CWC Final - Black Caps v England
-
cricket has always been an evil fluffybunny of a game
-
-
@SynicBast said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Warning: sour grapes time:
England did not win this world cup, it was awarded to them. That's my response from now on whenever some fluffybunny says England won the 2019 CWC.
Nah, they won.
Best alternative. Another super over (until a clear winnier)
Second best alternative: Higher positioning in the round-robin.
Third best alternative: Winner of the round-robing meeting.There were sensible ways to award England the tournament - if the organisers are not prepared to go to more super overs for TV scheduling reasons.
But it's just like the ICC forgot that the tournament had been re-structured like the 1992 version of everyone plays everyone - so came up with a bizzaare way to break the tie. Which might have made sense if their were pools, (and if you like boundaries and the rest of cricket is the boring bits between fours and sixes).
-
@SynicBast said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Warning: sour grapes time:
England did not win this world cup, it was awarded to them. That's my response from now on whenever some fluffybunny says England won the 2019 CWC.
They won the Cricket World Cup but didn't win the Cricket World Cup final. The ultimate pub quiz question.
-
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.
Should England have got five, and not six, for overthrows?
The laws raise the question as to whether England were awarded one run too many with Stokes and Rashid having not crossed when the throw was released
-
@junior said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Chris-B sadly history will just remember the name engraved on the trophy 😔
We will be failing in our duties as fans if that is the case.
For some reason I can't recall the actual scoreline of the 1981 Benson and Hedges World Series Cup. Did Australia win 3-1?
However, as I dandle my great-grandchildren on my knee, I will surely tell them how the heinous traitor Ben Stokes purposefully swiped an outfield throw to the boundary to rob St. Kane of his rightful victory!
I may feel differently tomorrow, but right now I'm not in the slightest gutted that we're not getting our name engraved on a little Cup. It's the stuff of legends!
-
@Chris-B said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@junior said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Chris-B sadly history will just remember the name engraved on the trophy 😔
We will be failing in our duties as fans if that is the case.
For some reason I can't recall the actual scoreline of the 1981 Benson and Hedges World Series Cup. Did Australia win 3-1?
However, as I dandle my great-grandchildren on my knee, I will surely tell them how the heinous traitor Ben Stokes purposefully swiped an outfield throw to the boundary to rob St. Kane of his rightful victory!
I may feel differently tomorrow, but right now I'm not in the slightest gutted that we're not getting our name engraved on a little Cup. It's the stuff of legends!
It's a "moral victory" double banger if Stokes deflected the ball and the umpires stuffed up to award an extra run. Move aside Suzie .....
-
@Rapido said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@SynicBast said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Warning: sour grapes time:
England did not win this world cup, it was awarded to them. That's my response from now on whenever some fluffybunny says England won the 2019 CWC.
Nah, they won.
Best alternative. Another super over (until a clear winnier)
Second best alternative: Higher positioning in the round-robin.
Third best alternative: Winner of the round-robing meeting.There were sensible ways to award England the tournament - if the organisers are not prepared to go to more super overs for TV scheduling reasons.
But it's just like the ICC forgot that the tournament had been re-structured like the 1992 version of everyone plays everyone - so came up with a bizzaare way to break the tie. Which might have made sense if their were pools, (and if you like boundaries and the rest of cricket is the boring bits between fours and sixes).
Actually, I'm going to revise this opinion a bit.
If the purpose of the tie-breaker is to decide a way to separate who was the best in the final rather than who was the best in the tournament, then it should have been by wickets lost (like it used to be).
So after the super-overs are exhausted, then the best way to count-back in the final was by wickets lost.
We woz actually robbed after all.
-
I thought I did everything right. I fell asleep on the couch after the first innings. Recorded it and watched it in the morning expecting a win because I slept through it.
I am telling my Great Grandkids that David Warner sprinted on in the super over and bowled the final ball underarm.
Man I am hurting.
-
Back to the cricket and a great innings by Stokes - similar role to Dhoni with Buttler playing the Jadeja role but he did it much, much better than Dhoni. And had no problem with the actions of the English players at all, you could tell Stokes was embarrassed by the extra 4 runs being awarded.
-
@KiwiPie said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Back to the cricket and a great innings by Stokes - similar role to Dhoni with Buttler playing the Jadeja role but he did it much, much better than Dhoni. And had no problem with the actions of the English players at all, you could tell Stokes was embarrassed by the extra 4 runs being awarded.
This sort of post is not helping our moral victory stance.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@KiwiPie said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Back to the cricket and a great innings by Stokes - similar role to Dhoni with Buttler playing the Jadeja role but he did it much, much better than Dhoni. And had no problem with the actions of the English players at all, you could tell Stokes was embarrassed by the extra 4 runs being awarded.
This sort of post is not helping our moral victory stance.
Burn the heretic!
-
@mariner4life said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@ACT-Crusader said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@KiwiPie said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Back to the cricket and a great innings by Stokes - similar role to Dhoni with Buttler playing the Jadeja role but he did it much, much better than Dhoni. And had no problem with the actions of the English players at all, you could tell Stokes was embarrassed by the extra 4 runs being awarded.
This sort of post is not helping our moral victory stance.
Burn the heretic!
-
England probably should have taken the game away from us. It is ironic that they won because of more boundaries scored. It was relying on boundaries which was their problem. Stokes showed limitations as a batsman in that he couldn't rotate the strike. Root also got out because he just couldn't get enough singles and got frustrated. Credit to all our bowlers but especially Neesham and CDG.
I don't have a huge problem with how the game ended. If it is tied on the day, you should go back to who did better throughout the tournament. That is England. So the right winner in the end.
Luck did seem to go against us. Then again both Ferguson and Southee only just made catches. In some ways they were lucky to take those. So it depends how you look at it. Overall, we were fortunate to be in the semis.
-
@Stockcar86 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
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.
Should England have got five, and not six, for overthrows?
The laws raise the question as to whether England were awarded one run too many with Stokes and Rashid having not crossed when the throw was released
ah good, can we appeal?
-
I would’ve loved a bowl off as a second over decider. Pick 6 bowlers to step up to the mark and see how many hit the stumps.
-
-
@ACT-Crusader said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
I would’ve loved a bowl off as a second over decider. Pick 6 bowlers to step up to the mark and see how many hit the stumps.
with a bonus for middle stump
-
@ACT-Crusader said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
I would’ve loved a bowl off as a second over decider. Pick 6 bowlers to step up to the mark and see how many hit the stumps.
Problem with this is it will often end up and 1-1 or 0-0 etc.
But it is pretty cool.
