Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

ICC Cricket World Cup 2019

1919293949597»

Comments

  • Stig said:
    The way New Zealand have lost though certainly feels worse than any penalty shootout in Footballl

    Surely wickets should come ahead of boundaries
    Yep, all about encouraging attacking play. Cricket's equivalent of the away goals rule. If it achieves what it's supposed to, it's a good thing. If it doesn't, it's a bit of a joke. Either way everyone knew the rules from the outset. Well done England, hard luck New Zealand.
    The thing is, you could say the winner should be the team that finished highest in the table - That would have suited England. You could go on the previous head to head -  That would have suited England. You could go on fewest wickets - That would have suited New Zealand etc... Ultimately you decide on something before the tournament for the eventuality and that is what it is. 
  • What gets me with the boundaries is one team could score  (for example) 10 sixes and the other team 12 fours and the team with least boundaries actually scored more boundary runs. 
  • se9addick said:
    Surprised that the peak viewing figure for the final on Sunday across both Sky & Channel 4 was only y7.9M, would have expected much more?
    Cricket isn't as popular as football, for example.

    Plus the tennis was on, it was a nice summer's day etc etc
    Yes, and not by would have watched the build up and earlier matches and been invested in the team
  • MrOneLung said:
    What gets me with the boundaries is one team could score  (for example) 10 sixes and the other team 12 fours and the team with least boundaries actually scored more boundary runs. 
    Don't let it get to you too much though.  
  • I see there are still rumblings for NZ about how the final should be "drawn" and we share the trophy.

    Apart from the fact that everyone knew the rules & signed up to them before the competition started, would someone care to point out the following to the disgruntled black caps:

    If the "decider" went on a head to head basis then England would have won, based on the fact we beat them in the group stage.

    If the "decider" went on net run rate in the final table then England would have won

    If the "decider" went on the final places in the table then England would have won, being 3rd to their 4th.


    Jeez............how many times do we need to have won the bloody thing  !!!

    Can we replace disgruntled with disappointed please?
  • se9addick said:
    Surprised that the peak viewing figure for the final on Sunday across both Sky & Channel 4 was only y7.9M, would have expected much more?
    Cricket isn't as popular as football, for example.

    Plus the tennis was on, it was a nice summer's day etc etc
    Fair enough 
  • What was the tennis audience?
    Who cares which recurring foreign millionaire wins this year's pit pat pit pat pit pat Out! x 500 anyway?
  • IdleHans said:
    What was the tennis audience?
    Who cares which recurring foreign millionaire wins this year's pit pat pit pat pit pat Out! x 500 anyway?
    Peak of 9.6m.
  • IdleHans said:
    What was the tennis audience?
    Who cares which recurring foreign millionaire wins this year's pit pat pit pat pit pat Out! x 500 anyway?
    Peak of 9.6m.

    Thats shocking, but then again, Tennis is a Womans sport.
  • So many idiots on CL. Some make Trump sound sensible.
  • Sponsored links:


  • On re-watching the final there are a couple of quetrions.....

    1) For the last ball of the England innings Wood should have come out with no pads or helmet and just legged it.

    2) Were there any reviews available in the Super Over?
  • On re-watching the final there are a couple of quetrions.....

    1) For the last ball of the England innings Wood should have come out with no pads or helmet and just legged it.

    2) Were there any reviews available in the Super Over?
    1) rules state you have to be in full gear as though they were going to bat. Same with runners. Could possibly have got away without the helmet. But unlikely to be able to justify it as when has a tail ender ever walked out to bat against a quick bowler and not worn a helmet.

    2) no idea.
  • I believe each team got one review for the super over. 
  • On re-watching the final there are a couple of quetrions.....

    1) For the last ball of the England innings Wood should have come out with no pads or helmet and just legged it.

    2) Were there any reviews available in the Super Over?
    1) rules state you have to be in full gear as though they were going to bat. Same with runners. Could possibly have got away without the helmet. But unlikely to be able to justify it as when has a tail ender ever walked out to bat against a quick bowler and not worn a helmet.

    2) no idea.

    But there was no chance of Wood actually facing a ball. 
  • edited July 2019
    On re-watching the final there are a couple of quetrions.....

    1) For the last ball of the England innings Wood should have come out with no pads or helmet and just legged it.

    2) Were there any reviews available in the Super Over?
    1) rules state you have to be in full gear as though they were going to bat. Same with runners. Could possibly have got away without the helmet. But unlikely to be able to justify it as when has a tail ender ever walked out to bat against a quick bowler and not worn a helmet.

    2) no idea.

    But there was no chance of Wood actually facing a ball. 
    The key point being dressed as though they are going to bat. I.e. as if he would be facing a ball.
  • On re-watching the final there are a couple of quetrions.....

    1) For the last ball of the England innings Wood should have come out with no pads or helmet and just legged it.

    2) Were there any reviews available in the Super Over?
    1) rules state you have to be in full gear as though they were going to bat. Same with runners. Could possibly have got away without the helmet. But unlikely to be able to justify it as when has a tail ender ever walked out to bat against a quick bowler and not worn a helmet.

    2) no idea.
    The Law about the external protective equipment a runner has to wear (Law 25.5.2.4) is clear.  But is there really a Law that states what an incoming batsman has to wear/use?  

    I like the idea of Wood going out in running spikes, lycra and the longest-handled bat he could get away with..!
  • Of course there is no law in cricket that says you have to wear pads, gloves etc when you go into bat. You don't even need a bat. 
  • On re-watching the final there are a couple of quetrions.....

    1) For the last ball of the England innings Wood should have come out with no pads or helmet and just legged it.

    2) Were there any reviews available in the Super Over?
    1) rules state you have to be in full gear as though they were going to bat. Same with runners. Could possibly have got away without the helmet. But unlikely to be able to justify it as when has a tail ender ever walked out to bat against a quick bowler and not worn a helmet.

    2) no idea.

    But there was no chance of Wood actually facing a ball. 
    The key point being dressed as though they are going to bat. I.e. as if he would be facing a ball.
    Have to admit I am not 100% familiar with the law but I do not believe Wood couldn't have got away with making himself a 'little lighter'. 

    Perhaps not in the spirit of the game though and doesn't matter now. 
  • On re-watching the final there are a couple of quetrions.....

    1) For the last ball of the England innings Wood should have come out with no pads or helmet and just legged it.

    2) Were there any reviews available in the Super Over?
    1) rules state you have to be in full gear as though they were going to bat. Same with runners. Could possibly have got away without the helmet. But unlikely to be able to justify it as when has a tail ender ever walked out to bat against a quick bowler and not worn a helmet.

    2) no idea.

  • Sponsored links:


  • Just watched the last few hours of the final again on Sky "as live". 

    I had to remind myself on two or three occasions that we had actually gone on to win it!

    Great memories. 
  • I still however don’t understand the way they explained rules of the super over and how we won. By drawing. 
  • I still however don’t understand the way they explained rules of the super over and how we won. By drawing. 
    If scores tied the winner was determined by team scoring most boundaries in the final. 
  • The super over was decided based on which team could pronounce the word "six" without it sounding a bit rude
  • Rewatching I was impressed that the producer called the super over with England on around 150.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!