The Cricket Thread

[TheScarf]

44 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

If any match [in the knockout stage] ended in a tie, a Super Over would be used to determine the winner; each team would select three batsmen and a bowler, with the full team available to field. There would be no penalty for the loss of a wicket, but the loss of two wickets would end the Super Over. If the scores in the Super Over were also tied, the winner would be determined by the two teams' overall boundary count, including both the match itself and the Super Over.

England won by virtue of hitting more boundaries.

 

Absolutely daft rule.  So in 'normal time' its runs and wickets, but in a super over its runs and boundaries.  

Overall, England were excellent in the bits I watched, so they probably deserved it, but the rule in which they won is bizarre.

[Sir Tarmo Kink]

Didn’t think England were the best team over the whole tournament. But they realised they were in the shit before the India game and got their shit together and won 4 on the bounce. They deserve credit for that.

[Bully Wee Villa]

7 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

Absolutely daft rule.  So in 'normal time' its runs and wickets, but in a super over its runs and boundaries.  

Overall, England were excellent in the bits I watched, so they probably deserved it, but the rule in which they won is bizarre.

"Normal time" isn't runs and wickets. Wickets don't come into it at all. If scores are level after the regulation overs, it's a Super Over. 

Only then do the boundaries act as decider. 

I agree that wickets would be fairer, but you could argue so would allocating the cup to the team which finished higher in the group, England, in this case. 

I wouldn't be averse to Sudden Death Super Ball if Super Over still doesn't produce a winner.... 

Edited July 15, 2019 by Bully Wee Villa

[Muzza81]

30 minutes ago, Tarmo Kink said:

“But the well-renowned former international umpire Simon Taufel says the on-field umpires made a "clear mistake" in awarding England six runs, rather than the correct figure of five, as the batsmen had not yet crossed for the second run when the ball was thrown. The error also meant that England's best batsman, Stokes, retained the strike.”

Interesting

Just read the rule. Seems awful strange that the batsmen would have to cross at the time of the throw being released.

It is pretty refreshing that no one has moaned at the umpires for some poor decisions, they just get on with it. The coverage of cricket continues to be absolutely fantastic as well, not sure of a sport that comes close it in terms of analysis, expert onions etc. Really brilliant stuff. I guess most cricketers being educated helps this.

[Lurkst]

2 hours ago, TheScarf said:

No idea how cricket works.

England salvaged a draw (despite losing more wickets -10-8) to take it to the super over by scoring a run, then the guy getting stumped out as they went for a 2nd run to win the match.

New Zealand do exactly the same thing in the super over, (despite losing more wickets - 1-0) to tie the score, yet England win?

How does that work?

New Zealand 241-8/England 241-10 = draw

New Zealand 15-1/England 15-0 = England win

Back in the old days when I watched cricket regularly, the tie breaker was always least wickets conceded.  I guess that's changed now to increase the chances of Super Over excitement. 

 

Edited July 15, 2019 by Lurkst

[craigkillie]

53 minutes ago, Muzza81 said:

Just read the rule. Seems awful strange that the batsmen would have to cross at the time of the throw being released.

It is pretty refreshing that no one has moaned at the umpires for some poor decisions, they just get on with it. The coverage of cricket continues to be absolutely fantastic as well, not sure of a sport that comes close it in terms of analysis, expert onions etc. Really brilliant stuff. I guess most cricketers being educated helps this.

It's weird given how long they seemed to be consulting (and, dare I say, looking for a reason not to give the overthrows) that none of them picked up on that.

[Guest Moomintroll]

It's weird given how long they seemed to be consulting (and, dare I say, looking for a reason not to give the overthrows) that none of them picked up on that.

I may have viewed it wrongly, but from what I saw Ben Stokes had grounded his bat for the first run & had set off for the second at the point the fielder released the ball therefore 6 runs was the correct decision. Utterly crap for New Zealand though & I suspect a rule change will be coming that introduces a second Super Over when scores are still tied even though that circumstance will never happen again.

 

ETA I always thought that law was when you grounded, not when you crossed, that was a major screw up then.

[TheScarf]

The Sky Sports cricket twitter page have picked up on it now too.

[Mark Connolly]

England now being stripped of the World Cup due to umpire error would be hilarious tbf.

It won't happen, but someone from the ICC should leak the possibility to Piers Morgan and watch his head explode.

[btb]

Just like '66 I can live my life in denial of England winning the World Cup!

[Detournement]

The decent thing to do would be to send the trophy to New Zealand. 

 

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

Just reading some of the English newspapers, listening to the radio and watching TV. 

According to them, the whole UK is celebrating this amazing sporting achievement. 

It was an amazing game, but I doubt if the whole of Scotland will enjoy getting drowned in the wave of English hubris that follows it. I wish the English cricket team well, but I think I'll avoid the news for a few days. 

[TheScarf]

Piers Morgan, dressed in an England cricket world cup shirt, said this morning, This is Good Morning England.

Some troll.

[Hip Priest]

8 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

Just reading some of the English newspapers, listening to the radio and watching TV. 

According to them, the whole UK is celebrating this amazing sporting achievement. 

It was an amazing game, but I doubt if the whole of Scotland will enjoy getting drowned in the wave of English hubris that follows it. I wish the English cricket team well, but I think I'll avoid the news for a few days. 

This was the fear.  I don't, like some, actively support them but I have absolutely no problem with the England cricket team.  (Whereas I'd have been a seething mess yesterday, and probably for a long time to come, had that been their fitbaw or union team.)  But please deliver us from having to hear about Sirbenstokes etc for the rest of our days.

[Muzza81]

2 hours ago, Bob Mahelp said:

Just reading some of the English newspapers, listening to the radio and watching TV. 

According to them, the whole UK is celebrating this amazing sporting achievement. 

It was an amazing game, but I doubt if the whole of Scotland will enjoy getting drowned in the wave of English hubris that follows it. I wish the English cricket team well, but I think I'll avoid the news for a few days. 

A lot of Scottish cricket fans I know don't mind England and certainly wont wish any ill feeling their way. I certainly wanted them to win it. I also wanted Scotland to beat England when I was at the Grange recently but England are the test team I most like and I grew up supporting them when Scotland didn't really have a team of any sorts.

 I haven't seen or heard anything mentioning what you have said but I don't really follow newspapers etc.

[kiddy]

I'm no expert on cricket's laws & regulations. But as a punter viewing it on holiday, in a pub full of English, I just thought Stokes deflection of the throw was completely against the spirit of the game.
That the Kiwi's threw it away, conceding a 4 by stepping in the boundary being a prime example, paled into insignificance.
Why was the video ref not asked to rule on it, was beyond me.
It, however, stands alongside the world bagpiping championships, in terms of worldwide sports.

[Muzza81]

The video referee asked to rule on what though? Whether the batsmen had crossed? Because it clearly never crossed anyone’s mind - and you can hardly blame them.

[Sir Tarmo Kink]

I'm no expert on cricket's laws & regulations. But as a punter viewing it on holiday, in a pub full of English, I just thought Stokes deflection of the throw was completely against the spirit of the game.
That the Kiwi's threw it away, conceding a 4 by stepping in the boundary being a prime example, paled into insignificance.
Why was the video ref not asked to rule on it, was beyond me.
It, however, stands alongside the world bagpiping championships, in terms of worldwide sports.

And I thought you knew nothing about boxing...

[die hard doonhamer]

4 hours ago, Muzza81 said:

A lot of Scottish cricket fans I know don't mind England and certainly wont wish any ill feeling their way. I certainly wanted them to win it. I also wanted Scotland to beat England when I was at the Grange recently but England are the test team I most like and I grew up supporting them when Scotland didn't really have a team of any sorts.

 I haven't seen or heard anything mentioning what you have said but I don't really follow newspapers etc.

Cricket loyalties in this country are odd, and I include myself in this. On my way to the Grange for that game last year, I was genuinely conflicted. It became obvious during the early throes of the game though that I'll always root for Scotland over England though. I support the Scotland national team, but I definitely follow the England team closer than I do the Scotland team (that's possibly due to the difference in media coverage though).

Thinking back over yesterday again, it really was an incredible game, of which we're unlikely to ever see again, especially on that stage. 

Focus will now move to the ashes, will Roy and Archer find themselves in the team at Edgbaston? Can England follow up on the world cup with an ashes win? I think the answers are yes, yes and yes.

[Sir Tarmo Kink]

Could have seen Archer replacing Broad but he’ll probably replace the absent Anderson for the first Test anyway.

 

I’d have Roy in over Jennings, opening with Burns. Denly at 3, then Root, Buttler, Stokes, Bairstow.

 

Bowling situation is a funny one though. Obviously you have Stokes (and Denly if necessary). I’d have gone with Mo, Wood, Archer and Anderson. But Anderson is out of the first test, Broad and Sam Curran are still available and Woakes has been on great form so it’s a tough choice and I wouldn’t argue against a lot of combinations.