There's no Zim this time around, but surely we need to have a WC thread.
WI hammered Pakistan today.
Discussion
[Series Thread] World Cup 2019
Discussion
ZCF OriginalZCF Hall of Famer
Nah, keep this here. It’ll be good to have people’s thoughts. Only happens once every four years
Member actions
ShareZCF OriginalLegend
I thought this World Cup was meant to have every game competitive...
Member actions
ShareZCF OriginalVeteran
Nice to see that arrogant Shahzad get his stumps destroyed by Starc. 3 ball duck, lol
Member actions
ShareZCF OriginalLegend
Mr Twig wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:49 pm
Nice to see that arrogant Shahzad get his stumps destroyed by Starc. 3 ball duck, lol
hahah, guess i'm not the only one wanting Afghanistan to be destroyed.
Member actions
ShareZCF OriginalZCF Hall of Famer
Yeah AUS vs ENG final methinks, with the Aussies winning.
Shahzad is a hack. I think he averages 15 against the top 10 sides. Afghanistan have two batsmen who could even begin to be considered world class (Rahmat and Nabi), with one of them batting too far down the order to make an impact. At the last WC Afghanistan were 14th I believe in team batting average, with 18 runs scored per wicket lost. I don't see that being much better this time around, granted they may get some runs (250 ish totals) vs Sri Lanka and possibly BD.
The Windies were made to look better than they are by a mediocre-at-best opponent. I'm excited for the WI, they haven't been this threatening since probably Ambrose and Walsh, and for them even being a middling ranked side would be a huge upgrade from being 8th or 9th as they have for most of the past 20 years.
I think Sri Lanka will comfortably be the worst team at the tournament.
Shahzad is a hack. I think he averages 15 against the top 10 sides. Afghanistan have two batsmen who could even begin to be considered world class (Rahmat and Nabi), with one of them batting too far down the order to make an impact. At the last WC Afghanistan were 14th I believe in team batting average, with 18 runs scored per wicket lost. I don't see that being much better this time around, granted they may get some runs (250 ish totals) vs Sri Lanka and possibly BD.
The Windies were made to look better than they are by a mediocre-at-best opponent. I'm excited for the WI, they haven't been this threatening since probably Ambrose and Walsh, and for them even being a middling ranked side would be a huge upgrade from being 8th or 9th as they have for most of the past 20 years.
I think Sri Lanka will comfortably be the worst team at the tournament.
Bangladesh cricket fanatic, observer of all others.
Member actions
ShareVeteran
Mr Twig wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:49 pm
Nice to see that arrogant Shahzad get his stumps destroyed by Starc. 3 ball duck, lol
It’s annoying because everyone here in aus loves the Afghanis and thinks they are a bunch of competitors with the underdog status , if only they knew how much of a bunch of c**ts they really are. Can’t stand them and hope they get their arrogant swagger blown away this World Cup 💋
Member actions
ShareZCF Hall of Famer
I’m curious what New Zealand get annually from ICC? It can’t be dissimilar to our handouts. Obviously they get some really good corporate sponsorship as well, whereas ours in non- existent.
In fact a table of who gets what would be very interesting.
It’s a great pity this final has so much controversy around it. I’m quite taken aback at how the Indians are so anti the English win, why?
In fact a table of who gets what would be very interesting.
It’s a great pity this final has so much controversy around it. I’m quite taken aback at how the Indians are so anti the English win, why?
Member actions
ShareZCF OriginalZCF Hall of Famer
zimbos_05 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:11 am
How can you disagree when his take is the rule?? I'm sure New Zealand would have taken 2 instead of 6 as well. It's not about logic in that instance, its the rule. However, I do agree that deflections should be a dead ball situation, not extra runs. Stokes is not at fault, the umpires messed up, and the rules are a little sketchy.
From what I can remember, Stokes and Rashid had completed 1 run and on the way back for 2 the return throw hit Stokes' bat and then went to the boundary.
I think the rule and its focus on when the fielder releases the throw is an asanine focal point. Taufel rightly pointed out that its nearly impossible for 2 on field umpires to keep their eyes on both the batsmen making their ground and also on a distant fielder's exact release of a return throw. I don't even know why that is relevant to begin with.
The fielders release point is in my opinin far less important than whether or not Stokes would have been run out had he not (unintentionall of course) deflected the ball. After watching the replay, it looks like Guptil would have indeed run Stokes out. But, the rules as they stand now allow for overthrows.
The on field decision of 6 runs vs 5 is correct in my opinion under the existing rules. Further this is how the rule has ALWAYS been implemented, thus NZ was not under any actual disadvantage.
The rule may very well need to be revised after this game. But as it stands I don't think anyone can complain about 6 vs 5 without sounding like a sore loser.
NZ have far more merit to say that they should win because although the scores were tied, they only lost 8 wickets whereas England were all out. Or ask why a 2nd super over didn't take place since the first one was tied at 15 apiece. Those are far more compelling arguments, again in my opinion.
Bangladesh cricket fanatic, observer of all others.
Member actions
ShareLegend
jaybro wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:32 pm
The boundary count tie breaker was also a joke, why not have a second Super over?
It's probably a too goddam obvious solution. In international ice hocky they reduce the number of players on the ice when there's no goal after a number of minutes in overtime. Likewise you could have no wickets in hand in the second super over, or to spice things up a bit one could have a single-wicket super over next: One batsman bats and bowls--Stokes vs. DeGrandhomme anyone?
I've never understood the number of wickets lost as a tie breaker in limited overs matches either, and the bowl-out that was used years ago was an absolute farce, so I'm all for super overs until a result is reached.
Member actions
ShareZCF OriginalLegend
Kriterion_BD wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:50 am
From what I can remember, Stokes and Rashid had completed 1 run and on the way back for 2 the return throw hit Stokes' bat and then went to the boundary.
I think the rule and its focus on when the fielder releases the throw is an asanine focal point. Taufel rightly pointed out that its nearly impossible for 2 on field umpires to keep their eyes on both the batsmen making their ground and also on a distant fielder's exact release of a return throw. I don't even know why that is relevant to begin with.
The fielders release point is in my opinin far less important than whether or not Stokes would have been run out had he not (unintentionall of course) deflected the ball. After watching the replay, it looks like Guptil would have indeed run Stokes out. But, the rules as they stand now allow for overthrows.
The on field decision of 6 runs vs 5 is correct in my opinion under the existing rules. Further this is how the rule has ALWAYS been implemented, thus NZ was not under any actual disadvantage.
The rule may very well need to be revised after this game. But as it stands I don't think anyone can complain about 6 vs 5 without sounding like a sore loser.
NZ have far more merit to say that they should win because although the scores were tied, they only lost 8 wickets whereas England were all out. Or ask why a 2nd super over didn't take place since the first one was tied at 15 apiece. Those are far more compelling arguments, again in my opinion.
It's not about what you believe, it's about what the rules are.
The rules state from the moment the ball releases the hand, and the reason for this is because the ball cannot change course once released, hence the action has completed. The batsmen had not crossed at that point, hence according to the rules, the run should not have counted.
I'm not bitter, but just trying to make the point. Also, I understand what taufel says about umpires watching everything, but two umpires should be able to see what is going on, One umpire watches the running, the other watches the throw. Worst case, they refer it to the 3rd umpire?
Member actions
ShareZCF OriginalZCF Hall of Famer
jaybro wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:22 am
Only Kriterion could argue against actual rules 😂😂😂
People are also arguing the boundary rule (also a dumb rule btw). That proves that a rule can still be a dumb rule.
Secondly, this arm release thing has never been an issue before, so it should not be here.
Thirdly, the fact that 6 runs should have been scored can be proven mathematically regardless of any rule a follows:
If there were no overthrows, 2 runs would have been scored. If there were no runs, 4 overthrows. 2+4 =6.
When was the last game in which release points were studied to determine the correct number of overthrows? I haven’t ever seen that and I’ve seen quite a few overthrows. This is simply people complaining because they don’t like England.
Bangladesh cricket fanatic, observer of all others.
Member actions
ShareZCF OriginalLegend
Kriterion_BD wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:46 pm
People are also arguing the boundary rule (also a dumb rule btw). That proves that a rule can still be a dumb rule.
Secondly, this arm release thing has never been an issue before, so it should not be here.
Thirdly, the fact that 6 runs should have been scored can be proven mathematically regardless of any rule a follows:
If there were no overthrows, 2 runs would have been scored. If there were no runs, 4 overthrows. 2+4 =6.
When was the last game in which release points were studied to determine the correct number of overthrows? I haven’t ever seen that and I’ve seen quite a few overthrows. This is simply people complaining because they don’t like England.
Yes, a rule can be dumb, but you are saying that regardless of what the rule says it is irrelevant because you think otherwise.
The arm release has never been an issue before because it rarely happens and the stakes have never been higher.
I don't understand your logic. If no runs were scored how could there be an overthrow of 4. No runs means either the batsman went out, hit to a fielder, or a missed the ball. So can how can 0+4 = 6?
Overthrows happen, but never in this circumstance and on such a magnitude, hence why they have never been studied so much. Overthrows are often when batsmen are in their crease and the ball gets misfielded so batsmen complete a second run or get the boundary.
Member actions
ShareZCF Hall of Famer
Kriterion_BD wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:46 pm
jaybro wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:22 am
Only Kriterion could argue against actual rules 😂😂😂
People are also arguing the boundary rule (also a dumb rule btw). That proves that a rule can still be a dumb rule.
Secondly, this arm release thing has never been an issue before, so it should not be here.
Thirdly, the fact that 6 runs should have been scored can be proven mathematically regardless of any rule a follows:
If there were no overthrows, 2 runs would have been scored. If there were no runs, 4 overthrows. 2+4 =6.
When was the last game in which release points were studied to determine the correct number of overthrows? I haven’t ever seen that and I’ve seen quite a few overthrows. This is simply people complaining because they don’t like England.
You can argue the rule is wrong but you can't argue that to the letter of the law, that is the rule they got the call wrong!!! End of story move on
Member actions
ShareZCF OriginalZCF Hall of Famer
Stokes to his credit tried to get the umpires to remove the four extra runs apparently.
My All-time Zimbabwe XI
Neil Johnson, Brendan Taylor, Murray Goodwin, Andy Flower (w), David Houghton, Sean Williams, Heath Streak (c), Andy Blignaut, Paul Strang, Eddo Brandes, Blessing Muzarabani
Neil Johnson, Brendan Taylor, Murray Goodwin, Andy Flower (w), David Houghton, Sean Williams, Heath Streak (c), Andy Blignaut, Paul Strang, Eddo Brandes, Blessing Muzarabani
Member actions
ShareZCF Hall of Famer
eugene wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 4:20 am
Stokes to his credit tried to get the umpires to remove the four extra runs apparently.
Guys a kiwi, he probably wanted to be the best player in a losing team here.
Member actions
Share