Large kwblarge

Its Summer! - the Fever Cricket Thread.

C-Diddy
Chant Savant
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post image

So we have an England vs New Zealand final...

This is what happens when you remove "Gamesmanship" from sport. 

I hope you are all happy now!

"Ive just re-visited this and once again realised that C-Diddy is a genius - a drunk, Newcastle bred disgrace - but a genius." - Hard News, 11:39am 4th June 2009

Buffon II
Legend
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post 41fb1ce000000578 4660746 image m 2 1499071218717

I'm a lot happier we are playing England instead of Australia.

Despite the fact England are a much better team, they are at home and under immense pressure not to bottle it.

Against Australia at Lord's we would have had absolutely no chance.

Three for me, and two for them.

Lonegunmen
Legend
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post reacher

Can we have Steve Waugh "wow wow, what is he good for" (12th Man) spend another 30 minutes talking about himself. It seemed to motivate NZ against India.

164 games  164 games

Blew.2
Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post nix

  Supporter For Ever - Keep The Faith - Foundation Member - Never Lets FAX Get In The Way Of A Good Yarn

                                                      

C-Diddy
Chant Savant
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post image

I am going to sleep so well tonight

"Ive just re-visited this and once again realised that C-Diddy is a genius - a drunk, Newcastle bred disgrace - but a genius." - Hard News, 11:39am 4th June 2009

Oi Oi Edgecumbe
One in a million
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post picture 91

C-Diddy wrote:

I am going to sleep so well tonight

Good night CD

Oi Oi Edgecumbe... lets have a clean sheet

C-Diddy
Chant Savant
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post image

I slept so fudgeing well. What did I miss?

"Ive just re-visited this and once again realised that C-Diddy is a genius - a drunk, Newcastle bred disgrace - but a genius." - Hard News, 11:39am 4th June 2009

RR
Bossi Insider
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post a49a55578dbc3545891a3968b88a82c3

Shattered, so close but so far.

Oi Oi Edgecumbe
One in a million
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post picture 91

Most days i would think 241 for 8 would beat 241 all out

Oi Oi Edgecumbe... lets have a clean sheet

el grapadura
Moderator
Woof Woof
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post picture 1609

Most days i would think 241 for 8 would beat 241 all out

Yeah you would think so, wouldn't you. Deciding the outcome on boundaries hit seems kind of arbitrary. 

Gooner 4 Life
Starting XI
FilledFilledFilledEmptyEmpty
For post picture 2513

They' should've just had another super over. Bit like sudden death penalty shoot out. keep going until there is a clear winner.

C-Diddy
Chant Savant
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post image

el grapadura wrote:

Most days i would think 241 for 8 would beat 241 all out

Yeah you would think so, wouldn't you. Deciding the outcome on boundaries hit seems kind of arbitrary. 

Yeah but most days 50 overs would be enough time for a team to score 242 runs

"Ive just re-visited this and once again realised that C-Diddy is a genius - a drunk, Newcastle bred disgrace - but a genius." - Hard News, 11:39am 4th June 2009

Lonegunmen
Legend
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post reacher

This has to be the most piss poor way of deciding a game since the Fudgewit-Lewis system.

164 games  164 games

aitkenmike
Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post picture 1277

el grapadura wrote:

Most days i would think 241 for 8 would beat 241 all out

Yeah you would think so, wouldn't you. Deciding the outcome on boundaries hit seems kind of arbitrary. 

It's like losing the Coastlands Cup on the number of corners conceded :'(

Should be another Super Over until it's decided, even if you end up with the fifth seamers bowling at 9 and 10

aitkenmike
Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post picture 1277

Lonegunmen wrote:

This has to be the most piss poor way of deciding a game since the Fudgewit-Lewis system.

Duckworth Lewis is relatively good.  Certainly no one has been able to come up with a better system.

el grapadura
Moderator
Woof Woof
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post picture 1609

aitkenmike wrote:

el grapadura wrote:

Most days i would think 241 for 8 would beat 241 all out

Yeah you would think so, wouldn't you. Deciding the outcome on boundaries hit seems kind of arbitrary. 

It's like losing the Coastlands Cup on the number of corners conceded :'(

Should be another Super Over until it's decided, even if you end up with the fifth seamers bowling at 9 and 10

Yeah, I had similar thought this morning - the whole Super Over silliness was akin to going to a penalty shootout, having scores tied after the series of first five, and then deciding to give the trophy who had the most shots on goal/corners/possession, take your arbitrary pick.

Because this was just bizarre - you don't have to go through the drama of a Super Over if you're going to use a tie-breaker like this. Just apply the tie-breaker, whatever it is, at the end of the 50. But if you're going to go to the effort, then at least do it properly, even if it means that 2 or 3 overs have to be bowled.

I mean, I appreciate that no-one expected a situation like this to happen in a World Cup final but still. I guess at least the Black Caps will be a part of many a pub quiz in the coming years as the only team to not lose a Cricket World Cup final and still not take the trophy.

Buffon II
Legend
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post 41fb1ce000000578 4660746 image m 2 1499071218717

I don't think using wickets lost is a great tie breaking method to be honest.

Teams have 10 wickets and 11 batsmen for a reason, they are there to be completely utilized if required. 

You look at the last two balls of England's innings. We managed run outs on both. They could afford these run outs because they had wickets in hand, and resources that could still be used.

Any metric used to determine a winner in the event of a tie is going to have its flaws, and be somewhat arbitrary. Unfortunately we ended up on the wrong side of it today.

Three for me, and two for them.

aitkenmike
Marquee
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post picture 1277

Buffon II wrote:

I don't think using wickets lost is a great tie breaking method to be honest.

Teams have 10 wickets and 11 batsmen for a reason, they are there to be completely utilized if required. 

You look at the last two balls of England's innings. We managed run outs on both. They could afford these run outs because they had wickets in hand, and resources that could still be used.

Any metric used to determine a winner in the event of a tie is going to have its flaws, and be somewhat arbitrary. Unfortunately we ended up on the wrong side of it today.

Completely agree with you on the calls to do it on wickets in hand - it is just as arbitrary as boundaries, for the exact reasons you mentioned.  England 'earnt' the right to concede those runouts from how they had performed during the rest of the innings.

Lonegunmen
Legend
FilledFilledFilledFilledFilled
For post reacher

Robbed, the 6 should have been a five.

164 games  164 games

LeighboNZ
Starting XI
FilledFilledFilledEmptyEmpty
For post klopp

Lonegunmen wrote:

Robbed, the 6 should have been a five.

An obscure rule BUT given the amount of time they took deliberating it, you would think they would have got it right. It's a world cup final, surely they must have more than a few trainspotters around to advise them on strange goings-on

LFC Wellington

Onslow Cricket Club

"...sure beats doin' stuff."

Post New Reply

Please Login or Create an account to post a reply.