ICC Cricket World Cup - May/July 2019

[wasteyouryouth]

Well you did say you might be criticized for it. Look there is no doubt that England rode there luck. But they won. Whether it is a tie or not or whatever they won according to the rules everyone agreed to going into the tournament.

Yes it would have been nice if we had won with 120 balls to spare with Jason Roy on an amazing 153 not out off 72 balls. But we didn't. The greatest cricket game that has ever been played took place yesterday. Every single ingredient necessary to make that the greatest cricket game ever was present.

Skill, luck, misfortune, mistakes, close-calls....every element was present for that to happen. I can seriously and honestly say that if NZ had won I wouldn't have begrudged them it one bit even if they rode their luck just as much as England did. And they did ride their luck too in their own way.

To say after one day that England might be getting too much credit for winning the darn thing compared to other winners is for me just a nonsensical statement and indeed not a valid point of discussion.

If people were saying England is the greatest winner of the World Cup ever, I would understand it. But they are not: they are saying England scraped home by the skin of their testicles after the greatest rollercoaster ever, against an opponent who had just as much stake to lifting the trophy as they did.

The raw emotion, the joy, the heartbreak, the absolute madness of what happened needs to be the joyous core of what we take from this game and what all cricket fans, sports fans, fans of human endeavor should be talking about.

Cricket won, human beings and their compassion and care and genius won.....and England after all the dust settled lifted the trophy, as a small part of that whole drama. Amen.

You've nailed it there, Dutch. The match encapsulated everything that is brilliant about cricket and sport in general. There's never been a game like it and might never be again.

We can talk about the deflection off Stokes' bat but it just one of many instances in the game where a different action could have had a huge impact on the result. I bet Mitchell Santner will wonder why he didn't just swing the bat at that last ball of NZ's innings for the rest of his life. A top edge for four, dragging it to the outfield for one could've been the difference. The same goes for Boult and stepping on the boundary.

 

[Ohm]

Now that world cup is over, here's my favorite part about a tournament after it ends.

-- Team/Misc category --

Best team: England
Most improved team: New Zealand (You lose a home series by 1-4 then in 6 months time you shock the same opponent in semi-final of the world cup, so you're an improved version of yourself.)
Decline: West Indies (They had a great opening to this contest and they could have capitalize on it. I feel they simply didn't take their chances rather than being sympathetic and saying they could not. In initial phase it looked like they could make it to KOs. They had their moments but they failed. )
Best player: Kane Williamson (He has been a great batsman for NZ but he deserves it more for his contribution as a captain.)

Best incident: In everyone's list this has to be the final. It could not have happened better the way it actually happened.
Worst incident: Umpires!!!

-- Batsman category --

Best batsman: Rohit Sharma
Most improved batsman: Shakib-Al-Hasan
Best prospect(s): Babar Azam
Decline: Martin Guptill
Best innings: Shakib-Al-Hasan's 124*(99) vs West Indies (You can't be that good in a chase everyday.)
Most underused/missed batsman: Shikhar Dhawan

-- Bowler category --

Best bowler: Mitchell Starc
Most improved bowler: Lockie Ferguson (It was really interesting how well he mixed up with pace and lengths throughout.)
Best prospect(s): Shaheen Afridi, Nabi & Mujeeb (I mean, have you watched them bowl!? )
Decline: Rashid Khan
Best innings: Mohammad Nabi 10-0-23-2 vs Pakistan (He almost won it for Afghanistan that day.)
Most underused/missed bowler: Dale Steyn

-- Best XI --

Rohit Sharma (Ind)
David Warner (Aus)
Virat Kohli (Ind)
Kane Williamson (Nzl)
Shakib-Al-Hasan (Ban)
Ben Stokes (Eng)
Alex Carey (Aus)
Jofra Archer (Eng)
Mitchell Starc (Aus)
Lockie Ferguson (Nzl)
Jasprit Bumrah (India)

 

[Punk_Sk8r]

Not sure if I'd have Kholi in there...

Also why are people so salty, we literally saw the greatest game of cricket, doesn't even matter who won or who was even competing. As a cricket match it couldn't get any better.

It's the odd things that made this great, those odd little moments where you thought England was out of it and then fortune turned their way and to cap it off it a World Cup final

Incredible like I can't stop thinking about it!

 

[Velocity]

I think I might be criticized for it, but despite having their best team in their history England still cannot go on to win the WC final. Yeah the result did go their way but they didn't go on to win the Final. I think England should consider themselves lucky to have got away at the end not to lose the match. The credit also should go to the Kiwis for actually defending a total that England on most of the occasions chase it down in 42-43 overs. I think New Zealand did way better than what they were expecting to do. If we consider the Semi-final match against India and the Final New Zealand probably emerged as victorious for the tournament. Sorry to say but it was actually England's loss of not being able to win the Final. England probably had a very good tournament and finally they broke the jinx of not being able to win the WC so, well done Boys !!!! But did England deserve to get as much credit as previous World Champions did ? I leave it to you guys.

Think the tie as the result of the game yesterday leaves it open to opinion and whatnot about who won. Even if though NZ were very unlucky, we must accept England as the world champions. According to the rules, they won the match, therefore they are the official champions according to the ICC rules. Nobody lost this game, and NZ equally deserve some recognition even if their status of world champions wasn't printed in the ICC books. But England are the official champions of world cricket and it can't be in dispute no more and nothing can change the result despite all the drama that went on with the 'little' moments.

 

[Velocity]

This World Cup has really made me wonder why we play so many bilateral matches. They are so pointless and rather I'd like to see one global championship each year from now, whether it's the Test Championship, World T20 or Champions Trophy. I think we'd rather be better off with tri-series and quadrangular series to improve the quality of cricket and increase the competitiveness of the game. The increased pressure that occurs in those competitions really brings drama and increases the standard of cricket. People will be tuned into these types of matches rather than bilaterals that have no real impact within the game of cricket except the rankings. This WC was popular and the England win might have sparked a change in the fanbase and gained more cricket fans/followers. Now, it's time to capitalize on that and improve the cricket to keep a core audience that's been reinforced by this World Cup.

 

[A.P Haux]

Lets feel honoured that we witnessed the match, instead of doing whatever we are doing.

 

[SaiSrini]

Not sure if I'd have Kholi in there...

Also why are people so salty, we literally saw the greatest game of cricket, doesn't even matter who won or who was even competing. As a cricket match it couldn't get any better.

It's the odd things that made this great, those odd little moments where you thought England was out of it and then fortune turned their way and to cap it off it a World Cup final

Incredible like I can't stop thinking about it!

Agree. I would also not have Kohli in the all time XI for this WC 2019. He had a pretty middling tournament. He scored a lot of 50's but never converted any of them into a big one. For the world's No. 1 ODI batsman who plays in the Top 3, Kohli had just an 'above average' tournament with the bat, which is not great by the tournament standards.

Instead of Kohli, I would put Joe Root in there.

 

[Villain]

Rules are known to both the teams, these rules may or may not go in your favor be it the overthrow or the boundary rule, of course luck or fortune or these rules went in favor of England but every team playing have their chances be it dropped catches or wrong decisions or so on. In the end England came through and were crowned the Champions which cannot be changed. New Zealand played absolutely amazing cricket, earned respect around the globe but you cannot blame England for winning it through luck or good fortune, the NRR rule went against Pakistan and in the favor of NZ. The NRR rule was again been criticised. It being a WorldCup threw light on these issues which sure need to be reconsidered be it the super over boundary rule or the overthrow one.

As Williamson said in his interview when it's a tie you count everything from the first over to the last, even a wide in the first over was important.

 

[WubbaLubbaDubDub]

Wow, the roller coaster ride comes to an end. I do not think it matters to anyone but here are my few observations of all the teams .. will go alphabetically.

1. Afghanistan

Well, Afghanistan has played fearless cricket throughout the last 4 years. The argument that supports my point is their famous win over Ireland, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and even West Indies. Beating those 4 teams consistently was a good sign for a good talented upcoming nation. Cricket will only always benefit from another good cricketing nation. But having said that the drama that started with change in captaincy hurt Afghanistan a lot. They should have not changed a captain at the start of the tournament. They could have waited until after the tournament ended. They did show glimpses of how they play their brand of cricket with few close games against India, West Indies, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. One or two good moments here and there and we could have seen atleast 4 points. They almost pulled off that win against India and Sri Lanka. Pakistan game was close too.

My rating 2/10

2. Australia

Australia started the campaign well with a nice hammering win over the Afghani's. After serving their punishments, it was good to see Warner and Smith back in Australian colors. Having played poorly meant nothing in few bilateral series as they looked favorites alongside England to life the trophy. Starc getting back into form and Smith continuing where he left off, it was a dream tournament seeing how they played before the WC. First team to qualify for semis and I for one, did not think they will win the WC. So for me they had the perfect tournament, will be interesting how they build their team from here on for 2023 WC.

My rating 8.5/10

3. Bangladesh

A team that deserved a lot more then what points table show. Shakib Al Hasan was fantastic and showed why he is the number 1 all rounder and not just in one format. What I like about this Bangladesh outfit was they were calm, relax and composed. They are only going to make it more difficult for other teams going forward. Yes they lost a few matches but they never lost the fighting spirit. Well led by a nice composed captain Mortaza.

My rating 8/10

4. England

Well, the WORLD CHAMPIONS and rightly so. They went in as favorites and proved everyone right. Although their victory as a world champion was not all convincing and they did see some hiccup as they lost two matches to Sri Lanka and Pakistan, they came back strongly. Eoin Morgan as a captain has scripted one of the greatest turn around in ODI cricket for England since the 2015 debacle. Its as similar to India's run in 2011 after the 2007 debacle. The openers, their middle order, their bowlers.. they had a dream team to beat. Ben Stokes has proved me wrong completely and he might not be the best all rounder in WC, he definitely is number 2. That innings in final was a champion inning.

My rating 9.5/10

5. India

A world heavyweight team who unfortunately came into the competition and survived based on their top 3 and bowlers. Middle order was in a shambles and everyone could see that even before the tournament. Now I will not be harsh and criticize too much but there was no viable number 4 solution and that in the end hurt. MS Dhoni and Saurav Ganguly had a team, Virat Kohli just had players. Will really be interesting how India plan their road ahead for the next WC and who their core players will be. One thing MSD and Dada did well was build a solid core team no matter what. Kohli and Ravi with their constant chopping and moving things around did not build that.

My rating 8/10

6. New Zealand

Yet another finals, the NZ team under captain calm Kane has done fantastic over the last 4 years. Consistently reaching finals for 2 consecutive WC is not an easy task. Even they did not play England's brand of fearless cricket, their brand was more then enough to defeat India and tie the WC finale game with hosts England. For me they are joined winners of 2019 WC since the match was tied and number of boundaries should not decide who gets to keep the cup. Kane Williamson was brilliant as a captain and he will only improve going forward.

My rating 9/10

7. Pakistan

A team of unpredictability. After starting the tournament getting rolled out for less then 120 runs, Pakistan did give other teams a run for their money. Its tough being a Pakistani fan since you never know what side of the bed you will get up at. Pakistan were so unpredictable and so inconsistent but one thing remained constant is their unpredictability and this is what makes them dangerous. Sarfaraz as a captain was uninspiring and this where Pakistan lost. They need someone who can bring confidence and inspire and lead from front. Imam, Babar and the bowlers did everything they could, their middle order like India and Fakhar were really disappointing.

My rating 7/10

8. South Africa

Horrible tournament for them, the team did not play well as a unit and there was not a single match winning inning from anyone throughout the tournament. A team with such a good talent in the end were left reduced to think about their own talent. The mid tournament AB D saga was bad and it was just downhill for them. Losing Dale Steyn did not help either. I really want a strong South African team and hope they build well as a team for the next one 4 years down the line.

My rating 3/10

9. Sri Lanka

An underdog team who were not expected to win anything. They almost proved everyone right with their performance against Afghanistan. But then a few washouts and fortunes turned. Defeating England would be the highlight of their tournament and ending up on 6th position above Bangladesh, South Africa, West Indies and Afghanistan should give them a bit of confidence. There is talent, the grooming has to be done right. With Malinga too now out of action it will be interesting who spear heads their bowling attack.

My rating 5/10

10. West Indies

Started the tournament with a bang, came really close in the NZ and Australia game. At one stage it looked they will be taking everyone by a storm and would qualify for the semis but somehow they managed to find that loosing streak and ended up being 9th in the tournament. Afghanistan and West Indies joined in after going through the qualifiers and remained the bottom two teams. We have seen Gayle play his last WC match and an era ends with that.

This WC was special since a lot of players we will never see in WC and probably international arena... Mushrafe Mortaza, Mahendra Singh Dhoni, Shikhar Dhawan (Probably), Ross Taylor, Martin Guptill, Hashim Amla, Faf du Plesis, JP Duminy, Imran Tahir, Sarfarz Ahmed, Shoaib Malik, Mohammad Hafeez, Lasith Malinga, Angelo Matthews, Chris Gayle

Wow a lot of players. It looks like my teenage era has come to an end. Grew up watching these players in their prime.

Overall a format that was criticized and still would like to see 2 more teams. 12 team WC with the same format is achievable and would be good for World Cricket.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

This World Cup has really made me wonder why we play so many bilateral matches. They are so pointless and rather I'd like to see one global championship each year from now, whether it's the Test Championship, World T20 or Champions Trophy. I think we'd rather be better off with tri-series and quadrangular series to improve the quality of cricket and increase the competitiveness of the game. The increased pressure that occurs in those competitions really brings drama and increases the standard of cricket. People will be tuned into these types of matches rather than bilaterals that have no real impact within the game of cricket except the rankings. This WC was popular and the England win might have sparked a change in the fanbase and gained more cricket fans/followers. Now, it's time to capitalize on that and improve the cricket to keep a core audience that's been reinforced by this World Cup.

I've been wondering this for years. Most international cricket is, in my view, the equivalent of a friendly in football. Yes, we have big series like the Ashes which is dependent on rivalry as much as anything but in the context of the world game it is meaningless.

We have the World Cup Super League starting next year which will hopefully put a little more context and importance, particularly in terms of qualification for the World Cup. If the ICC are going to persist with this ten team round robin then every country deserves a fair and equal chance to qualify (including those without test status).

The Super League is not the perfect format (every team doesn't play each other) but it seems like a step in the right direction. I think it's hugely needed to maintain the importance of international cricket. I think one reason T20 leagues prove so popular is you get a winner at the end of the tournament and every year. The ICC need to give people a reason to care about almost every match not just every four years. Teams should still be able to fit in their big money tours (England, India and Australia playing one another every six months in some format) but for the growth of the game they should be expected to play against other teams and for those games not just to be seen as a gesture of goodwill but to have something riding on it.

 

[asprin]

A famous movie line comes to mind - "It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning's winning"

Two things I don't understand:

1. People finding the approach taken to declare a winner as unfair - I have zero issues with it. If I'm not wrong, rules are agreed upon by all the captains before the start of the tournament. It wasn't something that was introduced at the nth hour. IMO, England won fair and square. There had to be one winner and loser. That's how it panned out.
   
2. Talks of sharing the trophy is ridiculous. It's a WC trophy for crying out loud. It deserves one sole holder and that's what we got.

While no doubt you feel bad for NZ, in the end the team that held its nerve better won the match. And yes, luck does play a factor in some wins. That's the beauty of it.

Having said that, I've no doubt, at least in my mind, that it was the greatest match I've ever witnessed since I started watching cricket (given the circumstances of it being a WC final between two sides - one that invented the game and one that always garnered praise from the world - both of which hadn't won a WC ever). Not sure if I would have enjoyed it so much had India been playing as I would have been biased, but as a neutral it was pure gold. Stokes will be remembered for this his entire life.

After a dull and frustrating start, the WC sure ended with a big bang.

 

[NILAYSHAH60]

It looks like my teenage era has come to an end

I should say my childhood comes to an end

 

[Deleted member 193590]

A famous movie line comes to mind - "It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning's winning"

Two things I don't understand:

1. People finding the approach taken to declare a winner as unfair - I have zero issues with it. If I'm not wrong, rules are agreed upon by all the captains before the start of the tournament. It wasn't something that was introduced at the nth hour. IMO, England won fair and square. There had to be one winner and loser. That's how it panned out.
   
2. Talks of sharing the trophy is ridiculous. It's a WC trophy for crying out loud. It deserves one sole holder and that's what we got.

While no doubt you feel bad for NZ, in the end the team that held its nerve better won the match. And yes, luck does play a factor in some wins. That's the beauty of it.

Having said that, I've no doubt, at least in my mind, that it was the greatest match I've ever witnessed since I started watching cricket (given the circumstances of it being a WC final between two sides - one that invented the game and one that always garnered praise from the world - both of which hadn't won a WC ever). Not sure if I would have enjoyed it so much had India been playing as I would have been biased, but as a neutral it was pure gold. Stokes will be remembered for this his entire life.

After a dull and frustrating start, the WC sure ended with a big bang.

Best post in the whole thread,thank you!!!

 

[aditya123]

This World Cup has really made me wonder why we play so many bilateral matches. They are so pointless and rather I'd like to see one global championship each year from now, whether it's the Test Championship, World T20 or Champions Trophy. I think we'd rather be better off with tri-series and quadrangular series to improve the quality of cricket and increase the competitiveness of the game. The increased pressure that occurs in those competitions really brings drama and increases the standard of cricket. People will be tuned into these types of matches rather than bilaterals that have no real impact within the game of cricket except the rankings. This WC was popular and the England win might have sparked a change in the fanbase and gained more cricket fans/followers. Now, it's time to capitalize on that and improve the cricket to keep a core audience that's been reinforced by this World Cup.

This! I`ve been saying this for ages. The glut of bilaterals is not only boring for a fan but also makes it hard for the players to get used to the pressure of different qualification scenarios and knockout games. If we step back to when ODI cricket was at its prime in terms of popularity (the mid 90s to about 2007/8) most nations hosted multilateral ODI series. The 97/98 period had several of those Independence Cups tri/quadrangular in Ind/Pak/Ban/SL, all of which had memorable games. An added advantage of this was the newer nations used to get exposure to top quality cricket. Bangladesh and Kenya played a tri-series with India in the summer of 98 and we even lost a game to Kenya there. Sharjah, of course, had so many of those events every year. England used to have the Natwest Tri Series (even up until the mid-2000s where even Bangladesh was once the third team and beat Australia prior to the 05 Ashes). SA hosted tri-series with Zimbabwe or Kenya also being the third side along with the primary touring side. Heck, even Zimbabwe hosted tri-series till 2005 and even that event had close games between India and NZ. Australia, off course, had the most famous Tri-series of the lot, with it being as exciting as the test summer. Kohli chasing those 320-odd in 37 overs to set up the bonus point win. Tendulkar at Sarjah. Anwar's 194. Zimbabwe tying the ODI at Paarl in 1997. All those Sarjah games. The NatWest final in 2002. The Eng-Pak NatWest game in 2001 which Waqar reverse swung Pak to a win. The Dion Nash almost six, the Shane Bond debut VB series and so many others that I can keep going on and on. Bilaterals never allow these narratives. Even in the most one-sided tri-series, there is that element of anxiety if there is a grand final. SA won all group stage games in the 1997 Titan Cup (involved India and Aus) but lost the final to India. Similarly, Australia went unbeaten in that Desert Storm Sharjah series but lost to India in the final (after an exact opposite happened in a tri-series in India). The closest one can get to an ICC event final are these games.

This is why I`m skeptical of stats from bilaterals. Kedar Jadhav might have better stats than Yuvraj possibly. However, is he a better ODI cricketer than Yuvi? Bilateral series, with so many sides resting their primary bowlers these days, can often flatter to deceive. Take the case of NZ in the last 2 games against India and England. Do you guys think (everything else being the same) NZ would've successfully defended 240 against those two batting sides in consecutive games? In all likelihood, Kohli/Sharma would`ve waltzed through that run chase in a bilateral series (on the same track, ground etc). Similarly, with the English lineup yesterday. Given the high stakes, one gets cautious of their approach and thus changes the game completely. We walk every day and probably slip during a walk very very rarely. Yet, if I told you that the one slip could result in you falling down a cliff, you wouldn't walk the same way, would you? The biggest problem in ODI cricket is bilateral-heavy nature. Get the tri-series back and you will also solve the problem of exposure to the smaller nations. Afghans could get games in India/Bangla as a third side. Netherlands/Ireland/Scotland can be the third side in addition to the touring side in England. Give Zim/Kenya/Namibia tri-series games like in the 90s. Maybe PNG can get games in multi-lateral series in Aus/NZ! Sadly, I`m not an administrator.

 

[Punk_Sk8r]

@Velocity That'd be pretty cool, like a Champions League for cricket each year ending with play-offs...but it'll never happen because maybe there's more £ to be made in bilateral series.

Also just to add, remember guys we're probably not going to see another final like this anytime soon if ever, not in our lifetime anyway. What a time to be a cricket fan...anyone still buzzing from it?