Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

ICC World Cup 2019

Options
1…3334353638

Comments

  • Options
    #1112
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,482 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    Blinky Plebum wrote: »
    Morgan has done himself proud, he hasn't done this country proud as he has chosen not to represent this country when he had the option to.

    He's had a great career, but he chose to leave the Irish set up and people are perfectly entitled not to warm to him particularlry when he was quite happy to suggest Paul Stirling should follow him and try and represent england aswell.

    If Ireland is ever to do anything in cricket the idea of being open to Irish players playing for other countries has to end.How can you get the sport to grow in this country and convince the public that it's a sport this country should be interested in when it's then tolerable for our best players to up sticks when it suits them and we should be happy for them when they do it.

    I have found the makeup of the rugby team (for example) over the years is embarassing I dont consider CJ Stander to be Irish in any way and would prefer if he had never played for Ireland.

    I respect your point, and you are looking at it from the perspective of the sport and I appreciate that.

    In contrast, what I'm referring to is the major problem people have with him captaining England per se - which is irrelevant to the sport.

    Finally - no matter what way you cut it, he has been good for Irish cricket. It will raise the profile of the sport here enormously, and give a lot of credibility for Irish cricket internationally.


  • Options
    #1113
    Doodah7
    Registered Users Posts: 3,721 ✭✭✭Doodah7


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    I agree, its not a solution for a final, there must be a clear winner within the rules. That said, thats not what happened on Sunday, the match should be replayed back in Lords.

    Well done!! I haven't had such a laugh in ages!!

    It's like saying that an offside goal won the World Cup final and the referee and his assistants made a mistake. Let's replay the match!! Are you mad?


  • Options
    #1114
    Darc19
    Registered Users Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭Darc19


    Blinky Plebum wrote: »
    Morgan has done himself proud, he hasn't done this country proud as he has chosen not to represent this country when he had the option to.

    He's had a great career, but he chose to leave the Irish set up and people are perfectly entitled not to warm to him particularlry when he was quite happy to suggest Paul Stirling should follow him and try and represent england aswell.
    I simply don't understand that argument. His mother is English, when he was starting his career, Irish test cricket was almost non existent. He very clearly stated his preference for playing for England BEFORE any match he played for Ireland, but assisted Ireland in getting going on a proper test set-up.

    So before he picked up a bat for Ireland, he had an agreement with the Irish team management that it was temporary, enroute to a career representing England.

    You can't ask more than that.


  • Options
    #1115
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Darc19 wrote: »
    I simply don't understand that argument. His mother is English, when he was starting his career, Irish test cricket was almost non existent. He very clearly stated his preference for playing for England BEFORE any match he played for Ireland, but assisted Ireland in getting going on a proper test set-up.

    So before he picked up a bat for Ireland, he had an agreement with the Irish team management that it was temporary, enroute to a career representing England.

    You can't ask more than that.

    He was playing cricket at English academies from the age of about 12 as well.

    My daughter is half Irish and half English. No one should tell her what “her country” is.


  • Options
    #1116
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    Darc19 wrote: »
    I simply don't understand that argument. His mother is English, when he was starting his career, Irish test cricket was almost non existent.

    I think the point is that it was perfectly reasonable for Eoin at the time to want to play for England in the 5 day test match format. He couldn't achieve that with Irish cricket, as we mainly focused and still do on the shorter formats.

    But when selection for the English test panel was off the table and he switched his talents to the ODI format, he arguably should thrown his weight back behind the Irish team as that's a format we do have a reasonable record of competing in. Who knows but with his help, we might have qualified instead of Afg for this ODI World Cup just gone.

    Of course, it was his personal choice and that has to be respected, even if people cast a cold eye on it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1117
    Blinky Plebum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 314 ✭✭Blinky Plebum


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    I think the point is that it was perfectly reasonable for Eoin at the time to want to play for England in the 5 day test match format. He couldn't achieve that with Irish cricket, as we mainly focused and still do on the shorter formats.

    But when selection for the English test panel was off the table and he switched his talents to the ODI format, he arguably should thrown his weight back behind the Irish team as that's a format we do have a reasonable record of competing in. Who knows but with his help, we might have qualified instead of Afg for this ODI World Cup just gone.

    Of course, it was his personal choice and that has to be respected, even if people cast a cold eye on it.

    He only made a half hearted attempt to play test cricket he never really bothered trying to get back into the test team after he was dropped and so his reason of wanting to play test cricket all along as being the motivation was false, he just wanted to play for England.


  • Options
    #1118
    StringerBell
    Registered Users Posts: 14,029 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »
    Or - that’s the rules of ODI.

    Yeah, but this is one thing that should be looked at tbf. It is one thing for T20 but for 50 over International, particularly world cup finals there should be a better way.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Options
    #1119
    StringerBell
    Registered Users Posts: 14,029 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    I think the point is that it was perfectly reasonable for Eoin at the time to want to play for England in the 5 day test match format. He couldn't achieve that with Irish cricket, as we mainly focused and still do on the shorter formats.

    But when selection for the English test panel was off the table and he switched his talents to the ODI format, he arguably should thrown his weight back behind the Irish team as that's a format we do have a reasonable record of competing in. Who knows but with his help, we might have qualified instead of Afg for this ODI World Cup just gone.

    Of course, it was his personal choice and that has to be respected, even if people cast a cold eye on it.

    He couldn't achieve it with Ireland not as we mainly focused on the shorter formats, we could only compete in the shorter formats! There was literally no way. As for him coming back after his dropping from the Test team (cause you see that's what all top sportsmen do, they turn tail and run rather than back themselves) do you know how long he would have had to wait to play for Ireland again after that? You'd expect or want him to put his career on hold for that long and given that cricket is his livelihood expect him to hurt his earning potential so much? Seems a bit rough, the likes of Rankin I would have more of an issue with, even Ed Joyce funnily enough though he did have that touch of class back then. Rankin though? Stupidity, was never gonna nail down a place in the England team.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Options
    #1120
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,822 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Doodah7 wrote: »
    Well done!! I haven't had such a laugh in ages!!

    It's like saying that an offside goal won the World Cup final and the referee and his assistants made a mistake. Let's replay the match!! Are you mad?

    Good for you. No, quite sane thanks. Your football example is not exactly far fetched and in fact has happened so often in the past that we now have VAR.

    I realise there many ifs, ands and buts around the circumstances of the super over and that England would have approached the final 2 balls differently had the umpires awarded the correct 5 runs rather than the erroneous 6, but it played out how it played out and now in the minds of supporters everywhere the England victory is a qualified one.

    If I was some England middle-order man enjoying the week of mad celebrations I'd be worried about all that winding down and in the cold light of 4 years worth of reflection the win feeling hollow and many people in the other leading nations putting the asterisk beside it. Theres only one way to fix that.


  • Options
    #1121
    hahashake
    Registered Users Posts: 827 ✭✭✭hahashake


    My take as a kiwi:

    The boundaries rule is stupid (6s and 4s are equal, 4 runs taken isn't worth as much as a boundary 4 despite being more difficult, why not use wickets as a measure? etc.) and NZ were unlucky on multiple occasions (I'm including bad umpire calls as unlucky) BUT the rules were known in advance and bad luck is a part of sport. England beat us in the pool and were higher on the table so it's an easier pill to swallow than the reverse. The poster who suggested NZ were lucky to have the India pool game rained off should take note of the warmup and semi final results of NZ vs India though.

    I'm sure the England team and most England fans will look at their name on the trophy and see a complete victory, and they should - any other team in the same situation would do the same. However ask any non-England fan and most will see massive asterisk by the name. That's not bitterness, that's just a fact - and the majority of those fans are from the subcontinent (obviously).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1122
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,482 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    hahashake wrote: »
    My take as a kiwi:

    The boundaries rule is stupid (6s and 4s are equal, 4 runs taken isn't worth as much as as a boundary 4 despite being more difficult, why not use wickets as a measure? etc.) and NZ were unlucky on multiple occasions (I'm including bad umpire calls as unlucky) BUT the rules were known in advance and bad luck is a part of sport. England beat us in the pool and were higher on the table so it's an easier pool to swallow than the reverse. The poster who suggested NZ were lucky to have the India pool game rained off should take note of the warmup and semi final results of NZ vs India though.

    I'm sure the England team and most England fans will look at their named on the trophy and see a complete victory, and they should - any other team in the same situation would do the same. However ask any non-England fan and most will see massive asterisk by the name. That's not bitterness, that's just a fact - and the majority of those fans are from the subcontinent (obviously).


    I'd agree.

    Stepping back from it - take the soccer world cup - a competition that last for three years; 200 countries, thousands of games, millions of people attending games, billions of people watching games.

    And at the end of it, it can be and has been decided by - not a game of soccer - but a penalty shoot out.

    Is that any different?

    And yet people put up with it.

    As for the asterisk thing - the winner is the winner. I think - to be fair, a lot of the asterisk thing derives from the fact that the Kiwis are a popular team (in cricket!) and well liked, and Kane Williamson in particular. if it had been Australia on the receiving end, or indeed England, there wouldn't be so much talk about asterisks. There would be talk about how they had blown the opportunity.


  • Options
    #1123
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    I'd agree.

    Stepping back from it - take the soccer world cup - a competition that last for three years; 200 countries, thousands of games, millions of people attending games, billions of people watching games.

    And at the end of it, it can be and has been decided by - not a game of soccer - but a penalty shoot out.

    Is that any different?

    And yet people put up with it.

    As for the asterisk thing - the winner is the winner. I think - to be fair, a lot of the asterisk thing derives from the fact that the Kiwis are a popular team (in cricket!) and well liked, and Kane Williamson in particular. if it had been Australia on the receiving end, or indeed England, there wouldn't be so much talk about asterisks. There would be talk about how they had blown the opportunity.

    Yeah, a penalty shootout is different. Maybe it would be the same if they only had 5 shots each for the shootout, and if there wasn't a result, they would decide it on the team with the most shots on goal in the match or something.

    Without a doubt, the rules will be looked at, and probably changed. There's no reason why they couldn't have gone to a second super over if the scores were drawn after the first.

    But hey, it was still an amazing match.


  • Options
    #1124
    Adamcp898
    Registered Users Posts: 5,469 ✭✭✭Adamcp898


    Well at least it wasn't decided by a "bowl-off" like they used to, I guess.


  • Options
    #1125
    Yeah_Right
    Registered Users Posts: 5,961 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    hahashake wrote: »
    My take as a kiwi:

    The boundaries rule is stupid (6s and 4s are equal, 4 runs taken isn't worth as much as a boundary 4 despite being more difficult, why not use wickets as a measure? etc.) and NZ were unlucky on multiple occasions (I'm including bad umpire calls as unlucky) BUT the rules were known in advance and bad luck is a part of sport. England beat us in the pool and were higher on the table so it's an easier pill to swallow than the reverse. The poster who suggested NZ were lucky to have the India pool game rained off should take note of the warmup and semi final results of NZ vs India though.

    I'm sure the England team and most England fans will look at their name on the trophy and see a complete victory, and they should - any other team in the same situation would do the same. However ask any non-England fan and most will see massive asterisk by the name. That's not bitterness, that's just a fact - and the majority of those fans are from the subcontinent (obviously).

    As a kiwi, I was heart broken by the loss. Before the tournament, I thought reaching the semis would be a good achievement for the kiwis. Before the final, I expected England to win and just hoped we would put in a good performance (unlike 4 years ago).

    During the match I kept thinking that it wouldn't be our day. Lady luck certainly wasn't on our side. How many times did the kiwi bowlers miss the edge or get an inside edge and miss the stumps or beat the batsman completely and somehow miss the stumps?!? But as the match progressed we started to believe and then it was right there!! One hand on the trophy! And it was snatched away :mad: Absolutely sickening. I know how the Irish rugby fans felt in 2013.

    I know that the rules are what they are and both teams knew them beforehand but look at the scoreboard after 50 overs:
    NZ 241 for 8.
    England 241 all out. ALL OUT!!!!! FFS!! :mad:

    Sorry I've gotten mad again.


  • Options
    #1126
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Adamcp898 wrote: »
    Well at least it wasn't decided by a "bowl-off" like they used to, I guess.

    How can actual cricketers miss like the 3 Pakistani bowls? They weren't even that close.

    https://youtu.be/mI_S_8aQTbo


  • Options
    #1127
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,822 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Yeah_Right wrote: »
    I know how the Irish rugby fans felt in 2013

    I'd say you feel far worse to be fair, we got edged in a one-off friendly, which we took two chances to make amends for in subsequent years. If we lost a RWC final due to some sort of error by the officials, there'd be insurrection at the World Rugby HQ.


  • Options
    #1128
    hahashake
    Registered Users Posts: 827 ✭✭✭hahashake


    Yeah_Right wrote: »
    As a kiwi, I was heart broken by the loss. Before the tournament, I thought reaching the semis would be a good achievement for the kiwis. Before the final, I expected England to win and just hoped we would put in a good performance (unlike 4 years ago).

    During the match I kept thinking that it wouldn't be our day. Lady luck certainly wasn't on our side. How many times did the kiwi bowlers miss the edge or get an inside edge and miss the stumps or beat the batsman completely and somehow miss the stumps?!? But as the match progressed we started to believe and then it was right there!! One hand on the trophy! And it was snatched away :mad: Absolutely sickening. I know how the Irish rugby fans felt in 2013.

    I know that the rules are what they are and both teams knew them beforehand but look at the scoreboard after 50 overs:
    NZ 241 for 8.
    England 241 all out. ALL OUT!!!!! FFS!! :mad:

    Sorry I've gotten mad again.
    No idea why wickets aren't taken into consideration before boundaries, I'm assuming it's because the rules came from T20.


  • Options
    #1129
    Scrabbel
    Registered Users Posts: 305 ✭✭Scrabbel


    Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »
    It’s not even certain that it was a bad decision. The runners had to cross at the time the “throw or act” directed the ball towards the boundary. The act could well have been the hitting of the bat again.

    No, if you read the rule in full it’s clearly referring to the act of the fielder. It uses the phrase “the act” and the only act referred to earlier in the rule is the fielder’s.


  • Options
    #1130
    jobeenfitz
    Registered Users Posts: 2,443 ✭✭✭jobeenfitz


    I don't know if it was feasible to replay. I definitely think England should have offered a replay. Someone one else said it would be mad, I think it would have been fair. Not sure if other teams woul have been as graceful as NZ were considering the circumstances.

    It's a tainted win for England imo.


  • Options
    #1131
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,822 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    hahashake wrote: »
    No idea why wickets aren't taken into consideration before boundaries, I'm assuming it's because the rules came from T20.

    Yeah thats a whopper of a mistake really. Wickets are a crucial metric in the game generally, how they weren't rated as the next measure of scoring success to runs in OD is crazy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1132
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,482 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    I really don't know why England should be offered to give a replay.

    They didn't write the rules, and its completely unfair to say - after the event - well they won according to the rules, but on reflection we think the rules are a bit daft so we'll start again.

    That's a complete non-starter.

    I've seen far worse injustices in sport than this. Here in Ireland, the leinster final a few years back where the guy threw the ball into the net in the last minute to deny Louth their first ever Leinster title, (or first for 50 years).

    The world cup where Luis Suarez caught the ball on his goalline to deny Senegal being the first African team to reach a world cup semi final.

    This.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underarm_bowling_incident_of_1981

    England didn't break any rules here, and they won within the rules - so why punish them.

    Its bad luck on New Zealand but you cant say its unfair.


  • Options
    #1133
    jobeenfitz
    Registered Users Posts: 2,443 ✭✭✭jobeenfitz


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    I really don't know why England should be offered to give a replay.

    They didn't write the rules, and its completely unfair to say - after the event - well they won according to the rules, but on reflection we think the rules are a bit daft so we'll start again.

    That's a complete non-starter.

    I've seen far worse injustices in sport than this. Here in Ireland, the leinster final a few years back where the guy threw the ball into the net in the last minute to deny Louth their first ever Leinster title, (or first for 50 years).

    The world cup where Luis Suarez caught the ball on his goalline to deny Senegal being the first African team to reach a world cup semi final.

    This.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underarm_bowling_incident_of_1981

    England didn't break any rules here, and they won within the rules - so why punish them.

    Its bad luck on New Zealand but you cant say its unfair.

    Depends on how you interpret the overthrow rules. Even Umpires are in disagreement. As pointed out earlier The number 11 batsman instead Ben Stokes could have faced last two deliveries.

    You may disagree with people saying it's unfair but we are entitled to our opinion.


  • Options
    #1134
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    Yeah_Right wrote: »
    As a kiwi, I was heart broken by the loss. Before the tournament, I thought reaching the semis would be a good achievement for the kiwis. Before the final, I expected England to win and just hoped we would put in a good performance (unlike 4 years ago).

    During the match I kept thinking that it wouldn't be our day. Lady luck certainly wasn't on our side. How many times did the kiwi bowlers miss the edge or get an inside edge and miss the stumps or beat the batsman completely and somehow miss the stumps?!? But as the match progressed we started to believe and then it was right there!! One hand on the trophy! And it was snatched away :mad: Absolutely sickening. I know how the Irish rugby fans felt in 2013.

    I know that the rules are what they are and both teams knew them beforehand but look at the scoreboard after 50 overs:
    NZ 241 for 8.
    England 241 all out. ALL OUT!!!!! FFS!! :mad:

    Sorry I've gotten mad again.

    Yous were most likely robbed! Plain & simple. Forget about the Super Over - the terms for that were understood by both teams. The real injustice was in the final over, overthrows are common in the game and not unusual for the ball to deflect off something or somebody when it's thrown in. The only reason Stokes threw himself into the second run was to get back on strike. The umpires should have been all over that incident and taken time to figure out what was correct. There was no marginal decision to be made, it was clear on the replays available.


  • Options
    #1135
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,381 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Well Ben Stokes made an impression with the Kiwis

    He's been nominated for a New Zealander of the Year award:pac:


  • Options
    #1136
    mac.in
    Registered Users Posts: 594 ✭✭✭mac.in


    Umpire admitted having made the mistake of awarding 6 runs instead of 5 runs to England. Link here


  • Options
    #1137
    jobeenfitz
    Registered Users Posts: 2,443 ✭✭✭jobeenfitz


    He's admitted he's wrong, took a while but he got there. We all make mistakes. Saying he doesn't regret though. Not sure about that.

    Give him a week or two.


  • Options
    #1138
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,381 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    There were 2 umpires on the pitch and more watching from the stands. If it was a "bad" decision, they all failed to correct it. Does not matter now though. England are the champions.


  • Options
    #1139
    jobeenfitz
    Registered Users Posts: 2,443 ✭✭✭jobeenfitz


    Beasty wrote: »
    There were 2 umpires on the pitch and more watching from the stands. If it was a "bad" decision, they all failed to correct it. Does not matter now though. England are the champions.

    *


  • Options
    #1140
    mac.in
    Registered Users Posts: 594 ✭✭✭mac.in


    For some, at least me, it absolutely matters to know what went wrong and what's the mistake.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1141
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    mac.in wrote: »
    Umpire admitted having made the mistake of awarding 6 runs instead of 5 runs to England. Link here

    Quoting from that article: "I agree that there was a judgmental error when I see it on TV replays now. But we did not have the luxury of TV replays at the ground and I will never regret the decision I made. Beside the ICC praised me for the decision I made at that time."

    What does he mean by that? Of course they had 'the luxury of TV replays' - used several times during that match and all previous matches.

    Maybe he means that the umpires are limited in what decisions they can view using TV replays but clearly they are routinely used to help judge boundaries, run outs, no balls, catches, lbw and so on. Surely if they are in doubt about any decision and a TV replay will assist, they can utilise them. Issue here seems more likely that they rushed a poor decision under pressure.


Advertisement