Official Cricket Thread

[Bobson Dugnutt]

It seems to be the English way tbf, Dodgy goal in extra time in the football, drop goal in added time in the rugby, and now this. Would love for an English team to absolutely crush one to see what the excuses would be then, but I'll take a tournament where England beat all the other semi finalists along the way tbh.

Much prefer being a bit jammy over the years of mediocrity that came before it, none of it mars the elation I had at the end

 

[legend166]

Imagine being chirpy after winning your first World Cup ever on a technicality when we've won five of the things.

 

[Zappy]

It isn't really about New Zealand. Spare a thought for the English players who should be celebrating right now. But instead their victory will always be tarnished by this and there will always be a big * around this world cup.

It might be 1 in a million, but I'd hate to see it happen again. Given the English cricketing team represents basically every other country in the world, I think we can all find common ground in that.

Click to shrink...

Winning like that just makes the celebrations bigger. Its like winning a penalty shoot out - for the winners its even sweeter. The tension and drama and then the win just makes it better.

As an Aussie though I imagine you think winning is made better by getting the sandpaper out....

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Imagine being chirpy after winning your first World Cup ever on a technicality when we've won five of the things.

Click to shrink...

More of this please, I need your tears for lube

 

[Bobson Dugnutt]

Imagine being chirpy after winning your first World Cup ever on a technicality when we've won five of the things.

Click to shrink...

Only teams of non cheats are allowed to get chirpy mate

 

[Zappy]

It seems to be the English way tbf, Dodgy goal in extra time in the football, drop goal in added time in the rugby, and now this. Would love for an English team to absolutely crush one to see what the excuses would be then, but I'll take a tournament where England beat all the other semi finalists along the way tbh.

Much prefer being a bit jammy over the years of mediocrity that came before it, none of it mars the elation I had at the end

Click to shrink...

The English way is soul-crushing heroicism in defeat.....usually with the exact same fortune we had yesterday in reverse....

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Haha fair play

 

[Dan]

Cheating Aussie tears are the best tears

Click to shrink...

One of my Aussie friends decided to try and wind me up when England lost a warm up game vs Australia a few days before the World Cup. I repaid the favour, plus interest, after the Semi Final.

There isnt any country that breeds more sore losers than Australia. And that's pretty impressive for a nation of 25 million people.

 

[Deleted member 1698]

Winning like that just makes the celebrations bigger. Its like winning a penalty shoot out - for the winners its even sweeter. The tension and drama and then the win just makes it better.

As an Aussie though I imagine you think winning is made better by getting the sandpaper out....

Click to shrink...

You'll notice that sandpaper, unlike mints, never actually won a team anything.

Pretty hard to tarnish a loss now isn't it?

 

[Deleted member 14649]

I'm struggling to understand why people are salty about the number one ranked team in the world winning the World Cup.

 

[BanGy]

The pain of this loss has turned into a deep sadness that I fear only the Rugby World Cup can possibly cure 🤞🏽🤞🏽

 

[Geoff]

On this supposed 'controversy' about the four overthrows. I think, at best, you could say the rule was ambiguous given it says the batsmen get the benefit of the runs completed and England completed two runs

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

Click to shrink...

To me that seems to cover a situation where where the ball somehow goes out for a boundary, and is therefore dead, before the players complete the run. It doesn't seem to deny the batting team the run they are running at the time of the throw because that is a 'run completed'. The ball does not become dead at the point of throwing, so I can't see any argument for the second run not being completed and if it is completed, then it counts.

Cricinfo throwing shade tut tut tut. The article that spawned a million salty social media posts.

 

[Hamchan]

Imagine being chirpy after winning your first World Cup ever on a technicality when we've won five of the things.

Click to shrink...

Haha it's kinda cute. I'll forgive them since they're first timers. We've had decades of English tears before this cup so they haven't had the chance to be chirpy. They gotta get it out of their system.

 

[Geoff]

You'll notice that sandpaper, unlike mints, never actually won a team anything.

Pretty hard to tarnish a loss now isn't it?

Click to shrink...

That's only true if you choose to believe the sandpaper was used in one game and one game only. And given the Aussies decided against even looking into previous games, that's a pretty big 'if'.

 

[Deleted member 26526]

What a world cup
What a game
What a win

Fantastic game and a great advert for the sport

Well done England

 

[Zappy]

You'll notice that sandpaper, unlike mints, never actually won a team anything.

Pretty hard to tarnish a loss now isn't it?

Click to shrink...

You know what's interesting? The amount of class in defeat the NZ team and supporters have. An unbelievable way to lose a game. Yet they react brilliantly and with good humour.

Funny how classless the semi-finalist loser against England are by comparison. Class - you can't buy it.

 

[Joe Spangle]

World Champions!

England won a thing!

What a match. Still buzzing. My friend was there at Lords, she said it was unbelievable atmosphere at the end.

 

[Hamchan]

On this supposed 'controversy' about the four overthrows. I think, at best, you could say the rule was ambiguous given it says the batsmen get the benefit of the runs completed and England completed two runs



To me that seems to cover a situation where where the ball somehow goes out for a boundary, and is therefore dead, before the players complete the run. It doesn't seem to deny the batting team the run they are running at the time of the throw because that is a 'run completed'. The ball does not become dead at the point of throwing, so I can't see any argument for the second run not being completed and if it is completed, then it counts.

Cricinfo throwing shade tut tut tut. The article that spawned a million salty social media posts.

Click to shrink...

I don't think it's really that ambiguous. Forgive me if I'm missing something in those words.

They had completed one run and were going for their second which was the one in progress. The run in progress counts if the batsman had already crossed when the throw was initiated. For England they hadn't crossed yet when Guptill threw it, so their second run shouldn't have counted.

 

[Zem]

Best thing is def the Aussies being salty as fuck haha.

NZ have been class and most English fans already know we didn't really deserve to win and another super over should have happened.

 

[Solaris]

Still hurts so much.

Click to shrink...

The pain of this loss has turned into a deep sadness that I fear only the Rugby World Cup can possibly cure 🤞🏽🤞🏽

Click to shrink...

I know it doesn't mean much but NZ played so well and didn't deserve to lose that way. It really sucks.

England have been on the end of so much misery in Sports tournaments that I still can't believe we actually benefited from the fuckery for once.

 

[Geoff]

I don't think it's really that ambiguous. Forgive me if I'm missing something in those words.

They had completed one run and were going for their second which was the one in progress. The run in progress counts if the batsman had already crossed when the throw was initiated. For England they hadn't crossed yet when Guptill threw it, so their second run shouldn't have counted.

Click to shrink...

But where does it say the second run was voided by the Guptill throw? It doesn't say that.

BTW I am prepared to argue this for a long time, just so you know.

 

[Hamchan]

But where does it say the second run was voided by the Guptill throw? It doesn't say that.

BTW I am prepared to argue this for a long time, just so you know.

Click to shrink...

"together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act"

To me this is the spot. There is an if statement that has the condition of the run in progress counting if they had already crossed when it was thrown. It's not that the second run was counted and then voided by the rule, it's that it never counted as a run in the first place once the ball left Guptill's hands and they hadn't crossed.

 

[Deleted member 1698]

That's only true if you choose to believe the sandpaper was used in one game and one game only. And given the Aussies decided against even looking into previous games, that's a pretty big 'if'.

Click to shrink...

Yes but Australia have been losing pretty much everything for years, up till and including, this world cup.

So nothing changed.

Until England cheated they had not won the ashes in around 140 years.

 

[legend166]

Probably should listen to Simon Taufel:

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/world-cup-umps-got-it-wrong-taufel-20190715-p527g9.html

 

[Simon21]

 

[Window]

On the bright side, this WC rekindled my love of ODIs. I pretty much stopped watching them after the last WC.

 

[RedSparrows]

OH THE BANTS

 

[Geoff]

"together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act"

To me this is the spot. There is an if statement that has the condition of the run in progress counting if they had already crossed when it was thrown. It's not that the second run was counted and then voided by the rule, it's that it never counted as a run in the first place once the ball left Guptill's hands and they hadn't crossed.

Click to shrink...

But that is simply an interpretation. I can see how you get there and why you take that inference but it's not definitive and is open to interpretation in both directions.

 

[Joe Spangle]

We will call it the 'Bat of GOD'

 

[BanGy]

Drinking isn't helping...

Void.

 

[Window]

SBS didn't even have this game as the top story in their sports segment. They went with Wimbledon. BOOOOO.

 

[Fevaweva]

These salty Australians give me life. Its not like they were close to getting into the final and England fluked their way in.

 

[Simon21]

These salty Australians give me life. Its not even if they were close to getting in the final and England fluked their way in.

Click to shrink...

It really does take some of the shine off the win to know how much we've disappointed all those poor Indians and Aussies...

Wait, no, the other thing.

 

[Deleted member 1698]

On the bright side, this WC rekindled my love of ODIs. I pretty much stopped watching them after the last WC.

Click to shrink...

In all seriousness, it was a pretty good tournament. However:

* The structure of the tournament sucked. While you can't really control the weather, you must remember that another week of rain would have absolutely killed it. Even if you don't have fewer teams, pools, as per every other world cup in the umm world, is a better way to go. Even the old "super sixers" was better in that by the time the tournament got to that stage, everyone more or less forgot the crap bits.
* I still don't understand powerplays. I think if you can't make the middle overs interesting, something like playing 40 overs is still a better way to go.
* The toss is way too important. England did well to chase, but really they had very low totals. Had Aus or NZ put on something decent they would have been at a huge disadvantage. Every card game ever makes a big deal about balancing who goes first, cricket should as well either via a substitution for the losing side, or a couple of fewer overs for them to bat.

These salty Australians give me life. Its not like they were close to getting into the final and England fluked their way in.

Click to shrink...

Back to less seriousness, what do you mean close to the final? Australia coached all the way to victory.

 

[Geoff]

The pitch situation was weird. The ICC are trying to claim it had nothing to do with them but those are certainly not the pitches English groundsmen would have chosen on purpose. Perhaps the rain had something to do with it but I'm not sure I really buy that because, whilst there was quite a lot of rain for June, rain is not uncommon in England and these mushy pitches don't seem to be the usual result.

I remember the series that started it all for England, vs NZ in the aftermath of the last WC. That series was played much earlier in the year (IIRC) and there was plenty of rain about then because it affected the games but the pitches were fine and the runs followed accordingly.

My bet is the ICC stuck their oar in somehow with some coded messages about making it even contest between bat and ball AKA pitches that suit India and Australia but not England and the mushy wickets were the end result.

 

[Zappy]

The pitch situation was weird. The ICC are trying to claim it had nothing to do with them but those are certainly not the pitches English groundsmen would have chosen on purpose. Perhaps the rain had something to do with it but I'm not sure I really buy that because, whilst there was quite a lot of rain for June, rain is not uncommon in England and these mushy pitches don't seem to be the usual result.

I remember the series that started it all for England, vs NZ in the aftermath of the last WC. That series was played much earlier in the year (IIRC) and there was plenty of rain about then because it affected the games but the pitches were fine and the runs followed accordingly.

My bet is the ICC stuck their oar in somehow with some coded messages about making it even contest between bat and ball AKA pitches that suit India and Australia but not England and the mushy wickets were the end result.

Click to shrink...

Those pitches did not suit Australia anymore than us. The "Indian" Cricket Council living up to its name once again! Ironically it was the pitch that did them as neither the ICC nor anyone else could know how much those pitches would suit the NZ bowlers....

 

[RedSparrows]

Just been on reddit. Why is it the Aussies crying so much?

And they call Poms whingers, eh!

 

[Geoff]

Those pitches did not suit Australia anymore than us. The "Indian" Cricket Council living up to its name once again! Ironically it was the pitch that did them as neither the ICC nor anyone else could know how much those pitches would suit the NZ bowlers....

Click to shrink...

They have the same issue the Indians have. Aggressive attack and top order power hitting but big problems in the middle order with SR or longevity or both. Neither team is set up for 350+ scores.

 

[Rabalder.]

Aussie salt is some of the finest salt.

 

[Zappy]

They have the same issue the Indians have. Aggressive attack and top order power hitting but big problems in the middle order with SR or longevity or both. Neither team is set up for 350+ scores.

Click to shrink...

But their batsman are generally hit through the line types apart from Smith. So they want ball coming onto bat.

 

[Geoff]

But their batsman are generally hit through the line types apart from Smith. So they want ball coming onto bat.

Click to shrink...

That's true I suppose but I still think they would do much better on these pitches than good pitches because they can't make the big scores, despite the technical preference of their top order for bounce and pace off the wicket.

 

[Deleted member 1698]

But their batsman are generally hit through the line types apart from Smith. So they want ball coming onto bat.

Click to shrink...

Australia had a 380 in this tournament. The problem was really Stonis. With him way out of form there was always going to be a struggle at some stage.

Bring in Short and Wade and batting is not a problem.

The bowling is more the issue. Starc is only good under certain conditions and Cummings looks tired. Unfortunately there just isn't anyone else exciting.

You don't need to score 380 if you have someone who can take wickets. A decent spinner for example. Lyon was solidish, Zampa flat out sucked.

 

[Window]

They keep showing the super over run out replay on TV and each time in my mind I imagine Guptil making it but then reality comes crashing in.

Going forwards, there's a Test championship coming up right? Can't wait.

 

[Turnbl]

It's been a long long wait since '92. As a final that was utterly absorbing, tense and ridiculous in equal measure.

The salt in here... Let's not pretend had the exact same match happened in reverse, everybody would be talking about trophy asterisks for New Zealand and rule changes for poor England.

In any match, the 6 'catch', the final over 6, the 6 'overthrows', then a super over with both sides gaining and losing momentum in equal measure would be incredible, yet to happen in a World Cup Final is preposterous. For England to end up winning with the 'englishness' that seems to grasp defeat in all sports just seems impossible.

Genuine pangs of sympathy for New Zealand. They are a truly excellent team and played an equal part in a compelling sporting final for the ages.

I never thought we'd ever get here but finally that's the 3 main World Cups taken care of - 1966, 2003, 2019 - time to cancel sport!

 

[DixieDean82]

I'm pleased England won. It just goes to show what can happen when you stop looking down your nose at one form of the game.

 

[JimNastics]

Aussie salt is some of the finest salt.

Click to shrink...

I'm also finding the Indian salt on social media to be absolutely brilliant, they seem to be the saltiest of all from what I've seen. They are so easy to wind up, the only downside is I've wasted most of my morning on it.

The whole thing is amazing and magnificent, still can't believe it happened, and the way it happened has led to an opportunity to massively troll on England haters.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

"I've seen a lot of people asking who wrote the script for England's 50th over, in particular the six runs from the overthrow," writes Chris Laycock. "Does no one else remember the episode of Neighbours where Karl needed a six off the last ball to win? He hit it for two, but then got four overthrows to win the match. Just me then?"

This is actually a thing. As neighboursepisodes.com describes it:

Drew is batting and now they need 6 to win off two balls. Unfortunately, the ball goes in the air and Drew is caught out. Now it's up to Karl to make six off the last ball. Joe raises his eyes to heaven and prays. Gordon Collins torments Lou and says he doesn't fancy Karl's chances.Karl steps up to the crease and Joe advises him - "Never Give In" The ball comes and Karl hits it, but it isn't hit for six. However, a series of fielding errors ensues - they run two and then the ball goes over the boundary and gives them and extra four. Our Heroes start shouting excitedly that they've won, Joe kisses Karl and Lou tells Gordon Collins that he'll take cash or cheque!'

Neighbours :D

 

[Geoff]

"I've seen a lot of people asking who wrote the script for England's 50th over, in particular the six runs from the overthrow," writes Chris Laycock. "Does no one else remember the episode of Neighbours where Karl needed a six off the last ball to win? He hit it for two, but then got four overthrows to win the match. Just me then?"

This is actually a thing. As neighboursepisodes.com describes it:

Drew is batting and now they need 6 to win off two balls. Unfortunately, the ball goes in the air and Drew is caught out. Now it's up to Karl to make six off the last ball. Joe raises his eyes to heaven and prays. Gordon Collins torments Lou and says he doesn't fancy Karl's chances.Karl steps up to the crease and Joe advises him - "Never Give In" The ball comes and Karl hits it, but it isn't hit for six. However, a series of fielding errors ensues - they run two and then the ball goes over the boundary and gives them and extra four. Our Heroes start shouting excitedly that they've won, Joe kisses Karl and Lou tells Gordon Collins that he'll take cash or cheque!'

Neighbours :D

Click to shrink...

Somewhere in 20th century Cockermouth, a young red-headed boy is eating fish fingers, beans and chips and watching that episode of Neighbours. A strange expression passes over his face as if struck by some insight. He turns to the camera, smiles and winks.

 

[RedSparrows]

"I've seen a lot of people asking who wrote the script for England's 50th over, in particular the six runs from the overthrow," writes Chris Laycock. "Does no one else remember the episode of Neighbours where Karl needed a six off the last ball to win? He hit it for two, but then got four overthrows to win the match. Just me then?"

This is actually a thing. As neighboursepisodes.com describes it:

Drew is batting and now they need 6 to win off two balls. Unfortunately, the ball goes in the air and Drew is caught out. Now it's up to Karl to make six off the last ball. Joe raises his eyes to heaven and prays. Gordon Collins torments Lou and says he doesn't fancy Karl's chances.Karl steps up to the crease and Joe advises him - "Never Give In" The ball comes and Karl hits it, but it isn't hit for six. However, a series of fielding errors ensues - they run two and then the ball goes over the boundary and gives them and extra four. Our Heroes start shouting excitedly that they've won, Joe kisses Karl and Lou tells Gordon Collins that he'll take cash or cheque!'

Neighbours :D

Click to shrink...

As if things couldn't be any sweeter vis a vis Aussie salt, support for England comes via Australia's top TV export to England. Amazing. This final is beyond scripting.

 

[Deleted member 1698]

As if things couldn't be any sweeter vis a vis Aussie salt, support for England comes via Australia's top TV export to England. Amazing. This final is beyond scripting.

Click to shrink...

Maybe England's Australian coach simply watched it growing up.