HTG Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 Incredible finish. NZ couldn't have had any more bad luck. Absolutely delighted for Strauss - he's gone through so much personally bit every single player knows what he's contributed to this win. And Eoin Morgan is an absolute star and a top, top leader. Well done England. God preserve us from the BBC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 Congratulations England and Wales, but they got their batting tactics woefully wrong. They should have never been in that position at end but lady luck shined upon them. Fair play, enjoy the victory 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
die hard doonhamer Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 45 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said: When you have played second XI Strathmore & #Perthshire Union Cricket you can tell me what is common in cricket and what is a valid point. Fucking cheek I have done so as recently as last month. I also think that the boundary tie breaker is a bit shit. Wickets or group finish (which should have a DLS par run rate breaker for tied teams) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 You not watch much T20? There have apparently been 9 super overs in the entire history of the IPL. 8 of those produced a result the exception was in2014 Rajahstan Royals were 152/5 and Kalkata Knight Riders were 152/8 in reply The Knight Riders got 11/2 in their super over and Steve Smith got two off the final ball to take the Royals to 11/0 The Knight Riders ended the season as champions so they’ve presumably got over their disappointment faster than NZ will 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 Cricket confuses me. They both get the same amount of runs, but New Zealand take more wickets, yet it's a draw? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuctifano Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 (edited) The "took most wickets" criterion definitely used to be the main decider prior to the super over coming in so NZ would have won that 10-8. Bowl off after the super over would have been class. Edit - I knew I'd seen it in an international, happened in India vs Pakistan in 2007 t20 world cup. Pakistan missed all three Edited July 14, 2019 by Fuctifano 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 1 hour ago, Savage Henry said: Not if the first team scored thirty without loss and the second team loses a wicket first up, which isn't that unfeasible. How would this be any different to the system they actually used, where it would be essentially over if the first team scored more boundaries during the match? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamonds are Forever Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 (edited) Really stupid way to decide the winner. Either you give it to the side who finished higher in the group, or who took the most wickets. England achieved their score by giving up all their wickets, New Zealand didn't, surely that is a greater achievement by New Zealand. They were the rules before the tournament so in that sense New Zealand can't complain, but if the aim of the rules is to find the most fitting winner then they do not. Edited July 14, 2019 by Diamonds are Forever 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 I’d give the benefit of the doubt after a tie to the team that lost the toss at the start. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 I’d give the benefit of the doubt after a tie to the team that lost the toss at the start.This makes sense. As long as the team going into the super over knows though, it doesn't really matter. NZ ultimately bottled it, needing 3 from 2. I think if they'd needed 4 they'd have went for a bigger hit and probably got it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 This makes sense. As long as the team going into the super over knows though, it doesn't really matter. NZ ultimately bottled it, needing 3 from 2. I think if they'd needed 4 they'd have went for a bigger hit and probably got it. If we’re going with my plan then we wouldn’t necessarily need a super over.That way a team going into bat second would have a target and they’d either make it within their 50 overs and win or not make it and lose.But as you say the important thing is that everyone knows what the target is.Given how rare ties are, how rare tied super overs are and the fact that there were only 3 matches in the knockout stage anyway the committee drafting the tournament rules can be forgiven if they didn’t put too much time and effort into covering this very unlikely scenario 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajwffc Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 https://www.espncricinfo.com/cricket/story/_/id/27191816/should-england-got-five-not-six-overthrows 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloPerth Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 10 hours ago, Mark Connolly said: Surely taking wickets is a huge part of the game too? Yes of course. And I guess you could also argue that using wickets might also encourage more attacking bowling in the latter stages of a tight game, rather than just bowling safely to minimise runs lost. Maybe needs looked at for future, but as mentioned above, it's such a rare event that probably not a great deal of consideration went into it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScarf Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 No idea how cricket works. England salvaged a draw (despite losing more wickets -10-8) to take it to the super over by scoring a run, then the guy getting stumped out as they went for a 2nd run to win the match. New Zealand do exactly the same thing in the super over, (despite losing more wickets - 1-0) to tie the score, yet England win? How does that work? New Zealand 241-8/England 241-10 = draw New Zealand 15-1/England 15-0 = England win 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bob Mahelp Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 37 minutes ago, TheScarf said: No idea how cricket works. England salvaged a draw (despite losing more wickets -10-8) to take it to the super over by scoring a run, then the guy getting stumped out as they went for a 2nd run to win the match. New Zealand do exactly the same thing in the super over, (despite losing more wickets - 1-0) to tie the score, yet England win? How does that work? New Zealand 241-8/England 241-10 = draw New Zealand 15-1/England 15-0 = England win In cricket, there's a huge difference between a 'draw' and a 'tie'. That's the first thing to be aware of. A draw happens in test matches where no result was possible...the gamed was rained off, or one or both teams simply batted the game out. A tie can happen in test matches but is very unusual. It usually applies to limited overs games where the scores are level at the end of both innings (wickets lost doesn't count). When it came to the end of the super over, the scores were tied....15 runs each (the wicket lost was irrelevant). England won because the rules dictate that in cases like this, the team scoring the most boundaries in the full 50 overs + super over wins. That just happened to be England. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bob Mahelp Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 10 hours ago, pandarilla said: NZ ultimately bottled it, needing 3 from 2. I think if they'd needed 4 they'd have went for a bigger hit and probably got it. I don't think they bottled it. England set a field to Archer's bowling. He took the pace off the ball and dropped it in short....it's then far more difficult to time the ball and get a boundary. Guptill knew what was coming with the last ball and tried to pull it to the boundary, but he couldn't get the timing right. The game was decided on Boult stepping onto the line, and the throw that hit Stokes' bat and went for 4. If either of these events hadn't happened, New Zealand would have won. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasy23 Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 I don't think they bottled it. England set a field to Archer's bowling. He took the pace off the ball and dropped it in short....it's then far more difficult to time the ball and get a boundary. Guptill knew what was coming with the last ball and tried to pull it to the boundary, but he couldn't get the timing right. The game was decided on Boult stepping onto the line, and the throw that hit Stokes' bat and went for 4. If either of these events hadn't happened, New Zealand would have won. Yep, Boult has to be more aware of where he is and his team mate should have been screaming at him to bat it to him. The second one was an outrageous piece of bad luck on the Kiwis part. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bully Wee Villa Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, TheScarf said: No idea how cricket works. England salvaged a draw (despite losing more wickets -10-8) to take it to the super over by scoring a run, then the guy getting stumped out as they went for a 2nd run to win the match. New Zealand do exactly the same thing in the super over, (despite losing more wickets - 1-0) to tie the score, yet England win? How does that work? New Zealand 241-8/England 241-10 = draw New Zealand 15-1/England 15-0 = England win If any match [in the knockout stage] ended in a tie, a Super Over would be used to determine the winner; each team would select three batsmen and a bowler, with the full team available to field. There would be no penalty for the loss of a wicket, but the loss of two wickets would end the Super Over. If the scores in the Super Over were also tied, the winner would be determined by the two teams' overall boundary count, including both the match itself and the Super Over. England won by virtue of hitting more boundaries. Edited July 15, 2019 by Bully Wee Villa 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Tarmo Kink Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 “But the well-renowned former international umpire Simon Taufel says the on-field umpires made a "clear mistake" in awarding England six runs, rather than the correct figure of five, as the batsmen had not yet crossed for the second run when the ball was thrown. The error also meant that England's best batsman, Stokes, retained the strike.”Interesting 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabGaz Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 I’ve seen previous one day matches decided by a bowl off where bowlers try to hit unguarded stumps. Is that not a thing anymore? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.