Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

The New Cricket Thread


A_S
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, A_S said:

Stokes could write a book about his experiences of final overs in major tournaments. He's got the entire spectrum of emotions already covered. 

 

Added to his incident outside a nightclub and being given out handling a ball halfway down the pitch, it'd be a fascinating read. 

I can't think what this refers to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonderful game and made up with the result. But. How does 241/8 not beat 241 all out?! Also, why have a super-over and then revert to a boundary count when it’s level? Would be like going to the number of corners if a penalty shoot out ends 5 all in the unmentionable. 

 

Madness and Kiwis must be devastated to lose that way. Thank fuck it went our way for a change! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I've read it mentioned that it wouldn't be at all unfair for the two countries to share the trophy.

 

I'm certain this tournament's rulings will not be in place for the next one.

 

You shouldn't lose if you haven't been beaten (even after a tie-breaker) - so to speak.

 

If there were weather days for semi finals, maybe a replay day for the final - a few days later?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Pistonbroke
20 minutes ago, skaro said:

 

I've read it mentioned that it wouldn't be at all unfair for the two countries to share the trophy.

 

I'm certain this tournament's rulings will not be in place for the next one.

 

You shouldn't lose if you haven't been beaten (even after a tie-breaker) - so to speak.

 

If there were weather days for semi finals, maybe a replay day for the final - a few days later?

 

 

 

I think using the reserve day would be far better than a super over myself, even if it were a reduced overs affair. If that were to be rained off then sharing the trophy should be the preferred outcome. Thing is, some of the spectators wouldn't be able to attend the reserve day and would have paid a fortune to attend the final, and would want to see a result. You could understand their frustrations if the rules were changed to what we are suggesting. Plus you can bet your arse the ICC wouldn't let those spectators who paid for a final in for free. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, skaro said:

 

I've read it mentioned that it wouldn't be at all unfair for the two countries to share the trophy.

 

I'm certain this tournament's rulings will not be in place for the next one.

 

You shouldn't lose if you haven't been beaten (even after a tie-breaker) - so to speak.

 

If there were weather days for semi finals, maybe a replay day for the final - a few days later?

 

 

You lost, get over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TK421 said:

You lost, get over it.

 

No mate, if I had've wanted to make this about Australia and England, I would have said something like we've won 5 and you've "shared" one.

 

But anyway, enjoy the victory... you'll have an Ashes win soon to be Evertonian about too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/49000896

 

Cricket chiefs should consider allowing teams to share the World Cup if a final is tied again, says New Zealand coach Gary Stead.

England beat the Black Caps in a dramatic final at Lord's by virtue of scoring more boundaries - after the teams' 50-over scores were tied and also level after a super over.

"I'm sure when they were writing the rules they never expected a World Cup final like that," Stead said.

"I'm sure it'll be reviewed."

On sharing the trophy, he added: "Perhaps when you play over a seven-week period and you can't be separated on the final day then that is something that should be considered."

 

Both sides scored 241 in their 50 overs on Sunday and were level on 15 when they batted for an extra over apiece.

England were crowned men's world champions for the first time because they had scored more boundary fours and sixes - 26 to New Zealand's 17 - in the match.

"It's a very, very hollow feeling that you can play 100 overs and score the same amount of runs and still lose the game - but that's the technicalities of sport," Stead added.

"It's unfortunate it comes down to one ball right at the end of the tournament when we've been here for seven weeks playing some really good cricket. It will be raw for a long time."

New Zealand were also unfortunate England appeared to be awarded one extra run in the final over of their innings.

England were given six runs when a fielder's throw hit Ben Stokes' bat as he dived to complete a second run and went for four - but laws appears to say that was one too many.

 

"I didn't actually know that," said Stead when asked about the law.

"The umpires are there to rule and they're human as well - and, like players, sometimes errors are made.

"It's just the human aspect of sport and probably why we all care about it so much as well. We can't change that now. It will go down in history as one that got away from us."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of sharing the cup at all. Just make the higher-placed team from the round-robin stage the winner in the event of a tied game. It's a well-earned advantage that would have few complaints, if any. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, skaro said:

 

No mate, if I had've wanted to make this about Australia and England, I would have said something like we've won 5 and you've "shared" one.

 

But anyway, enjoy the victory... you'll have an Ashes win soon to be Evertonian about too.

 

Given up before a ball has been bowled. Now that's Evertonian, folks.  

 

Never give up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think fall of wickets should be a deciding factor in 50-overs cricket when the scores are level? The Kiwis still had wickets in hand whereas England were all out for their 241. It seems strange that a boundary count ended up being the deciding factor. As with the T20 format, it doesn't promote the game of cricket as a contest of tactics, skill, nerve and technique, but about who can slog the ball the hardest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Pistonbroke
24 minutes ago, Trumo said:

Do you think fall of wickets should be a deciding factor in 50-overs cricket when the scores are level? The Kiwis still had wickets in hand whereas England were all out for their 241. It seems strange that a boundary count ended up being the deciding factor. As with the T20 format, it doesn't promote the game of cricket as a contest of tactics, skill, nerve and technique, but about who can slog the ball the hardest.

Setting a total and chasing a total were taking into consideration when they changed the rules. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Pistonbroke
22 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Just have a second super over if the first one is level.

Or one ball shoot out until a batsman gets more runs than his opponent. If level you just have to keep changing both your choices for Batsmen/Bowler. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this talk of sharing trophies and changing rules comes across as bitter.  

 

The rules were the same for both teams. New Zealand were the better team on the day but got screwed by the Umpires.  Shit happens, you don't always get what you deserve in sport.

 

Change the rules by all means but it's unlikely that they'll ever come into play, it was an extraordinary set of circumstances. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do have some sympathy with the rulemakers. This is unprecedented territory - if you'd have said before the tournament that boundaries would be the deciding factor in the event of a tie, I'd have probably shrugged and said "sounds alright - will probably never happen anyway". Now I've seen it happen it does seem a bit off but I only truly know that having witnessed it.

 

Treat it like a penalty shootout. We keep doing pairs of super overs until one side has scored more runs off theirs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Pistonbroke
40 minutes ago, TK421 said:

All this talk of sharing trophies and changing rules comes across as bitter.  

 

The rules were the same for both teams. New Zealand were the better team on the day but got screwed by the Umpires.  Shit happens, you don't always get what you deserve in sport.

 

Change the rules by all means but it's unlikely that they'll ever come into play, it was an extraordinary set of circumstances. 

How is it bitter when we are happy England won mate. We are just suggesting better ways to decide a game when the game is tied, suggestions for the future. The rules in this particular game were adhered to as far as the Super Over went, but that doesn't mean we can't have sympathy for the losing team and would rather see a different conclusion should the same thing happen again. Highly unlikely, I know. Although sport has a funny way of throwing the unusual up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Pistonbroke said:

How is it bitter when we are happy England won mate. We are just suggesting better ways to decide a game when the game is tied, suggestions for the future. The rules in this particular game were adhered to as far as the Super Over went, but that doesn't mean we can't have sympathy for the losing team and would rather see a different conclusion should the same thing happen again. Highly unlikely, I know. Although sport has a funny way of throwing the unusual up. 

I was referring to Gary Stead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Pistonbroke
2 minutes ago, TK421 said:

I was referring to Gary Stead.

 

I don#t think he was being bitter about it mate. NZ showed a lot of humility despite the obvious heartache, imo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pistonbroke said:

 

I don#t think he was being bitter about it mate. NZ showed a lot of humility despite the obvious heartache, imo. 

Fair enough, I disagree.  I don't think it shows humility to be yapping on about trophy sharing and changing the rules three days after the final.  Kane Williamson's approach was better - just congratulate the winners and suck it up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...