CWC Final - Black Caps v England
-
I'm pretty much over the disappointment now. I mean how often do you get the privilege of watching a match of that intensity in cricket? One to tell your grandkids about.
Anyway you know what the say when it comes to world cups.
You gotta lose one and then draw one due to some jammy b.s. before you can win one.
-
@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@ACT-Crusader said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
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.
See I have an issue with the ‘who did better in the tournament’ position. Don’t have finals if you want to reward tournament play.
In a final it shouldn’t matter how you got there, it’s just that you get there and are in with a starters chance.
It should come down to what happens in the game.
It's a much better metric than wickets lost. Each team is given resources of 300 legal deliveries and 10 wickets. New Zealand didn't use all of our resources. If England got bowled out for 241 in 49 overs, you could argue they should have won for having more deliveries available which they did not use.
No way, if you finish your innings with wickets in hand it means the opposition wasn't good enough to bowl you out. Failing to bat your 50 is seen as a really bad thing for a reason. Also if the chasing team wins it is described as "won by X wickets" because that shows how many wickets you still had up your sleeve.
Deciding the result on boundaries hit instead of wickets goes against the very core principles of the game. That rule had to he devised by someone with absolutely no appreciation for the game whatsoever. The kind of person that just likes the 4s and 6s without appreciating the countless other facets. It's the single stupidist rule I've ever seen and it's unfortunately left a hell of a sour taste on what was otherwise a great tournament.
For me, the ruling has borderline brought the game into disrepute as crickets biggest showcase was decided on a rule that simply doesn't make any bloody sense.
-
@No-Quarter said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@ACT-Crusader said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
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.
See I have an issue with the ‘who did better in the tournament’ position. Don’t have finals if you want to reward tournament play.
In a final it shouldn’t matter how you got there, it’s just that you get there and are in with a starters chance.
It should come down to what happens in the game.
It's a much better metric than wickets lost. Each team is given resources of 300 legal deliveries and 10 wickets. New Zealand didn't use all of our resources. If England got bowled out for 241 in 49 overs, you could argue they should have won for having more deliveries available which they did not use.
No way, if you finish your innings with wickets in hand it means the opposition wasn't good enough to bowl you out. Failing to bat your 50 is seen as a really bad thing for a reason. Also if the chasing team wins it is described as "won by X wickets" because that shows how many wickets you still had up your sleeve.
Deciding the result on boundaries hit instead of wickets goes against the very core principles of the game. That rule had to he devised by someone with absolutely no appreciation for the game whatsoever. The kind of person that just likes the 4s and 6s without appreciating the countless other facets. It's the single stupidist rule I've ever seen and it's unfortunately left a hell of a sour taste on what was otherwise a great tournament.
For me, the ruling has borderline brought the game into disrepute as crickets biggest showcase was decided on a rule that simply doesn't make any bloody sense.
Can we actually find out when that rule came about and by whom?
-
@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
It's a much better metric than wickets lost. Each team is given resources of 300 legal deliveries and 10 wickets. New Zealand didn't use all of our resources. If England got bowled out for 241 in 49 overs, you could argue they should have won for having more deliveries available which they did not use.
Yes, tournament play could be a tie breaker, however England had 50 overs and lost their 10 wickets. We didn't, so not following your logic there on the last sentence?
Even if they were bowled out in 2 overs - they lost their 10 wickets which is the object of the game - score more runs without getting bowled out - if you don't use all of the balls available to you - your fault.As for how you score the runs, who cares. Singles score one, boundaries score 4 or 6. It is the total that matters.
Cricket victories are either more runs scored or given as wickets if batting second. i.e. NZ won by 2 wickets. In this case we batted first but it is how a victory is usually measured.
This is interesting - even the bookies don't think we lost (we didn't win either IMO).
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12249679 -
-
@No-Quarter Good lad isn't he. Really disappointed for him (and me actually). More years of therapy about the injustice of it all. 1995 and 2007 all over again.
-
I also have a big issue with the tiebreak, on a philosophical level as much as anything.
It implies that fours and sixes are somehow more virtuous than singles, twos and threes. That a batsmen who walks off with 30 (30) with five sixes and 25 dots has batted better than someone who scored 30 (30) with 30 singles. It's at odds with the ethos of the game more broadly - no matter what your style, it's the scoreboard that reigns supreme.
If you take a look at football, the number of corner kicks achieved is sometimes used as a tiebreak. In a game where the scoreline is often a blunt instrument, the number of corners is actually a fair metric to use to determine who had a better game - it implies you attacked more than your opponent, and forced the opposition to clear their line. More corners often means you had a generally better game.
But the scoreline in cricket is far more nuanced than soccer, and I'm not sure if such a metric is easily found. You could say the number of wides/extras, but the batting team is compensated for those errors at the time. No one mode of dismissal is better than another, and no one way of scoring is better than another.
The number of wickets lost may be an improvement, as you could mount an argument that 3/300 is better than 8/300. But in a limited over game, I'm not sure it holds that much water. Though I certainly concede it's better than 'number of fours or sixes'.
As many here have pointed out, it should have deferred to tournament record if a second over could not be bowled.
If I were World Rugby, I'd be frantically flipping through rugby's current tiebreak methods. Do we still have the kick-off if extra time is insufficient?
-
@No-Quarter said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@ACT-Crusader said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
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.
See I have an issue with the ‘who did better in the tournament’ position. Don’t have finals if you want to reward tournament play.
In a final it shouldn’t matter how you got there, it’s just that you get there and are in with a starters chance.
It should come down to what happens in the game.
It's a much better metric than wickets lost. Each team is given resources of 300 legal deliveries and 10 wickets. New Zealand didn't use all of our resources. If England got bowled out for 241 in 49 overs, you could argue they should have won for having more deliveries available which they did not use.
No way, if you finish your innings with wickets in hand it means the opposition wasn't good enough to bowl you out. Failing to bat your 50 is seen as a really bad thing for a reason. Also if the chasing team wins it is described as "won by X wickets" because that shows how many wickets you still had up your sleeve.
Deciding the result on boundaries hit instead of wickets goes against the very core principles of the game. That rule had to he devised by someone with absolutely no appreciation for the game whatsoever. The kind of person that just likes the 4s and 6s without appreciating the countless other facets. It's the single stupidist rule I've ever seen and it's unfortunately left a hell of a sour taste on what was otherwise a great tournament.
For me, the ruling has borderline brought the game into disrepute as crickets biggest showcase was decided on a rule that simply doesn't make any bloody sense.
The goal isn't to bowl someone out though - it's just to limit how many runs the other team scores. If a team is dumb enough to finish 50 overs with 5 wickets left over, they are as stupid as a team which doesn't bat out their overs. Wickets remaining would be a silly way to decide it. I would consider it as bad as most boundaries.
-
-
@Snowy said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
It's a much better metric than wickets lost. Each team is given resources of 300 legal deliveries and 10 wickets. New Zealand didn't use all of our resources. If England got bowled out for 241 in 49 overs, you could argue they should have won for having more deliveries available which they did not use.
Yes, tournament play could be a tie breaker, however England had 50 overs and lost their 10 wickets. We didn't, so not following your logic there on the last sentence?
Even if they were bowled out in 2 overs - they lost their 10 wickets which is the object of the game - score more runs without getting bowled out - if you don't use all of the balls available to you - your fault.As for how you score the runs, who cares. Singles score one, boundaries score 4 or 6. It is the total that matters.
Cricket victories are either more runs scored or given as wickets if batting second. i.e. NZ won by 2 wickets. In this case we batted first but it is how a victory is usually measured.
This is interesting - even the bookies don't think we lost (we didn't win either IMO).
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12249679Logic is simple. Wickets and overs are your two resources. There is nothing good about not using all your resources. If 250/9 is better than 249/0, I don't see why 241/8 is better than 241/10. It's a hypothetical of course because it didn't happen but winning on wickets remaining would make as much sense as winning on having more balls remaining.
-
@Nevorian said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@No-Quarter said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@ACT-Crusader said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
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.
See I have an issue with the ‘who did better in the tournament’ position. Don’t have finals if you want to reward tournament play.
In a final it shouldn’t matter how you got there, it’s just that you get there and are in with a starters chance.
It should come down to what happens in the game.
It's a much better metric than wickets lost. Each team is given resources of 300 legal deliveries and 10 wickets. New Zealand didn't use all of our resources. If England got bowled out for 241 in 49 overs, you could argue they should have won for having more deliveries available which they did not use.
No way, if you finish your innings with wickets in hand it means the opposition wasn't good enough to bowl you out. Failing to bat your 50 is seen as a really bad thing for a reason. Also if the chasing team wins it is described as "won by X wickets" because that shows how many wickets you still had up your sleeve.
Deciding the result on boundaries hit instead of wickets goes against the very core principles of the game. That rule had to he devised by someone with absolutely no appreciation for the game whatsoever. The kind of person that just likes the 4s and 6s without appreciating the countless other facets. It's the single stupidist rule I've ever seen and it's unfortunately left a hell of a sour taste on what was otherwise a great tournament.
For me, the ruling has borderline brought the game into disrepute as crickets biggest showcase was decided on a rule that simply doesn't make any bloody sense.
Can we actually find out when that rule came about and by whom?
In 1999, it was based on who finished higher in the round robin. Hence 'you just dropped the World Cup'.
-
@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Logic is simple. Wickets and overs are your two resources.
Logic is simple, you win at cricket by having more runs and not getting bowled out - so your resources are 10 wickets how you use them is part of the game. Throw them away before the 50 overs are up and slow down your scoring rate to preserve? Up to you. 50 overs each do what you will with them. Balls remaining is irrelevant other than to show the margin of a win (which will have come about by not being bowled out).
-
@Bones said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Boult dropped the cup...
And yet again, Williamson not prepared to put himself in under pressure. Why have cart horse Guptill out there if you're opening with Neesh?
Guptill woulda been first name down......in 2015. Sad fact is he got more in one innings then than he managed in 10 in this WC.
I'm really interested to see if he has it in him ( and Southee for that matter ) to come back from all of this to make any meaningful contribution in international cricket.
-
@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@No-Quarter said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@ACT-Crusader said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
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.
See I have an issue with the ‘who did better in the tournament’ position. Don’t have finals if you want to reward tournament play.
In a final it shouldn’t matter how you got there, it’s just that you get there and are in with a starters chance.
It should come down to what happens in the game.
It's a much better metric than wickets lost. Each team is given resources of 300 legal deliveries and 10 wickets. New Zealand didn't use all of our resources. If England got bowled out for 241 in 49 overs, you could argue they should have won for having more deliveries available which they did not use.
No way, if you finish your innings with wickets in hand it means the opposition wasn't good enough to bowl you out. Failing to bat your 50 is seen as a really bad thing for a reason. Also if the chasing team wins it is described as "won by X wickets" because that shows how many wickets you still had up your sleeve.
Deciding the result on boundaries hit instead of wickets goes against the very core principles of the game. That rule had to he devised by someone with absolutely no appreciation for the game whatsoever. The kind of person that just likes the 4s and 6s without appreciating the countless other facets. It's the single stupidist rule I've ever seen and it's unfortunately left a hell of a sour taste on what was otherwise a great tournament.
For me, the ruling has borderline brought the game into disrepute as crickets biggest showcase was decided on a rule that simply doesn't make any bloody sense.
The goal isn't to bowl someone out though - it's just to limit how many runs the other team scores. If a team is dumb enough to finish 50 overs with 5 wickets left over, they are as stupid as a team which doesn't bat out their overs. Wickets remaining would be a silly way to decide it. I would consider it as bad as most boundaries.
The goal is absolutely to bowl teams out, as that is by far the most effective way of limiting runs. The only way the Black Caps defend that total is by taking wickets; if both Stokes and Buttler are there at the end then England coast home. It was taking those wickets that nearly (should have) got us home.
Runs are the most important, which is why that is used to decide games. The next best metric, by a country fucking mile, is wickets. Boundaries hit is completely and utterly meaningless, I honestly cannot believe they would even contemplate using that as a metric to decide a game.
-
@No-Quarter said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@No-Quarter said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@ACT-Crusader said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
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.
See I have an issue with the ‘who did better in the tournament’ position. Don’t have finals if you want to reward tournament play.
In a final it shouldn’t matter how you got there, it’s just that you get there and are in with a starters chance.
It should come down to what happens in the game.
It's a much better metric than wickets lost. Each team is given resources of 300 legal deliveries and 10 wickets. New Zealand didn't use all of our resources. If England got bowled out for 241 in 49 overs, you could argue they should have won for having more deliveries available which they did not use.
No way, if you finish your innings with wickets in hand it means the opposition wasn't good enough to bowl you out. Failing to bat your 50 is seen as a really bad thing for a reason. Also if the chasing team wins it is described as "won by X wickets" because that shows how many wickets you still had up your sleeve.
Deciding the result on boundaries hit instead of wickets goes against the very core principles of the game. That rule had to he devised by someone with absolutely no appreciation for the game whatsoever. The kind of person that just likes the 4s and 6s without appreciating the countless other facets. It's the single stupidist rule I've ever seen and it's unfortunately left a hell of a sour taste on what was otherwise a great tournament.
For me, the ruling has borderline brought the game into disrepute as crickets biggest showcase was decided on a rule that simply doesn't make any bloody sense.
The goal isn't to bowl someone out though - it's just to limit how many runs the other team scores. If a team is dumb enough to finish 50 overs with 5 wickets left over, they are as stupid as a team which doesn't bat out their overs. Wickets remaining would be a silly way to decide it. I would consider it as bad as most boundaries.
The goal is absolutely to bowl teams out, as that is by far the most effective way of limiting runs. The only way the Black Caps defend that total is by taking wickets; if both Stokes and Buttler are there at the end then England coast home. It was taking those wickets that nearly (should have) got us home.
Runs are the most important, which is why that is used to decide games. The next best metric, by a country fucking mile, is wickets. Boundaries hit is completely and utterly meaningless, I honestly cannot believe they would even contemplate using that as a metric to decide a game.
I blame 20/20 100% and all the bullshit graphics on each tournaments sixes hit. Look I fucken love big hits as much as anyone but there is still a massively important place in the game for the Boycott/Chanderpaul/Dravid or indeed KW type grafter ( and obviously the latter can hit pretty well when required too )
-
@No-Quarter said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Boundaries hit is completely and utterly meaningless, I honestly cannot believe they would even contemplate using that as a metric to decide a game.
It's even worse, quamtity of boundaries mean the same number of runs hit in 6s is actually worth less in a tie break than hitting those runs in fours
-
@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@No-Quarter said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@ACT-Crusader said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
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.
See I have an issue with the ‘who did better in the tournament’ position. Don’t have finals if you want to reward tournament play.
In a final it shouldn’t matter how you got there, it’s just that you get there and are in with a starters chance.
It should come down to what happens in the game.
It's a much better metric than wickets lost. Each team is given resources of 300 legal deliveries and 10 wickets. New Zealand didn't use all of our resources. If England got bowled out for 241 in 49 overs, you could argue they should have won for having more deliveries available which they did not use.
No way, if you finish your innings with wickets in hand it means the opposition wasn't good enough to bowl you out. Failing to bat your 50 is seen as a really bad thing for a reason. Also if the chasing team wins it is described as "won by X wickets" because that shows how many wickets you still had up your sleeve.
Deciding the result on boundaries hit instead of wickets goes against the very core principles of the game. That rule had to he devised by someone with absolutely no appreciation for the game whatsoever. The kind of person that just likes the 4s and 6s without appreciating the countless other facets. It's the single stupidist rule I've ever seen and it's unfortunately left a hell of a sour taste on what was otherwise a great tournament.
For me, the ruling has borderline brought the game into disrepute as crickets biggest showcase was decided on a rule that simply doesn't make any bloody sense.
The goal isn't to bowl someone out though - it's just to limit how many runs the other team scores. If a team is dumb enough to finish 50 overs with 5 wickets left over, they are as stupid as a team which doesn't bat out their overs. Wickets remaining would be a silly way to decide it. I would consider it as bad as most boundaries.
This ain’t baseball.
By that logic you would rather Ferg and Boult have a bat than keep Taylor and Neesh out there?
-
