The Cricket Thread. - Page 616

**Sharkhunter** · July 16th, 2019, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scoundrel

The rules are as they are. But if one side scores 241-8 and another side scores 241 runs all out, I don't think that's a tie. Even though I am very much an England fan and am jolly please England have finally won this bloody thing; on Planet Scoundrel, New Zealand would be considered to have won this tournament.

Same on Planet Sharkhunter.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the number of wickets taken was always the tie-break as I remember. No so much in ODIs (where I think a tie was a tie regardless with the exception of a couple of matches) but in domestic cup finals. I remember one in the late 1980s just a few years after I arrived in the UK from SA - it was either the B&H Cup or NatWest Trophy, where one team won by dint of losing fewer wickets.

**stardust2003** · July 17th, 2019, 01:01 PM

Pity we were nt au fe with the rules..... and the super over
in case of a draw
and the most boundaries ................... if the super over was a draw

most of us were unaware of all that .... but obviously not the England players

But there should have been 16 teams in the competition
they could have played 5 or 6 group games and earned points
the top 4 teams could have been seeded to avoid each other in the First Round Knock Out

First Round Knock Out..... 8 games
Quarter Final ........ 4 games
Semi Final .................. 2 games
Final ........................... 1 game

would have made for an exciting climax.... spread over 2 weeks

The whole thing wrapped up in 4 or 5 weeks.

**effCup** · July 17th, 2019, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stardust2003

But there should have been 16 teams in the competition

Which teams/countries would you have included to make up the 16?

**stardust2003** · July 17th, 2019, 02:41 PM

The Netherlands have participated in the 1996, 2003, 2007 and 2011 Cricket World Cups.

**victor meldrew** · July 17th, 2019, 03:06 PM

I like the current format, everybody plays each other once, with the top four to semi finals.

Flying half way around the world to possibly play just one game seems a tad expensive.

**countjimmoriarty** · July 17th, 2019, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by effCup

As the text that you quote shows, I made no comment about the rules themselves--i.e. whether I thought them good or not. What I commented upon was your earlier insistence that strict adherence to those rules made the result clear. I was directly addressing what you wrote earlier, whereas you are now seeking to muddy and deflect from what you wrote earlier, and thereby employing a disinformation strategy. Is that really the spirit in which a Yorkshireman plays?

What on earth are you babbling on about? I have done nothing more than point out that the moaning about the rules after the event is utterly pointless.

End of discussion as far as I'm concerned.

**countjimmoriarty** · July 17th, 2019, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stardust2003

Pity we were nt au fe with the rules..... and the super over
in case of a draw
and the most boundaries ................... if the super over was a draw

most of us were unaware of all that .... but obviously not the England players

But there should have been 16 teams in the competition
they could have played 5 or 6 group games and earned points
the top 4 teams could have been seeded to avoid each other in the First Round Knock Out

First Round Knock Out..... 8 games
Quarter Final ........ 4 games
Semi Final .................. 2 games
Final ........................... 1 game

would have made for an exciting climax.... spread over 2 weeks

The format is specifically designed to avoid the events that happened the last time the World Cup was played with 16 teams, split into 4 groups of 4, playing 3 games each, in West Indies in 2007. India and Pakistan were both knocked out in the group stage, and this resulted in a huge loss of revenue for ICC as the sub-continent ignored the rest of the tournament. It is there to ensure that India have as many games as possible.

**Motorboater** · July 18th, 2019, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharkhunter

I'd suggest that they stick with the one super over, but if it is tied then they have another. And keep going until one team wins. Not 100% satisfactory, but a whole lot better than going back to arbitrary boundary counts.

In football, when there is a penalty shootout, do they go back to the corner count when the teams score all of their spot-kicks? No, they play until one misses and another scores.

I get that, and it's a popular opinion after the fact. I say super 2 overs after hearing all the talk about it, but played devil's advocate internally.

With two overs, you face both ends of the wicket. Its also 4% of a 50 over innings. 1 over being 5% of a 20 over innings.

There's something a bit unsatisfying about the continued super over. What if there 5+ overs still a tie? To say you soon after the 6 super over is a bit lame. I actually like the Sheffield Shield rule. If the final is a draw, the top of the table wins.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharkhunter

On the boundary count thing, here's another take on the absurdity of it all. If team A scores 240 runs in 4s, their boundary count will be 60. If team B scores that 240 by hitting four sixes every over with a couple of dots, their boundary count will be "only" 40. Despite playing the arguably more dynamic cricket, the six-hitters are penalised. Whichever way one ones at this tie-breaker, it is absolute bollocks. It should not be a tie-breaker at all.

Australian cricket journalist, Robert Craddock, was talking about this on radio, reflecting over the logic of it when it would've been discussed in a meeting. The intent would be to reward the most attacking team. But when it happens irl, it's clearly unsatisfactory.

On another note. It was good that Graham Thorpe was a contributor to the success as batting coach. And Trevor Bayliss wins a WC after coaching SL to a lost final in 2011.

**pierrelm** · July 19th, 2019, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by effCup

Which teams/countries would you have included to make up the 16?

I think, over the history of the one day international competition, there has been 20 different teams who have taken part, including (and correct me if I'm wrong here) the unlikely to reappear 'East Africa'.

**pierrelm** · July 19th, 2019, 04:32 AM

I'm old fashioned enough to prefer the loss of wickets to decide a match if it finishes level on runs scored.

The whole super-over nonsense is entertaining in it's way but it's a silly contrivance. A bit like white ball, playing in coloured jim-jams...20-20 matches between teams with names contrived to encourage brand loyalty...
The sooner Test criket starts, the better.

July 17th, 2019, 01:01 PM	#6152
stardust2003 Vintage Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,447 Thanks: 19,907 Thanked 13,923 Times in 1,352 Posts	Pity we were nt au fe with the rules..... and the super over in case of a draw and the most boundaries ................... if the super over was a draw most of us were unaware of all that .... but obviously not the England players But there should have been 16 teams in the competition they could have played 5 or 6 group games and earned points the top 4 teams could have been seeded to avoid each other in the First Round Knock Out First Round Knock Out..... 8 games Quarter Final ........ 4 games Semi Final .................. 2 games Final ........................... 1 game would have made for an exciting climax.... spread over 2 weeks The whole thing wrapped up in 4 or 5 weeks. Last edited by stardust2003; July 18th, 2019 at 01:02 AM..

July 17th, 2019, 02:41 PM	#6154
stardust2003 Vintage Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,447 Thanks: 19,907 Thanked 13,923 Times in 1,352 Posts	The Netherlands have participated in the 1996, 2003, 2007 and 2011 Cricket World Cups.

July 17th, 2019, 03:06 PM	#6155
victor meldrew Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: At the bottom of an empty glass Posts: 15,778 Thanks: 531,920 Thanked 180,041 Times in 15,766 Posts	I like the current format, everybody plays each other once, with the top four to semi finals. Flying half way around the world to possibly play just one game seems a tad expensive.

July 19th, 2019, 04:32 AM	#6160
pierrelm Vintage Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Midst the fen mists Posts: 5,450 Thanks: 55,798 Thanked 72,921 Times in 5,422 Posts	I'm old fashioned enough to prefer the loss of wickets to decide a match if it finishes level on runs scored. The whole super-over nonsense is entertaining in it's way but it's a silly contrivance. A bit like white ball, playing in coloured jim-jams...20-20 matches between teams with names contrived to encourage brand loyalty... The sooner Test criket starts, the better.