Highlights of the last 20 overs on channel 4 right now if anyone is interested
ICC Cricket World Cup 2019
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Nearly sold my ticket as I assumed england would be a walk it, without India final had lost some sparkle and i was being offered serious cash for it!
Once I fully invested into an England win, it became too unbearable. My stomach actually hurts now like I’ve done 30 mins ab work in gym cos it’s in knots!
I think because the ending was so prolonged, ie about 60 mins of pure agony, that’s why it tops other great sporting experiences. Plus being in ground, you can’t see everything: I didn’t really understand the fielding mistake 6 til a lot later, or the rules for super over etc.
Other thing to note was England fans were patheticly quiet until about 35th over. I was at Lords dead rubber between Pakistan and Bangladesh and those fans turned Lords into the most beautiful riot I’ve ever witnessed. Was such fun.
But then suddenly all those docile upper class clappers suddenly transformed into vein popping lunatics. Never seen such a rapid and marked transition all my life! 70!year Old geezers in suits and ties were losing the plot and sanity itself.
Lords with England is generally like that . I was at Edgbaston at the semis and it was incredible from start to finish
Undoubtedly best team in the tournament and best team in past few years. Fully deserved and without any semblance of debate.
Semi on TV looked and sounded amazing! Lucky you!
But I still think all desi teams have the best cricket fans, India fans used to be the best, but Bangladesh fans probably just pipped even them in this tournament.
Last edited:
Oh absolutely. Today was just weird though because it felt more like an event rather than a cricket match
England basically won 4 knockout games In a row. They were looking to be out after the SL loss. Congrats and fair play
The rules were in place before so there isn't a complaint from either side
However to decide games the way they've done so is crazy.
Imagine if it rained the second day of the semi final before India got to the set overs (20?) And we're like 50-6. If it then rained out, India go through as they finished higher.
Winning a trophy on two ties but scoring more boundaries after batting second in a way is an advantage as they had to go for that given the target
Anyway that's for another time
The rules were in place before so there isn't a complaint from either side
However to decide games the way they've done so is crazy.
Imagine if it rained the second day of the semi final before India got to the set overs (20?) And we're like 50-6. If it then rained out, India go through as they finished higher.
Winning a trophy on two ties but scoring more boundaries after batting second in a way is an advantage as they had to go for that given the target
Anyway that's for another time
I think it's a slightly stranger mindset to not challenge things you think are racist, don't you think? You might not have thought the original post was bad and that my take on it was too far, and that's your call, but as those are our opinions rather than an objective fact it is, with the best will in the world, rather meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
In this instance, the poster that caused this discussion held their hands up admitted how it came across and clarified what they meant. And guess what? I don't see any of this damage you're claiming to his reputation. Everyone else who has been allowed to move on has.
Absolute legend.
Comes across a good guy, gotta feel for these people when they’ve just lost in this way and have to do all those interviews and shit like that.
The unsung hero is Liam Plunkett. 3 wickets and England haven't lost with him in the team in ages.
And he's the crossover from old England and new England.
The guy debuted as a 20 year old in 2005, went to his first World Cup in 2007...then was on the international wilderness for years as the new kids on the block got a go.
They did not live up to the hype. He earned a recall and now he's the senior cog of the World Cup winning attack. Surreal comeback.
And he's the crossover from old England and new England.
The guy debuted as a 20 year old in 2005, went to his first World Cup in 2007...then was on the international wilderness for years as the new kids on the block got a go.
They did not live up to the hype. He earned a recall and now he's the senior cog of the World Cup winning attack. Surreal comeback.
feck England, my boys New Zealand deserved it more 
Don't worry Kane Williamson, we'll win the next one, or maybe the next T20
Don't worry Kane Williamson, we'll win the next one, or maybe the next T20
Nah, Jason Roy. England don't win the WC if Jason didn't recover from his injury. Quietly forgotten about with the likes Stokes, Bairstow, Archer and Buttler sort of taking all the headlines.
13k posts. You nerds have really been at it in the past month or so.
Same reaction I had.
I really like Williamson though. Sound guy and a fantastic captain/leader.
With all the moaning the Indians were doing, and the return moaning by you Pakistanis and English, and MJJ's 'You're not the sharpest tool here Vida', it's hardly a suprrise.
Most of the posts have been from those bitter Indians, anyway.
Says something about the pitch which, now England have won I think I can say with impunity without being accused of it being sour grapes, ended up being a bit of a shocker for a show piece final. England over the years have had one of the lower dot ball percentages, and when players like Root, Stokes and Buttler (although he found it easiest of everyone), are struggling to rotate the strike you know it's not easy.
No reason why any of those things that made that game good couldn't have happened with 300 playing 300. I hope that the excitement of the ending made up for it, but I think for large periods of that game it would be a difficult sell to new audiences to argue that cricket is actually an interesting game and isn't about two blokes struggling to hit a guy bowling 70mph balls. Some people might decry it as the fastfoodisation of cricket, but people with little interest in the sport do like to see some big hits and genuine pace in play (Archer knocking blokes in the head got as big a reaction as anything in the various WhatsApp groups that were talking about it today) and although there has to be a balance I think it was off today (as indeed it has been the other way in some games this tournament).
Sad state of this thread. Racism? Really?
I lost interest after I realised I wasn't winning the fantasy league. Would've got to a grand if it weren't for that
The issue isn't whether you should challenge racism or not, it's deciding someone is racist on the basis of a lack of information. And then, despite, having a perfectly reasonable and logical alternative explanation, and having that person explain that alternative to you, ignoring it entirely and telling that person they're just racist 'deep down.'
It can be deeply upsetting to be accused on a whim of something as abhorrent as racism. And no, it isn't as bad as actually being the victim of racism, but that doesn't make it acceptable.
In this instance the poster actually demanded an apology and wasn't afforded one. I know you like to decide what others are thinking, but you have absolutely no idea how that was received by others.
This has already gone on far too long. Enjoy the rest of your evening.
Hey you’re the bronze medal nerd
This is absolutely true . No way can you have these wickets for bilateral odi's . If the game doesn't have a lot on the line then these games are borderline unwatchable for 70-80% of the 8 hours . Lords is a terrible venue for limited overs cricket.
Nah, nothing interesting about high scoring ODIs. This was a real fight between bat and ball and it was an absolute belter of a game.
Its obviously subjective but low scoring matches are far more entertaining.
Oh my, I am the champion poster of this thread and I didnt even need any luck.
Fantasy league was good fun. In the end I finished 63rd overall. 3rd in the Pakistan league, just short of winning two tickets to the WT20 next year. Tried catching up with some decent differentials today (Plunkett, Ferguson) but wasn't enough.
I like Plunkett but Kohli and Kane apart that list isn't as good as they're making it out to be.
When I say unsung I mean in a more bigger picture. Jason Roy is part of the new generation who were groomed for this kind of cricket. This generation of Root, Stokes, Bairstow, Archer, Buttler, Woakes, Wood etc broke through at the time when T20 became the major exposure and their skillsets reflect the new style of cricket.
Whereas Plunkett was a player produced in the last generation. He made his test debut in the same year as Kevin Pietersen, two years before Stuart Broad but all of a sudden he fell away. The guy wasn't good enough to make the WC squads in 2011 and 2015 when we made tame exits but now is a Champion at the age of 34.
Was it a fight between bat and ball or did ball dominate bat? That would be my take. I'm not saying bat needs to dominate, and there definitely has to be something in it for the bowlers (although you guys should try supporting a team that's blasting 480 against Australia, that's fun, too) but I think today saw the balance tip too far one way. Especially given the importance of the game.
I'm just not convinced that if you're trying to sell the game to people watching De Grandhomme bowl 10 overs for feck all or watching NZ play and miss at Archer for 5 overs because the ball is doing stupid shit when he digs it in and varies his pace are the best images to see.
I think it's possible to have the ball in the game, if bowlers bowl well, whilst also allowing batsmen to express themselves a bit more and play with a bit more flair.
Nah, I'd much rather a slow, low pitch as opposed to a car park. 300+ runs used to be a remarkable score and a genuine achievement and to chase it down even, moreso. Cricket should be about bat v ball, not bat v batsman. I'd enjoy a game which has 450-500 runs across both innings and a varied bowling attack can make inroads into the opposition than one which is just glorified batting practice.
Attracting new audiences to the sport should be the role of T20s. The 6-hitter fetishists can enjoy those. Get rid of the silly two ball rule in ODIs and curate pitches which give a genuine chance to bowlers and you'll see more spectacles like today.
I'd say the quality players, or the ones who played the situation rather than the occasion, could score the runs. That's probably the best pitch you can hope for in a game like today's - a pitch which rewards talent and temperament rather than brute force.
Chasing successfully, eventually, on such a slow, sticky pitch makes it taste sweeter than us smashing 400 on a road.
Stops the flat track bullies critics in their tracks.
Stops the flat track bullies critics in their tracks.
Disagree entirely. I grew up on games like this in Sharjah in the 90s. They were some of the most riveting sporting contests around. Where you genuinely did not know what the outcome of each ball would be. For 600 bloody balls.
Where it's gone wrong for ODIs has been how they've increasingly aped the IPL and other T20 leagues with the balance almost entirely going against the bowler.
Missed most of the game due to a wedding. Caught the final overs where everyone was glued to their phones. An absolute shame there had to be a loser. England deserved to be champions over the course of the tournament.
Getting all out in a chase isn't chasing successfully!