There is in the entertainment factor and let’s be honest it was a dour final till the last hour.
ICC Cricket World Cup 2019
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
so the deciding factor on a world cup final should be who was the most entertaining? bullshit.
besides, isn't seeing wickets not also entertaining?
Hey it’s a factor of the game to be entertaining. Wickets can be entertaining too so if that was in the rules beforehand, wouldn’t had an issue with it either. I don’t think it’s any more or less arbitrary than boundaries.
Like I said both are better than what decided 99 semi. At least this was a factor in the match itself.
Wickets would be just as rogue as a tie breaker I think because the game in limited overs isn’t played to maximise saving wickets past a certain point.
They should have just played another super over really, can be no complaints then.
They should have just played another super over really, can be no complaints then.
None of this matters because apparently India were the best team in the tournament. Apparently Morgan is presenting the trophy to Kohli this morning. It's a real shame lads but we'll go again in 4 years.
City won the league in 2012 because of goal difference. It hurt but everyone knew the rules so we accepted it. It’s just the way it goes.
Well, there is literally a difference. Literally.
Who's saying that?
in the context of runs assigned to a team, which is the point i'm making. 4 runs from 4 balls is the same, it's irrelevant the manner in which they were obtained (or should be).
another super over would make the most sense.
Really poor. Nothing was checked amongst the shock.
Is there an in between? The second the ball starts coming onto the bat, you can, effectively, deem the pitch flat in ODIs - the balls dont swing much at all. The only way bowlers can be effective in ODIs is if what you're saying doesnt happen.
And, to be honest, attracting a newer fan base is what T20s are for.
Rules were known beforehand. I don’t see a problem with deciding on the basis of a pre set rule that was known to everyone. The 5 runs or 6 runs is a separate discussion. That may have been a feck up. Valid reason to moan if it’s indeed the case.
Some Indian fans
In this thread? Link please? Or name the posters?
Yeah they may have fecked up, I think most people didn’t have a clue, I certainly didn’t!
It would have changed the last ball though, England wouldn’t have played the shot they played knowing that a boundary is needed to win. Would NZ have set a field to stop the 2 or stop the boundary? If they defend the boundary then that leaves more room to run the 2 to draw. Should at least have the chance for it to play out the correct way but I’m certainly not complaining!
Yeah, no clue either. But we aren't supposed to know. The umpires should or consult with the 3rd umpire for clarity if indeed that is the rule. if it's a gray area left to interpretation, case closed. It 100% changes the last ball and England might as well have won by hitting a boundary.
Thats their job though. Its similar to how strict they are with batsmen crossing over when being caught on the boundary. This really should have been checked - its really poor from those involved especially in a game of this magnitude.
Have a look at post number 9,457 in this thread for starters. Not the easiest thing to track back and find in a 326 page thread!
Come on now, @Sultan said something during the semi final and you're using that to post what you said today?
Just enjoy the victory, never understand why people feel the need to dig out other fans/countries during their own victories.
Being humble in victory is underrated.
People would be humble about English victories if it wasn't for the fact that people are so insufferable when England win.
It's the same with every sport. Anti/Anyone but Englanders are a fecking plague. I remember this place during the World Cup where it was just constantly a bunch of posters trying to tell England fans they were just lucky.
It's hard to not shoot back when people are constantly just praying for England to lose all the time.
As is accepting defeat with grace. Anyway you asked for an example and I gave you one!
Oh, an exclamation mark. This is serious stuff.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Don't hold yourself to the same standards that seem to annoy you in the first place. Be better!
Interestingly, there seems to be more of an Anyone But India feeling in cricket, to me anyway.
I agree though, it is nice to stick one on everyone else when you do win, but it comes across petty. Going back 4000 posts and 5 days is strange to me. You've just won the bloody world cup, enjoy these moments!
Should England have got five, and not six, for overthrows?
It was a contest that could not be separated by runs scored, in regulation play or the Super Over, but were England inadvertently awarded one run too many during the chaotic scenes of Trent Boult's final over to Ben Stokes in their chase?
In what was later pinpointed by New Zealand's captain Kane Williamson as the key "uncontrollable" of England's run chase, Stokes inadvertently sent a throw from deep midwicket skimming to the third-man boundary with his bat, after diving for his crease in a bid to complete a second run.
After consultation with his colleagues, Kumar Dharmasena signaled six runs for the incident, meaning that England - seemingly drifting out of contention needing nine runs from three balls, were suddenly right back in the hunt needing three more from two.
However, according to Law 19.8, pertaining to "Overthrow or wilful act of fielder", it would appear that England's second on-field run should not have counted, making it a total of five runs for the incident, not six.
The law states: "If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be any runs for penalties awarded to either side, and the allowance for the boundary, 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 crucial clause is the last part. A review of the footage of the incident shows clearly that, at the moment the ball was released by the New Zealand fielder, Martin Guptill, Stokes and his partner, Adil Rashid, had not yet crossed for their second run.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27191816/should-england-got-five-not-six-overthrows
Dedicated to all those who were asking me how me how england were undeserving to be declared winners.
It was a contest that could not be separated by runs scored, in regulation play or the Super Over, but were England inadvertently awarded one run too many during the chaotic scenes of Trent Boult's final over to Ben Stokes in their chase?
In what was later pinpointed by New Zealand's captain Kane Williamson as the key "uncontrollable" of England's run chase, Stokes inadvertently sent a throw from deep midwicket skimming to the third-man boundary with his bat, after diving for his crease in a bid to complete a second run.
After consultation with his colleagues, Kumar Dharmasena signaled six runs for the incident, meaning that England - seemingly drifting out of contention needing nine runs from three balls, were suddenly right back in the hunt needing three more from two.
However, according to Law 19.8, pertaining to "Overthrow or wilful act of fielder", it would appear that England's second on-field run should not have counted, making it a total of five runs for the incident, not six.
The law states: "If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be any runs for penalties awarded to either side, and the allowance for the boundary, 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 crucial clause is the last part. A review of the footage of the incident shows clearly that, at the moment the ball was released by the New Zealand fielder, Martin Guptill, Stokes and his partner, Adil Rashid, had not yet crossed for their second run.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27191816/should-england-got-five-not-six-overthrows
Dedicated to all those who were asking me how me how england were undeserving to be declared winners.
Just go back to beginning of the thread where most were criticising the BCCI (and not the ICC) for the format and scheduling of the tournament. Hypocritical behaviour when the shoe is on the other foot.
I'm not a big cricket fan so I wouldn't know.
But sport in general there's always plenty of anyone but England fans and it gets boring when they have to find every excuse out there to try and take away from England's win.
Although on the other hand, all the salt makes it even more enjoyable.
@VidaRed at least you’ve moved on from calling us cheats
Like somebody already said, stokes would have tried going for a boundary on the last ball then, or New Zealand might have set the field differently to stop the boundary, and we would have had more time to make 2 runs. We’ll never know, but what I do know is that we are world champions, you seem very salty. Suck it up and get over it.
As per Adil Rashid Allah was with us so not sure how it matters if it was 5 or 6. Rashid would have won it anyway
Yep, Stokes would have nailed a 6 on the last ball. Ball probably would have exited the stadium and taken out a satellite too.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Complaining has begun it seems. I know NZ were hard done yesterday but they also have to blame themselves. Their batting tactics especially in last overs were baffling. Santer ducking off the last ball is still a mystery. Had they shown a bit more ambition with the bat they could have reached 260. Also boult's catch, he could have been a bit more quick and threw the ball to the other fielder and stokes would have been out. No point complaining it to ICC.
He's gone back and edited those posts calling us cheats I think.
Even he must have realised how stupid he was being.
Cricket doesn’t do itself favours. The biggest talking point now of one of the greatest games ever will be how many runs the overthrows should have been.
Nah if you check his tweets he just wanted it shared
I think if England don't get the lucky hit of the bat for runs, people here would be praising NZ tactics as perfect.They handled the last 10 overs of England's innings almost perfectly. I know it was not a easy pitch to bat on, but they why they restricted the England batters was really impressive.
What a ridiculous opinion.
Did we not complain when Drogba scored that handball goal at OT which effectively won Chelsea the title?
Why were so many Indians supporting New Zealand/are salty England won?
Is there some sort of Anti-England agenda amongst Indian fans?
Is there some sort of Anti-England agenda amongst Indian fans?