World Cup and Test Cricket 2019

[antongould]

The most amazing match I have ever seen, albeit from behind the sofa .....

[DracoM]

It must look to the NZ team as if the entire cosmos was banded against them - the most bizarre series of accidents and incidents in ONE single - well, no actually TWO games.

[muzzer]

Quite the most amazing match I have ever watched, albeit on TV. NZ were very unlucky but I think England deserved to win the tournament overall. Players at that level have nerves of steel, it was beyond thrilling to watch. It will also give the game a massive boost at grassroots level across all sections of society. If only the Ashes were on free to air TV.

[Belgrove]

That was extraordinary! What a privilege to have been there to see such a thrilling match. It was a difficult pitch for either side to get runs on, coupled with the tricky batting conditions throughout the day. The spirit in which both sides played made one feel proud, even humbled, to have witnessed it. Both sides have done the game of cricket an enormous service.

And let us not forget Andrew Strauss and Trevor Bayliss who engineered this transformation in the one-day England side and their approach to this format of the game. Their four-year task came to magnificent fruition around 7.30pm in the evening sunshine.

[cloughie]

Wickets lost was one of the old ways of deciding before SuperOvers. There were various count backs like who had most runs after X amount of overs. I think the present SuperOvers plus boundaries is the best they've come up with.

Is there a true winner when there are two equals?

[burning dog]

Is there a true winner when there are two equals?

Further super overs may be a possibilty.

What about penalty shoot outs in football?

A far worse way to decide IMO

This was a terrible idea even worse than football penalties

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI_S_8aQTbo

[jayne lee wilson]

Further super overs may be a possibilty.

What about penalty shoot outs in football?

A far worse way to decide IMO

This was a terrible idea even worse than football penalties
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI_S_8aQTbo

I'd heard about that, the dreaded "bowl-out"... terribly trivialising, like the "golden goal" in football, which left everyone feeling short-changed, with the (possible) exception of the winners. Perhaps not even them.

Count-backs of various kinds could be very anticlimactic on their own. The Superover is good as it is a simple continuation which requires all the skills, like extra holes in golf, tiebreaks, or extra-time etc.
But I think most fans recognise the tied nature of such games, and give fair and (almost!) equal credit to the runners-up.

That final over of England's 50 though, and Stokes' role in the drama! A tale of two sixes....extraordinary. You couldn't have more sharply defined microcosm of sport, and why we watch it - that almost impossible, unpredictable mix of skill, risk and chance.

***
Difficult choice on Sunday wasn't it? I knew I had to take the Cricket live, so I recorded the British Grand Prix (usually, F1 is my No.1), maintaining radio & tv silence until I watched it later. Great race too!
So I had to leave the tennis out, thinking that 2 out of 3 ain't bad.... but just look how that one turned out! What a day, and all in England....

[cloughie]

I'd heard about that, the dreaded "bowl-out"... terribly trivialising, like the "golden goal" in football, which left everyone feeling short-changed, with the (possible) exception of the winners.

Count-backs of various kinds could be very anticlimactic on their own. The Superover is good as it is a simple continuation which requires all the skills, like extra holes in golf, tiebreaks, or extra-time etc.
But I think most fans recognise the tied nature of such games, and give fair and (almost!) equal credit to the runners-up.

But no cup so they are still losers which is, everything considered, rather unfair as they are joint winners!

[jayne lee wilson]

But no cup so they are still losers which is, everything considered, rather unfair as they are joint winners!

But if you asked the NZ team how they felt.... would they say they felt like winners? Probably not. Great pride - perhaps, but by the rules of the game which they know and love, they lost....and sadly, they know it and feel it. Just as with penalty shootouts. Federer seems to have felt similarly conflicted in his post-match interviews. I'm pretty sure that none of the runners-up look back on such a match with any joy.

The concept of "joint champions" is intriguing.... but how would we all feel about that? Calm acceptance, or disappointment at the loss of drama and excitement? The lack of finality and "closure"....

[gradus]

I don't think there would have been any loss of drama or excitement as the possibility of a dead heat is small and I think the Kiwis were desperately unlucky and would not at all have minded if joint winners were allowed.
In any case wasn't there something on the news last night about umpire's error in allowing 6 instead of the correct 5 runs for the Stokes incident?

[burning dog]

Knock-Out tournaments demand "winners". It would be odd and illogical to have a possibility of shared champions - tied finals, when the earlier knock out rounds - semi finals and quarter finals if they exist, need a winner

[DracoM]

So why not have a system in which on-field umpiring decisions NOT reviewed by players can be reviewed by the Third Umpire with instant access to the technology?

The Third Umpire HAS to have known for example that Roy was NOT out caught in a situation when there could be no further reviews by England, yet...yet.....the Third Umpire has no powers to revoke what the technology shows is a palpably incorrect but un-reviewable on-field decision?

Hmm....interesting box within a box, and when is a final decision not final etcetc....existential questions arise...........

Oh, Stephen Hawking, Mr Schrodinger, where are you when we need you most?

[burning dog]

I don't think there would have been any loss of drama or excitement as the possibility of a dead heat is small and I think the Kiwis were desperately unlucky and would not at all have minded if joint winners were allowed.
In any case wasn't there something on the news last night about umpire's error in allowing 6 instead of the correct 5 runs for the Stokes incident?

Not sure why after one cricket match people want to revolutionize the concept of cup competitions in all sports? There MUST be a winner in earlier knock out rounds and there has always been a winner in the final. Umpring/Refereeing mistakes are part and parcel of the game. New Zealand were very unlucky everybody could see that.

[burning dog]

So why not have a system in which on-field umpiring decisions NOT reviewed by players can be reviewed by the Third Umpire with instant access to the technology?

A good idea, most changes are instigated because of high profile mistakes.

[cloughie]

But if you asked the NZ team how they felt.... would they say they felt like winners? Probably not. Great pride - perhaps, but by the rules of the game which they know and love, they lost....and sadly, they know it and feel it. Just as with penalty shootouts. Federer seems to have felt similarly conflicted in his post-match interviews. I'm pretty sure that none of the runners-up look back on such a match with any joy.

The concept of "joint champions" is intriguing.... but how would we all feel about that? Calm acceptance, or disappointment at the loss of drama and excitement? The lack of finality and "closure"....

Unfortunately in the 21st Century fairness has become redundant.