Official ICC Cricket World Cup - Summer 2019 One Dayers

[Vaud]

ChocolateFrog said:

I know a few of us have gone as far as filling a few request forms in on the council website but they've obviously fallen on deaf ears.

I mean hassle your elected councillor directly (and/or MP). It is exactly why they are elected. Local issues. Local village/town facebook is good as well.

Only takes a few minutes...

[thegreenhell]

croyde said:

garyhun said:

I’ve been to baseball games in the US, now that is a boring game.

I went to a Lakers game. Didn't realise it would be so long and slow. 4 hours of play and it was 1-0.

My only previous experience was on the Nintendo Wii. Now that was exciting.

NFL is equally tedious live. Short bursts of action in between much longer pauses. They somehow manage to make a 60 minute game last 3-4 hours. I guess that's why the Americans had to invent cheerleaders.

[suthol]

FiF said:

Apparently it's been confirmed by TV replay that the batsmen hadn't crossed for the second run at the moment the fielder released the return throw which led to the 2+4 overthrows in the final over. Of course it's an Aussie ump who has analysed it to prove it should have been 5 awarded rather than 6.

Been retired as an ump for quite a few years now and without looking it up the law in question states the any runs completed or in progress at the time the ball crosses the boundary shall be counted.

So if my pensioners goldfish memory is correct so is the score.

[GloverMart]

suthol said:

FiF said:

Apparently it's been confirmed by TV replay that the batsmen hadn't crossed for the second run at the moment the fielder released the return throw which led to the 2+4 overthrows in the final over. Of course it's an Aussie ump who has analysed it to prove it should have been 5 awarded rather than 6.

Been retired as an ump for quite a few years now and without looking it up the law in question states the any runs completed or in progress at the time the ball crosses the boundary shall be counted.

So if my pensioners goldfish memory is correct so is the score.

I think the issue is that any runs aren't counted after the player throwing the ball in from the outfield releases the ball. So when the NZ fielder lets go of the ball, the two players hadn't crossed for a second run; in fact, they were probably 10-12 yards from doing so.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter anyway, not least of all to this Englishman.

[Voldemort]

The law talks about the 'event' that causes the over-runs. I would argue that the event that caused it was the ball hitting the bat, not the throw, which is why they used the word 'event'. At the time the ball hit the bat, they had crossed.

/2p

[Fats25]

Interesting thread in how cricket is perceived in the UK, versus where I live today.

When//Where I was growing up (1980's in Kent) we had many pitches available, and many local club teams using them. However at school it was not widely played - a couple of the schools did - but mine didn't. The schools were typically football/hockey or rugby/cricket. I enjoyed playing in the park with mates, but never got into the club cricket as I played football (from memory all year round).

I did make one appearance for a local under 18's club side to help a mate out as an overage player (I was 19). I was ok in the field - got a couple of catches, and threw the ball back a few times to the wicket keeper. Then my mate let me bat at number 3 (as the oppositions score was low). This 15 year old kid launched a cricket ball down the wicket, and I moved out the way as it was so fast and it flew past the wickets to the keeper. I then fluky edged it, and went to run and fell over my pads (had never played in pads before!). I got back in my crease, and dodged another 2 balls, before getting another fluky edge for 4. He then bowled me middle wicket at the end of the over!

I then ignored cricket until 2005 when I watched the Ashes, and since then have been lucky enough to watch cricket at Lords, Oval, SCG, MCG and Galle. County cricket still does not really interest me, but international cricket I enjoy.

Seeing the overgrown pitches shown in photos above, and seeing the Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi people where I am here in Dubai shows the real love for cricket. Here any patch of land will be turned into a cricket pitch. Go outside on a Friday morning, and every empty car park, building site, dust bowl will have a game being played on it. When you see how cricket is perceived in these countries, and how many people play, its amazing that England and NZ with their pool of people to pick from, made the final.

[uk66fastback]

thegreenhell said:

NFL is equally tedious live. Short bursts of action in between much longer pauses. They somehow manage to make a 60 minute game last 3-4 hours. I guess that's why the Americans had to invent cheerleaders.

I cannot understand the love in the UK for American football. All this Superbowl rubbish. The game is awful. They seem to spend 10mins trying to get about three yards, then have a party when they do ...

[anonymous-user]

thegreenhell said:

croyde said:

garyhun said:

I’ve been to baseball games in the US, now that is a boring game.

I went to a Lakers game. Didn't realise it would be so long and slow. 4 hours of play and it was 1-0.

My only previous experience was on the Nintendo Wii. Now that was exciting.

NFL is equally tedious live. Short bursts of action in between much longer pauses. They somehow manage to make a 60 minute game last 3-4 hours. I guess that's why the Americans had to invent cheerleaders.

I love live NFL but it has to be done properly, in the USA, where there are plenty of bars and food stalls to wander off to fill yourself up, and loads of posh seats and TVs inside so you don't miss the game as you try to turn yourself into a typical American.

Doing it in the UK isn't the same

[warch]

If you go on various Australian/NZ media outlets NZ Herald, Fox News, Sydney Morning Herald, they're full of stories about how New Zealand should have won the World Cup. They love to whip up a media storm about decisions that 'unfairly cost ***** the game. See also the final test of the 2017 British and Irish Lions tour. Basically sport is a such a big part of the cultural identity of Australians and Kiwis that any setback is regarded as a national disaster. The UK isn't anywhere near as sport obsessed plus we're conditioned by experience to deal with ignominious failure in major sporting competitions so we're much more phlegmatic about it when it occurs.

Even if the overthrow only counted for five runs that wasn't actually the last ball of the game. Who would bet against Stokes having a go and nailing it clean into the stands when he needed to.

[Vaud]

keirik said:

I love live NFL but it has to be done properly, in the USA, where there are plenty of bars and food stalls to wander off to fill yourself up, and loads of posh seats and TVs inside so you don't miss the game as you try to turn yourself into a typical American.

Doing it in the UK isn't the same

Indeed.. it is a show as much as anything. The obsession with stats is also quite different in the US. I spend a lot of time in the US and none of the main sports (basketball, baseball, NFL) really click for me on TV.

Baseball is ok in person, especially if you find yourself sat to a patient fan who can explain the intricacies and bring the game to life.

Nascar/IndyCar is ok to pass the time, ideally in a bar.

[Legend83]

My best mate was lucky enough to attend the reception at Downing Street last night - got to hold the trophy and everything the jammy git.

Said Stokes wasn't chatty - not because he wasn't friendly, simply he was trying not to throw up in the gardens of number 10 having been out on the serious lash after the game. I think most of them were pretty tender.

Well deserved!

[croyde]

jmwalkeruk said:

croyde said:

I went to a Lakers game. Didn't realise it would be so long and slow. 4 hours of play and it was 1-0.

My only previous experience was on the Nintendo Wii. Now that was exciting.

It was so tedious you forgot the name of the team you saw play?

The Dodgers, formerly from New York, are who I saw but I had imbibed so many large GnTs at the time and was with a beautiful woman so I didn't really care

[ralphrj]

warch said:

Even if the overthrow only counted for five runs that wasn't actually the last ball of the game. Who would bet against Stokes having a go and nailing it clean into the stands when he needed to.

This.

If 5 runs had been awarded England would have needed 4 from 2 to win with Adil Rashid on strike. However, that is not an impossible task. The NZ field would have to be spread around the boundary so as long as Rashid got bat on ball there would have been an easy single to get Stokes on strike for the final ball. Stokes would have been faced with needing 3 to win or 2 to force a super over. Boult's final delivery was a full toss wide of leg stump which Stokes could have left to be called a wide (and then had 2 to win or 1 to tie) or smacked into the stands.

The overthrow debate is a distraction from the NZ errors that allowed England to score 21 runs from 9 deliveries. In particular:

Boult taking a step back on the rope after catching Stokes.

Guptill attempting to run out Stokes that resulted in the overthrows. If he had let the ball go dead England would have needed 7 from 2, a much harder task. Compare Guptill's attempted run out with Archer's fielding of the penultimate delivery. Archer made no attempt to run out Neesham as the an overthrow could easily have cost them the Cup.

[Fonzey]

ralphrj said:

Archer made no attempt to run out Neesham as the an overthrow could easily have cost them the Cup.

Haha I forgot about that, I was screaming DONT THROW at the TV His arm seemed to twitch for a split second as he thought about it.

So tense, anyone else into double figure watching of the highlights yet?

[GloverMart]

ralphrj said:

Compare Guptill's attempted run out with Archer's fielding of the penultimate delivery. Archer made no attempt to run out Neesham as the an overthrow could easily have cost them the Cup.

If Archer didn't get a shout from a team mate saying not to throw, that was an incredibly cool-headed thing to do. I'd have put everything into throwing down the stumps, regardless of the outcome, probably missed and cost the country the victory. Archer was very clever not to throw.

[Legend83]

GloverMart said:

If Archer didn't get a shout from a team mate saying not to throw, that was an incredibly cool-headed thing to do. I'd have put everything into throwing down the stumps, regardless of the outcome, probably missed and cost the country the victory. Archer was very clever not to throw.

Harsh on Guptill. In that pressure cooker with the ball coming to you deep in the field you will have one thought, and one thought only - get it back to the stumps as quickly as possible. 99 times out of 100 that throw just goes to the keeper / back-up.

[ralphrj]

GloverMart said:

If Archer didn't get a shout from a team mate saying not to throw, that was an incredibly cool-headed thing to do. I'd have put everything into throwing down the stumps, regardless of the outcome, probably missed and cost the country the victory. Archer was very clever not to throw.

I suspect that Morgan may have instructed the team to not try and take out the stumps with a direct hit as the risk of overthrows was so high.

England lost a T20 World Cup game to the Netherlands at Lord's in 2009 when Stuart Broad missed the stumps and they ran an overthrow off the final ball.

[FiF]

GloverMart said:

suthol said:

FiF said:

Apparently it's been confirmed by TV replay that the batsmen hadn't crossed for the second run at the moment the fielder released the return throw which led to the 2+4 overthrows in the final over. Of course it's an Aussie ump who has analysed it to prove it should have been 5 awarded rather than 6.

Been retired as an ump for quite a few years now and without looking it up the law in question states the any runs completed or in progress at the time the ball crosses the boundary shall be counted.

So if my pensioners goldfish memory is correct so is the score.

I think the issue is that any runs aren't counted after the player throwing the ball in from the outfield releases the ball. So when the NZ fielder lets go of the ball, the two players hadn't crossed for a second run; in fact, they were probably 10-12 yards from doing so.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter anyway, not least of all to this Englishman.

Personal view, if only 5 had been given Stokes would have been facing a different scenario 4 off last two balls, or 3 off the last one, so he would have gone to club that last ball, hopefully for four.

However, having said that New Zealand did not deserve to lose on the back of that, so I reckon the tie was a fair result as with the super over it reset things and both teams were in with an equal chance. I was surprised it counted back to boundaries and not wickets, but again different rules different scenario so advice on tactics from dressing room would have been different.

Just listened to the last hour of TMS commentary again, twice. Bit dusty. And I don't care for limited over games.

[GloverMart]

Legend83 said:

GloverMart said:

If Archer didn't get a shout from a team mate saying not to throw, that was an incredibly cool-headed thing to do. I'd have put everything into throwing down the stumps, regardless of the outcome, probably missed and cost the country the victory. Archer was very clever not to throw.

Harsh on Guptill. In that pressure cooker with the ball coming to you deep in the field you will have one thought, and one thought only - get it back to the stumps as quickly as possible. 99 times out of 100 that throw just goes to the keeper / back-up.

Wasn't intending to have a dig at Guptill, more giving Archer praise for being so cool and not throwing it.

[Legend83]

GloverMart said:

Wasn't intending to have a dig at Guptill, more giving Archer praise for being so cool and not throwing it.

Poor wording on my part, I wasn't suggesting anyone was having a dig - I just meant harsh on Guptill in general! "Unlucky" is probably a better phrase.