WC FINAL: England v New Zealand Lords London July 14 2019 (Result - Tie)

[edabomb]

I hope so - his captaincy has been ok, I think - his "leadership" really good, I don't see him not being the captain, but there might be a time when he's had enough

My immediate hope is that the restore Neesham to the test all-rounders spot - he's a cut above Colin with the bat, and fielding - and in most conditions his bowling is more useful... guess that's another thread though...

I'd disagree. I'd say the strength of CDG's bowling in test is his accuracy. Neither will ever average <30 at test level so the constriction becomes a major weapon. Neesham is erratic and will generally give a boundary opportunity every couple of overs.

No arguments with the bat though, the Neesh is vastly superior.

 

[JJ]

I'd disagree. I'd say the strength of CDG's bowling in test is his accuracy. Neither will ever average <30 at test level so the constriction becomes a major weapon. Neesham is erratic and will generally give a boundary opportunity every couple of overs.

No arguments with the bat though, the Neesh is vastly superior.

Always been a big fan of Neesh tbh - his bowling is inconsistent, but generally has been good in the WC - at the end of the day this is the 4th pace bowler, so I'd definitely choose him because of his batting and catching... Colin is a good back up - regardless, I hope Neesh becomes part of the test squad again

 

[edabomb]

Always been a big fan of Neesh tbh - his bowling is inconsistent, but generally has been good in the WC - at the end of the day this is the 4th pace bowler, so I'd definitely choose him because of his batting and catching... Colin is a good back up - regardless, I hope Neesh becomes part of the test squad again

I'm a big fan of his batting. Him and CDG are split by form in red ball I reckon, more often than not I think Neesh would be the better option.

 

[Timbo]

The number of Poms on Reddit and elsewhere trying to defend that farce on the grounds that you can’t have another super over because the ground staff have to go home at some point is laughable.

I guess that’s why they awarded the Wimbledon final to whoever hit the most aces at 7-7.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

The joint winners idea is the way it should go.

Noted as:
2019 WINNER - Split E/NZ

 

[Pommy]

The number of Poms on Reddit and elsewhere trying to defend that farce on the grounds that you can’t have another super over because the ground staff have to go home at some point is laughable.

I guess that’s why they awarded the Wimbledon final to whoever hit the most aces at 7-7.

The number of Australians and people from the subcontinent suggesting the rules be changed on the fly is laughable.

 

[WaznTheGreat]

Trent Boult will be the cause of World War 3

 

[Pommy]

Trent Boult will be the cause of World War 3

I have nothing bad to say about him, except he has this face I really want to punch. Not for anything he has done just purely for his face.

 

[JJ]

The joint winners idea is the way it should go.

Noted as:
2019 WINNER - Split E/NZ

Yep, that's my view - only sensible option given it was a Grand Final...

Other sensible-ish options:

Wickets - NZ win
Place on table - England and Wales win
Round robin game - England and Wales win

Less sensible
Continued 'Super overs" - who knows, but one was stupid enough

Laughable option - number of boundaries

I have no problem with England being World Cup winners on the sensible criteria - but we did not lose that game, in no way shape or form - and despite having most of the luck go their way, England didn't beat us... best options to me are joint winners (which I think is what would have been the case at other World Cups) or England win as they were ahead on the table... I am uncomfortable with wickets as the context changes, but it makes a f**k load more sense than boundaries...

 

[JJ]

The number of Poms on Reddit and elsewhere trying to defend that farce on the grounds that you can’t have another super over because the ground staff have to go home at some point is laughable.

I guess that’s why they awarded the Wimbledon final to whoever hit the most aces at 7-7.

yeah, it's kind of a guessing game here


In the NRL and union, # of one handed put downs in the corner with feet off the ground
In football/soccer - number of goals scored outside the penalty area

Just silly - runs are runs...

It's just weird to be so happy with how the team played, be crystal clear that we weren't beaten, and then lose on a rule that makes absolutely no sense - as above, there are a few much more justifiable rules that mean England still wins... guess I'll just have to pretend the decision was on points in qualifying

 

[The Mad Hatter]

The number of middle aged Englishmen who think they won the World Cup is laughable.

 

[Bazal]

Yep, that's my view - only sensible option given it was a Grand Final...

Other sensible-ish options:

Wickets - NZ win
Place on table - England and Wales win
Round robin game - England and Wales win

Less sensible
Continued 'Super overs" - who knows, but one was stupid enough

Laughable option - number of boundaries

I have no problem with England being World Cup winners on the sensible criteria - but we did not lose that game, in no way shape or form - and despite having most of the luck go their way, England didn't beat us... best options to me are joint winners (which I think is what would have been the case at other World Cups) or England win as they were ahead on the table... I am uncomfortable with wickets as the context changes, but it makes a f**k load more sense than boundaries...

If they are going to go for one super over, the only sensible option is another IMO

Wickets-England lost cheap wickets at the end trying to win the game, not necessarily a fair indicator. NZ also lost one in the Super Over trying to win the game and could then lose on wickets on the super over for eg

Place on table-Affected by weather, injuries, possibly the draw etc

Round robin game-Not relevant to a finals game

Boundaries-As discussed, geniused.

Seriously, disregard the smug English responses... it's just a hollow end to a surprisingly good WC and the greatest single ODI ever.

 

[Mr Angry]

They will change it. Not sure to what but it will change.

Just imagine if India had lost like that.

And the "Bat of God" rule needs to change. No team should get runs due to an accidental deflection. Always been a stupid rule, but when applied to a World Cup final you can see it not acceptable. Like bowling underarm, find a flaw, fix it.

I know we Aussie exploited one and the poms was just luck, but a shyte rule.

 

[Eelectrica]

If South Africa was in NZ's spot it would have been the funniest thing ever and all comedians would have retired.

If it was us the cricketing world would have said 'Oh goody so they haven't won another WC then'

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Fight to the death between captains decides it in the event of a tie.

 

[Bazal]

Fight to the death between captains decides it in the event of a tie.

Also not fair.

Betas like Bradmanson stand absolutely no chance against Alphas like Faf.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Also not fair.

Betas like Bradmanson stand absolutely no chance against Alphas like Faf.

If it was Sumo Finchy would be unbackable.

 

[Eelectrica]

A commitee of Daley, Lockyer and Meninga should determine the winner in case of a tie.
It's the only way to be fair.

 

[Roosters rule]

A commitee of Daley, Lockyer and Meninga should determine the winner in case of a tie.
It's the only way to be fair.

So Billy Slater it is.

 

[Bazal]

A commitee of Daley, Lockyer and Meninga should determine the winner in case of a tie.
It's the only way to be fair.

I think Ruan Sims should have the deciding vote tbh.

Api Koroisau, cricket world cup champion