CWBush said:The World Cup's image was further damaged by an atrocious final. Shortening it, continued interruptions, and then three overs played in near darkness just made the whole thing seem farcical. Seriously, the organisers just gave Sri Lanka ammunition with which to complain about the loss.
Why didn't they just push the game back a day so we didn't get a shoddy, joke of a final.
I don't know if this is right as I would have been half asleep while watching this, but was there a run that was disallowed to Clarke for some reason?? What was that all about?
CWBush said:I know they don't control the weather, but they should have picked a venue with lights. It's poor organising that they had to call the game due to poor light. And the shortened overs cheapens the win. It's like playing a sixty minute game of football or a fifty minute game of rugby league.
Then that would have defeated the purpose of having the match shortened. If they were going to play it the next day, then they should have started again and made it a 50-over a side match.Big Tim said:Or they could have used the 1 extra day that was put into the 7 week schedule.
In all seriousness 1 day would not have made a difference for a competition that went 6 weeks too long.
Then that would have defeated the purpose of having the match shortened. If they were going to play it the next day, then they should have started again and made it a 50-over a side match.