Discussion in 'Cricket' started by Up the Guts, Mar 11, 2019.
Or a second super over?
Why not just bring them back the next day?
Still a wild game of cricket.
Well that was sh*t news to wake up to. Also seems there were some bits of terminal bad luck in the field that cost us (Lovely Trenty duffing a boundary catch he's taken a dozen times before without fail, and Guptil firing a ICBM that ricochet off the bat for a boundary).
I agree. Though the ICC seemingly hates bowlers, unfortunately. Wouldn't surprise me if their complete list of tie-breakers were:
Most between-wicket-runs >2
Most between-wicket-runs >1
Top individual score
Cumulative top n individual scores
Flip a coin
Guess the number I'm thinking of
Idk most wickets taken or something
England were extraordinarily lucky, just about every single decision went and 50/50 opportunity went there way. I’m not surprised they ‘won’ based on some bullshit metric.
The stupidest thing about winning based on boundaries is that you don’t necessarily play the game in a manner that seeks to maximise the number of boundaries hit. So you’re basing the win off something teams weren’t actively trying to do. Pathetic way to decide a tournament and seems like a brainless solution they came up with because they wanted to go to lunch early “oh this will never happen we’ll just say boundaries can decide it.”
I really see no good reason why you wouldn't just keep doing extra overs till you had a clear winner. It's not like they are too tired to carry on playing as in Soccer and Rugby. And it would never get past 2-3 overs tops.
It was my first thought and the only logical solution. England were all out in their innings, how is that not a loss?
Cricket keeps giving me reasons not to bother anymore.
Can’t say it better than this.
Absolutely gutted for the Kiwis. What a monumentally shit way to decide a world championship. They've been robbed for mine.
in fairness, they should have won. They had their chances and plenty.
Also, I think the English are deserving winners. Have played exceptional 1 day cricket for quite a while now and through this tournament.
It's hard to come up a with a countback system that doesn't suck. They are all so arbitrary that it is a poor way to split two teams.
The obvious situation was to play another super over but then that's probably over the top for a regular match that isn't a World Cup Final.
Can you take this rational objectiveness elsewhere?
Seriously though, England's ODI turnaround is the blueprint for any sporting team on how to change their fortunes through careful planning and tactics. Wallabies take note.
Do you even have a super over in an ODI that's not in a WC match? Wouldn't it just be a tie? I thought super overs were just a t20 thing.
Yeah sorry, it is just normally a T20 thing for a regular game.
They were brought in for knockout ODIs from the 2011 World Cup but have never been used until now. In 2011 it potentially applied to every knockout game and in 2015 only to the final (earlier knockout games would have gone with the higher placed group stage team going through).
Higher group stage finish or group stage result would be easier to cop.
Was it boundaries struck in the match or the tournament? At the very least you'd expect the metric that they rely on to be derived from the last game and not the whole tournament.
Just keep playing until someone wins. Surely that's the answer. This count back malarkey in a world cup tournament is ludicrous.
The main factor for me is that even though the runs scored were tied, England were all out on the last ball. That's enough to call a loss. All Out.
Yep, just down the way at Wimbledon Federer and Djokovic kept playing until they had a result. They didn’t call it off and award it to one player based on the number of aces.
While a bit gutted that the team got so close but ended up without the cup, and thinking the most boundaries not really a great way to decide, I do tend to think you then can go back to who won in round robin game, so England would still win it.
As I said much as it hurts, we got into finals on a system that some don't like, so they the rules we had to play with, and I will just say Black Caps went further than I thought they would and I personally pretty proud of them as a team!
Can I add pretty classy by both captains at press conf after game!
That Ben Stokes deflection - luckiest play in cricket history?
I think I've seen that happen once, maybe twice, in my entire cricket watching/playing history. For it to happen at that exact moment, in the way that it did, completely by accident, it's just dumb, dumb, dumb luck. Nobody could have done anything to prevent it.
I was trying to think of a rugby equivalent, but couldn't quite nail it. It's a bit easier in other sports - like shanking your approach shot on 18 at Augusta, but the ball ricochets off a tree and rolls up to 6ft from the flag. And then you force a play-off which you then tie, but instead of playing a second hole you are awarded the title because you had the longest average driving distance on par 5s on the back 9.
What is this nonsense of which you speak?
In many ways it was bad for England too. Spent the last four years pouring all their resources into it and becoming the best side in ODIs by a long way. Look like they’re going to miss a place in the finals but strongly beat the top ranked team in the group stages to qualify. Beat their old foe in the semis strongly. Then get awarded the cup in controversial circumstances. You can’t take away their performances in the last four years but this WC will always have an asterisk next to it.
Separate names with a comma.