Religion and Ethics Forum

General Category => Sports, Hobbies & Interests => Topic started by: jeremyp on June 01, 2019, 08:02:02 PM

Title: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on June 01, 2019, 08:02:02 PM
Going into the Cricket World Cup, England have by far the best one day team in the World (since the summer of 2016 they have played 34 and won 30).

My prediction: we'll cruise into the semi finals along with Australia, West Indies and India and then any of those four teams could win it.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Nearly Sane on June 01, 2019, 10:24:40 PM
Going into the Cricket World Cup, England have by far the best one day team in the World (since the summer of 2016 they have played 34 and won 30).

My prediction: we'll cruise into the semi finals along with Australia, West Indies and India and then any of those four teams could win it.
That is the 4 teams for me as well. England have a better team than snyone
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on June 02, 2019, 09:12:32 PM
That is the 4 teams for me as well. England have a better team than snyone
Yep. I think we'll cruise the group stage but then you have to win two one off matches in a row. We should win them, but there can always be an upset

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/48490042
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Nearly Sane on June 04, 2019, 05:04:53 AM
Big win for Pakistan. Not a match that England will have expected to not win.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on June 10, 2019, 02:09:40 PM
Big win for Pakistan. Not a match that England will have expected to not win.

Even though we have since won against Bangladesh, I have a bad feeling about this. I think they might be going to choke.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: ProfessorDavey on June 10, 2019, 04:42:43 PM
Even though we have since won against Bangladesh, I have a bad feeling about this. I think they might be going to choke.
I wonder what effect the weather over the next fews days might have on the competition. I can easily see the matches scheduled for tomorrow, Wednesday and Thursday ending up washed out (as today's has been) - that would mean some of the stiffer opposition to England (Australia, India, Sri Lanka, New Zealand) may end up sharing points which could be advantageous in the end to England, who don't play again until Friday by which time the weather looks to be improving.

For the tournament, however, it is a huge shame if we end up with a few days of washed out games.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on June 11, 2019, 12:32:13 PM
I wonder what effect the weather over the next fews days might have on the competition. I can easily see the matches scheduled for tomorrow, Wednesday and Thursday ending up washed out (as today's has been) - that would mean some of the stiffer opposition to England (Australia, India, Sri Lanka, New Zealand) may end up sharing points which could be advantageous in the end to England, who don't play again until Friday by which time the weather looks to be improving.

For the tournament, however, it is a huge shame if we end up with a few days of washed out games.

It's looking bad for today's match, certainly, although, as it is between Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, it is unlikely to have an effect on the final top four. Tomorrow and Thursday's matches are more important to us.

Both involve teams who I think are very likely to be in the top four against teams that have a chance and might displace England.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: ProfessorDavey on June 12, 2019, 07:47:36 AM
It's looking bad for today's match, certainly, although, as it is between Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, it is unlikely to have an effect on the final top four. Tomorrow and Thursday's matches are more important to us.

Both involve teams who I think are very likely to be in the top four against teams that have a chance and might displace England.
Another washout yesterday and quite likely same again today. Not looking good for the tournament
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on June 12, 2019, 12:37:14 PM
Another washout yesterday and quite likely same again today. Not looking good for the tournament
As it turns out they are playing. As I write, Australia are 185-1 with 22 overs left.

In respect of games affected by the weather, before this World Cup, CWC's held in England (or partially in England) actually have a good record.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: ProfessorDavey on June 12, 2019, 01:26:14 PM
As it turns out they are playing. As I write, Australia are 185-1 with 22 overs left.

In respect of games affected by the weather, before this World Cup, CWC's held in England (or partially in England) actually have a good record.
Yes pleasing to see some proper play today and this is an important match in overall context.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Sriram on June 14, 2019, 07:30:53 AM



Four matches abandoned due to rain....!!!???  Unbelievable! At this rate, we might as well toss a coin and hand over the World Cup......   

Many people have raised the issue of the grounds not being covered fully during rain.  This makes the outfields wet even after the rain stops. The India-NZ match was abandoned because of that...! Very sad.  :(
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: ProfessorDavey on June 14, 2019, 05:33:33 PM
Impressive win by England today
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: ProfessorDavey on June 16, 2019, 08:38:00 PM
India looking really strong
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on June 17, 2019, 08:20:38 PM
India looking really strong

Yep.

On the other hand, the West Indies look like they are going to screw over my semi finals prediction.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: ProfessorDavey on June 17, 2019, 08:51:49 PM
Yep.

On the other hand, the West Indies look like they are going to screw over my semi finals prediction.
Remind me please
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on June 18, 2019, 09:55:17 AM
Remind me please

Going into the Cricket World Cup, England have by far the best one day team in the World (since the summer of 2016 they have played 34 and won 30).

My prediction: we'll cruise into the semi finals along with Australia, West Indies and India and then any of those four teams could win it.


Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Nearly Sane on June 18, 2019, 06:30:18 PM
The first four in the table looking likely to qualify: England, Australia, India, New Zealand.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on June 18, 2019, 06:51:44 PM
The first four in the table looking likely to qualify: England, Australia, India, New Zealand.
True, but I think New Zealand are vulnerable. The main reason why they are doing as well as they are is that they had all the easy fixtures up front. They still have to play South Africa, Pakistan, Australia and England.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Nearly Sane on June 21, 2019, 07:06:07 PM
Huge loss for England
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on June 21, 2019, 07:09:08 PM
Huge loss for England

Quite disastrous actually. We still need to play all of the other teams in the top four and we'll need to win at least one of those matches to go through to the semi finals.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Nearly Sane on June 27, 2019, 09:30:07 AM
And compounded by results since. It would be a big shock if England didn't manage to qualify for the semi finals. It does raise the prospect of another India Pakistan match which will be something.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on June 28, 2019, 09:58:08 AM
And compounded by results since. It would be a big shock if England didn't manage to qualify for the semi finals. It does raise the prospect of another India Pakistan match which will be something.
Any one of three teams can overtake us. Right now, I put our chances of making the semi finals at no more than 25%.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Nearly Sane on June 28, 2019, 10:12:19 AM
I would maybe go 33% but, yep, I think the odds at against them getting there, which considering the expectations at the start would be a quite extraordinary shock. I wold have thought the odds on reaching the semi finals at that stage were about 95%.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on June 28, 2019, 10:30:33 AM
I would maybe go 33% but, yep, I think the odds at against them getting there, which considering the expectations at the start would be a quite extraordinary shock. I wold have thought the odds on reaching the semi finals at that stage were about 95%.

Ha! Since I wrote that post, I've had a look at the remaining fixtures which can be found at the bottom of this article:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/48796914

Pakistan and Bangladesh have to play each other, so one of those two teams is going to end up on 9 points at least. Pakistan also have to play Afghanistan, so either both Pakistan and Bangladesh are going to end up on nine points or Pakistan are going to end up on eleven points. Sri Lanka have South Africa, the West Indies and India. If it goes according to form in this World Cup they will end up on ten points.

I don't have any confidence in England's ability to beat New Zealand and I think India is a certain loss unless, having already qualified, they take their foot off the gas.

I'm pretty sure the semi finalists are going to be Australia, India, New Zealand and Pakistan. Even if England get through, at this point, I don't think we have the capability to beat either Australia or India which we will have to do at some point in the knock out stage.

In the 30 matches preceding the World Cup since 2016, England had four defeats. One more defeat and we will have equalled that in little more than a month.

Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Nearly Sane on June 28, 2019, 12:12:34 PM
Yep, agree, Pakistan look likely. I know England have had a couple of enforced changes but their lack of form is very odd.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on June 30, 2019, 06:40:59 PM
Well that is a bit surprising. England defeated India quite comprehensively in the end. It's a good thing I'm not a betting man.

I think we still need to beat New Zealand because my money would be on Pakistan against Bangladesh.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Nearly Sane on July 01, 2019, 11:08:41 AM
Well that is a bit surprising. England defeated India quite comprehensively in the end. It's a good thing I'm not a betting man.

I think we still need to beat New Zealand because my money would be on Pakistan against Bangladesh.
Yes, would agree - but that's definitely better odds. If they get through either Australia or India in the semifinals looks like
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on July 01, 2019, 07:44:50 PM
If they get through either Australia or India in the semifinals looks like
That's almost inevitable. If England lose and Pakistan lose, it's either India or Australia as New Zealand can't finish top. If England win, we come second or third and New Zealand come fourth, unless India lose both their last two games catastrophically.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Nearly Sane on July 03, 2019, 05:08:28 PM
Looking like India v England and Australia v New Zealand at moment.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on July 03, 2019, 05:38:14 PM
Looking like India v England and Australia v New Zealand at moment.

New Zealand are just playing for run rate at the moment. They're not going to win this.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Nearly Sane on July 03, 2019, 05:48:19 PM
New Zealand are just playing for run rate at the moment. They're not going to win this.
Agree, and if Australia beat Sth Africa then they will play New Zealand unless Pakistan break records against Bangladesh
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on July 03, 2019, 07:17:00 PM
Agree, and if Australia beat Sth Africa then they will play New Zealand unless Pakistan break records against Bangladesh

Andy Zaltzman Calculated the requirement for Pakistan for TMS. If Pakistan bowl first, they can't overhaul New Zealand. If they bat first they can overhaul New Zealand by putting up a total of over 400 and then bowl out Bangladesh with a margin of about 300.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Nearly Sane on July 03, 2019, 07:52:49 PM
 :P
Andy Zaltzman Calculated the requirement for Pakistan for TMS. If Pakistan bowl first, they can't overhaul New Zealand. If they bat first they can overhaul New Zealand by putting up a total of over 400 and then bowl out Bangladesh with a margin of about 300.
And the biggest runs victory in ODIs is 290.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on July 05, 2019, 07:20:14 PM
Alas (for Pakistanis, at least), when Bangladesh passed about 100 runs today, Pakistan was knocked out of the World Cup. A part of me wanted to see Pakistan do it as punishment for the dire display that New Zealand put up on Wednesday in the last 10 or so overs.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Nearly Sane on July 06, 2019, 09:26:32 PM
So the semi finals will be India v New Zealand, which you have to see as a likely win for India, and England v Australia which I would have Australia slight favourites in but only slight. Though given Starc may be injured that might swing it back to England..
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on July 07, 2019, 01:06:43 PM
So the semi finals will be India v New Zealand, which you have to see as a likely win for India, and England v Australia which I would have Australia slight favourites in but only slight. Though given Starc may be injured that might swing it back to England..

I agree although, I would say that, given both teams' records in this World Cup, the toss may be the difference.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Nearly Sane on July 07, 2019, 01:31:04 PM
I agree although, I would say that, given both teams' records in this World Cup, the toss may be the difference.
Yeah, think that is correct. Looking forward to the Ashes, worrying news for England as regards Anderson

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/48900387
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Nearly Sane on July 10, 2019, 03:44:30 PM
Made a nice profit betting New Zealand this morning.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on July 10, 2019, 07:03:32 PM
Made a nice profit betting New Zealand this morning.

Well done. I was pretty certain, even overnight, that India would win, but New Zealand's bowlers took them apart early on.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on July 10, 2019, 07:09:18 PM
Yeah, think that is correct. Looking forward to the Ashes, worrying news for England as regards Anderson

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/48900387

Yes, especially as he seems to be on fire at the moment. Although, I'm still less worried about our bowling than our batting. We have at least two genuine international class quick bowlers as well as Anderson.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Nearly Sane on July 11, 2019, 02:17:44 PM
Well the first part of the job for England has been done.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on July 11, 2019, 02:29:10 PM
Well the first part of the job for England has been done.
I'm nervous. I could see us collapsing under the pressure. This is not a foregone conclusion by any means.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Nearly Sane on July 11, 2019, 02:30:39 PM
I'm nervous. I could see us collapsing under the pressure. This is not a foregone conclusion by any means.
Absolutely agree, a bad start and it becomes a mountain but I suspect if anyone had suggested 223 all out in 49 overs before the match, it would have been snatched
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on July 11, 2019, 02:35:06 PM
Absolutely agree, a bad start and it becomes a mountain but I suspect if anyone had suggested 223 all out in 49 overs before the match, it would have been snatched

Yes, I would have settled for that before we started so well.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: ad_orientem on July 11, 2019, 03:32:32 PM
Almost a run per ball so far. Looking good. Given the start we had we should have got Australia all out under 200 but this is a really good target, bar a collapse, of course.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on July 11, 2019, 03:37:02 PM
Almost a run per ball so far. Looking good. Given the start we had we should have got Australia all out under 200 but this is a really good target, bar a collapse, of course.

Not saying anything to tempt fate. I'm not superstitious - it's unlucky.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Nearly Sane on July 11, 2019, 03:55:32 PM
Well done. I was pretty certain, even overnight, that India would win, but New Zealand's bowlers took them apart early on.
I was too, but the odds I got were 12/1 - it was worth a tenner.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Nearly Sane on July 11, 2019, 03:57:10 PM
Not saying anything to tempt fate. I'm not superstitious - it's unlucky.
The whole being favourites thing at the start felt very odd.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: ad_orientem on July 11, 2019, 05:16:08 PM
Dominant win.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Nearly Sane on July 11, 2019, 05:17:32 PM
Brilliant win. Only annoying thing was Bairstow pointlessly using up the appeal when Roy could have used it to get his hundred.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Sriram on July 11, 2019, 05:27:24 PM

Brilliant win by England!!  WOW!!

Yes...I felt bad that Roy couldn't appeal. He was clearly not out.  Why do we need limits on appeals....when the whole world is watching and knows someone is not out even though the umpire is raising his finger...or the other way around?!  Seems stupid.   




Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Nearly Sane on July 11, 2019, 06:00:39 PM
This does mean that the final will be on 'coonsel telly'. Do think that the matches up till now being on subscription keeps interest down
 
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on July 11, 2019, 06:37:14 PM
Brilliant win. Only annoying thing was Bairstow pointlessly using up the appeal when Roy could have used it to get his hundred.

It's only fair. Finch used Australia's review on an absolute certain LBW thus depriving Stoinis of a review of a very iffy LBW later on.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on July 11, 2019, 06:40:05 PM

Why do we need limits on appeals....

Because the team that is on the wrong end of the decision would challenge everything
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on July 11, 2019, 06:42:00 PM
Brilliant win. Only annoying thing was Bairstow pointlessly using up the appeal when Roy could have used it to get his hundred.
It does mean that they didn't boringly give man of the match to the highest scoring batsman again.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Nearly Sane on July 11, 2019, 07:26:42 PM
It does mean that they didn't boringly give man of the match to the highest scoring batsman again.
Woakes would have bowled the last over which would have meant that he would have bowled 9 of his allowed 10. Not sure why Morgan would have chosen him to have only bowled 9.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Sriram on July 12, 2019, 05:48:18 AM
Because the team that is on the wrong end of the decision would challenge everything


No...the cameras record the fact. My point is that there is no purpose served by limiting the reviews. Any umpire decision that seems wrong can be reviewed and changed based on camera recorded details. Why not?!

The old tradition of 'umpire decisions cannot be challenged' doesn't make sense any more  when the whole world can see that the decision is wrong.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on July 12, 2019, 11:22:54 AM

No...the cameras record the fact. My point is that there is no purpose served by limiting the reviews. Any umpire decision that seems wrong can be reviewed and changed based on camera recorded details. Why not?!
All umpire decisions seem wrong to the team on the wrong end of the decision. If you don't limit the reviews, every LBW will be challenged and a lot of the caught behinds.

Quote
The old tradition of 'umpire decisions cannot be challenged' doesn't make sense any more  when the whole world can see that the decision is wrong.
I disagree. The umpire must have authority and be seen to have authority. Don't forget that, at lower levels of cricket, there is no video evidence. When young cricketers see their role models challenging the decisions of umpires it undermines the authority of the umpires of their games.



Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: ProfessorDavey on July 12, 2019, 12:21:17 PM
I would certainly not want to see unlimited challenges as, as Jeremy P indicate, all this would lead to would be every decision being challenged, from either side. I think there is also an exciting (and tactical) element when a side has to make a decision whether or not to use their reviews.

That said I think restricting to just a single challenge is too few in the current tournament - I think two would be more appropriate. I also think there should be a off field umpire option to over-rule to avoid gross errors on-field that cannot be reviewed by team on the receiving end.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Sriram on July 12, 2019, 02:07:02 PM
All umpire decisions seem wrong to the team on the wrong end of the decision. If you don't limit the reviews, every LBW will be challenged and a lot of the caught behinds.
I disagree. The umpire must have authority and be seen to have authority. Don't forget that, at lower levels of cricket, there is no video evidence. When young cricketers see their role models challenging the decisions of umpires it undermines the authority of the umpires of their games.


Let every decision be challenged! Why not?!  When there is a camera to record facts how does it matter if the umpire is challenged? They should be in fact.  In World Cup matches every decision matters.

In smaller matches where the technology is not there, obviously the umpires need to continue.

Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Sriram on July 12, 2019, 02:12:07 PM
I would certainly not want to see unlimited challenges as, as Jeremy P indicate, all this would lead to would be every decision being challenged, from either side. I think there is also an exciting (and tactical) element when a side has to make a decision whether or not to use their reviews.

That said I think restricting to just a single challenge is too few in the current tournament - I think two would be more appropriate. I also think there should be a off field umpire option to over-rule to avoid gross errors on-field that cannot be reviewed by team on the receiving end.

Why two? Why not three or four.... or ten?!

I am talking of the 'Third Umpire' who is watching the cameras....so what is this off field umpire you are talking of?    Ok...maybe the Third Umpire could be allowed to intervene even without the request for a review...if that is what you mean!  Fine!

The point being that....it is ridiculous to take the umpires decision as 'God's word' when a billion  people across the world are seeing that it is wrong.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: ProfessorDavey on July 12, 2019, 02:25:42 PM
Why two? Why not three or four.... or ten?!
To avoid endless review and also to ensure that a team has to think carefully about calling for a review.

I am talking of the 'Third Umpire' who is watching the cameras....so what is this off field umpire you are talking of?    Ok...maybe the Third Umpire could be allowed to intervene even without the request for a review...if that is what you mean!  Fine!
So am I - but currently the 3rd umpire is powerless to intervene in a case of a gross error by the on-field umpire unless there is a review call from a team, and therefore is completely powerless once all reviews have been used.

So in the case of Roy yesterday although England couldn't review it was pretty obvious instantly to all involved that there was a gross error, but the 3rd umpire was powerless. I'd like to see a situation where that umpire could intervene under certain circumstances to correct a clearly wrong decision. This is what happens in VAR in football where the VAR referee can intervene.

The point being that....it is ridiculous to take the umpires decision as 'God's word' when a billion  people across the world are seeing that it is wrong.
Hence my point above.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Sriram on July 12, 2019, 02:38:54 PM
To avoid endless review and also to ensure that a team has to think carefully about calling for a review.
So am I - but currently the 3rd umpire is powerless to intervene in a case of a gross error by the on-field umpire unless there is a review call from a team, and therefore is completely powerless once all reviews have been used.

So in the case of Roy yesterday although England couldn't review it was pretty obvious instantly to all involved that there was a gross error, but the 3rd umpire was powerless. I'd like to see a situation where that umpire could intervene under certain circumstances to correct a clearly wrong decision. This is what happens in VAR in football where the VAR referee can intervene.
Hence my point above.


Yeah...the Third Umpire intervening without necessarily a call for review is fine! 
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on July 14, 2019, 09:19:25 PM
I think I may have just witnessed the greatest one day match ever.

Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Sriram on July 15, 2019, 05:42:13 AM

Yes...but they should have shared the Cup.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: SusanDoris on July 15, 2019, 06:49:51 AM
I have not read this thread at all, but I  did happen to turn on Five Live several overs from the endand must say I thought the ending was very exciting!
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Udayana on July 15, 2019, 08:09:19 AM
Yes...but they should have shared the Cup.

Yes.

What is it with sports that they are unable to get to a point and just call it a draw? Same with tennis and penalty shootouts.

I find it pathetic - if not disgusting.
 
 
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on July 15, 2019, 09:30:39 AM
Yes...but they should have shared the Cup.
Yes.

What is it with sports that they are unable to get to a point and just call it a draw? Same with tennis and penalty shootouts.

I find it pathetic - if not disgusting.
 
 
The greatest cricket match ever played and you guys just want to whine about the rules. Give it a break.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: ProfessorDavey on July 15, 2019, 09:42:36 AM
Yes...but they should have shared the Cup.
It's a competitive tournament - you have to have a way to determine the winner. Saying it is a tie doesn't mean they both won the tournament, it means that no-one won. That would be crazy.

There are plenty of ways in which tournaments decide the winner where the main competition is a dead heat or tie - this method seems to be one of the better ones, as it involved more competitive sport (rather than drawing lots or based on tournament disciplinary records) and was incredibly exciting.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: ProfessorDavey on July 15, 2019, 09:44:00 AM
The greatest cricket match ever played and you guys just want to whine about the rules. Give it a break.
I agree entirely - you have to have rules to decide which team wins and the rules used seemed totally appropriate and lead to the most exciting (one day) game of cricket ever.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Trentvoyager on July 15, 2019, 09:53:31 AM
I don't normally comment on Cricket as I really am not that interested, but come on you moaners that was bloody exciting.

And, of course you have to have a winner, especially in this case, or how else will all the other nations be able to experience schadenfreude when England inevitably falls from the top dog spot.

Which they will do  ;)
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Sriram on July 15, 2019, 10:47:09 AM



Based on number of boundaries...!! Really..?!!   Where did that come from?  ::)

If you should have a winner.....the NNR/the position on the points table would have been more appropriate.   
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Udayana on July 15, 2019, 11:00:35 AM
It's exciting as the players are pressured into taking more and more risks.

tbh, I see sport more as something to do, ie, participate in than to watch on TV, and appreciate the skill/ability aspects more than the competition. Spectating at local events or Wimbledon, or athletics, are good days out irrespective of who wins.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: ProfessorDavey on July 15, 2019, 11:00:52 AM


Based on number of boundaries...!! Really..?!!   Where did that come from?  ::)
The rules of the competition - sure you might consider other options, but I don't see why this is necessarily problematic. Both sides knew this from the outset, and both sides therefore knew that were the super over to end up level then England would win as they'd scored more boundaries. When NZ batted in the super over they knew they needed 16 not 15 to win, hence the desperate (and unsuccessful) attempt at a second run off the final ball.

If you should have a winner...
Of course you need a winner - it would be bonkers to go through a 6 week tournament and end up in a situation where no-one won.

..the NNR/the position on the points table would have been more appropriate.
That would be a possibility, but I disagree that it would be better. The approach adopted meant that the winner was decided entirely on what happened in the match yesterday between the 2 finalists. Being higher on the points table has an advantage in that your semi-final opponent will be a lower ranked team on the table (not that that proved to have any effect) - beyond that all teams should be equal and the winner should be decided purely  on the performance on the day.

Can you imagine had it been decided on table position (therefore England would have still won) and New Zealand would have quite reasonably pointed out that had it rained on a different day then NZ rather than England would quite likely have won. I'd prefer to decide the tournament winner on the basis of cricket rather than rain.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: ProfessorDavey on July 15, 2019, 11:43:58 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/14/not-cricket-jacob-rees-mogg-criticised

JRM - what an idiot - was he really unaware that the England's winning captain is ... err ... Irish.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: SusanDoris on July 15, 2019, 01:01:07 PM
On the way to Tesco this morning, I mentioned the cricket and the taxi driver was describing to me what happened when the batsman fell and the ball bounced off his back, and about the NZ fielder who caught the ball and stepped back outside the line!
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: ad_orientem on July 15, 2019, 02:42:49 PM
Yes.

What is it with sports that they are unable to get to a point and just call it a draw? Same with tennis and penalty shootouts.

I find it pathetic - if not disgusting.
 
 

Eh?
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: Sriram on July 15, 2019, 02:57:26 PM


Thought provoking piece....

https://www.ndtv.com/opinion/no-england-did-not-win-the-world-cup-2069692?pfrom=home-topstories
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: ProfessorDavey on July 15, 2019, 03:24:48 PM

Thought provoking piece....

https://www.ndtv.com/opinion/no-england-did-not-win-the-world-cup-2069692?pfrom=home-topstories
Yes I've seen that and firstly it is unclear whether the point at which the time is taken is when the fielder throw the ball (at which point the batsmen hadn't crossed) or when the ball hits Stokes (at which point they had). There is disagreement between respected and experienced umpires.

But nonetheless you cannot take this in isolation - if you want to rewrite the on field umpires decision on this one, you'd also need to do so on wides etc and who know which team was up or down on incorrectly called wides over the course of the game (I'll come back to that later).

But even if England had been awarded 5 runs rather than 6 you cannot conclude that England would have lost as there remained a couple of balls to go and Stokes would have made different decisions as to how to play those balls had England required 4 from 2 rather than 3 from 2. Likewise NZ in terms of blowing and fielding tactics.

Back to errors - although it made no difference - the calling of Archer's first ball as a wide was also incorrect as the ball was on the line and the law requires it to be outside the marked line.

Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: wigginhall on July 15, 2019, 03:53:18 PM
It's pathetic when people try to rewrite results of games.   As Prof D. says, you could probably find other errors which hurt England.  They had a lot of luck, but so what?  NZ won the toss, major luck.  It reminds me of football fans going on about some goal 10 years ago, which should have been off-side.  Grow up.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: ProfessorDavey on July 15, 2019, 05:14:47 PM
It's pathetic when people try to rewrite results of games.   As Prof D. says, you could probably find other errors which hurt England.  They had a lot of luck, but so what?  NZ won the toss, major luck.  It reminds me of football fans going on about some goal 10 years ago, which should have been off-side.  Grow up.
Sure there are plenty of people who complain about wrong decisions in matches in a 'we was robbed' kind of way. But the point is that if you change any event in a match everything thereafter will change too in a manner that you cannot predict. So in this case, were Stokes to have needed 4 to win off 2, likely he'd have made the decision to go for a boundary rather than to try to play safe. Who knows whether he would have succeeded or not - but that's the point - we simply cannot conclude that if 5 had been awarded and not 6 that England would have lost as there were still 2 ball to go.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: ProfessorDavey on July 15, 2019, 06:13:37 PM

Thought provoking piece....

https://www.ndtv.com/opinion/no-england-did-not-win-the-world-cup-2069692?pfrom=home-topstories
From the article:

'Simon Taufel, a respected international umpire told The Guardian that the officiating umpires made a clear mistake'

So clear that neither the on field nor off field umpires noted it. Nor is there any indication that either side thought the decision was wrong - surely if it was a clear error the New Zealand team would have indicated as such at the time. Nor, as far as I'm aware, did any of the commentators think the decision was wrong, nor any of the news reports straight after the game. This 'clearly' wrong decision only seems to have come to light the day after - hardly clear is it.

On the other hand the decision to call Archer's first ball of the super over a wide was indicated as being wrong by one of the commentators right away with the other commentator merely making the point that the decision had been given so wouldn't be changed (not that it was correct).

Until this one guy piped up everyone accepted that 6 runs should have been given, not 5. Why is his view correct and everyone else's wrong.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on July 15, 2019, 07:48:59 PM
On the way to Tesco this morning, I mentioned the cricket and the taxi driver was describing to me what happened when the batsman fell and the ball bounced off his back, and about the NZ fielder who caught the ball and stepped back outside the line!
That last incident was a moment of exceptional sportsmanship in the circumstances. The fielder realized he was going to step on the boundary and so tried to toss the ball to another fielder who was about five yards in front of him. Unfortunately, he did it too late (he was still holding the ball when he stepped on the boundary), but the other fielder turned round and signaled to the umpire that it was a six. He didnít have to do that.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on July 15, 2019, 07:52:49 PM
It's pathetic when people try to rewrite results of games.   As Prof D. says, you could probably find other errors which hurt England

Well ok Jason Roy was out first ball. However, the umpire called it not out and the review rules are such that the decision was not reversed on review.

Umpires often make mistakes. You canít turn back time to change the result based on just one of them.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: ProfessorDavey on July 16, 2019, 07:42:15 AM
Well ok Jason Roy was out first ball. However, the umpire called it not out and the review rules are such that the decision was not reversed on review.

Umpires often make mistakes. You canít turn back time to change the result based on just one of them.
Absolutely - there will be a whole load of decisions that weren't right that directly impact on runs and if you are going to make a point about one of them you need to consider them all, which is impossible.

Also each of those decisions makes a difference to the later stages of the game, so a team will play differently. As such you cannot simply conclude that if England had scored one less run somewhere earlier in their innings that they would necessarily have lost - for the simple reason that had that happened they'd have known they needed to score an additional run later on and would have played differently and made different decisions on shots etc.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on July 16, 2019, 01:33:18 PM
Absolutely - there will be a whole load of decisions that weren't right that directly impact on runs and if you are going to make a point about one of them you need to consider them all, which is impossible.

Also each of those decisions makes a difference to the later stages of the game, so a team will play differently. As such you cannot simply conclude that if England had scored one less run somewhere earlier in their innings that they would necessarily have lost - for the simple reason that had that happened they'd have known they needed to score an additional run later on and would have played differently and made different decisions on shots etc.

Absolutely. Needing three to win off the last ball, Stokes might have chosen to play it differently.

It should be noted that he wasn't at all happy about scoring the four overthrows, but there's no way to take the runs back under the rules.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: ProfessorDavey on July 16, 2019, 03:17:33 PM
Absolutely. Needing three to win off the last ball, Stokes might have chosen to play it differently.
Exactly the point that Ashley Giles has made - the final ball was a full toss on leg stump - had England needed 3 to win and 2 to tie Stokes would probably have looked to smash it over the boundary rather than play safe as he did, knowing that a single would at least take England into a super over.

It should be noted that he wasn't at all happy about scoring the four overthrows, but there's no way to take the runs back under the rules.
True
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: jeremyp on July 25, 2019, 07:48:33 PM
When your tailender nightwatchman makes more runs by himself than your entire team did in the first innings, it's time to panic about meeting Australia in the Ashes.
Title: Re: Cricket World Cup
Post by: ProfessorDavey on July 25, 2019, 08:21:16 PM
When your tailender nightwatchman makes more runs by himself than your entire team did in the first innings, it's time to panic about meeting Australia in the Ashes.
Shame he didn't make it to the century