|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jul 16, 2019 7:51:21 GMT
As someone pointed out, another umpire would not have given Jofra's first ball of the 'Super Over' a wide. It's all ifs and buts and rules are there, however complex at times, to turn chaos into order.
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jul 16, 2019 8:14:01 GMT
This is how steep the hill is for the ECB to climb if they want cricket back as centre-stage of British sport. This is what happens when you take a sport off free-to-air.
(Daily Express)
Sky’s magnanimous gesture in allowing Channel 4 to show the final free-to-air allowed millions more into the epic drama. Add in Sky’s numbers across their clutch of channels which showed the final to the 4.5m viewers on terrestrial TV and the eyeball count reached 8.3m.
That is well short of the 15m who saw Wilkinson’s drop goal on ITV at breakfast time in 2003. Cricket was handicapped by a sporting split ticket on Sunday which saw a peak of 9.6m watch an equally wondrous Wimbledon final. But those who chose it over tennis – even accounting for the brilliance of Djokovic v Federer - cannot have regretted it...
The absence of any live terrestrial TV coverage since 2005 has been a monumental act of self-harm for cricket. Playing numbers are down, state school cricket is an afterthought and there is much ground to make up. The ECB has its plans and projects and with the Ashes to come as well this summer there is more petrol to pour on the fire. But the fact that England came out on the right side in the greatest World Cup final of them all has provided the perfect sales pitch for the sport in this country.
|
|
|
Post by deepfineleg on Jul 16, 2019 11:30:59 GMT
The bit that still surprises me is that we won effectively on boundaries scored. In the past, wickets lost have been used as a decider in the event of a tie. This seems more relevant than boundaries and a measure that everyone is aware of during the course of the game. Perhaps boundaries encourages attacking batting while wickets lost defensive.
|
|
|
Post by philh on Jul 16, 2019 12:06:26 GMT
Perhaps boundaries encourages attacking batting while wickets lost defensive. I wouldn't disagree with you, deepfineleg, that boundaries=positive and wickets=less positive. I think my main point is: 1) Most people (including me), I suspect, had no idea that in the event of a superover being tied that the result was decided by boundaries 2) In most matches, you may have no idea which team is ahead on boundaries - in this game, I would have guessed we were ahead 3) The commentators didn't mention boundaries coming into play until the superover became apparent 4) Why not another superover? And, then, another if needed. Exciting, as it was, I don't feel we won the World Cup. I feel as though we are joint winners sharing the title. All I do know is that I would be gutted if I was a Kiwi.
|
|
|
Post by deepfineleg on Jul 16, 2019 14:55:23 GMT
The commentators were only reminded by their producer that there could be a super over about half way through England's innings. And the first mention I heard of boundaries was when the match was tied.
|
|
|
Post by liquidskin on Jul 16, 2019 17:43:07 GMT
I found it odd that we were all out chasing the winning run, yet went to a super over after. I know why, scores were level, but we were all out - seemed odd. It feels like a win to me but an incredibly lucky one. There were three or four massively key moments in the last few overs that all went our way. Most unlike England and sport. I agree with Phil, why not just another super over? Even if there had to be several it wouldn't take long. That's the way forward for me.
|
|