The 2019 ICC Cricket World Cup Thread

[Icemanbrfc]

Agreed. NZL and ENG should've shared that trophy after match, notwithstanding the super-over.

There used to be the rule that if a game ended in a tie after 50 overs, the team who put that score up first is the winner.

Yes or the team that lost fewer wickets in the 50 overs win.

 

[Sinbad]

Or best nrr.

 

[shanezn186]

Remember how they behaved in that infamous SAvsNZ semi-final in India. Karma.

 

[ripclaw]

Remember how they behaved in that infamous SAvsNZ semi-final in India. Karma.

Please elaborate. I didn't watch the full game.

 

[Polymathic]

Agreed. NZL and ENG should've shared that trophy after match, notwithstanding the super-over.

There used to be the rule that if a game ended in a tie after 50 overs, the team who put that score up first is the winner.

Hell no this is a World Cup, there can only be one winner. I have no time for this Libby nonsense of sharing the trophy.

 

[AirWolf]

If you hit more boundaries, it also then means you had more dot balls when you tie.

 

[Polymathic]

Yes or the team that lost fewer wickets in the 50 overs win.

Cricket never had wickets down count towards a result it had always been runs. The number boundaries thing is a carry over from T20 cricket and really doesn't scale well to 50 overs. A continuation with another super seems the best way forward in the future.

 

[pinball wizard]

Cricket never had wickets down count towards a result it had always been runs. /QUOTE]

Then why do you often hear about a team winning a match by x amount of wickets?

 

[Polymathic]

Then why do you often hear about a team winning a match by x amount of wickets?

Good question but 250/0 and 250/10 is still a tie.

 

[pinball wizard]

Good question but 250/0 and 250/10 is still a tie.

Yeah, but for most of us, that shouldn't be, right? I mean it's in the laws, but they should probably be amended.

 

[zippy]

I dont see any kiwis whining about this. Only Saffers.....

 

[ShloshMalosh]

The best world cup final from a spectacle point of view.

I was rooting for NZ. In the end it could have gone either way. A tie and then a tied super over... The drama was fantastic!

Well done England... World champs on a technicality

 

[Cray]

I dont see any kiwis whining about this. Only Saffers.....

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/crick...rmer-black-caps-blast-boundary-countback-rule]

Cricket World Cup final: Former Black Caps blast boundary countback rule

"I feel really empty, and a bit cheated," former Black Caps all-rounder Dion Nash said.

"Clearly, it's ridiculous... really absurd.

"It's about as random as tossing a coin.

"I think it's a shame, that we've played a tournament which has gone for 48 games, and yet it's decided by someone getting out a piece of paper and a pen and picking apart the bones," he said.

"New Zealand's strength throughout this tournament has been about rotating the strike, our strength hasn't been boundaries, so it seems a bit of a shame to be judged by that all of a sudden.

 

[thestaggy]

I dont see any kiwis whining about this. Only Saffers.....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1150481894263250944

https://twitter.com/x/status/1150476241188741120

 

[thestaggy]

Cricket never had wickets down count towards a result it had always been runs. The number boundaries thing is a carry over from T20 cricket and really doesn't scale well to 50 overs. A continuation with another super seems the best way forward in the future.

The DLS uses wickets in its calculation.

 

[Cius]

England where all out at the end of their innings. For me that should have meant they could not even do the super over. They where all out. NZ wins by wickets.

 

[kaaskop]

Cricket World Cup final: From a top ex-umpire: England should only have got five runs not six after that overthrow
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/crick...ve-got-five-runs-not-six-after-that-overthrow

Lol
England give it back!

 

[ripclaw]

Cricket World Cup final: From a top ex-umpire: England should only have got five runs not six after that overthrow
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/crick...ve-got-five-runs-not-six-after-that-overthrow

Lol
England give it back!

Screw that. Let's have a replay.

 

[theratman]

Then why do you often hear about a team winning a match by x amount of wickets?

Because they chased down the set total with x wickets in hand. If they'd have defended a total they'd win by x amount of runs.

 

[Pitbull]

All this whining and crying.

The rules where 100% clear before the start of the game. Each and every player know what needs to be met in order to win. England won fair and square within the confines of the law. No amount of biatching will change that fact.