The 2019 Cricket World Cup Thread

[deluded pom?]

44 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

What a rubbish game

Bring back Chris Tavare

Or David Steel. Or Boycott.

[Futtocks]

15 minutes ago, DavidM said:

Australian umpire , suck it up as you guys would say ... 

I'm waiting for Bernie Sutton's opinion... 

[DavidM]

3 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

I'm waiting for Bernie Sutton's opinion... 

Our kid woulda got it right 

[DavidM]

14 minutes ago, deluded pom? said:

Or David Steel. Or Boycott.

Great story about David Steel wandering out to face Australia and Jeff Thomson saying “ f*****g hell its Father Christmas “ .  Thommo didn’t exactly warm to England ... Colin Cowdrey got called out to Oz and tried to shake hands with Thommo as he came out to bat ,to which Thommo replied “ that won’t help ya fatso “

[Shadow]

4 minutes ago, DavidM said:

Great story about David Steel wandering out to face Australia and Jeff Thomson saying “ f*****g hell its Father Christmas “ .  Thommo didn’t exactly warm to England ... Colin Cowdrey got called out to Oz and tried to shake hands with Thommo as he came out to bat ,to which Thommo replied “ that won’t help ya fatso “

Was that the occasion of the "why are you so fat?" "Because each time I #### your missus she gives me a biscuit" exchange?

[DavidM]

2 minutes ago, Shadow said:

Was that the occasion of the "why are you so fat?" "Because each time I #### your missus she gives me a biscuit" exchange?

I believe that was Glenn McGrath getting it back from a Zimbabwean . I liked the one from Rod Marsh ‘ hows your wife and my kids ‘ and Beefy ‘ the wife’s fine , the kids are retards ‘

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

33 minutes ago, DavidM said:

I remember Old Trafford when he had his partnership with Beefy and he was 60 or something when Beefy came in and Beefy passed him easily 

Proper cricket from Chris.... Not like today with their entertaining shots, quick over rates and exciting formats

I blame the RFL

[Trojan]

Runs certainly seemed hard to come by for both sides.  Whether it was tighter bowling, better fielding, a slower outfield, the boundaries did not seem to be coming as thick and fast as in other games,

[17 stone giant]

What a game! So many twists and turns. I think we massively rode our luck, but that's sport. Sometimes you get the luck, sometimes you don't. The cricket gods were definitely smiling on England on Sunday.

Full credit and respect to New Zealand for the way they played, and for the way they conducted themselves throughout. I think they were the slightly better team on the day, but the luck just didn't go their way. I know it won't feel like much of a consolation right now, but I hope in time they can look back and realise they played a huge part in an epic cricket match - one that people will be talking about for many years.

[Denton Rovers RLFC]

On 14/07/2019 at 16:47, Stan Doffarf said:

This is a very poor pitch for a WC final. Speccies want to see the ball coming onto the bat so the batsmen can play their shots. This is excruciating to watch.

 

There was nowt wrong with the pitch, only poor/average batters and bowlers blame the pitch. It's a pitch you want for a final, for the very best players, it tests you both as batter, bowler and captain, it's precisely what a GOOD wicket should be IMHO.

How is having an easy wicket that batters can just waft the ball left, right and centre with predictability knocking off 7/8 an over a 'good' wicket, it makes batting too easy and frankly it's boring.

It was a great game and the pitch was a contributing factor to that, it made the batters and bowlers work hard for it,  bloody fantastic seeing top end players struggling to get to grips but when they did it was quality at both ends.

[DavidM]

35 minutes ago, Denton Rovers RLFC said:

There was nowt wrong with the pitch, only poor/average batters and bowlers blame the pitch. It's a pitch you want for a final, for the very best players, it tests you both as batter, bowler and captain, it's precisely what a GOOD wicket should be IMHO.

How is having an easy wicket that batters can just waft the ball left, right and centre with predictability knocking off 7/8 an over a 'good' wicket, it makes batting too easy and frankly it's boring.

It was a great game and the pitch was a contributing factor to that, it made the batters and bowlers work hard for it,  bloody fantastic seeing top end players struggling to get to grips but when they did it was quality at both ends.

I’d agree you don’t want a flat track batting massacre , but it was a poor pitch for a final , as has been commented on by pundits . There has to be a balance . De Grandhomme bowled the most economical spell in a 50 over  final and it just didn’t come on at all . There was 15 overs between boundaries .The gripping finale made the spectacle really 

[Denton Rovers RLFC]

6 minutes ago, DavidM said:

I’d agree you don’t want a flat track batting massacre , but it was a poor pitch for a final , as has been commented on by pundits . There has to be a balance . De Grandhomme bowled the most economical spell in a 50 over  final and it just didn’t come on at all . There was 15 overs between boundaries .The gripping finale made the spectacle really 

And the gripping finale was because both teams had to adapt and fight hard for it, if anything a pitch like that levels any imbalances between sides, one could argue that England had the superior batting side and NZ superior bowling. But it boils down to slating a international bowler and saying he's ten a penny at county level is just nonsense.

So what if he bowled the most economical spell, good for him, that shows you like virtually all sport in the history of human kind that sometimes you underestimate your opponent and come off second best, it sounds like you and others think that the England batters should have taken him to the cleaners, somewhat disrespectful and ignorant if you ask me. It was the batters fault they didn't score the runs off the so called 'rabbit' of the attack, it had nothing to do with the pitch, it was their inadequacy, the bowler should get far more respect than the commenters on here are giving which is basically none.

[DavidM]

10 minutes ago, Denton Rovers RLFC said:

disrespectful and ignorant if you ask me.

Oh good , I’m glad I didn’t 

[Denton Rovers RLFC]

50 minutes ago, DavidM said:

Oh good , I’m glad I didn’t 

well actually you did, you inferred that by saying "De Grandhomme bowled the most economical spell in a 50 over final" why would you use that as an example as to why you think the pitch was a wrong un? You like others have used the state of the pitch as to some sort of reasoning as to this aberration/happenstance, please don't insult me, that's a dig at De Grandhomme, that it shouldn't be a bowler of his ilk, one that isn't good enough to being the most economical.

15 overs between boundaries, so what, again, that's down to good bowling/fielding/captaincy and batters who are under pressure and aren't getting to grips with the pitch or the good bowling!

[Niels]

5 minutes ago, Denton Rovers RLFC said:

well actually you did, you inferred that by saying "De Grandhomme bowled the most economical spell in a 50 over final" why would you use that as an example as to why you think the pitch was a wrong un? You like others have used the state of the pitch as to some sort of reasoning as to this aberration/happenstance, please don't insult me, that's a dig at De Grandhomme, that it shouldn't be a bowler of his ilk, one that isn't good enough to being the most economical.

15 overs between boundaries, so what, again, that's down to good bowling/fielding/captaincy and batters who are under pressure and aren't getting to grips with the pitch or the good bowling!

I wonder if they considered him bowling the spare over?

The commentators discussed it certainly. 

What do you think?

[Denton Rovers RLFC]

38 minutes ago, Niels said:

I wonder if they considered him bowling the spare over?

The commentators discussed it certainly. 

What do you think?

It's always going to be a clutch call, it's even worse than putting five names up for a penalty shootout in soccer. Boult was for me a default and I hesitate to say even a cop out choice as he'd got smacked around at the end. It was on the basis of what he had done, afterall he's the No.2 ranked bowler currently in ODIs so it's totally understandable why Williamson would choose him. He could so easily have taken a wicket and reduced England to single digits from the SO.

The gravitas of that single over really puts the captains (and obviously the players) under a shed load of pressure, IF he'd have picked CdG, England scored 15 and England win then you can guarantee that a large proportion would have slated Williamson.

It was in so many ways the right decision but you could say it turned out to be the wrong decision basing that on what had actually happened when the black caps were in the field. Even taking into account the dot balls given how Stokes had indeed caught Boult at the back end it would in the eyes of a cold calculating captain be the obvious choice to pick CdG.

All ifs and buts and plenty of hindsight, similarly to the total runs on the overthrows which should have only being 5 apparently (I haven't read of someone has already mentioned this here) I wasn't sure if it was when the 'act' occured as it hitting Stokes' bat but apparently it was when the fielder released the ball as to the relevancy if the batters had crossed and the run in progress counted https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/world-cup-umps-got-it-wrong-taufel-20190715-p527g9.html as stated in some of the comments, if Stokes gets sent back to the non delivery end the next ball could have been anything, 6,4, a wicket, dot ball, it never happened so no-one can know the outcome for something that didn't occur, just as not picking CdG to bowl.

 

[Niels]

40 minutes ago, Denton Rovers RLFC said:

It's always going to be a clutch call, it's even worse than putting five names up for a penalty shootout in soccer. Boult was for me a default and I hesitate to say even a cop out choice as he'd got smacked around at the end. It was on the basis of what he had done, afterall he's the No.2 ranked bowler currently in ODIs so it's totally understandable why Williamson would choose him. He could so easily have taken a wicket and reduced England to single digits from the SO.

The gravitas of that single over really puts the captains (and obviously the players) under a shed load of pressure, IF he'd have picked CdG, England scored 15 and England win then you can guarantee that a large proportion would have slated Williamson.

It was in so many ways the right decision but you could say it turned out to be the wrong decision basing that on what had actually happened when the black caps were in the field. Even taking into account the dot balls given how Stokes had indeed caught Boult at the back end it would in the eyes of a cold calculating captain be the obvious choice to pick CdG.

All ifs and buts and plenty of hindsight, similarly to the total runs on the overthrows which should have only being 5 apparently (I haven't read of someone has already mentioned this here) I wasn't sure if it was when the 'act' occured as it hitting Stokes' bat but apparently it was when the fielder released the ball as to the relevancy if the batters had crossed and the run in progress counted https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/world-cup-umps-got-it-wrong-taufel-20190715-p527g9.html as stated in some of the comments, if Stokes gets sent back to the non delivery end the next ball could have been anything, 6,4, a wicket, dot ball, it never happened so no-one can know the outcome for something that didn't occur, just as not picking CdG to bowl.

 

Thanks that is an excellent summary. In had read about the 5 but hadn't realised it would have meant Stokes on non strike.

I think the fairest way of that rule is to declare the ball dead once it hits the bat. 

15 is a good score for the team batting first in the super over I think as it means the batting team need at least 2 boundaries and maybe 3. As you say, a wicket changes everything. 

Was it you who noticed that the last ball was a full toss? 

 

 

[DavidM]

The  area of jeopardy in the super over is that only three batsmen can be used , so if you lose two wickets that’s it . Balances out the all out slog , which adds an extra dimension . Quite a few players said they’d been in one before . Quite a lot of ex players slagging off this system but it’s been around quite a long time now . As for the boundary count , I can’t believe the ICC ever thought it would be used but they obviously needed some third layer to decide the game .... but it’ll never come to that !

[phiggins]

Seeing a few people in various places trying to reduce the win because it was a tie, the extra overthrow etc... but when it’s that tight you can always find something to point to. Maybe some harsh wides given for example.

I do like boundary count rather than fewest wickets as a decider. It reflects the changes the 50 over game has had to take to regain some relevance after losing it to t20 for a spell. It’s more about scoring runs, not occupying the crease. If it had been fewest wickets, we wouldn’t have had two kamikaze run outs in the last two balls, and stokes might’ve smacked the full toss into next week. We’ll never know, the game was played to the rules set. Just like NZ concentrated on their net run rate in the last two group games, to make sure they get through to the semis.

NZ were desperately unlucky in the final though.