I’ve only just found out about McGuire from your post just now. What a day!
Last edited:
ICC Cricket World Cup 2019
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Thoughts on Kane Williamson as man of the tournament and MVP award? Were Sharma, Shakib, Starc more worthy?
I’m torn between him and Shakib. But think in the end Kane wins as his contributions as batsman equalled Shakib and as captain inspiring NZ punch above their weight equals Shakibs bowling. So comes down to which made match winning contributions and Kane wins that hands down. Amazing player and character. Shakib is the best all rounder no doubt but his team let him down. Blame mashrafe and others for that.
I’m torn between him and Shakib. But think in the end Kane wins as his contributions as batsman equalled Shakib and as captain inspiring NZ punch above their weight equals Shakibs bowling. So comes down to which made match winning contributions and Kane wins that hands down. Amazing player and character. Shakib is the best all rounder no doubt but his team let him down. Blame mashrafe and others for that.
Technically, England were bowled out and it required a super over which also ended in a tie. You lot won the match but it was still a tie.
I've never felt so happy after a tie
Cheers
some great interviews here with many players after the game: www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p07gx8q6
Collection of post match tweets from legends, ex players etc: www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27191037/the-best-white-ball-game-all
This was the most astonishing, fortuitous, preposterous climax to any cricket match I’ve witnessed, let alone a World Cup final. By Vic Marks www.theguardian.com/sport/2...icket-world-cup-final-match-report-super-over
CricBuzz post match review:
Last edited:
That actually fits my stereotype of cricket perfectly.
I'm calling that video a fake... how do you not jump up and down with that finish!
Don't accuse people of what amounts of racism just because you disagree with a comment they made on the relative qualities of sports teams.
@sammsky1 you dirty homophobe.
You never know how a sudden surge of patriotism might affect you.
Haven't followed this thread a lot but looking at page count it looks a success. For me personally it was difficult to choose a team yesterday. England, they were 3 time losing finalists and had best chance to win. One more final loss would have been catastrophic. NZ on other hand, perennial semifinalists, who made the next step last time, and had a great chance which may not come soon again. I wanted winner to win handsomely so that I can feel less bad for losing team. Alas, it happened exact opposite.
England for me deserve it for the process they decided and stuck to since 2015 humiliation. Revolutionized their approach, excelled at it, fine tuned it and got the reward.
Australia and Pak did little bit more than what expected of them, so well done to both. Can't wait for Ashes.
For India, the loss was justice for total mismanagement of the middle order. Ravi Shastri and Kohli are stubborn fools so I doubt they will change much but India should go into a rebuild mode of that middle order by drafting in likes of Shaw, Gill etc. Let them gain experience of longer formats at international level and make them ready for next world cup. India has the best cricketing talent pool in world and have to make it count in next world cup at home.
Not being a dedicated, hardcore fan of a player/team helps greatly in following sports Thoroughly enjoyed Wimbledon final and cricket final yesterday.
England for me deserve it for the process they decided and stuck to since 2015 humiliation. Revolutionized their approach, excelled at it, fine tuned it and got the reward.
Australia and Pak did little bit more than what expected of them, so well done to both. Can't wait for Ashes.
For India, the loss was justice for total mismanagement of the middle order. Ravi Shastri and Kohli are stubborn fools so I doubt they will change much but India should go into a rebuild mode of that middle order by drafting in likes of Shaw, Gill etc. Let them gain experience of longer formats at international level and make them ready for next world cup. India has the best cricketing talent pool in world and have to make it count in next world cup at home.
Not being a dedicated, hardcore fan of a player/team helps greatly in following sports
Thoroughly enjoyed Wimbledon final and cricket final yesterday.Over the course of the tournament, England deserved it more than new Zealand. The technicality of how it was decided is going to be subjective - boundaries, wickets, whatever - end of day everything is going to get argued to death as they were tied on runs and you'll find loopholes for every metric.
On just yesterday's match, NZ deserved it more. They closed the game beautifully barring that freak overthrow.
Ben Stokes brilliant. A player who does something world class in either discipline all too often. The one player for whom cricket averages aren't representative - swings the game on the discipline he turns up for a lot of times.
On just yesterday's match, NZ deserved it more. They closed the game beautifully barring that freak overthrow.
Ben Stokes brilliant. A player who does something world class in either discipline all too often. The one player for whom cricket averages aren't representative - swings the game on the discipline he turns up for a lot of times.
Going to miss the cricket, although ashes should be great
Man, I really enjoyed this tournament. Deserved champs, the English. Well done!
Asif ali not Malik. Although @KM missed the 'jokes' about stoning the indian team.
But I stopped playing after pakistan got knocked out, think I was behind you and skills at that point.
Edit: thought this was about fantasy cricket.
The pitch really wasn't that difficult to play on. England, at one stage, were 196-4 with Buttler (59 off 59) looking likely to take them through. New Zealand also looked set for 250+ before Taylor was given out. This was one of those cliched "get in and get a score wickets" and it produced a fantastic event. A flat wicket and New Zealand would have blown away in a pointless game of who can hit the ball longer.
To be fair no other side has a chance of that. Unless Australia start performing in football.
The flaw there is that you're confusing the outcome with the process: a 240 pitch now is not a 240 pitch of 15 years ago. There's a whole load of factors why teams and batsmen score faster so it takes a much worse quality pitch to produce the same outcome.
I'm not saying you need to have a 'car park' but a better balance which gives something to the batsman rather than just grinding.
You're missing the point. It isn't a 'flat wicket' vs yesterday that's the debate, it's one where there is something in it for both the bat and ball. I also think you're confusing being 'in' with grinding out runs. I don't think Stokes ever looked in, for example, he just fought it out.
You seem to think I'm saying we need 350 plays 350 for a good game and I'm very obviously not, but I do think you need a pitch where the ball comes on to the bat more than it did yesterday.
In most respects you two aren't the people I'm tryng to convince though. You're both already converts and I agree with both that low scoring ODIs can be exciting. I just think even with that finish people watching the final not already loving cricket are bored for a lot of the game. The challenge is to provide pitches that make batsmen earn their runs, but do allow batting to look good, too. I don't feel that we had that yesterday.
Last edited:
That's largely because the rules of the game have been skewed so far towards the batsmen: 2 new balls and extended powerplay overs. Both of these have hampered the fielding teams. If we went back to how it was in the mid to late-90s and early nougties (the golden era of ODI cricket IMO), we'd see a much better game. Yes, the batsmen have adapted to these new rules and the very best have the ability to score all around the pitch in a 360 degree manner, but having fielding restrictions which last the full 50 overs to a certain extent has allowed that happen.
It's a fair point you make that it may bore the neutral/newcomer to the game, but I think that's what T20 is for - the 100mph game which is done quickly and where boundaries are hit in an increasingly innovative manner.
Personally, I loved that we had a pitch like that yesterday and on the whole, the pitches at the World Cup have been spot on with there being something in it for both batsmen and bowlers. Where you say the ball didn't come on to the bat well enough, I say that it was a pitch which rewarded the best and most natural cricketers - those who were of most sound temperament and technique. You could see it in the top and middle orders of both teams, where almost everyone got starts but didn't capitalise on them.
On the other hand, maybe the balance was a little too weighted in favour of the bowlers yesterday. A 275-280 would have possibly made it a better spectacle, but that's only in hindsight and I still doubt this opinion, cos yesterday was still very fecking special.
Legend.
Congratulations to England and all their supporters. Well deserved.
Oh dear.
deciding a drawn match on 'most boundaries in the innings' is so stupidly arbitrary. how about using 'most wickets' instead - you know, one of the key components in cricket?
Even more gutting for NZ that.
Boundaries are a key component of cricket as well particularly in the shorter form of the game. It’s probably better decided that way than the 99 semi was.
Perhaps. I'm open to tweaking with the format and playing conditions and I'm sure that might help, but I don't think it will put the genie back in the bottle. I just think it's a massively different game to what it was and those skills won't be forgotten.
In fact there were three shots yesterday which some that up quite well.
The first was Buttler's ramp for four, we both know that's not a shot that anybody even thought of, let alone could execute 20 years ago but now a pretty well directed yorker is 2cm from going for six.
The second was Stokes's four between two men on the leg side boundary. I don't even know what you'd call that shot, but something like a leg side helicopter whip or something? At any rate, it wasn't a particularly bad ball, and back in the low scoring era I can't think of many players who could get that much power on that shot to dissect two boundary riders like that.
The third was Stokes's six in the final over. He'd been bowled two good yorkers on an off stump line knew a third was coming so planted his foot and slog swept Boult for six.
I'm not saying that those things would never have been seen before, but now they're fairly close to being unremarkable. Even on a stopping pitch there's 14 runs there that would have probably been three, more often than not, not that long ago. T20 and the skills that it requires aren't going to disappear from the One Day game. Even with rule changes, designed to make it harder to bat I really don't think you're going to slow down teams too much.
there is literally no difference in scoring a boundary in 4 balls, or getting 4 singles in 4 balls.
Wouldn't have helped IMO. The issue is the technicality of whether the batsman crossed before the fielder threw the ball. It's such an obscure rule, I don't think the umpires even considered it.