CWC Final - Black Caps v England
-
@SynicBast said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Still not over it.
Yep, this one is going to gnaw away until such time as if/when we actually win the thing.
-
I strongly favour settling the whole thing within the 50 overs. A super over after a month of cricket, a super over ain't far removed from a coin toss.
Have contingencies for a tie.
Cricket is half batting and half bowling and fielding. You gotta do both to win a game. Top of the hierarchy is runs, so in the event of a tie, simply turn to the other half of cricket and it's about wickets lost. For sure I have to wear this if 8 and all out was reversed. Actually I thought it was wickets. Wickets is best because everyone knows them in real time.
If wickets and runs tied, then find something else in that particular game, could be boundaries, anything that reflects that day's performances.
A shared title isn't the end of the world either, or better yet another game tomorrow. See how our sporting principles get walked over due to tv schedules and marketing?
Nothing wrong with the notion of 2 combatants ferociously going toe to toe, can't be separated, so shake hands and go home friends and champs. Not the worst message to send to an increasingly selfish society
No, I'm not over it yet either...
-
@Siam I agree that wickets is by far the best, and probably only other way of separating the sides.
I don't mind the super over though, it's pretty exciting. Only change I'd make is keep who bats first and second the same, otherwise it's tired bowlers vs set batsmen as we saw in the final.
-
How about wickets lost in the deciding Super Over?
Ok, OK I'll get my coat.
-
@No-Quarter said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Siam I agree that wickets is by far the best, and probably only other way of separating the sides.
I don't mind the super over though, it's pretty exciting. Only change I'd make is keep who bats first and second the same, otherwise it's tired bowlers vs set batsmen as we saw in the final.
@No-Quarter said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Siam I agree that wickets is by far the best, and probably only other way of separating the sides.
I don't mind the super over though, it's pretty exciting. Only change I'd make is keep who bats first and second the same, otherwise it's tired bowlers vs set batsmen as we saw in the final.
Like football you should only be allowed to select each player once. So the more overs you have the deeper into your team you have to go
-
@Catogrande said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
How about wickets lost in the deciding Super Over?
Ok, OK I'll get my coat.
We wouldn't have run that $%^&ing second run then
-
@Donsteppa said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Catogrande said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
How about wickets lost in the deciding Super Over?
Ok, OK I'll get my coat.
We wouldn't have run that $%^&ing second run then
Well, technically, you didn’t...
-
@No-Quarter said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
I don't mind the super over though, it's pretty exciting. Only change I'd make is keep who bats first and second the same, otherwise it's tired bowlers vs set batsmen as we saw in the final.
I think in a vaccum the super over is great, and if a tied super over was followed by another up to a maximum of say three (?) before going to a tie breaker that would be ideal.
The issue for me was that one side got to start play a run up and in a contest which is going to be decided with scores <36 runs that makes a big difference. Imagine a golf major being decided on a three hole playoff where if it ended tied the golfer with the most birdies wins? Major advantage - but you still have to do the business.
-
@Catogrande said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Donsteppa said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Catogrande said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
How about wickets lost in the deciding Super Over?
Ok, OK I'll get my coat.
We wouldn't have run that $%^&ing second run then
Well, technically, you didn’t...
[Pedant mode for Poms] wouldn't have attempted that $%^&ing second run, then countback on wickets from the main game, beating the team who were all out...
Bugger...
-
@Catogrande said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Donsteppa said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Catogrande said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
How about wickets lost in the deciding Super Over?
Ok, OK I'll get my coat.
We wouldn't have run that $%^&ing second run then
Well, technically, you didn’t...
Oy, you! Sling yer ‘ook. We don’t stand for that kind of thing in here. Oh, and you’re barred.
-
www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12251485
This is not helpful and won't change a thing
-
@canefan The fluffybunny admitted that he had "guessed" that the batsmen had crossed, and made a mistake, but doesn't feel bad about it. Even had the nerve to say that the ICC praised him for it. How can anyone not feel bad about potentially costing a team a wc? All the piston wristed gibbon had to do was to refer it upstairs. Incompetent prick.
-
@akan004 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@canefan The fluffybunny admitted that he had "guessed" that the batsmen had crossed, and made a mistake, but doesn't feel bad about it. Even had the nerve to say that the ICC praised him for it. How can anyone not feel bad about potentially costing a team a wc? All the piston wristed gibbon had to do was to refer it upstairs. Incompetent prick.
Can you refer that? This puts him on a rung lower than Wayne Barnes who was incompetent but inexperienced, but above the French dealer ref
-
@canefan I don't see why not. Surely common sense should prevail. The thing that annoys me is the lack of remorse shown, to say that he doesn't regret it shows such arrogance. He made three errors in the semis and the final - the Roy catch, the Nicholls lbw and the overthrow. How did the ICC award him the final when he's clearly not up to it?
-
-
@canefan said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@akan004 I wonder if there is a procedure they employ to decide what you can refer or not. Rugby does
I'm pretty sure I have seen them go upstairs to check if batsmen crossed for catches in the outfield - as it could be important who is on strike, the new man or the remaining batsman. This would come into the same category.
-
@KiwiPie said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@canefan said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@akan004 I wonder if there is a procedure they employ to decide what you can refer or not. Rugby does
I'm pretty sure I have seen them go upstairs to check if batsmen crossed for catches in the outfield - as it could be important who is on strike, the new man or the remaining batsman. This would come into the same category.
Dharmasena said they can only refer dismissals so I guess in that case it was a dismissal might be the difference?
I'm not sure how I stand on the no regrets comment. An umpire isn't that different from a player in that mistakes are a part of the game, so a umpire getting stuck on the last mistake is probably a bad thing. So I don't mind it if they want to move on rather than being gutted about it, in the same way Guptill needs to move on and not dwell on that last ball.
The comment about getting praised by the ICC annoys me more. It makes the overall tone of his comments seems to be 'so what', which does bug me. Mistakes happen but they need to be an opportunity to improve not an example of success.
