2019 Cricket world cup Thread

[tamwolf]

On a side note, thoughts on kane williamson getting pott? As well as he played/captained i do think shakib can feel hard done by.

Shakib can feel hard done by. As can Rohit with his 5 centuries.

I think Williamson deserved it though. Not only did he average 80+ with the bat, there is no way New Zealand would have made that final, nor would the final have been so gripping if he hadn’t been captain. His planning and the amount of pressure he helps create in the field is unreal.

 

[Frank Lincoln]

It moved to more four whole they showed the F1 then moved back to four afterwards.

And I switched channels with it. Just think we had two fantastic spectacles yesterday, one at Wimbledon and one at Lords. And in the middle we had a procession in Northamptonshire.

 

[Norman Bell]

Taking up Frank's point on the " cricket is **** " thread. I agree with you 100% that the rule should be changed after what happened with Ben Stokes and that it should be a dead ball with no extras.

I always knew I was a hypocrite and two sporing events this year have left my " its only a game " outlook looking a bit thin. One was that awful Sunday in April when I travelled 4 hours home and spent at least a week doing what I try not to using the words " if only " and the other was yesterday when I honestly have not ever felt tension like that ( okay I remember now I have it was the Edgbaston Test 2nd Test 2005 ! )

 

[Thank you Sir Jack]

I must say that it is exceedingly pleasant to wake up in the only country to have won the hat-trick of Cricket, Football and Rugby World Cups.

 

[Kashmire Hawker]

Absolutely incredible listening to the final overs, on my dying phone on the way back from working at Silverstone. If I wasn't on a coach with many a folk sleeping, I would have bounced off the roof!

Thought 2005 and the melodrama would never be topped, but sport is quite the breed. What a moment in the history of our nation and for the 1st time in a long while: a positive one!

 

[Frank Lincoln]

I must say that it is exceedingly pleasant to wake up in the only country to have won the hat-trick of Cricket, Football and Rugby World Cups.

And I am old enough to have witnessed all three...

 

[Pagey]

Just seen, that the 6 runs we were awarded for stokes deflection, should have only been a 5.
Apparentley the rule states, only completed runs at the time the ball is thrown should be allowed.

Oh well we learn and move on.

 

[WasStefan]

Just seen, that the 6 runs we were awarded for stokes deflection, should have only been a 5.
Apparentley the rule states, only completed runs at the time the ball is thrown should be allowed.

Oh well we learn and move on.

Archer's ball wasn't a wide in the super over, it swings in round abouts. Biggest bit of luck we had was the 4 over throws, but then again why would the fielder chuck it in when actually 2 runs would have been fine for NZ, quite simply not being able to handle the pressure. The catch that actually went for 6 was a poor individual error again due to pressure.

Those NZ players who made those errors will be kicking themselves for the rest of their lives.

Ultimately when push came to shuv England held their nerve on that final ball of the super over to run him out. Fine margins.

 

[tamwolf]

Just seen, that the 6 runs we were awarded for stokes deflection, should have only been a 5.
Apparentley the rule states, only completed runs at the time the ball is thrown should be allowed.

Oh well we learn and move on.

The rules state that the run in progress will be counted if the batsmen have crossed at 'the instant of the throw or act'.

I think the word 'act' adds a bit of ambiguity. If you classify the act which causes the overthrows as the deflection off Stokes' bat, then they had crossed.

Its a bit of a strange rule really though. What if Guptill had directly hit the stumps and the ball deflected to the boundary, but Stokes hat made his ground? Would that still only count as 5 even though they had completed that run, because the batsmen hadn't crossed when Guptill threw it? Surely then the act is the deflection from the stumps.

Additionally; when I was batting last Saturday in a league game we ran a quick three. The throw from the boundary came in to the wicketkeeper and I had made it in (coz I is well rapid bro). The other batsmen was still out of his ground so the wicketkeeper threw at the stumps at the non-strikers end and missed. We completed a fourth run before the ball went over the boundary for overthrows and the umpire (who was a panel umpire from the league) awarded us 8 runs based on runs completed. So it seems there is confusion at all levels on this.

 

[tamwolf]

Archer's ball wasn't a wide in the super over, it swings in round abouts. Biggest bit of luck we had was the 4 over throws, but then again why would the fielder chuck it in when actually 2 runs would have been fine for NZ, quite simply not being able to handle the pressure. The catch that actually went for 6 was a poor individual error again due to pressure.

Those NZ players who made those errors will be kicking themselves for the rest of their lives.

Ultimately when push came to shuv England held their nerve on that final ball of the super over to run him out. Fine margins.

It was a wide from Archer. The line belongs to the umpire, so if you are on it then it is at his discretion.

I wouldn't class the catch that went for 6 as a poor individual error. Its so difficult to balance yourself under a catch at that distance and height, hold on to it, have special awareness off where you are on the boundary and also have the presence of mind to know where your team mate is to throw it to him. Its always impressive when they pull something like that off, so I wouldn't call it poor.

I don't think Guptill should be too concerned either about the overthrows. If he had run Stokes out there, it was definitely game over. It was a freak accident that wouldn't happen again if you asked them to repeat it 100 times.

Other than those things; I agree with you.

 

[WasStefan]

It was a wide from Archer. The line belongs to the umpire, so if you are on it then it is at his discretion.

I wouldn't class the catch that went for 6 as a poor individual error. Its so difficult to balance yourself under a catch at that distance and height, hold on to it, have special awareness off where you are on the boundary and also have the presence of mind to know where your team mate is to throw it to him. Its always impressive when they pull something like that off, so I wouldn't call it poor.

I don't think Guptill should be too concerned either about the overthrows. If he had run Stokes out there, it was definitely game over. It was a freak accident that wouldn't happen again if you asked them to repeat it 100 times.

Other than those things; I agree with you.

You should be a politician Alistair

 

[WasStefan]

I personally think with the way fielding has improved over the years that catch for 6 was definitely an individual error

 

[tamwolf]

I personally think with the way fielding has improved over the years that catch for 6 was definitely an individual error

I guess you can class it as an error. I wouldn't class it as poor though.

 

[Thank you Sir Jack]

And I am old enough to have witnessed all three...

Same here Frank.

 

[Bankswolf The Third]

Not a fan of cricket in the slightest and spent most of yesterday working out the rules and even then getting perplexed at some of the sixes we achieved.
But wow, what a day, a moment that will stick with me for a long time. My heart was in my mouth throughout and in terms of sporting events it has to be up there. Full credit to a fantastic and likeable New Zealand team who battled throughout and to England for the numerous heroes that came out of today who I hope will become as big as the Ashes winning team in 2004.
Brilliant day yesterday for fans of sport

 

[Pagey]

The rules state that the run in progress will be counted if the batsmen have crossed at 'the instant of the throw or act'.

But shouldnt that rule have started when the fielder threw the ball? Which therefor means as the batsmen hadnt crossed, we should have only had 1 + 4 for the boundary.

Or am i being to English?

 

[tamwolf]

But shouldnt that rule have started when the fielder threw the ball? Which therefor means as the batsmen hadnt crossed, we should have only had 1 + 4 for the boundary.

Or am i being to English?

Depends what they mean by ‘act’. If it’s by release of the throw then it should be 5. It doesn’t really define release either though. So could it be when the ball is travelling?

It brings me back to the point about what would have happened if it had been a direct hit in which Stokes had made his ground and then the ball had gone for 4. They would have completed two runs at the point the ball deflected off, but only one would count. Sounds ridiculous.

 

[Deleted member 9788]

Simon taufel was on sky today. He said it should have only been 5 runs not 6

 

[Lofty wolf]

And I am old enough to have witnessed all three...

Me too !
Although i was only 5 months old for the Football one , i recon my dad had me watching !

 

[Glass ankles]

Simon taufel was on sky today. He said it should have only been 5 runs not 6

Too late, it's ours

 

[Deleted member 9788]

Too late, it's ours

Yep, dont know why everyones moaning now!

 

[WasStefan]

Yep, dont know why everyones moaning now!

Who is moaning

 

[maws]

But noones claiming for hardik to be be better than woakesy.. fancy comparing shami and woakesy figures

Just compare trophy cabinets, Woakes is a bit better than an all rounder bowler dontyathink! Midlander too

 

[Norman Bell]

Well said Ashley Giles ! When asked today by some prat of journalist about Stokesy should have only have been awarded 5 runs instead of 6 Ashley said something like " In that case he would have smashed that last ball knee high full toss for at least 2 so we would still have won ! "

 

[Saltyjim]

New Zealand been here since he was 4. He's English. Irishman and Caribbean fair enough. But they wear the England shirt and that is good enough for me.

Stokes moved to England when he was 12 afaik. Therefore, he had the majority of his cricketing education here unlike Morgan and Archer.
Punjabiwolf - shame on you for registering for the Hundred! No real Cricket fan should go anywhere near it.

 

[Deleted member 9788]

Stokes moved to England when he was 12 afaik. Therefore, he had the majority of his cricketing education here unlike Morgan and Archer.
Punjabiwolf - shame on you for registering for the Hundred! No real Cricket fan should go anywhere near it.

My reasons were noble as mentioned in the cricket thread.. i wanted to see if they were desperate to prove that it was attracting non cricket fans and the mums/kids who are their target audience! Which indeed they are because they send you a survey straight away asking all sorts of questions (been to cricket before, favourite team etc)

 

[Deleted member 9788]

Just compare trophy cabinets, Woakes is a bit better than an all rounder bowler dontyathink! Midlander too

So by your logic then mustaphi is better than messi because mustaphi has a world cup winners medel but messi doesnt

You originally implied woakesy was a better bowler than shami. I said i cant see how hes better when he averages more with the ball then the bat for an all rounder..... 1) thats not the best thing for an all rounder. 2) compare his bowling to shami, shamis figures ****s all over woakesy maybe if you used the hardik analogy originally then you had a case

 

[Deleted member 9788]

L

Who is moaning

Loads of ex and current players saying the stokes deflection wasnt fair and nz should be joint winners... ironically the only people not moaning are the new zealanders them self! Hence why they are the most liked nation and always win the spirit of cricket award

 

[WasStefan]

Basically Indians are moaning because they clearly have a dislike for this England team. Or the fact they can't have it all their own way. No idea why

 

[Highlandwolf2]

L

Loads of ex and current players saying the stokes deflection wasnt fair and nz should be joint winners... ironically the only people not moaning are the new zealanders them self! Hence why they are the most liked nation and always win the spirit of cricket award

Think NZ took a decision some years ago to play hard but entirely within the spirit of the game, to their great credit. Whilst English through and through I would have been happy to share the trophy with them had the rules allowed. In the long term they will gain much more than they lose.

 

[WasStefan]

Wow so apparently i'm being racist. Grow up mate honestly. I won't be responding to your dm as i have no issue with you but clearly have annoyed you somewhere. Whatever

 

[WolvesKop]

Basically Indians are moaning because they clearly have a dislike for this England team. Or the fact they can't have it all their own way. No idea why

were not moaning but we do feel hard done due to the rain. If we had come out to bat on Tuesday we would have won and faced England in the final,

We have no dislike for England cricket team (maybe we dislike a few of your players like Root)but besides that its just healthy banter. Also, you seem to have a problem with Brit Indians support India over England? I know many British Born Italians that support Italy Over England but that's never a big issue is it ? but with Indians supporting India over England the UK media make a big deal out of it.

 

[Big Nosed Wolf]

I am a cricket fan. Because I refuse to get over the paywall by subscribing to Sky my enthusiasm has waned. I watch the highlight programmes when on but it isn't really the same. I was happy when the final was on free to air and the only other comparison was the Ashes 2005.

As in other sports has Sky been a force for good or evil? I heard Angus Fraser suggesting (he has a point perhaps) that the amount of money ploughed into cricket has made the game improve. Not sure whether he meant in England or other countries in addition.

How many others, younger and the kids, than me ignore cricket if they don't have access to Sky. Does it do more harm than good? I have no idea how much subscription costs but I have seen amounts quoted on here and other places which suggest it is a barrier to those who have no spare to invest.

This means that only those 'rich' enough will have exposure to it making it an elitist sport, on top of the already relative expense of equipment compared to say football. Have the Cricket mover's and shaker's been guilty of selling out the game and as in football and other areas, used the money for the few rather than the many?

 

[Deleted member 9788]

I am a cricket fan. Because I refuse to get over the paywall by subscribing to Sky my enthusiasm has waned. I watch the highlight programmes when on but it isn't really the same. I was happy when the final was on free to air and the only other comparison was the Ashes 2005.

As in other sports has Sky been a force for good or evil? I heard Angus Fraser suggesting (he has a point perhaps) that the amount of money ploughed into cricket has made the game improve. Not sure whether he meant in England or other countries in addition.

How many others, younger and the kids, than me ignore cricket if they don't have access to Sky. Does it do more harm than good? I have no idea how much subscription costs but I have seen amounts quoted on here and other places which suggest it is a barrier to those who have no spare to invest.

This means that only those 'rich' enough will have exposure to it making it an elitist sport, on top of the already relative expense of equipment compared to say football. Have the Cricket mover's and shaker's been guilty of selling out the game and as in football and other areas, used the money for the few rather than the many?

Its sad. How many people have not seen Englands highest ever runmaker, mr cook, make a single run due to his entire career being on sky! The government should make a number of games on free to air tv like with other sports. For an england point of view you just won the world cup so interest will be at a high and you have the perfect test series coming up in a couple of weeks to keep momentum going in terms of interest! Just a shame kids will forget all about cricket again if nothing is done!

 

[Saltyjim]

Unfortunately whether we're talking about the ECB or the ICC, the only thing that really matters is money.
The reason we had a 10 team round robin World Cup meaning the thing dragged on for weeks, was purely about cash. A minimum, guaranteed 9 matches for the big guns meant the TV rights sold to Star Sports were 80% higher than for 2015. As Dave Richardson at the ICC said in 2015 "we have gone to market-based on a 10 team World Cup".
As for The Hundred the ECB have long looked enviously at the Big Bash and the IPL and the dough they bring in. Chairman Graves has staked his future on it being a success, to such an extent that some have argued that the two limited over domestic competitions have been the victims of a deliberate attempt to diminish their popularity this season. The scheduling for the Royal London Cup was terrible - no matches over the Easter weekend, kept off the ECB social media channel, semi-finals played 2 days after the quarters (which were played on a Friday) etc.
In the T20 Surrey have long boasted of big crowds for their Friday evening matches at the Oval, so its bizarre they have only been allocated 1 this summer.
It's almost as if someone wants to make the need for The Hundred that little bit more desperate.
If they had to have a franchise model why they couldn't just keep it as a 20 over comp I just don't know. Surely with strong umpiring and the will of the competitors the matches could have been completed in under 3 hours, which apparently is we're losing 40 deliveries.

 

[Frank Lincoln]

Let's hope fans boycott the hundred. A ridiculous idea, and it needs to be ditched asap.

 

[maws]

So by your logic then mustaphi is better than messi because mustaphi has a world cup winners medel but messi doesnt

You originally implied woakesy was a better bowler than shami. I said i cant see how hes better when he averages more with the ball then the bat for an all rounder..... 1) thats not the best thing for an all rounder. 2) compare his bowling to shami, shamis figures ****s all over woakesy maybe if you used the hardik analogy originally then you had a case

Who took more wickets at the World Cup?

 

[Deleted member 9788]

Who took more wickets at the World Cup?

Chris woakes did.. he took 2 more wickets then shami AND BOWLED 49.5 MORE OVERS AND AVERAGED 27.87 PER WICKET WHILST SHAMI AVERAGED 13.78 PER WICKET...... but yeah you are right woakes is a much better bowler according to them stats take out shamis hatrick and he still beats him comfortably

I sit and await your "woakes won the world cup" response sir

 

[WasStefan]

Let's hope fans boycott the hundred. A ridiculous idea, and it needs to be ditched asap.

agree, don't get it. they should just stick with T20

 

[maws]

Chris woakes did.. he took 2 more wickets then shami AND BOWLED 49.5 MORE OVERS AND AVERAGED 27.87 PER WICKET WHILST SHAMI AVERAGED 13.78 PER WICKET...... but yeah you are right woakes is a much better bowler according to them stats take out shamis hatrick and he still beats him comfortably

I sit and await your "woakes won the world cup" response sir

At the football World Cup they don’t say oh lineker got 6 goals in 578 minutes but Voller got 5 in 449 minutes so Voller has a better goals to minutes ratio blah blah

Woakes took more wickets
Scored more runs than Hardik
And got a winners medal
Soon he will win the Ashes

End of for me