Cricket: Why are you chirping now mate, you're not getting wickets?

[flyingkiwi]

Had a bit of kip now awake again. I can’t believe we’re still in this but the bowling’s gonna have to tighten up again.

 

[flyingkiwi]

No matter the result of a super over, we’ve drawn. I can’t believe it.

Full credit to England. Let’s go boys!!

 

[Chandrashekhar Limit]

This is insane

 

[Morozov]

That six off the bat was f***ing so shit. It's the rules but for that to determine the result the way it has. England have had so much luck in this game.

 

[flyingkiwi]

Damn we’re gonna be lucky to get 16.

 

[Chandrashekhar Limit]

Disappointing from Boult over the last 5 overs.

 

[Kcoyote3]

Boult really f***ed this IMO

 

[flyingkiwi]

Bold call going with Guppy.

What a redemption arc that would be.

 

[Chandrashekhar Limit]

Greatest match of cricket I have seen. Tremendous performance and grit from New Zealand.

Really, came down to bad luck for them.

 

[flyingkiwi]

One run. Damn.

It stings but I’ll take it.

Those sixes hurt but this time last week we didn’t expect to be here.

 

[Kiwi]

Congratulations to England, they are a worthy champion

Unbelievable, I cannot bloody believe how this thing turned out
One piece of great fielding by us and it sunk us somehow, I just don't know what to say

 

[Kcoyote3]

Pretty amazing stuff there. That off bat six was insane.

 

[davemess]

Unbelievable game of Cricket

 

[Chloraflora]

I do not think I have any nerves left. Jesus H.

 

[Morozov]

It's trash. What a hollow way to win, luck into tying the game, draw the super over and then default win by having the most boundaries in the game. What a crap way to decide the showpiece event of the sport. Do another super over and get an actual winner of the final

Imagine deciding game 7 of the Stanley Cup on most shots or something like that.

For such a great game to end like that is a real shame.

 

[Chandrashekhar Limit]

It's trash. What a hollow way to win, luck into tying the game, draw the super over and then default win by having the most boundaries in the game. What a crap way to decide the showpiece event of the sport. Do another super over and get an actual winner of the final

Imagine deciding game 7 of the Stanley Cup on most shots or something like that.

For such a great game to end like that is a real shame.

Agreed. If it was something like the team that has lost the least number of wickets it would make more sense than boundaries.

Best solution is endless super over IMO.

Also the bye run off the batter rule needs to be revisited. If the batting side interferes in the throw they should not get any more runs from it, be it intentional or not.

 

[Paul4587]

I still don't get this. England did not win the game how on Earth do they get to take home the world cup?? That's an absolute travesty and the rules need a thorough review.

 

[flyingkiwi]

I’d be alright if it was wickets taken or something. Most boundaries is worse than losing a Stanley Cup on a shoot out. Which for good reason doesn’t happen.

 

[Shrimper]

I am so happy right now.

 

[Chandrashekhar Limit]

Overall aside from that final, I thought this was a rather boring World Cup. Hopefully ICC expands the tournament to allow more teams, and have more knockout games.

This time, the top 4 was pretty much decided with a decent amount of group games left.

More group games played likely means the better teams will come out on top, but it puts less weight on each game, making for a less exciting tournament.

More group games means more India games, and thus more money, but I think settling for less cash in the short term for growing the game in the long term is a worth while investment. Say China starts doing well, makes the World Cup and starts getting interested. That’s another 1 billion + market that you can potentially tap into.

Would prefer they go back to allowing 12-16 team. Crazy to think two full members are not playing a World Cup. Having a 2007 type of tournament would put a lot more weight into the group games, allow more teams to play and allow better chance for weaker teams to advance, making the event more exciting. Basically mimicking the FIFA model.

We have the champions trophy for a truncated version of the event with only top teams anyways. Just having two more teams for the World Cup basically makes it the same event every 2 years.

Getting the chance to see teams that we usually don’t get to watch is always fun. I enjoyed watching Bermuda, Nepal, PNG, Namibia despite their lack of competitiveness in some games. Also helps those teams get some games against the big boys, which would otherwise be pretty much impossible.

 

[Paul4587]

I’d be alright if it was wickets taken or something. Most boundaries is worse than losing a Stanley Cup on a shoot out. Which for good reason doesn’t happen.

Not even a shootout, it would be like deciding a Stanley Cup final on who had more shots on goal.

 

[John Price]

 

[member 305909]

How big is this victory in comparison for example to the Rugby WC-win 2003?

 

[Shrimper]

Overall aside from that final, I thought this was a rather boring World Cup. Hopefully ICC expands the tournament to allow more teams, and have more knockout games.

This time, the top 4 was pretty much decided with a decent amount of group games left.

More group games played likely means the better teams will come out on top, but it puts less weight on each game, making for a less exciting tournament.

More group games means more India games, and thus more money, but I think settling for less cash in the short term for growing the game in the long term is a worth while investment. Say China starts doing well, makes the World Cup and starts getting interested. That’s another 1 billion + market that you can potentially tap into.

Would prefer they go back to allowing 12-16 team. Crazy to think two full members are not playing a World Cup. Having a 2007 type of tournament would put a lot more weight into the group games, allow more teams to play and allow better chance for weaker teams to advance, making the event more exciting. Basically mimicking the FIFA model.

We have the champions trophy for a truncated version of the event with only top teams anyways. Just having two more teams for the World Cup basically makes it the same event every 2 years.

Getting the chance to see teams that we usually don’t get to watch is always fun. I enjoyed watching Bermuda, Nepal, PNG, Namibia despite their lack of competitiveness in some games. Also helps those teams get some games against the big boys, which would otherwise be pretty much impossible.

The Champions Trophy is no more

 

[I am not exposed]

How big is this victory in comparison for example to the Rugby WC-win 2003?

I felt the Rugby World Cup win was more popular. Or at least in my circles. A Rugby game is only 80 minutes as well, so easier to get the casual fan involved.

I would also say the 2005 Ashes victory felt bigger.

This was still pretty big though. And very important for English cricket.