The Lemon Fool

Kiwis are going to spoil the party. They've bowled brilliantly.

Glad it is a contest, come what may.

That was simply gruelling - no fun at all. Bowlers on top all the way. England had the luck - sorry NZ - but England win. Was that great TV? I really don't know. It simply could not possibly have been closer - rather like the tennis. What a day of sport.....

Not a memorable WC final until the last over. There seemed a total lack of urgency on both sides for a lot of the match. Maybe they both wanted to lose??

Definitely a bowler's wicket though.

dp

And some people say that cricket is boring

After the Indian Premier League (IPL) went to the final ball of the final match I didn't think that there would be a more exciting game in 2019. Boy, was I wrong.

It was a relatively low scoring game because of the slow pitch. Nowadays we're more used to seeing batsman-friendly pitches, especially for T20 (especially in the IPL), but here the ICC were in charge and the result was pitches that gave something to the bowlers (see below).

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/ ... s-icc-deny

Next stop, The Ashes

scottnsilky wrote:Not a memorable WC final until the last over. There seemed a total lack of urgency on both sides for a lot of the match. Maybe they both wanted to lose??

Definitely a bowler's wicket though.

dp

I suspect you're not a cricket buff. Of course both sides were trying their best but for once the bowlers were in charge for both innings. Batting was as tough as it gets on that pitch and with those quality bowlers.

Did you know it should have been 1+4 for that overthrow, so in fact England should have lost? https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/a ... d=12249636

Leothebear wrote:

scottnsilky wrote:Not a memorable WC final until the last over. There seemed a total lack of urgency on both sides for a lot of the match. Maybe they both wanted to lose??

Definitely a bowler's wicket though.

dp

I suspect you're not a cricket buff. Of course both sides were trying their best but for once the bowlers were in charge for both innings. Batting was as tough as it gets on that pitch and with those quality bowlers.

The contest was gripping throughout and a terrific match. For once it wasn't a crash, bang, wallop of a game; it was a proper contest between bat and ball. Well done England, bad luck NZ.

JohnB wrote:Did you know it should have been 1+4 for that overthrow, so in fact England should have lost? https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/a ... d=12249636

Whilst the law being cited is somewhat ambiguous (like quite a few of the laws of cricket), I'm not buying the article's explanation.

For one thing if the throw had missed Stoke's bat and still gone for four overthrows, no-one would be saying that it was 1 + 4 rather than 2 + 4.

The issue is that it is a convention of the game that if overthrows result from a thrown ball hitting one of the batsmen, the batting side does not try to get extra runs. Stokes doesn't attempt to take a third run after the ball hit his bat, but once the ball crossed the boundary the umpire had to award four extra runs.

Umpires all over the world rule on the basis that overthrows are awarded in addition to the runs already made AND any run that is being attempted. The "act" in the law is taken to be from when the potential overthrow occurs (i.e. the ball isn't collected by a fielder and as a result the batsmen attempt an extra run).

The final over of England's innings can be seen at the link below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtCS0WGZH4k