ICC Cricket World Cup 2023

It is not surprising that English fans have forgotten that Stokes and Rasheed had actually not crossed for the second run (in the lucky “six”) and if the umpires had done their job, NZ would have won by one run.

But hey, you won your home WC so that sure makes it memorable.
 
Samid said:
England 'won' a World Cup on boundary count. It's like the football WC final had stopped after extra time and the winner was decided on throw-in count.
Click to expand...

And one of the goals that led to the tie shouldn’t have been allowed if the refs or umpires did their job.
 
SinNombre said:
It is not surprising that English fans have forgotten that Stokes and Rasheed had actually not crossed for the second run (in the lucky “six”) and if the umpires had done their job, NZ would have won by one run.

But hey, you won your home WC so that sure makes it memorable.
Click to expand...

I've not met or heard from an England fan who doesn't think we got plenty of luck to win the final? What's your point?
 
SinNombre said:
And even with a boundary would have meant a one-run loss, but no surprise that is unclear to some.
Click to expand...

Possibly but you don’t know what would have happened for sure after. Maybe Rashid would have hit a 6 and won it. They don’t retrospectively knock off runs after unless Liverpool fans are now involved in cricket.
 
Anyways England are playing tomorrow so all the crying about.50 overs being dead and this tournament being boring will die till Thursday when India again plays
 
AshRK said:
Anyways England are playing tomorrow so all the crying about.50 overs being dead and this tournament being boring will die till Thursday when India again plays
Click to expand...

Teams are dominating because they are playing well. India bowled well so that put Pakistan under pressure then the India batters have less pressure and Rohit is playing well. Matches are classed as boring because teams are simply outperforming other teams. It won’t be the same every match.
 
TheGame said:
Teams are dominating because they are playing well. India bowled well so that put Pakistan under pressure then the India batters have less pressure and Rohit is playing well. Matches are classed as boring because teams are simply outperforming other teams. It won’t be the same every match.
Click to expand...

I mean the boring tag is fair enough so far, it's not a criticism in itself - just a shame as a spectacle.

It will liven up at some point, it always does.
 
Utd heap said:
I mean the boring tag is fair enough so far, it's not a criticism in itself - just a shame as a spectacle.

It will liven up at some point, it always does.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree but it’s not always as simple as being down to the toss. Think there will be some interesting matches the later it gets towards the knockout.
 
Utd heap said:
I've not met or heard from an England fan who doesn't think we got plenty of luck to win the final? What's your point?
Click to expand...

There are plenty on here both now and in 2019 who think otherwise and then like to complain about pitch when other teams win irrespective of the circumstances. It is both tiring and lazy, and without an iota of introspection.
 
It was speculated and reported on that India had already prepared slow pitches for their big games this world cup, this was back in May,
Seems correct so far, what with India being the only team to not play in the same stadium.
Home advantage has worked well in previous world cups, will work as equally, if not better in this world cup.
 
Champ said:
It was speculated and reported on that India had already prepared slow pitches for their big games this world cup, this was back in May,
Seems correct so far, what with India being the only team to not play in the same stadium.
Home advantage has worked well in previous world cups, will work as equally, if not better in this world cup.
Click to expand...

Its India. You expecting pace and bounce? The knockout games in 2019 were all on seam friendly pitches.
 
SinNombre said:
It is not surprising that English fans have forgotten that Stokes and Rasheed had actually not crossed for the second run (in the lucky “six”) and if the umpires had done their job, NZ would have won by one run.

But hey, you won your home WC so that sure makes it memorable.
Click to expand...

If Stokes needed 3 off the last ball he wouldn't have tapped it looking for 2, so England literally wouldn't have lost by one run. England would either have lost by 2 runs, or won with a boundary, or drawn with a run 2 if hit firmly to the boundary in a gap that required a sprint along the boundary from the fielder to stop. A run 3 would be virtually impossible without a misfield/overthrow, but even that is infinitely more possible than Stokes having tapped the ball looking for a quick 2, when 3 to win was required.

Thanks for your input though, very well thought out.
 
SinNombre said:
It is not surprising that English fans have forgotten that Stokes and Rasheed had actually not crossed for the second run (in the lucky “six”) and if the umpires had done their job, NZ would have won by one run.

But hey, you won your home WC so that sure makes it memorable.
Click to expand...
:lol: :lol:
As much as I like to laugh at England, there wasn't much that could be held against them in that final.

They got a bit of luck, but held their nerves and for me at least deserved that win, in what will be one of the most remembered finals in history.
 
Trequarista10 said:
If Stokes needed 3 off the last ball he wouldn't have tapped it looking for 2, so England literally wouldn't have lost by one run. England would either have lost by 2 runs, or won with a boundary, or drawn with a run 2 if hit firmly to the boundary in a gap that required a sprint along the boundary from the fielder to stop. A run 3 would be virtually impossible without a misfield/overthrow, but even that is infinitely more possible than Stokes having tapped the ball looking for a quick 2, when 3 to win was required.

Thanks for your input though, very well thought out.
Click to expand...
Its always brilliant when someone goes on rant while missing or deliberately ignoring a crucial point. If rules were applied correctly as the other post said it would have been 5 runs not 6, so Rashid would be on strike not stokes and they would have run like crazy to get whatever they can.
 
I wish there was some moderation for these threads as well because otherwise it all leads to the same old arguments. People like @SinNombre intentionally saying stuff to get a reaction from a people and thus derailing the whole thread with pointless drivel.
 
SmallCaine said:
Its always brilliant when someone goes on rant while missing or deliberately ignoring a crucial point. If rules were applied correctly as the other post said it would have been 5 runs not 6, so Rashid would be on strike not stokes and they would have run like crazy to get whatever they can.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There is no getting around that NZ would have almost certainly won if rules were properly applied. Selective memory loss of the events ain’t gonna cut it.

But we got some “valuable” input from the rant.
 
SinNombre said:
Exactly. There is no getting around that NZ would have almost certainly won if rules were properly applied. Selective memory loss of the events ain’t gonna cut it.

But we got some “valuable” input from the rant.
Click to expand...

Nz would have almost certainly won because you think so, no one actually has any way to prove it. Your point is just as hypothetical as the other side. But hey if it helps you sleep better at night then keep believing it.
 
stereotypical anti-english bias. england smash their way to world cup triumph after world cup triumph and indian, australian and pakistan fans, whom have never won it since cricket mattered, can only moan.
 
England expected to be un-changed today so still no Stokes.

Could do with Sam Curran with the ball and Livingstone turning up with the bat today to feel like we have a few more bases covered.
 
SmallCaine said:
Its always brilliant when someone goes on rant while missing or deliberately ignoring a crucial point. If rules were applied correctly as the other post said it would have been 5 runs not 6, so Rashid would be on strike not stokes and they would have run like crazy to get whatever they can.
Click to expand...

Law 19.8 of the MCC rulebook states: “If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be any runs for penalties awarded to either side and the allowance for the boundary and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act.”

Doesn't say that Stokes should have been at the non-strikers end. You might interpret it to mean so, but it doesn't specify it. Regardless, even in your Scenario, 4 from 2 with Rashid on strike, the result would be different as Rashid wouldn't be looking for 2 run 2s. He'd either look for a boundary, or a single to get Stokes on strike. The latter being the most likely. Leaving Stokes needing 3 from 1. Which is what I said.
 
Would have preferred to bat first here, make 300+ and Afghanistan aren't chasing it. Given them a chance if they can get to a decent total.
 
This looks like a belter. Good start by the Afghans, Woakes still really struggling. They'll want 320 here.
 
Di Maria's angel said:
What a start. Great hitting from Gurbaz. They'll need 350+ if they want to challenge.
Click to expand...

It would be great fun to see England have to chase 350 on this. You'd fancy us but Afghans but could put some serious pressure on with a few early.
 
Utd heap said:
It would be great fun to see England have to chase 350 on this. You'd fancy us but Afghans but could put some serious pressure on with a few early.
Click to expand...

They've removed the boundary count rule, so England would need 351 FYI
 
I do wonder whether our average age of about 45 is going to take it's toll in the fielding over the tournament.
 
Gandalf Greyhame said:
What a fluent 50 from Gurbaz, albeit on a batting pitch. Never seen him play before, he's got a touch a class about him. Young, too - just 21.
Click to expand...

Afghanistan's story is truly meteoric. The only cricket comments I read in sort of late 2000s was the Guardian and I remember the Guardian newsletter readers had a fund raising to build a concrete pitch in Kabul - which they ended up building from memory

From that to this is just unbelievable. Beyond a point, though, you need infra(and a stable democracy) and I think they won't climb beyond this unfortunately for them

I thought it was very cool how the IPL finals had one team with 3/4 allowed overseas players being from Afghanistan and Ireland. Would not have been in anyone's imagination 10 years ago.
 
The other side to this is that the ICC should really be banning stadiums like this from hosting. 94 in 12..
 
I actually think 2019 Jason Roy and Bairstow would have posted 600 on this.
 
Cracking atmosphere from the Afghan fans in the ground though, fun to see.
 
A long way to go in this game but overall England's bowling just isn't at the level required when you compare it to the likes of India and South Africa. Woakes started terribly in 2019 as well so not hugely concerned about him, but Curran doesn't really offer enough and Rashid has been declining for a year or two now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.