CWC 19 : England V New Zealand CWC Final

[ZeroTheHero]

You can go crazy with the ifs and buts of a sporting occasion.

Exactly. It always makes me laugh when a football manager says (after a draw), 'If we'd put that chance in after ten minutes, then we'd have won that match.' Nope - the other 80 minutes would have played out completely differently, so there is absolutely no way you can say that...

 

[BigCrompy]

As a matter of interest - why did we bat first? Was there another toss?

Not so - tournament rules set in stone - bat second in the main dig, bat first in the Super Over.

 

[Sarge]

As a matter of interest - why did we bat first? Was there another toss?

risking a Whoosh....& Im not 100% on this, but the super over scenario, I think(?) , as to who bats first ( in the super over shoot out) is a reversal of which team batted first in the 50 overs apiece contest.... it was explained , sort of, in between the 2x 50 overs sessions ending in a draw and the super overs shoot out commencing, by the commentators.... who were probably as aux fait with how super overs work as just about everyone else, apart from presumably ICC or match officials ensuring said commentators had the super overs rules on a print out handed to them after the 50 overs contest was drawn

 

[makv]

Not so - tournament rules set in stone - bat second in the main dig, bat first in the Super Over.

That’s fascinating. I wonder what the reasoning behind that is? Some Ozzie “journo” was complaining that it gave our batsmen an unfair advantage because they were “warmed up”.

 

[makv]

risking a Whoosh....& Im not 100% on this, but the super over scenario, I think(?) , as to who bats first ( in the super over shoot out) is a reversal of which team batted first in the 50 overs apiece contest.... it was explained , sort of, in between the 2x 50 overs sessions ending in a draw and the super overs shoot out commencing, by the commentators.... who were probably as aux fait with how super overs work as just about everyone else, apart from presumably ICC or match officials ensuring said commentators had the super overs rules on a print out handed to them after the 50 overs contest was drawn

Umpires didn’t know the overthrow rule though [emoji2371]

 

[warksox]

That’s fascinating. I wonder what the reasoning behind that is? Some Ozzie “journo” was complaining that it gave our batsmen an unfair advantage because they were “warmed up”.

What that idiot oz journo failed to mention though was the unfair advantage given to the NZ bowler who was already "warmed up".

 

[warksox]

Umpires didn’t know the overthrow rule though [emoji2371]

Maybe they did, as @Marked Ox says in post #266, the rule can be interpreted more than one way

 

[BigCrompy]

Maybe they did, as @Marked Ox says in post #266, the rule can be interpreted more than one way

Agree with this point entirely - and also, at the village green level (and laws should be applicable across the board) there are circumstances where it is absolutely impossible for one umpire to be watching the fielder as he releases a throw, and simultaneously the stumps, the crease, and the runners whether they have crossed or not; as Simon Taufel's rather silly interpretation would require the umpire to do. Particularly, as it is literally impossible to predict when buzzers will take place.

(I acknowledge DRS and the amount of cameras at an international venue does aid this).

 

[Foley]

Ben Stokes: England cricketer nominated for New Zealander of the Year Award

England cricketer Ben Stokes is nominated for the New Zealander of the Year award after World Cup win.

www.bbc.co.uk

Ha ha.

 

[pooshooter]

Wales will win the rwc 2019