CWC Final - Black Caps v England
-
I've had to try to explain to several people who don't have a huge grasp of the subtleties of cricket, quite how England won and we didn't. I'd imagine others have the same challenge and I came across this helpful video that really boils it down to simple principles.
-
@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.
That will be my stance today at work.
To be honest, calling it work today is prob not an accurate reflection.
I don’t even remember going to bed.
-
@Rapido said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@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.Then just keep going as sudden death. Theatre! But not stumps though, just a single stump.
-
@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.
-
@KiwiPie if it is tied after the 2nd over then we have a throw at the stumps. Pick 5 guys and all from the same spot get to throw at the stumps.
Preferable spot where Guppy got Dhoni 😎
Essentially we cover all bases with batting, bowling and fielding contests.
-
Also, just to make everyone feel worse, I think that shows how much we bottled it in 2015. We were in a much better position in that game - 150/3 after 35 overs. That includes McCullum getting out to Starc and Guptill out to Maxwell. We then collapsed in a heap for 183. Another 50 runs 4 years ago and we really could have won. The Aussie batting line-up was (and still is) brittle and we picked up Finch early.
-
-
@MajorRage said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Without a word of a lie, if I see Nassar Hussein today I will punch him hard.
What a complete fluffybunny.
Giving this an upvote out of principle. I imagine he of all people will be unbearable.
-
Was the Big Bash or IPL that had the bowl off after a tie?
-
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?
