General Blackcaps Chat

Forums › Sports › General Blackcaps Chat

1 | ... | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | ... | 205

9648 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2277681 16-Jul-2019 11:17

GV27:
Handle9: There were mistakes made by the umpires, there were way more by the players. No one did anything corrupt or underhanded.

New Zealand had opportunities to win the game after the overthrows but we weren't good enough on the day.

The mistakes New Zealand made did not affect the score being measured correctly.

The umpires did. If you can't see how that is different then I don't know what to tell you.

The umpires made a mistake. It wasn't a particularly obvious mistake which is why it wasn't picked up at the time. No one from the New Zealand team queried it, it only got picked up well after the fact.

It's no different to missing one short. There was a fairly extended debate about whether Williamson had run one short in the previous game.

Mighty Ape

Shop Mighty Ape for electronics, games, computers books and more (affiliate link).

GV27

5429 posts

Uber Geek

#2277690 16-Jul-2019 11:50

Handle9:

The umpires made a mistake. It wasn't a particularly obvious mistake which is why it wasn't picked up at the time. No one from the New Zealand team queried it, it only got picked up well after the fact.

It's no different to missing one short. There was a fairly extended debate about whether Williamson had run one short in the previous game.

Here's the thing, it's not obvious to many other people who aren't professional cricket umpires, and being asked to officiate a World Cup final for that reason.

They don't pull these blokes off the street, that's their job.

There's a lot of things to work through in that one passage of play. There is no good reason, with two balls left and in a World Cup final to not stop, work through and get to a correct result, with a TMO if need be.

Handle9

9648 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2277801 16-Jul-2019 16:04

GV27:
Handle9:

The umpires made a mistake. It wasn't a particularly obvious mistake which is why it wasn't picked up at the time. No one from the New Zealand team queried it, it only got picked up well after the fact.

It's no different to missing one short. There was a fairly extended debate about whether Williamson had run one short in the previous game.

Here's the thing, it's not obvious to many other people who aren't professional cricket umpires, and being asked to officiate a World Cup final for that reason.

They don't pull these blokes off the street, that's their job.

There's a lot of things to work through in that one passage of play. There is no good reason, with two balls left and in a World Cup final to not stop, work through and get to a correct result, with a TMO if need be.

It wasn't obvious to anyone. If it had been I'm sure they would have stopped and checked. It's not like it's a conspiracy.

This isn't the first time anyone has made an important mistake that was part of their job.

I was surprised that Dharmasena got the final. He was pants in the semi and not good in the final.

mattwnz

19389 posts

Uber Geek

#2277802 16-Jul-2019 16:10

Handle9:
The umpires made a mistake. It wasn't a particularly obvious mistake which is why it wasn't picked up at the time. No one from the New Zealand team queried it, it only got picked up well after the fact.

I think NZ had run out queries to the umpire, whereas England still had one remaining. Although I don't know if that applies to this sort of thing, or if it only applies to dismissals. It is disappointing that it came down this, but 'it is what it is', and that is life and sport.

CYaBro

4092 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2277812 16-Jul-2019 16:28

Kane Williamson has spoken about all of this now:

https://www.theaccnz.com/news/kane-williamson-we-didnt-lose-the-cricket-world-cup-final/

tdgeek

28622 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2277892 16-Jul-2019 18:55

CYaBro:

Kane Williamson has spoken about all of this now:

https://www.theaccnz.com/news/kane-williamson-we-didnt-lose-the-cricket-world-cup-final/

He is he. Its a pity that he has been declared man of the series as a likely consolation prize. That in itself hurts. He was up there certainly, but on metrics not obvious. . But the outcome is he was awarded that as a leader of the SPORT. Make want you want to of that. Thats my final comment on this controversial issue.

GV27

5429 posts

Uber Geek

#2277921 16-Jul-2019 20:11

KW has been impeccable tbh. He's always respectable to officials, unlike some other players in some other teams who probably would have been made to sit out the final had they not been on certain other teams which shall remain nameless.

Fairly easily cemented his place alongside Richie Mac and others like Scott Dixon who achieve so much but are widely regarded as being good people as well.

tdgeek

28622 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2278028 17-Jul-2019 07:15

GV27:

KW has been impeccable tbh. He's always respectable to officials, unlike some other players in some other teams who probably would have been made to sit out the final had they not been on certain other teams which shall remain nameless.

Fairly easily cemented his place alongside Richie Mac and others like Scott Dixon who achieve so much but are widely regarded as being good people as well.

And I tell you what, had we won by 65 runs, his manner would be unchanged

Dingbatt

6421 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2278106 17-Jul-2019 08:58

Tealeaf’s passion has convinced me that a wrong has been done.
Players will not criticise the ICC, neither will coaches. Because NZ is a cricketing minnow, the only way it will ever be addressed is if the other semi-finalists (ie the giants of the game) pressure the ICC to make a statement.
I don’t believe for one minute that even if the mistake is admitted, NZ would be awarded the cup.

Until then, I intend to refer to England as “Accidental Champions”.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

tdgeek

28622 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2278117 17-Jul-2019 09:06

Dingbatt: Tealeaf’s passion has convinced me that a wrong has been done.
Players will not criticise the ICC, neither will coaches. Because NZ is a cricketing minnow, the only way it will ever be addressed is if the other semi-finalists (ie the giants of the game) pressure the ICC to make a statement.
I don’t believe for one minute that even if the mistake is admitted, NZ would be awarded the cup.

Until then, I intend to refer to England as “Accidental Champions”.

I refer to it as a tie, as does the ICC on their website. As to how ball 49.3 was handled, and other claims, there has been enough expert comment to allow anyone to assess that how they like

Ex ICC ( I added the /10 :-) )

Match tied (England win the Super Over)

New Zealand - 241/8 50/50 ov RR: 4.82

England - 241/10 50/50 ov RR: 4.82

tdgeek

28622 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2280384 20-Jul-2019 18:33

Odd developments here.

Stokes apparently asked the overthrows not to be counted. Good, if it's true. Comes to light a while after the game though.

Morgan says today it was tough to be the winner as both sides hard to seperate. Odd. The fact that it was a game hard to separate is not relevant.

ICC might look into this rule, next time the review rules. Ok. But we dont look into umpires decisions. Ok.

I guess I take all this as PC efforts to mitigate the issue. But the game is over, we can see through all that, it is what it is. The feedback from others internationally, including Brits, is enough

networkn

Networkn
30228 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2290690 6-Aug-2019 08:46

Brendon McCullum annouces retirement from all competitive cricket today formally closing his career after the GT20. Hopefully, he will still contribute to cricket in some way. He speaks well and could consider commentary perhaps.

He was a great ambassador for NZ Cricket and achieved significantly.

tdgeek

28622 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2290693 6-Aug-2019 08:50

Agree. He has been doing some commentary in the CWC and was very good. He invented the modern ODI game, literally. Set the game up from ball 1. Aggressive field placement. . I assume he has had little involvement in the Black Caps, but now perhaps an official role in batting and strategy.

networkn

Networkn
30228 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2290707 6-Aug-2019 08:56

tdgeek:

Agree. He has been doing some commentary in the CWC and was very good. He invented the modern ODI game, literally. Set the game up from ball 1. Aggressive field placement. . I assume he has had little involvement in the Black Caps, but now perhaps an official role in batting and strategy.

Well, in my view the strategic side of his game wasn't his strong suit, as evidenced particularly clearly in the final of the last CWC where almost every team would have played a slow and steady build but he came out swinging and was picked off early causing his teams shoulders to drop and them to capitulate far more easily than most would have given them credit for given their strong run to the final. Perhaps without the pressure of captaincy that side of his game could develop though I do wonder if his style would fit with the team currently. I feel, had he the desire, under Hesson he probably would have been welcomed.

tdgeek

28622 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2290718 6-Aug-2019 09:11

networkn:

tdgeek:

Agree. He has been doing some commentary in the CWC and was very good. He invented the modern ODI game, literally. Set the game up from ball 1. Aggressive field placement. . I assume he has had little involvement in the Black Caps, but now perhaps an official role in batting and strategy.

Well, in my view the strategic side of his game wasn't his strong suit, as evidenced particularly clearly in the final of the last CWC where almost every team would have played a slow and steady build but he came out swinging and was picked off early causing his teams shoulders to drop and them to capitulate far more easily than most would have given them credit for given their strong run to the final. Perhaps without the pressure of captaincy that side of his game could develop though I do wonder if his style would fit with the team currently. I feel, had he the desire, under Hesson he probably would have been welcomed.

His risk taking made an early exit possible. If there was no early exit, then often the game is ours to lose, we are well ahead of the 8 ball. Yeah, the final made that stand out, but thats how we got there. Go hard. Its not just the runs he gets, its the mistakes caused by adding pressure to the opposition, so a double edged sword. That final was a pity, but had we played steady cricket we would not have got there, so Im ok with it. Play the game that works, and its extremely rare that NZ matches the top sides, we need an X factor. Munro now, is his style, playing the same game, except Munro is not at that level, he plays high risk and its a likely result to fail. Had BMC been here now, more runs, more often, but also that risk.

1 | ... | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | ... | 205