Euro 2020: Jimmy Neesham's hilarious take on England's final defeat reminds fans of NZ's World Cup loss

[Gollum]

Besides finishing above them Eng also hammered NZ in the group game, look at any TB Eng would have come ahead. Like the Aus-RSA situation in 1999 WC. 

Edited July 13, 2021 by Gollum

[zen]

5 hours ago, New guy said:

Yes  but they were stupid stupid rules and still should be criticized so ICC doesn't do it next time 

In 1999 WC SF, Aus advanced in a tied game due to beating SA in a previous stage … Before the game, both teams knew what would happen in case of a tie 

 

In 2007 T20 WC, Ind won a group game v Pak through bowl-out

Teams have suffered due to D&L too when SA needed 22 runs of the last ball in 1992 SF

 

In a relatively long 50 overs game (where it may not be practical to have super over after super over), if the game could not be decided even in the super over, there would usually be a rule that both teams would know who would win in case of a tie 

 

I think there is nothing wrong in a rule that encourages teams to play more strokes in ODIs.  It is a type of NRR, which would be equal in a tied game, applied to boundaries hit

 

Personally, I would prefer at least two super overs in ODIs before such rules come into play (but nothing wrong if it kicks in early if the plan before the start of the tournament is to have a non-tie result in the final) 

Edited July 13, 2021 by zen

[New guy]

1 hour ago, zen said:

In 1999 WC SF, Aus advanced in a tied game due to beating SA in a previous stage … Before the game, both teams knew what would happen in case of a tie 

 

In 2007 T20 WC, Ind won a group game v Pak through bowl-out

Teams have suffered due to D&L too when SA needed 22 runs of the last ball in 1992 SF

 

In a relatively long 50 overs game (where it may not be practical to have super over after super over), if the game could not be decided even in the super over, there would usually be a rule that both teams would know who would win in case of a tie 

 

I think there is nothing wrong in a rule that encourages teams to play more strokes in ODIs.  It is a type of NRR, which would be equal in a tied game, applied to boundaries hit

 

Personally, I would prefer at least two super overs in ODIs before such rules come into play (but nothing wrong if it kicks in early if the plan before the start of the tournament is to have a non-tie result in the final) 

There is a reason every rule you named was changed afterwards and never used again. And they were changed because of criticism. Even ICC admitted boundary count was stupid and won't happen again 

[zen]

Just now, New guy said:

There is a reason every rule you named was changed afterwards and never used again. And they were changed because of criticism. Even ICC admitted boundary count was stupid and won't happen again 

The point is that there is no point in complaining over rules which are set before the tournament 

 

[rtmohanlal]

NZL players just being the cry babies here... ENG were the thoroughly  deserving winners in that final .Every  body knows that  generally chasing  gets

most difficult in  a high profile match because the pressure can be too much to handle. That's why  even an other wise  calibre batsman like Root struggled

to put  bat on ball in that final  match. It is there that the  'nerves of steel' man  Stokes produced that out of the world inns. NZL got lot luckier in the form of

'winning the toss and batting first' . Yet they couldn't capitalize. 

[Lord]

Even if we agree that boundary count rule was okay because it was known beforehand,NZ still lost due to an umpiring error

 

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/kumar-dharmasena-made-a-mistake-in-the-2019-world-cup-final-but-just-about-every-umpire-would-have-done-the-same-1233690

Quote

ESPNcricinfo's UK editor Andrew Miller reaches for the rule book - of all things. He comes across law 19.8. The run in progress only counts if the batsmen had crossed "at the instant of the throw" it says. So in this case, only five should have been awarded. What's more, Adil Rashid - England's No. 10 - should have been on strike for the next delivery, further denting England's chances. Uh oh.

 

[zen]

19 minutes ago, Lord said:

Even if we agree that boundary count rule was okay because it was known beforehand,NZ still lost due to an umpiring error

 

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/kumar-dharmasena-made-a-mistake-in-the-2019-world-cup-final-but-just-about-every-umpire-would-have-done-the-same-1233690

 

 

Umpiring errors are a part of the game. Errors include giving wrong decisions too in the past ... If those runs were not given, there is no way to suggest that Eng would not have hit one more 6 (speculations can be done in a variety of ways) 

 

[Lord]

15 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Umpiring errors are a part of the game. Errors include giving wrong decisions too in the past ... If those runs were not given, there is no way to suggest that Eng would not have hit one more 6 (speculations can be done in a variety of ways) 

 

 

Yeah that is philosophical way of looking at it.

 

But the error did impact the game and I'd be pissed too if it happened v India.

 

Besides this was an avoidable error if they referred it(or had provision to refer it)

[zen]

1 hour ago, Lord said:

 

Yeah that is philosophical way of looking at it.

 

But the error did impact the game and I'd be pissed too if it happened v India.

 

Besides this was an avoidable error if they referred it(or had provision to refer it)

Difficult to speculate on the result as many times no-balls are given/not given, a wide can not only give a extra run but also an extra ball, which can create an impact

 

There was cricket played after that incident (so it was not as if it happened on the last ball)
 

There are various ways to speculate, like  Eng only needed 3 runs off the last 2 balls iirc, so it focused on running and not big hits. If it had gone for big hits, it could have won  

 

 

Edited July 14, 2021 by zen

[Singh bling]

On 7/13/2021 at 4:28 AM, cricketfan28 said:

penalties and super overs are mostly luck.

Penalties are part of football 2 out last knockout games went in penalties in Euro and third one was also going in it , thanks to referee. Having a tie in cricket is rare and having a super over tied too is extremely rare

[GeeGaw]

Cricket at its most fundamental level is a game of scoring runs and taking wickets.  There is nothing inherently valuable about boundaries other than their contribution to the accumulated run total.

 

If a match is tied after super over then it would make more sense to use wickets taken to decide the winner over something as stupid as boundaries.  Might as well let the two captains go out to the center of the oval and play a game of "rock, paper scissors" to decide the winner.