ICC World Cup 2019

NIMAN

riffmongous wrote: »

And he had little to do with it, 9 from 22 is a failure by any standard, his captaincy ain't that special

He's a world champion. Something no-one can take away from him.

And when you reach the top, doesn't matter if you performed as well as you could or not, you're still a champion.

People don't say to footballers, "you won the CL Final in 2010, but you didn't have a great game yourself"

Tweeter

riffmongous wrote: »

I wonder will they take another look at the super over rules before the next World Cup after this? It's a bit odd that there can't be another super over, or something a bit more direct.

Agreed, another super over at the very least, then it should possibly be a combination of wickets lost, dot balls and boundaries in a combined calculation??

As for Morgan, I had the height of respect for the man when he first switched to England, given that he wanted to be able to play test matches which Ireland at the time couldn't offer him.

What changed for me is the fact that he now puts on a false accent and most recently in an interview actually claimed that he is English after all (I'll post a link if you haven't read it or don't believe me).

I wouldn't have him back in an Ireland shirt under any circumstances after that. My two cents anyway

Rjd2

hawley wrote: »

Does anyone know what happens with the betting on this game? I backed England this morning, but as there was no draw option to bet on, I'm unsure whether I won the bet or if it counts as a draw.

I backed England and got paid out with bet365 who I assume would have taken a fortune on England.

I'd be shocked if any bookie in a world cup final tried to dead heat it as the punters who backed England would go mad. Just not worth the PR such a move would be.

MisterAnarchy

riffmongous wrote: »

I wonder will they take another look at the super over rules before the next World Cup after this? It's a bit odd that there can't be another super over, or something a bit more direct.

Why did they just play one extra over ,it seems very short compared to the normal 50 overs in a match .
5 extra overs would be a fairer test .

Inquitus

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Why did they just play one extra over ,it seems very short compared to the normal 50 overs in a match .
5 extra overs would be a fairer test .

The rules is the rules, but I don't disagree that something more meaningful than 1 super over might be a better way to decide an ODI, especially the world cup final.

riffmongous

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Why did they just play one extra over ,it seems very short compared to the normal 50 overs in a match .
5 extra overs would be a fairer test .

From what I can read elsewhere it seems they just use the 20/20 rules.. which is why total boundaries are important. It doesn't seem like a whole lot of thought went into it anyway, I guess no one bothered to think it could happen in a world cup final

windy shepard henderson

OK not the most informative cricket man but I taught the super over was fantastic felt sorry for the kewis in the end

If the crazy system of the ducworth Lewis method was replaced with something like this it would draw a huge audience
.
Kept tabs on the score all day taught England were goosed at 25 overs, huge credit to Eoin Morgan for his call in batting with Butler and stokes in the end

Morgan was a kid when Ireland made the breakthrough in the game I would prefer us to be competing rather then jumping ship would be great in ten years time to have a test match team

Franz Von Peppercorn II

riffmongous wrote: »

You're right!

So how did you not know that if you are such the fan of cricket that Eoin annoys you?

I’m a casual fan of cricket and I knew it.

Just to rub salt in the wounds, an ESPN columnist suggests that due to ambiguity in the laws, the 6-run overthrow could have been ruled as 5 runs.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27191816/should-england-got-five-not-six-overthrows

SharpshooterTom

Ashes starts in just 17 days!

Very short turn around. Will England have a hangover? The Aussies will be determined to end their 18 year Ashes drought in England. England's batting lineup has all sorts of issues right now. Will Anderson be fit?

Bookies have England favourites. Would be superb effort from the Aussies if they can break the tradition of home series Ashes wins given their kinda suspect to say the least against the new ball.

ThomasFlynn

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Ashes starts in just 17 days!

More importantly, England v Ireland test at Lord's starts in 9.

Beasty

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

He was the one out talking to Jofra Archer during the super over. Im sure hes done plenty .

But then, maybe youre right and hes a brutal captain that they just chose him as he put his hand up first or something. You clearly know better than the world champions.

All the commentary in England is about what a fantastic captain he has proven to be. Bringing calm, direction and determination to the team

Commentators seem quite amazed at the turnaround in the team since he took over. It's not about how many runs he scores, but he does still seem to deliver under pressure. In fact they were saying there was little comparison with Mike Brearley as Morgan can score runs as well.

Beasty

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I pity you for that. Those last couple of overs with the NZ player stepping on the boundary , Stokes 6, to the ricochet and the Super over really deserve to be seen live.

I really cannot complain too much. I've been very privileged to watch many fantastic sporting occasions in the flesh. Yes this would rank incredibly high among them if I had been there, but no one can ever take away from me 3 minutes at the Nou Csmp 20 years ago

riffmongous

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

So how did you not know that if you are such the fan of cricket that Eoin annoys you?

I’m a casual fan of cricket and I knew it.

6 years of being told we wouldn't be allowed to play, instead tournament was announced and done within 6 months over 15 months ago. Maybe you remember as a casual since you didnt follow much before or after? If you do follow the team a lot has happened since then. Not that it makes such a big difference to be honest, the whole point of the 10 team world cup was to shut out the Irelands and Afghanistans, only the implosion of Zimbabwe cricket allowed one of those spots to be opened up.

BarryD2

riffmongous wrote: »

From what I can read elsewhere it seems they just use the 20/20 rules.. which is why total boundaries are important. It doesn't seem like a whole lot of thought went into it anyway, I guess no one bothered to think it could happen in a world cup final

That's about it, ties are rare enough in cricket let alone ties in finals and then a further tie. I'd reckon there were a few officials there saying 'Oh Sh*t', where's the rule book. NZ have every right to feel aggrieved as they didn't lose the final.

Beasty

Truedub is currently away with limited access so I'll jump in here

Please do not spoil this thread with further discussion about Morgan opting to play for England

There is a dedicated sticky where a such discussion is to take place

Thanks

mattser

Beasty wrote: »

Truedub is currently away with limited access so I'll jump in here

Please do not spoil this thread with further discussion about Morgan opting to play for England

There is a dedicated sticky where a such discussion is to take place

Thanks

Where ?

hawley

mattser wrote: »

Where ?

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/post/108794138

BarryD2

mattser wrote: »

Where ?

Was closed, locked I think - but now reopened. Mind you the English captain is/ was also a very central figure in this competition and final yesterday. Covered on main Irish news etc.

Strumms

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Ashes starts in just 17 days!

Very short turn around. Will England have a hangover? The Aussies will be determined to end their 18 year Ashes drought in England. England's batting lineup has all sorts of issues right now. Will Anderson be fit?

Bookies have England favourites. Would be superb effort from the Aussies if they can break the tradition of home series Ashes wins given their kinda suspect to say the least against the new ball.

Great summer of Cricket, the World Cup and now this, The Ashes. Think it will be England’s to loose quite frankly. A few of the Aussies are ‘aging’ and the up and comers well are they good enough ? About to find out but I would not be betting against England.

cosatron

god you have to feel for new Zealand. What a performance by them, top order in bad nick, no middle order and to put up a total of 241 on a poor pitch was great going against woakes and archer but there performance in the field was outstanding both bowling and fielding. The only criticism is that I thought lockie ferguson should of bowled the super over. As for England, take a bow Ben Stokes, what an innings of composure, skill and determination. I'm delighted for him as he was devastated in the T20 final 2 years ago with the final over.

cosatron

Strumms wrote: »

Great summer of Cricket, the World Cup and now this, The Ashes. Think it will be England’s to loose quite frankly. A few of the Aussies are ‘aging’ and the up and comers well are they good enough ? About to find out but I would not be betting against England.

I don't know about that. They haven't replaced Alistair cook yet and Bayless seems to be a better coach for the shorter format than test cricket. Should be interest all the same and hopefully some good cricket.

jobeenfitz

With the four overthrows coming off England bat accidentally and the ambiguity over whether England should have been awarded five or six runs, surely England should have offered a replay to NZ. It's a gentlemans game.

bilston

Strumms wrote: »

Great summer of Cricket, the World Cup and now this, The Ashes. Think it will be England’s to loose quite frankly. A few of the Aussies are ‘aging’ and the up and comers well are they good enough ? About to find out but I would not be betting against England.

As someone else said England might find it tough without Cook.

I wonder if we will see Roy brought into the test side. He might be likes Hales and Morgan and just not suited to it, but I think it's worth a shot. Would he open?

Also Australia have Josh Hazelwood to come back who didn't play in the WC. England will being back Anderson and Broad, they aren't spring chickens but to be fair seem to be still performing.

selwyn froggitt

As an England fan of predominately Football and Cricket It’s the hope and expectation that kills you.
I was absolutely convinced that England would lose this game yesterday with only a few overs left to play and I’ve never known drama and tension like this before in any game, in any sport.
I’m still a nervous wreck!
Without doubt, the greatest ODI in history.
England got lucky and got the rub of the green,I know this. But just as importantly held their nerve when it mattered. Delighted for the team and especially Eoin Morgan who showed just what a brilliant Captain he is.
The Kiwis were brilliant, squeezed England (like they did India) and piled on the pressure.
And how dignified was Kane Williamson in defeat,how must he have been feeling,gut wrenching stuff. Not a hint of bitterness from Kane or his team.
What a wonderful game Cricket is.

Scrabbel

Basil3 wrote: »

Just to rub salt in the wounds, an ESPN columnist suggests that due to ambiguity in the laws, the 6-run overthrow could have been ruled as 5 runs.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27191816/should-england-got-five-not-six-overthrows

Seems 5 runs would have been correct given that it’s the timing if the fielder’s throw that matters. Also here:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12249789

hawley

Rjd2 wrote: »

I backed England and got paid out with bet365 who I assume would have taken a fortune on England.

I'd be shocked if any bookie in a world cup final tried to dead heat it as the punters who backed England would go mad. Just not worth the PR such a move would be.

I got paid out for the win with Ladbrokes this morning, but one of my friends who backed England ended up with a void result with an online betting company, ran by a well known Irish businessman. He was refunded his stake.

riffmongous

hawley wrote: »

I got paid out for the win with Ladbrokes this morning, but one of my friends who backed England ended up with a void result with an online betting company, ran by a well known Irish businessman. He was refunded his stake.

It might depend on whether they offered odds for a tie... although I thought most don't when it's a knockout game. Usually the rules for knockouts are based on whoever progresses, regardless of how they are decided, from what I've seen online lately

hawley

riffmongous wrote: »

It might depend on whether they offered odds for a tie... although I thought most don't went it's a knockout game. Usually the rules for knockouts are based on whoever progresses, regardless of how they are decided, from what I've seen online lately

They don't usually offer odds for a tie. My friend sent me an image of his void result so he is telling the truth. If there was odds for a tie, he would have lost the bet. He put it on before the game with Quinn's, so I think that he should be entitled to appeal it.

riffmongous

hawley wrote: »

They don't usually offer odds for a tie. My friend sent me an image of his void result so he is telling the truth. If there was odds for a tie, he would have lost the bet. He put it on before the game with Quinn's, so I think that he should be entitled to appeal it.

Yeah definitely go for an appeal then

riffmongous

Just out of interest, this is Paddy Power

If a match is tied and the official competition rules do not determine a winner, bets on the outright result will be void unless the outcome is settled by a bowl off or super over (in which case the result of the bowl off or super over will stand for match betting). If the competition rules determine the winner by the toss of a coin, drawing of lots or higher seeding resulting from a previous round then bets will be void.

Bet365

Where no price is quoted for the tie and the official competition rules determine a winner/progressing side, bets will be settled on the official result.

Where no price is quoted for the tie and the official competition rules do not determine a winner then Dead-Heat rules will apply, in competitions where a bowl out or super over determines a winner then bets will be settled on the official result.

The result of a match is a tie when the scores are equal at the conclusion of play, but only if the side batting last has completed its innings (i.e. all innings are completed, or, in limited-overs cricket, the set number of overs has been played or play is terminally stopped by weather or bad light).

StringerBell

NIMAN wrote: »

He's a world champion. Something no-one can take away from him.

And when you reach the top, doesn't matter if you performed as well as you could or not, you're still a champion.

People don't say to footballers, "you won the CL Final in 2010, but you didn't have a great game yourself"

This is besides the point that as a captain you have a lot more bloody influence on the outcome of a cricket game than just your contribution with the bat solely

His captaining of Archer in that super over alone was superb not to mention the other multitude of decisions he made over the course of the final.

Sickened for NZ personally but don't begrudge Morgan his dues at all.

BarryD2

Basil3 wrote: »

Just to rub salt in the wounds, an ESPN columnist suggests that due to ambiguity in the laws, the 6-run overthrow could have been ruled as 5 runs.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27191816/should-england-got-five-not-six-overthrows

Yep, seems to be pretty much confirmed now. So NZ didn't just not lose the match, they actually won it in the 50 overs. Pretty embarrassing but I guess in the heat of the moment, neither the onfield umpires or NZ players spotted it. Not only should it have been 5 runs but Stokes should have been off strike. What about the third umpire though - could he not have intervened?

Blinky Plebum

BarryD2 wrote: »

Yep, seems to be pretty much confirmed now. So NZ didn't just not lose the match, they actually won it in the 50 overs. Pretty embarrassing but I guess in the heat of the moment, neither the onfield umpires or NZ players spotted it. Not only should it have been 5 runs but Stokes should have been off strike. What about the third umpire though - could he not have intervened?

Disgraceful , must be very had to take for New Zealand.

So that's the 1966 and 2019 world cup england have have needed poor officiating to help them win.

jobeenfitz

Blinky Plebum wrote: »

Disgraceful , must be very had to take for New Zealand.

So that's the 1966 and 2019 world cup england have have needed poor officiating to help them win.

Il repeat what I said earlier in this thread, It would be gentlemanly behaviour of England to offer a replay.

Inquitus

BarryD2 wrote: »

Yep, seems to be pretty much confirmed now. So NZ didn't just not lose the match, they actually won it in the 50 overs. Pretty embarrassing but I guess in the heat of the moment, neither the onfield umpires or NZ players spotted it. Not only should it have been 5 runs but Stokes should have been off strike. What about the third umpire though - could he not have intervened?

You can't determine that, if it had been ruled 5 not 6, England would have played the remaining balls differently.

Darc19

BarryD2 wrote: »

Yep, seems to be pretty much confirmed now. So NZ didn't just not lose the match, they actually won it in the 50 overs. Pretty embarrassing but I guess in the heat of the moment, neither the onfield umpires or NZ players spotted it. Not only should it have been 5 runs but Stokes should have been off strike. What about the third umpire though - could he not have intervened?

Sure if you go via replays of almost any sports match you can find errors, from off the ball incidents, to fouls to slight handballs.

The guy who has said this has benefit of replays and being able to see everything happening all over the field and from a bird's eye view.

Umpires have to make a decision on the spot based on what they have seen.

riffmongous

Inquitus wrote: »

You can't determine that, if it had been ruled 5 not 6, England would have played the remaining balls differently.

Yeah impossible to say what would have happened instead, although getting Stokes off strike would have been a big deal

Larbre34

jobeenfitz wrote: »

Il repeat what I said earlier in this thread, It would be gentlemanly behaviour of England to offer a replay.

Agree. Its all very well to talk about hand of God and knock-ons and square balls and whatever else, but this is a World Cup Final, it should be unacceptable to all sides that it is awarded under false pretences.

Do they want the record to read

2019 - England
Or
2019 - England*

Inquitus

Larbre34 wrote: »

Agree. Its all very well to talk about hand of God and knock-ons and square balls and whatever else, but this is a World Cup Final, it should be unacceptable to all sides that it is awarded under false pretences.

Do they want the record to read

2019 - England
Or
2019 - England*

There are no false pretenses, the rules were and are the rules, and England won. Bad umpiring decisions are part and parcel of the game of cricket, and many other sports, look at Roy being given out in the S/F. Even though that didn't ultimately matter it could have been crucial.

Blinky Plebum

Inquitus wrote: »

There are no false pretenses, the rules were and are the rules, and England won. Bad umpiring decisions are part and parcel of the game of cricket, and many other sports, look at Roy being given out in the S/F. Even though that didn't ultimately matter it could have been crucial.

This isn't a bad decision though, it's a truly horrific decision.

I don't 100% know the rules of cricket and even I thought it was odd a 6 was awarded but thought the umpires must have got it right.

This seems to have been a very basic part of the rules not a judgement call, you can forgive an official messing up a judgement call in any sport but something as straightforward as this should have been spotted by someone on the officiating team.

It's a double mistake as Stokes should have been off strike as well.

Inquitus

Blinky Plebum wrote: »

This isn't a bad decision though, it's a truly horrific decision.

I don't 100% know the rules of cricket and even I thought it was odd a 6 was awarded but thought the umpires must have got it right.

This seems to have been a very basic part of the rules not a judgement call, you can forgive an official messing up a judgement call in any sport but something as straightforward as this should have been spotted by someone on the officiating team.

It's a double mistake as Stokes should have been off strike as well.

It's an obscure rule, and it doesn't even clearly define if the key moment is the throw, or when it hits the bat.

Larbre34

As I've seen phrased many ways on twitter today, its a game of bat and ball and runs and wickets, that it is awarded on boundaries is just BS.

BarryD2

Darc19 wrote: »

Sure if you go via replays of almost any sports match you can find errors, from off the ball incidents, to fouls to slight handballs.

The guy who has said this has benefit of replays and being able to see everything happening all over the field and from a bird's eye view.

Umpires have to make a decision on the spot based on what they have seen.

That’s true but the officials both on & off the field had access to the same TV pictures. If they had any doubts at all, they should have checked. After all detailed reviews are in regular use for other in game uncertainties at this level. If they had no niggling doubt, then clearly not fully au fait with the rules.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Inquitus wrote: »

There are no false pretenses, the rules were and are the rules, and England won. Bad umpiring decisions are part and parcel of the game of cricket, and many other sports, look at Roy being given out in the S/F. Even though that didn't ultimately matter it could have been crucial.

It’s not even certain that it was a bad decision. The runners had to cross at the time the “throw or act” directed the ball towards the boundary. The act could well have been the hitting of the bat again.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Larbre34 wrote: »

As I've seen phrased many ways on twitter today, its a game of bat and ball and runs and wickets, that it is awarded on boundaries is just BS.

Or - that’s the rules of ODI.

feargale

That idiot Jacob Rees Mugg is at it again: "We clearly don't need Europe to win."

I was strictly neutral but I don't begrudge anyone a celebration of their triumph. What kind of a gob****e seeks to exclude half his country from that on political grounds?

Anti-Brexit lawyer Jo Maugham asked the Tory MP: “Is there any moment too joyful for you to inject poison into it?”

Beasty

Larbre34 wrote: »

As I've seen phrased many ways on twitter today, its a game of bat and ball and runs and wickets, that it is awarded on boundaries is just BS.

As already mentioned, that's the way the rules worked and both teams knew that before the super over started

Of course I would have much preferred it if they had gone back to the match between the teams in the round robin. That way I could say I was there when they won the World Cup :pac:

SharpshooterTom

New Zealand were pretty lucky to get to the final in the first place, had their game not been rained off against India they may have not received that extra point Pakistan would have got there instead.

ThomasFlynn

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

New Zealand were pretty lucky to get to the final in the first place, had their game not been rained off against India they may have not received that extra point Pakistan would have got there instead.

Eh, beating India is no problem. They were the lucky ones!