ICC Cricket World Cup - May/July 2019

[Ohm]

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.

Absolutely nailed it! Boy I wish they hear ya.

 

[Believe]

As the only voter for NZ to win, I have to say that I'm sooo disappointed.. But in saying that, there's no way that I hold Englands win against them. As people have pointed out, the rules were agreed on before the cup began, including super over and countback. I'm not even pissed about the 6 run deflection, as I think it was more umpire interpretation than an actual mistake.

The simple fact is it came down to luck. Luck on the day went to England. If the match was re-played it could go to NZ. Skills-wise, whilst ENgland have pobably been the better team over the recent past, on the day they were equals. Skillswise, a draw was fair, but I have no problem with the world cup final NEEDING a winner. Luck though, has always, and will most likely remain a fairly large part of cricket, and you absolutely cannot hold that against players, officials, rules, or anyone.


Except maybe for Loki. What a dick.

 

[Punk_Sk8r]

@Believe Why is Loki a dick?

 

[Believe]

@Believe Why is Loki a dick?

Cos he's a God of luck.

 

[Alexei.]

Cos he's a God of luck.

 

[LiveLoveABD]

I still cannot believe what happened. I can't begin to imagine the mess I would be if IND were in NZ shoes. Just unreal! Really feel now the trophy should have been shared.

 

[Trex99]

India will definitely win the cup in 2023
Mark my words!!!

 

[NILAYSHAH60]

India will definitely win the cup in 2023
Mark my words!!!

So that people get a chance to call us home track bullies.

 

[Toby]

England have the side and they have the conditions in their favor. It would be a huge surprise if they don't make the final and a surprise if they don't win it all. Either India or Australia might play them in the final (I bet on Australia who are surging at the right time, and should also be boosted by Warner and Smith return).

I feel India will stumble in the semis, just like in 2015. The middle order is a nagging block, and will likely pull us down.

Yep, India really did stumble in the semis. England won the WC in the end !

Btw, I feel for NZ, they were phenomenal. Nobody gave 'em any chance before the tournament, but here they are, playing the final match of the tournament and becoming the runners up !

 

[Toby]

We can even have Afghanistan v/s Bangladesh final

For teams like West Indies, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan or Bangladesh it is always early to say something. Pakistan might out of no where can come to win the Cup or may have a shameful exit very early in the tournament. West Indies performance pretty much depends upon the team environment which they create

My top 4 would be England, Australia, New Zealand and India with India and Australia playing in the Finals

Gr8 guess with the top 4 mate, but your finalists guess went totally wrong lmao

 

[Mr Snrub]

I still cannot believe what happened. I can't begin to imagine the mess I would be if IND were in NZ shoes. Just unreal! Really feel now the trophy should have been shared.

New Zealanders are getting fairly philosophical about it now. Several people have said that they'd not have wanted to have the World Cup if they had to have it via an effective double tie. The general feel from most is that they'd rather not have New Zealand jumping around holding aloft a World Cup with a boundary count-back as the manner of victory. Many thoughts seem to be that this will not age well over time, and people would rather not have the World looking back during all future world cups and despite the fantastic game and contest, point the finger at New Zealand being the most dubious holders ever with Zero runs between the teams.

Several others have said that T20 has had far too much of an effect on 50 over rules. Runs, had their time to decide 50 overs of contest. They were equal. Runs had their chance to decide a super over. They were equal. There's plenty of people who felt it odd that wickets got zero look-in in such rules, seeing as the game is supposed to value the bat and ball equally.

Plenty of scope for mockery from neutrals who've actually outright won a world cup (all of them) and I'm sure England will do better than New Zealand at deflecting such comment.

 

[LiveLoveABD]

New Zealanders are getting fairly philosophical about it now. Several people have said that they'd not have wanted to have the World Cup if they had to have it via an effective double tie. The general feel from most is that they'd rather not have New Zealand jumping around holding aloft a World Cup with a boundary count-back as the manner of victory. Many thoughts seem to be that this will not age well over time, and people would rather not have the World looking back during all future world cups and despite the fantastic game and contest, point the finger at New Zealand being the most dubious holders ever with Zero runs between the teams.

Several others have said that T20 has had far too much of an effect on 50 over rules. Runs, had their time to decide 50 overs of contest. They were equal. Runs had their chance to decide a super over. They were equal. There's plenty of people who felt it odd that wickets got zero look-in in such rules, seeing as the game is supposed to value the bat and ball equally.

Plenty of scope for mockery from neutrals who've actually outright won a world cup (all of them) and I'm sure England will do better than New Zealand at deflecting such comment.

I think it's pretty terrible for anyone to say England got lucky or didn't deserve it. They played knockout cricket right from that India game, beat the other 3 semi finalists and also played an equally good final. Yes, they had the rub of the green in the final, but it's not like the Kiwis didn't have their moments to get to the finals. They were borderline with Bangladesh, West Indies, South Africa and India. I think, they played the better cricket on the day of the final, but very slightly. Overall, I think England were deserved winners of the World Cup, both from the perspective of the World Cup as well as on account of the last four years of ODI cricket.

At least now, no final will be decided on boundary count. Again, I feel and really feel for the Kiwis but they were no more deserving than the Pom's on the basis of the full tournament.

 

[Mr Snrub]

I think it's pretty terrible for anyone to say England got lucky or didn't deserve it. They played knockout cricket right from that India game, beat the other 3 semi finalists and also played an equally good final. Yes, they had the rub of the green in the final, but it's not like the Kiwis didn't have their moments to get to the finals. They were borderline with Bangladesh, West Indies, South Africa and India. I think, they played the better cricket on the day of the final, but very slightly. Overall, I think England were deserved winners of the World Cup, both from the perspective of the World Cup as well as on account of the last four years of ODI cricket.

No-one has said that they didn't deserve to win the World Cup. They did get lucky though, that's plainly evident and would've also been the case if New Zealand had won. Also, English players have said so themselves. Both sides would've deserved to have won, so of course both teams would make deserving winners.

At least now, no final will be decided on boundary count. Again, I feel and really feel for the Kiwis but they were no more deserving than the Pom's on the basis of the full tournament.

Yes, no final will ever be decided that way again, as organizers have been caught out by a circumstance that they fairly could not have likely anticipated and they've accidentally created a ridiculous situation by which modes and frequency of scoring have been resorted to and devalued wickets, ones and two's which are all totalled to be of initial value anyhow. Further to the rest of your point, of course NZ were no more deserving, this wasn't stated in my point.

As stated, I'm merely commenting on my observances of comment across the net and in media recently that not all people would favour holding a cup without a winning run. Others opinions might just be different to yours (and mine) and that's just fine.

 

[NILAYSHAH60]

Gr8 guess with the top 4 mate, but your finalists guess went totally wrong lmao

For India I would say inexperienced middle order caused them to lose Semi-Final match against New Zealand. I would say that New Zealand started their 2nd innings in a terrible position with odds highly stacked against them specially with the batting they had and the form they were in. It took a real fine exhibition of bowling from the opposition to beat them on the score they had to chase. I can go on to say unfortunately such things only happen against India when it's a knockout game. But the fact is they never had a Plan B while batting throughout the WC and the past tournaments. India has followed this template right since the 90s where the top order takes time and does the bulk scoring while the lower order just somehow survives. They have taken this far more seriously now which is costing them in pressure situations and knockout games.

I think Australia never even for once thought that they are going to win the Final and it's just that they somehow peaked at the right time. They did have some problems in the way they played throughout the tournament but just somehow kept getting away with those wins. They looked completely unprepared come the knockouts which Englad took the advantage of.

Both England and New Zealand were deservingly in the Finals.

 

[NILAYSHAH60]

Actually even with hindsight England are the winners

Let me comeback at this.

England were playing at home. And they reached the Finals as big favourites to win the Final and the Cup. Along with that they had absolutely dominated for 4 years while playing at home. Also New Zealand were inconsistent at the end of the group stage and no way should've come close to England playing the Final. But the fact is they did not win the Final. And I've already mentioned for the records point of view that match would be counted as a tie. The boundary count made the World Cup go into the hands of England. And by the term England were the losers means that England did lose a lot there which they should've achieved which they didn't or couldn't achieve. Years later this would become a controvery for sure! At the moment we are so much into it that it hasn't fired as of yet but when it would there would be a lot of criticism thrown towards this rule, the officials involved in this match, the result and lastly the English team. Nothing would be spared!