similar to the rule where if the reserve day was also a wash out India would progress on placing higher in the group stage. have to end the game at some point

If the number of boundaries were equal, by the way...

If the number of boundaries hit by both teams is equal, the team whose batsmen scored more boundaries during its innings in the main match (ignoring the Super Over) shall be the winner.
If still equal, a count-back from the final ball of the Super Over shall be conducted. The team with the higher scoring delivery shall be the winner. If a team loses two wickets during its over, then any unbowled deliveries will be counted as dot balls. Note that for this purpose, the runs scored from a delivery is defined as the total team runs scored since the completion of the previous legitimate ball, i.e including any runs resulting from wides, no ball or penalty runs.

what is the super over was exactly the same

It gets more obscure, thank god it didn't come to that! Yes it was clearly a rule designed and never expected to be used. I suppose it could go. Given the semi final rules, highest in group stage would seem possible, though the format might all change making that not work

GSC wrote:what is the super over was exactly the same

It doesn't say anything after that.

I lost a game of rugby once 29-29. 29-15 down, we scored 2 tries in the last 10, one of which with the last play. We went down on tries scored and only realised this was the case after the game, we were huddled on the halfway line awaiting further instruction. This was at Twickenham in a cup final.

I also once won a game 5-5. It was a cup game in the uni leagues. We won after 80 by virtue of being the home side. Again, we found out after the full time whistle.

In both these instances the most unsatisfactory bit was not knowing and I guess not being informed by the officials. I think they may have had to consult to be sure in any case. But we weren’t a professional outfit in either case, let alone playing at a World Cup.

You can think of a 100 ways to settle a game of cricket after a tied super over, and they’ll all be as unsatisfactory as the next. But you need something that will finally separate the teams.

NZ knew what they needed to do in their super over and with their last ball. They were agonisingly close. Unfortunately though if you don’t do enough to outright win the game you leave yourself to the vagaries of the system you’re playing under. Some go for you, some against. But it has to be said instances are few and far between.

GSC and Duty

I guess if the super over was identical, the count back would continue to the main innings? Don’t tell me both teams are going to be identical over 306 deliveries haha.

Can anyone explain why England batted first in the super over? I'm sure it was explained on commentary but I had it on mute

VTR wrote:Can anyone explain why England batted first in the super over? I'm sure it was explained on commentary but I had it on mute

Team that batted second in the actual game, bat first in the super over.

Cheers, another strange rule in a way but I suppose makes sense as the damn thing would have taken even longer if NZ batted first

The rule is what it is......and Stokes played super well & Eng are deserving world champions.
Hard for NZ to digest they are losers.

Should a situation like this occur again....I would like to see a second super over and another and so on like the Tennis tie-breaker

even tennis goes to a tie break in the 5th now though (and did today)

I think when you're getting to talking about a tie breaker to break a tie breaker you have to accept to some extent, it isnt going to be fair to somebody.

it was 7.30 when this super over ended, the game does have to end at some point.

The only ‘good’ way to end a game is the team that scores the most runs in 50 overs is the winner. And in some games, like today’s, even that will feel unfair. Whatever goes on after that is never go to be a good solution. And I don’t subscribe to sharing the trophy, the best thing about sport (although it sometimes doesn’t feel like it) is the fact that agony and ecstasy can be decided by absolute minimal margins. Makes the highs higher, but the lows inevitably lower.

On a side note, the harshest ending to a game of sport I’ve ever seen is the penalty shoot out in the 2009 (I think) rugby Heineken Cup. Leicester vs Blues. Game tied after extra time, and on tries countback. Went to a penalty shootout from the 22 until Martyn Williams missed one. Now that is a galling ending.

There is no really satisfactory ending to a superb game like that. Changing the last chance rule because you don't agree with who won isn't a great idea
.

https://www.606v2.com/t68849p350-icc-cricket-world-cup-part-3

Hate to blow my own trumpet, but here after the first Aussie game you’ll see my belief didn’t waiver

Onto the serious stuff...

The single most incredible game of cricket I think I have ever seen. Truly magnificent and it’ll take days of rewatching to truly take in what actually happened, but to see england finally lift the World Cup is a day I’ll never forget. For it to happen the way it did, will hopefully give the sport the shot in the arm it needs in this country.

We watched it up our cricket club today after playing a testimonial type game for our mate who we’ve played cricket with for 15 years, as he is moving to Alfie’s area of the earth later this week - was just perfect. 40-50 people on the edge of their seats for a couple hours during the highs and lows, probably replicated across the country, will live forever in the memory and personally just a perfect memory and send off for our mate.

As for the game itself, I feel so horribly for NZ - a class outfit, who had some unfortunate luck go against them with that four off stokes bat in the final over but I’m afraid has to be said, choked it away at the end, with the Boult boundary catch and allowing England to get those runs to get a super over. This one will sting for a while.

And whilst stokes will get most of the plaudits (rightly so!), a word for Jos Buttler. Reading through this thread with all bar Duty writing england off at 90-4 at the loss of Morgan’s wicket, he came in and did what he does best - plays ridiculous innings at the crucial time, when he is most needed. To go at essentially a run a ball at that time, in that situation on that pitch was remarkable, what a freak. He finally came to the party at the most crucial moment this tournament

There will be click bait hot take artists moaning that England didn’t win this or deserve it, citing rules and other nonsense. Don’t let that take the enjoyment away from today as long standing england cricket fans - over the past four years we’ve seen them transform themselves into the most wonderful side of players from all walks of life, they’ve exhilarated and entertained us, sometimes frustrated, but in the biggest moments and at the crunch time in this tournament they’ve shown what we have all seen them be over the past 4 years - the best side in the world.

This one will live long in the memory!

Even now my brain is frazzled.

Congratulations to England and particularly Stokes, who did so much to save the game.

Huge commiserations to NZ - it's an overused cliché to say neither side deserved to lose, but that was really the case today. A couple of bits of luck went against them in the last over or so that made a huge difference.

Don't usually watch much cricket and excuse me if this has been asked before but is there a precedent for what happened when Stokes intercepted the throw in the 50th over?

I know it was accidental but it seemed a bit strange to me that the 4 extra runs were given. I presume to intercept a throw like that deliberately is a wicket, but my first thought was that perhaps future players could do the same as Stokes and feign it as an accident? Would be difficult I suppose but it would give the umpires a decision to make

I think it's pretty situational and the first guy who runs himself out trying to do that would end the practice anyway

The batsman can be out obstructing the field if it’s deliberate.

Normally the convention is that if the ball hits the batsman on a shy at the stumps then they won’t run, even if an overthrow is available. They didn’t, but as the ball raced to the boundary it was an automatic addition of 4 runs per the laws.

I imagine we could see a law change to create a dead ball scenario if the ball hits the batsman and it’s not out obstructing the field, I.e no further runs can be attempted (after the one being ran) and if the ball deflects to the boundary it doesn’t count.

But right now that was letter of the law correct and just unfortunate.

Quite hilarious end to a fantastic match.
- first the Boult step over
- then the flukey four free runs at the most critical point
- then the fact that england are ALL OUT when going for the win, yet get to bat again
- The boundaries rule applies (where apparently a boundary is worth more than 4 singles, that 3 dot balls, obviously England had more, is more attacking? Yet all out versus not all out isnt superior?
- then the so called tie breaker has NZ starting on a one run deficit for the same reason. Ok to have some winning rule on tie break when scores are even over 300 balls but 6?

man, one for the ages, every single anomoly in that last few overs went in the favour of the one team, and if any single one of them had not, its likely a different result.

Hilarious way to win. England tie getting run all out, NZ tie the same way, and lose.

Great fun though. Doubt theres been a ore exciting one dayer that that.

And fitting a kiwi provides a major part of the win.

Anyway, great match, well done England, certainly wasnt their players that caused the very weird outcome, both teams did their best, it felt like nothing was going to split them, no matter what was thrown at them.

Just glad the underdog kiwis in both semi and final come out with their heads held high.

Amazing, amazing match.

As far as I can work out, England aren't playing another ODI until February next year, which seems to be an extraordinarily long interval!

None planned for the Aussies visit (just tests) and only T20s and Tests for the tour of New Zealand. Then a four match test series in South Africa in December/January, followed by a 3 match ODI series in February.

A long wait to see the world champions again, but hopefully that last game will have slaked our thirst for a while!

What a match. I was watching it on a tablet at work and many colleagues who have no interest in cricket tuned in when they realised how ludicrously tight it was. That's something a World Cup needs to do, captivate a wider audience than the sport usually can.

Congratulations to an England side who gone through quite a journey since the last world cup.

Commiserations to a New Zealand side who played excellently throughout the tournament. Williamson in particular has been superb in game where there has been a bit more there for the bowlers. He's a wonderful batsman and captain.

Duty281 wrote:As far as I can work out, England aren't playing another ODI until February next year, which seems to be an extraordinarily long interval!

None planned for the Aussies visit (just tests) and only T20s and Tests for the tour of New Zealand. Then a four match test series in South Africa in December/January, followed by a 3 match ODI series in February.

A long wait to see the world champions again, but hopefully that last game will have slaked our thirst for a while!

It will be interesting to see how much the England squad changes by the series.

I could see Matt Parkinson coming into the equation as second spinner challenging Rashid.

Tom Curran could definitely challenge for Plunketts position as go to seamer in the middle overs. Plunkett has come good this World Cup though.

Sam Curran and Lewis Gregory could potentially challenge for bowling all rounder spots. Particularly if Woakes stays at 7 and the new coach moves away from Moeen as second spinner, as they will then want depth in the lower order.

Saqib Mahmood, Craig and Jamie Overton could challenge as seamers but there is depth there.

I think Morgan will keep going as captain for a year or two yet but the obvious succession plan with the batting used to be Hales at 3 and Root at 4. That may no longer be the case though. In which case the reserve batsman spot is up for grabs. Vince? Billings? Hain? Duckett?

The Kiwis showed so much class, something that has been lacking in cricket for some teams when they are defeated, and that isn't a dig at any team, it feels like so many can be guilty of it. The Kiwis, well, they're an extraordinary people and public figure after public figure keep on showing it when times are hard, even if this is just sport. To watch Williamson talk afterwards, I don't think anyone watching could feel anything but the utmost respect for him.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:The Kiwis showed so much class, something that has been lacking in cricket for some teams when they are defeated, and that isn't a dig at any team, it feels like so many can be guilty of it. The Kiwis, well, they're an extraordinary people and public figure after public figure keep on showing it when times are hard, even if this is just sport. To watch Williamson talk afterwards, I don't think anyone watching could feel anything but the utmost respect for him.

Completely agree - and it always bugs me that they never get the five match major test tour over here, when quite frankly England vs NZ games in all formats tend to be closely fought, competitive affairs done in the correct spirit of the game. Again we see this a bit in the winter with a two test only tour of NZ, a real shame.

Williamson is a class act - on and off the pitch. Really has proven this tournament he is one of, if not the best in the world

Article on cricinfo that the deflected 6 should have been 5. Of course we'll never know what would have happened in that case. Stokes would have had to go for a boundary rather than the safer option of trying for 2s, the way he was playing he might well have managed it

VTR wrote:Article on cricinfo that the deflected 6 should have been 5. Of course we'll never know what would have happened in that case. Stokes would have had to go for a boundary rather than the safer option of trying for 2s, the way he was playing he might well have managed it

3 off 2 and he knows two singles is a super over, while if he converts one of those for a two and he's got the win. He also had the wickets to allow run outs, as long as they crossed and the run-out was at the non-strikers' end.

4 off 2 and it's more tricky. He might play for two 2s, and when Rashid is run out off the penultimate ball leaving 3 off 1 he has to think boundary. And he may have hit it. It's a different game and you can't just minus 1 from England's score and say "New Zealand should have won".

I guess a more interesting thing would be who takes the strike? I'm guessing still Stokes actually? But if they're saying it's 1+4 overthrows then does the 1 mean it's Rashid? Rashid facing needing 4 off 2 is a slightly different equation. I guess he just has a big slog and either hits a 4, gets caught or Stokes runs a bye to the keeper? Again, it's a different game.

The big incident was the over before. Trent Boult catches Stokes and steps onto the boundary rope. How many times have we seen those relay catches taken? The first one I saw was about 10 years ago, and it was outrageous. Now it's still a highly skilled thing, but they practice them so much and hunt in pairs to make them possible. Guptill had done everything right and he was right there. Boult flicks that to Guptill before his foot hits the rope and it's 22 form 8 with Archer, Rashid and Wood looking for miracles.

Yes you can't go into forensic detail over one incident without considering every incident. Wasn't there 5 wides in Woakes's last over? What if it had been only one.

Duty281 (3rd April) wrote:Don't want to start the thread on a down note, but a frequent criticism of past Cricket World Cups has been that the tournament has been too long and drawn-out. I don't see such criticisms being alleviated by the format of this World Cup, with 48 games being played over a month and a half.

The majority of the time, vast majority, is that there'll only be one game a day, and with most of the tournament being played in the long group phase, there's great potential for lots of meaningless games towards the end of said group phase.

Anyway, it's finally bloody coming home at last. 9/4 for England to win the prize. Marvellous.

Well it was a fun old tournament, even if the identity of the semi-finalists was known very early on (though England did try to throw that into jeopardy!). We had one highly entertaining semi-final and a completely off-the-walls final. The best aspect was that we had proper pitches and a good contest between bat and ball; we didn't have a succession of 400 played 350 games which would have been dire. The level of fielding was the highest ever seen in a global cricket tournament, with so many stupendous catches. It was a good event to watch, better than any other Cricket World Cup I remember.

And the best team triumphed in the end. It really did come home, at last.

Yep its a game of fine margins but certain incidents get remembered for sure. New Zealand got a free run from a poor wide called on Archers first ball, that could be construed as undoing the "tie is a win" advantage England had. 

 The ones in the final over and super over were out of the ordinary mind, especially the ball hitting Stokes' bat. 

Its that sort of drama that makes sport worth following. So well done the ICC for fixing this game so well. The WWE will be in touch.

wow still recovering from that one. the whole game is right up there with one of the greatest sporting moments

live in a pub, and watched most of the match upstairs. nerves got the better of me and had nip down to settle the nerves during the stokes/buttler rebuild work isn't much fun this morning

most of the pub regulars dont have a clue about cricket but whole place was on tenterhooks, and erupted every boundary near the end. it really was a game that cricket fan or not captured every brilliant aspect of sport.

robbo277 wrote:I lost a game of rugby once 29-29. 29-15 down, we scored 2 tries in the last 10, one of which with the last play. We went down on tries scored and only realised this was the case after the game, we were huddled on the halfway line awaiting further instruction. This was at Twickenham in a cup final.

I also once won a game 5-5. It was a cup game in the uni leagues. We won after 80 by virtue of being the home side. Again, we found out after the full time whistle.

In both these instances the most unsatisfactory bit was not knowing and I guess not being informed by the officials. I think they may have had to consult to be sure in any case. But we weren’t a professional outfit in either case, let alone playing at a World Cup.

You can think of a 100 ways to settle a game of cricket after a tied super over, and they’ll all be as unsatisfactory as the next. But you need something that will finally separate the teams.

NZ knew what they needed to do in their super over and with their last ball. They were agonisingly close. Unfortunately though if you don’t do enough to outright win the game you leave yourself to the vagaries of the system you’re playing under. Some go for you, some against. But it has to be said instances are few and far between.

home side is a strange rule, we qualified for a Lancashire cup final once through a tie being the away side. The idea obviously being the home side already had a advantage playing a semi at home. just like you though we only found out after the final whistle

VTR wrote:Article on cricinfo that the deflected 6 should have been 5. Of course we'll never know what would have happened in that case. Stokes would have had to go for a boundary rather than the safer option of trying for 2s, the way he was playing he might well have managed it

Thats based on a run only being "in progress" once the batsmen had crossed, is that defined elsewhere in the laws? They had left their ground when the throw was made. Theres stipulations elsewhere in the laws that makes specific mention of the batsmen having crossed or not  during a run in progress, so I assume a run in progress is when the batsmen leave their crease in this context, not once they cross. I think the article writer got it wrong in this case (though it is all a bit ambiguous and frankly a BS rule that allows overthrows to be additional runs to ones already run full stop).

I am struggling to make sense of this suggestion that the deflected overthrows should have resulted in just five runs rather than six...
The quoted law does look ambiguous. But in fifty plus years of cricket I have seen plenty of cases of overthrows ; and once a pair has completed a run - as they had : Stokes dived over the crease as the ball hit his bat - any runs scored from the overthrow have always been added to the runs already completed . Obviously if they keep running the run total is indisputable ; whereas in the case of a boundary it does depend on when the errant throw came in. My interpretation - and that of every umpire I've ever witnessed - is that the important point is whether the run had been completed when the throw passed the wickets ...so the question of the ball leaving the fielder's hand versus the batsmen crossing is academic. In any case without camera recordings I defy anyone to judge it...in short I think they are misinterpreting a poorly worded law.

NZ were certainly unlucky. But I do not think they emerge cheated in any way.

alfie wrote:I am struggling to make sense of this suggestion that the deflected overthrows should have resulted in just five runs rather than six...
The quoted law does look ambiguous. But in fifty plus years of cricket I have seen plenty of cases of overthrows ; and once a pair has completed a run - as they had : Stokes dived over the crease as the ball hit his bat - any runs scored from the overthrow have always been added to the runs already completed . Obviously if they keep running the run total is indisputable ; whereas in the case of a boundary it does depend on when the errant throw came in. My interpretation - and that of every umpire I've ever witnessed - is that the important point is whether the run had been completed when the throw passed the wickets ...so the question of the ball leaving the fielder's hand versus the batsmen crossing is academic. In any case without camera recordings I defy anyone to judge it...in short I think they are misinterpreting a poorly worded law.

NZ were certainly unlucky.  But I do not think they emerge cheated in any way.

Ive seen another article where it gives the full law, its misquoted oin the original, and it is unambiguous. Simon Taufel the (err Kiwi) umpire and member of the laws committee confirmed it shouldve been 5.
So it was a legit error, if understandable given how infrequently that law gets invoked and cant be called the only reason england won. 

I still think Overthrows shouldnt count as extra for a boundary though, its just an odd rule all round. Just treat it as if the batsman had hit the ball to (or over) the boundary.

I get and don't mind the overthrow rule, I see it as there to stop the ball flying around for crazy runout attempts. A bit of risk/reward for the fielder. That one yesterday does suck from a NZ perspective though, given it was backed up but for the deflection, to about the only place there wasn't a fielder and the nearest fielder was the slowest runner in the team. The error is understandable from the umpires and clearly the whole game changes from that point if its a 5, which could still have gone either way, so we can't award NZ a one run win as there were two balls still to play. Am not seeing anyone do that on here, but I felt the original cricinfo article was coming from that angle.

Have to see that article !

But can't agree overthrows shouldn't be counted as extra. They result from fielding error , usually a consequence of over aggressive throwing...and the extra runs are the penalty : risk v reward.

If it really was an error by the umpires then NZ have indeed been stiffed. Rats ...an asterisk forever on the England WC win ?

alfie wrote:Have to see that article !

But can't agree overthrows shouldn't be counted as extra. They result from fielding error , usually a consequence of over aggressive throwing...and the extra runs are the penalty : risk v reward.

If it really was an error by the umpires then NZ have indeed been stiffed. Rats ...an asterisk forever on the England WC win ?

Not really - because even if that run is taken off, does Stokes then successfully biff that horrible full toss Boult bowled final ball of the innings, rather than trying to nurdle a two? Far too many ifs buts and maybes - all that counts is what the record books say

One rule/thing I don't like actually is relay catches. Not a talking point from yesterday, just they look plain wrong to me and I never consider them great catches vs say that Stokes catch in the first match

Joking basically , Olly. Though some radio stuff here in Melbourne is being a bit provocative ...

Still not convinced. Mr Taufel may be on the laws committee but presumably didn't write that law. And I think there is still room for interpretation as to the "act" by the fielder. In practical terms there is simply no way an umpire , unaided by technology , is going to judge the precise release of a ball by a fielder and measure it against the position of the batsmen...considering at that time he has no reason to expect an overthrown boundary to result ! So if that is the intention of the law it is a complete nonsense .
The law also mentions "completed runs" (which Stokes' second was) as an additional matter beside "the run in progress" . I think it clearly needs amending for clarity and common sense.
I agree if you are to disallow the second run then the batsmen must change ends , by the way . So with Rashid on strike England were certainly scuppered

I have also seen mention of the wickets remaining - and that would make sense but only if it was agreed ahead of the match. Wood was run out making a desperate sprint because there was nothing to be lost in attempting it.