CWC Final - Black Caps v England
-
@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?
-
-
@pakman Yeah. If he had realised where he was and just flung it back in the field of play...
Chances are Guppy would have been able to catch it too.The worst luck, and possibly incorrect ruling by umpires, was the deflection off Stokes bat for a boundary.
Just a shit night, luck wise, for us for the second time against the home team.
-
@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?
He explained it in the PC. They wanted the fastest runner out there and that was Guptill. The plan was to give Neesham most of the strike by turning ones into twos.
-
Well damn. Super proud of the boys, no disgrace in tying the match twice. Some days it goes your way, some days it doesn't.
We created enough chances to win, just couldn't take enough of them. Carrying Stokes's over the boundary for six was an absolute disaster for me, and wholly in our control.
Chin up lads, we've been in two of the best ODI games of the last few decades
-
@barbarian said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
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.
But isn’t that in fact the essence of the IPL / T20 / Big Bash formats? They assume that punters want to see boundaries. Bowlers are just there to feed runs to the big hitters. I never watch it for exactly that reason, it’s a skill, but it’s not what I like about cricket. And I won’t be surprised that this boundary countback nonsense originated with the same people who came up with those competitions.
-
Tie breaks are common in chess, and the main ones for round robins are direct encounter (i.e. result of the individual game) and if there is final, whoever was highest-placed in the round robin.
Things like most wins are popular to encourage "fighting chess" (draws are very common at the top level) or for events where everyone does not play everyone else (pools into a final would have this issue), but would be down the list if everyone has played everyone else.
-
@JC said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
And I won’t be surprised that this boundary countback nonsense originated with the same people who came up with those competitions.
Quite likely old chap, but for me it just isn't cricket (I actually mean that).
-
@akan004 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@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?
He explained it in the PC. They wanted the fastest runner out there and that was Guptill. The plan was to give Neesham most of the strike by turning ones into twos.
Yeah well forgive me for not being convinced Guptill is the faster runner as he turned like a cargo ship and made back at Franks like pace for the second run...
-
-
-
@Snowy said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Bones Don't think anyone would have made it. He was out by a long way sadly.
If he had placed the ball five to ten metres on either side, they would have had enough time to complete the two. Hit it straight to the fielder unfortunately. Really thought Neesham would hit another boundary when it was 7 from 4, but not to be.
