ICC Cricket World Cup 2019

Stig said:

ForeverAddickted said:

The way New Zealand have lost though certainly feels worse than any penalty shootout in Footballl

Surely wickets should come ahead of boundaries

Yep, all about encouraging attacking play. Cricket's equivalent of the away goals rule. If it achieves what it's supposed to, it's a good thing. If it doesn't, it's a bit of a joke. Either way everyone knew the rules from the outset. Well done England, hard luck New Zealand.

The thing is, you could say the winner should be the team that finished highest in the table - That would have suited England. You could go on the previous head to head -  That would have suited England. You could go on fewest wickets - That would have suited New Zealand etc... Ultimately you decide on something before the tournament for the eventuality and that is what it is. 

North Lower Neil said:

se9addick said:

Surprised that the peak viewing figure for the final on Sunday across both Sky & Channel 4 was only y7.9M, would have expected much more?

Cricket isn't as popular as football, for example.

Plus the tennis was on, it was a nice summer's day etc etc

Yes, and not by would have watched the build up and earlier matches and been invested in the team

golfaddick said:

I see there are still rumblings for NZ about how the final should be "drawn" and we share the trophy.

Apart from the fact that everyone knew the rules & signed up to them before the competition started, would someone care to point out the following to the disgruntled black caps:

If the "decider" went on a head to head basis then England would have won, based on the fact we beat them in the group stage.

If the "decider" went on net run rate in the final table then England would have won

If the "decider" went on the final places in the table then England would have won, being 3rd to their 4th.

Jeez............how many times do we need to have won the bloody thing  !!!

Can we replace disgruntled with disappointed please?

What was the tennis audience?
Who cares which recurring foreign millionaire wins this year's pit pat pit pat pit pat Out! x 500 anyway?

The_President said:

On re-watching the final there are a couple of quetrions.....

1) For the last ball of the England innings Wood should have come out with no pads or helmet and just legged it.

2) Were there any reviews available in the Super Over?

1) rules state you have to be in full gear as though they were going to bat. Same with runners. Could possibly have got away without the helmet. But unlikely to be able to justify it as when has a tail ender ever walked out to bat against a quick bowler and not worn a helmet.

2) no idea.

cantersaddick said:

The_President said:

On re-watching the final there are a couple of quetrions.....

1) For the last ball of the England innings Wood should have come out with no pads or helmet and just legged it.

2) Were there any reviews available in the Super Over?

1) rules state you have to be in full gear as though they were going to bat. Same with runners. Could possibly have got away without the helmet. But unlikely to be able to justify it as when has a tail ender ever walked out to bat against a quick bowler and not worn a helmet.

2) no idea.

But there was no chance of Wood actually facing a ball. 

cantersaddick said:

The_President said:

On re-watching the final there are a couple of quetrions.....

1) For the last ball of the England innings Wood should have come out with no pads or helmet and just legged it.

2) Were there any reviews available in the Super Over?

1) rules state you have to be in full gear as though they were going to bat. Same with runners. Could possibly have got away without the helmet. But unlikely to be able to justify it as when has a tail ender ever walked out to bat against a quick bowler and not worn a helmet.

2) no idea.

The Law about the external protective equipment a runner has to wear (Law 25.5.2.4) is clear.  But is there really a Law that states what an incoming batsman has to wear/use?  

I like the idea of Wood going out in running spikes, lycra and the longest-handled bat he could get away with..!

cantersaddick said:

cafcfan1990 said:

cantersaddick said:

The_President said:

On re-watching the final there are a couple of quetrions.....

1) For the last ball of the England innings Wood should have come out with no pads or helmet and just legged it.

2) Were there any reviews available in the Super Over?

1) rules state you have to be in full gear as though they were going to bat. Same with runners. Could possibly have got away without the helmet. But unlikely to be able to justify it as when has a tail ender ever walked out to bat against a quick bowler and not worn a helmet.

2) no idea.

But there was no chance of Wood actually facing a ball. 

The key point being dressed as though they are going to bat. I.e. as if he would be facing a ball.

Have to admit I am not 100% familiar with the law but I do not believe Wood couldn't have got away with making himself a 'little lighter'. 

Perhaps not in the spirit of the game though and doesn't matter now. 

Just watched the last few hours of the final again on Sky "as live". 

I had to remind myself on two or three occasions that we had actually gone on to win it!

Great memories. 

suzisausage said:

I still however don’t understand the way they explained rules of the super over and how we won. By drawing. 

If scores tied the winner was determined by team scoring most boundaries in the final. 

Rewatching I was impressed that the producer called the super over with England on around 150.