Jump to content

Cricket 35: Bat first, bat often


Jeor

Recommended Posts

Well, I got cut off by my flight but I've now arrived in France to get the result of the super over, which doesn't surprise me.

NZ are incredibly unlucky. That six from the rebound off Stokes cost them the World Cup. Not England's fault, but NZ were robbed.

All that being said, England should have done it in a cakewalk. 72 runs needed off the last 10, with 6 wickets in hand and two set batsmen. Only England could make this much drama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ljkeane said:

The problem with that is that in one days batsmen don't necessarily bat with the goal of trying to preserve their wicket towards the end of the innings.

To me the art of batting in an ODI is playing with enough control so that you maximise your score without getting bowled out. It's different to a T20 when the chances of getting bowled out are low. Boundaries scored is an incredibly poor tie-breaker and I think the fair result was therefore a tie. 

Might take me a long time to recover from this one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should have just done another super over. Winning on boundaries is stupid.

Really tough on NZ. 

Well done to England though. They put everything into the ODI side over the past few years and its ended with winning the WC so mission accomplished. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was completely nerve-shredding.  The most extraordinary game of cricket.

As an England fan I'm thrilled, stunned and relieved.  But truly I would be happy with two names on that Cup and honours shared.  New Zealand are the only team I would feel that about.  They are a brilliant team, wonderful blokes, and Kane Williamson is an awesome human being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leaning on boundaries when wickets are far more relevant (as has been recognized by the Duckworth-Lewis system for millennia) does seem very arbitrary but on the plus side the English lads seem like a good bunch of blokes, if we'd lost this way to the Aussies it'd hurt a lot more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's probably one of the weirdest and most compelling ends to a cricket match you'll ever see. I think either team would have been a worthy winner for the way they kept fighting under immense pressure. I think arguably New Zealand were the slightly better side on the day and can definitely consider themselves unlucky. In particular the crucial overthrows were a cruel way to lose four runs completely by accident, I've also just seen an article on cricinfo claiming that according to one interpretation of the rules they should have got 5 runs rather than 6 runs, I'm hoping that interpretation is incorrect given how big an impact it would have had.

Given the pressure it was an amazing innings from Stokes, and despite looking just about dead on his feet he still managed to contribute in the super over. Buttler also played very well, although it did look like his dismissal might cost England the World Cup. Archer's death bowling in the first innings was excellent and he kept his nerve in the super over, just think how good he'll be when he's got a bit more experience.

New Zealand didn't do much wrong, but there are some small mistakes they made, such as throwing a review away on a plumb lbw and then not having it available when Taylor was dismissed. The last ball of their innings was also weird with Santner inexplicably not even trying to score a run. Once they got in the field everything was almost perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was intense! Congratulations England! Ben Stokes, you can visit your olds in Christchurch whenever you want. That was well worth shunting my circadian rhythm to stay up and follow. We were lucky to to sneak into the semis, but hot damn did this team not dwell on that luck but went on to play like tax collectors - maximize one game plan, against India, and pulled it off, and then built on another plan for the final and almost pulled that off! Capitulation was not an option. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fucking devastated for the Kiwis. Probably more sad that I thought I was going to be. More sad than when Bangladesh and Aussies got kicked out. It's not so much that England won (which obviously sucks), as much as how the Kiwis lost. What a devastating way to lose. The boundary rule is so fucking stupid. I would've preferred if they went with points table finish,  England would've won still but it would've been less gut wrenching way to go for Kiwis. What a stupid fucking rule....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh god.

I went to bed last night at the end of the New Zealand innings, figuring the result was a formality. I woke up to discover this.

It's enough to drive you to tears, it really is. And, frankly, the only fair result was a tied World Cup, with both England and New Zealand sharing the trophy (boundaries is literally arbitrary. Why not wickets?).

That said, I'm pleased it was England on the other side - they'd never won the Cup either, and genuinely appreciate it when they do win. So congrats to England. :cheers:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, The Winged Shadow said:

... I would've preferred if they went with points table finish ...

Ditto, then it at least feels like it was decided on a cricket contest, instead of one small aspect of a cricket contest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes in the cold light of the next day I am still extremely angry New Zealand got robbed of that game. Now I can't label England cheats (because the overthrows and boundary countback weren't their fault) but it is an incredibly fortunate way to win, and in my view they did not deserve to win.

Anyway, none of that changes the result. Just an incredibly bad taste in the mouth and it will be four more years before it can be corrected.

This might even have me rooting for the Aussies in the Ashes (though I'll probably suffer heartbreak there too! We've not played well in England since 2005). Although the English crowd will no doubt keep on chanting that they are the world champions, it is somewhat hollow to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Davrum said:

Leaning on boundaries when wickets are far more relevant (as has been recognized by the Duckworth-Lewis system for millennia) does seem very arbitrary but on the plus side the English lads seem like a good bunch of blokes, if we'd lost this way to the Aussies it'd hurt a lot more.

I agree boundaries isn’t a particularly good tie breaker, they should have just had another super over or left it as a tie, but I do think it’s a better one than wickets in limited overs cricket. Take yesterday the difference in wickets was Archer having a swipe at the ball because losing his wicket didn’t matter and Rashid getting run out because losing his wicket didn’t matter. In fact Santner really should have risked the same last ball for the Kiwis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

It's enough to drive you to tears, it really is. And, frankly, the only fair result was a tied World Cup, with both England and New Zealand sharing the trophy (boundaries is literally arbitrary. Why not wickets?).

I guess boundaries not wickets because in limited overs cricket whoever scores the most runs wins - so I can see why.  I'm just glad England got more boundaries!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't usually sully this thread with politics, but this is quite an extraordinary and ignorant comment from Jacob Rees-Mogg, whose response to England's win was to tweet "we clearly don't need Europe to win."   https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/14/not-cricket-jacob-rees-mogg-criticised

Needless to say, he's getting some pushback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...