Skip to content

Cricket World Cup



  • Were of course!
    Now 108-2 after 22.

  • Just noticed that the “Executive Sous Chef” at Lords can’t spell broccoli!

    Gardening calls, you’ll be pleased to hear.

  • What a brilliant and exciting game.

  • Such small margins but that's what sorts out the great teams from the very good.

  • Incredible effort from Stokes to get England back into the game, though NZ were robbed.

  • That's the type of game no-one deserves to lose, and considering it was peaking at the same time as Djokovic-Federer, it was quite a moment for that sentiment!

  • NZ played so well and very unlucky with the ball that went to the boundary. I’m sure the laws will be changed after that. But delighted for England.

  • I'm absolutely exhausted after watching that, 2 or 3 times I was certain we had lost, so to still win... incredible

  • Never in doubt - I put on a fiver for us to win it on a technicality after a super over and have just bought a small tropical island with my winnings. Yay for early retirement.

  • Surely one of the greatest games ever - in any sport

  • No fan of cricket, but that was an amazing last hour.

  • Extraordinary game, most dramatic ever. The tension was unbearable. I don't know how Stokes held it together, he looked to be in real difficulties near the end, physically and emotionally. That incident with Stokes accidentally diverting the ball for four was just bizarre.

  • Quite extraordinary how the tennis and cricket, if you’ll pardon the expression, were climaxing simultaneously. Nearly wore out the remote control flicking every minute or two between the channels.

    Felt sorry in a way for New Zealand. When England were 95 for 4 I’d pretty well written them off and the freak “6” from 2 runs plus the accidentally deflected throw for 4 overthrows was a cruel blow.

  • doe you mean "caused by "rather than " plus"

  • 2 plus 4 equals 6

  • Thanks @Chris. I thought it made sense but started to doubt myself! Everything that could’ve gone wrong did go wrong for the admirable Kiwis during the last half hour or so and the last straw (as I only learnt just now) must surely have been the fact that only five runs should have been awarded for the overthrow incident.

    Darren Stevens, eh? Probably a bit late for an England call-up!

  • The general view this morning is that five runs, and not six, should have been awarded when Stokes accidentally diverted the ball to the boundary off his bat.

    When the fielder threw the ball, Stokes and Rashid had not crossed for the second run.

    19.8 Overthrow or wilful act of fielder

    If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be

    1) any runs for penalties awarded to either side and
    2) the allowance for the boundary and
    3) the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act.

  • Sorry @micra, didn't properly read your post which makes the same point.

  • @micra Stevens and Federer are two of the very elite club of still active world-class sportspeople who are older than me.

  • A bit unfortunate about the "extra run" incident. But if we're getting itchy, was that really a wide on the first ball of the super over? Inside the line, which one of the commentators said at the time too.

  • Not wishing to devalue what looked/sounded (and in terms of drama clearly was) a but who on earth decided that boundaries are more valuable than wickets?

  • Possibly the same person who decided that everyone wanted to hear Guns'n'Roses every time a new batsman came in.

  • Must admit @bookertease, when the camera lingered on the final (pre Super Over) scoreboard, it struck me that the loss of two fewer wickets by New Zealand might have been a more just way of settling it but, against that, the 50 over game is all about maintaining the interest and excitement of spectators whose attention span tends to be rather shorter than that of yer died in the wool traditionalists.
    @EddieMonsoon is straining at the leash as he reads this post. Congratulations, sir, on a fine win for Surrey today but little overachieving tinpot Kent will be out to leapfrog them tomorrow. And, yes, I know Surrey are missing a couple of key players but they no doubt have a much larger squad.

  • Gosh @Chris - you are but a child ?.

  • If wickets had been the tiebreaker, I doubt England would have gone for the near suicidal second runs on each of the last two balls of the 50.

    Surely the better approach would have been to allow the trophy to be shared. Neither side deserved to lose.

  • Aw c’mon @OakwoodExile, we won it fair and square! Tongue slightly in cheek.
    Cripes! You’re not a Kiwi are you?

  • Tied one day games used to be decided on wickets (and if that was tied it went to bowling at a single stump). I think it only changed quite recently, probably around the time 20/20 came along. Wickets does seem a more logical and probably fairer option but then, as an entertainment, I can see why a super over is more attractive. If that’s tied too then number of boundaries seems a bit arbitrary tho.

  • At one point the tie-breaker was a comparison of runs scored at various points in the innings (eg at the 40th over). No solution is very satisfactory.

  • Did you describe Kent all rounder Darren Stevens as world class earlier, or am I confused?

  • Perhaps for tied games they should simply have a replay.

Sign In or Register to comment.