[Sherlocked]

I really enjoyed the English commentary on Hotstar during the final 6 overs of the second innings and onwards of yesterday's terrific game of Cricket. Much better than what I hear during the Indian team matches. Who were the commentators, can anyone please mention their names.
Thanks.

[arindambasu13]

Originally Posted by Sherlocked

I really enjoyed the English commentary on Hotstar during the final 6 overs of the second innings and onwards of yesterday's terrific game of Cricket. Much better than what I hear during the Indian team matches. Who were the commentators, can anyone please mention their names.
Thanks.

The last commentators were Ian Smith and Ian Bishop, if I recollect correctly .

[hemanth.anand]

Originally Posted by hemanth.anand

My predictions.

Semi Finals
England
Australia
India
WestIndies

Finals
England
WestIndies

Winners
England

Originally Posted by hemanth.anand

It's one thing to root for your national team and it's another thing to predict. Looks like many here are just doing the former. Patriotism and support in the heart has taken over the mind IMO. If we ignore that, looks like England are the clear favorites. Let's see if the originators of the game can lift their maiden ODI world title of their national sport....

Above were my predictions before the start of the tournament. West indies didn't use their head and played far below their potential. They didn't make the best use of their resources and were rightly they replaced by NZ

[Shreyans_Jain]

Originally Posted by Sherlocked

I really enjoyed the English commentary on Hotstar during the final 6 overs of the second innings and onwards of yesterday's terrific game of Cricket. Much better than what I hear during the Indian team matches. Who were the commentators, can anyone please mention their names.
Thanks.

I think it was Brendon McCullum with Ian Bishop. The excitement in the commentator’s voice when Guptill hit that 6 in the super over was infectious. Agree, these guys were amazing and played a huge part in making the game feel that much more alive. Isa Guha did a brilliant job too. Sanjay Manjrekar & Co. need to take a good hard look in the mirror.

[DigitalOne]

Originally Posted by benbsb29

Completely agree. In the instance where team are tied on runs scored, the team that managed to attain that total with keeping more wickets intact should be awarded.

Celebrating the team that scored more boundaries kinda promotes the entertainment aspect of the game.

When they drafted the rule, ICC wouldn't have thought that the rule would come into play, and that too in a world cup final .

What a match!! Like the 83 WC win, the 2001 Ind-Aus Kolkata test, the Chennai Tied test this match will be remembered for decades to come.

Adding to the excitement was the simultaneous thriller happening in another part of London

[Eddy]

Inputs needed here gentlemen.

https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/shift...ml#post4621058 (The Cricket Thread)

[PPS]

This 2019 WC Final has to be the greatest match of all time!

NZ & ENG sharing the WC trophy would have been the ideal result.

I wonder how Virat Kohli would have reacted after the deflected overthrow.

[harry10]

Originally Posted by Shreyans_Jain

I think it was Brendon McCullum with Ian Bishop. The excitement in the commentator’s voice when Guptill hit that 6 in the super over was infectious. Agree, these guys were amazing and played a huge part in making the game feel that much more alive. Isa Guha did a brilliant job too. Sanjay Manjrekar & Co. need to take a good hard look in the mirror.

It was Neesham who hit the six in super over.
I was watching the dugout. Styris and Mike hessen were so crestfallen when Guptill failed to make the 2nd. Don't think NZ will ever come this close to lifting the trophy again.

I think everyone except English fans agree it was absolutely ridiculous to decide winner based on boundaries. Trophy should have been shared. For me NZ are joint winners. England didn't win it.

I was watching this final on TV and Federer vs Djokovic via laptop. Both were so scintillating close and amazing in the end it was tough to decide which one to watch

Btw, as last 3 world cups have been won by host nations I think next one is Coming home

[PPS]

Simon Taufel says, “They (England) should have been awarded five runs, not six.” regarding those deflected overthrows & he makes a fair point i feel!

https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket...e04cff9b7cb105

[vinit.merchant]

England may have lifted the cup in the end, for the luck favored them unfairly, but for me the NZ were the true winners. Both sides played in the spirit of the game, but it was NZ who win on that front. They did everything right (except maybe that catch from Boult).
And still when that boundary went off Stokes bat off the Guptil throw, they were composed.
Yes they raised their hands, but that's about it. No throwing of caps, no aggression, no heated discussions with the umpires.

I cannot think of any other team capable to playing it to this level of "spirit of the game" (least our own). Eoin Morgan is also a calm captain, but I doubt he would have remained that calm, if the stakes were reversed.
Myself, as a neutral spectator, could not control my anger at that juncture.

For me, NZ are and will remain the true winner of the CWC19 final contest, irrespective of who lifted the trophy.
It is a lesson for all those over-aggressive souls out there (I would start with Australians and our own team at the top of the list) on how the game should be played.
It was also a victory for the game, as I did not spot a single sledging moment, from both team.

Hats Off.

[vibbs]

I dont understand, everytime an over throw happens do the umpires check if it was thrown before the batsmen crossed over?
My understanding so far has been if there is an over throw, the number of runs taken before the over throw and after the throw is counted. If they had not run extra run for over throw or the ball did not go to the boundary, England would have still got 2 runs right?

What if the ball did not go to the boundary and they took one single? They will get 3 runs right?
Then if it did go to the boundary they should get 2+4. Its cruel but fair imo.
Strange the rules are if they should have got omly 5!!!

[Santoshbhat]

Originally Posted by PPS

Simon Taufel says, “They (England) should have been awarded five runs, not six.” regarding those deflected overthrows & he makes a fair point i feel!

https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket...e04cff9b7cb105

Originally Posted by vibbs

I dont understand, everytime an over throw happens do the umpires check if it was thrown before the batsmen crossed over?

This rule applies only when the overthrow goes to the boundary.

It is quite technical and I can see what Taufel is trying to say. Imagine the ball is played to the outfield and the batsmen take a single. If the fielder does not want the batsman hitting the ball to get back to strike with a second run, he can toss the ball to the boundary which will count as 4 overthrows + 1 run. But he needs to do that before the batsmen cross over. The crucial point is the time at which the ball leaves the hand of the fielder. If at that time the batsmen haven't crossed, then that run in progress doesn't count. So they needed to check whether batsmen had crossed at the time the ball left Guptill's hand. Boy, what a difference that would have made to the game. One run less and Stokes off strike!!

If it was Kohli or the Aussies, surely the tantrums would made the umpires think and who knows, the third umpire could very well just google up the laws and convey it to the onfield umpires and we might have had a different result.

[Prafful_Rathod]

Originally Posted by hemanth.anand

What happened yesterday is a rare occurrence (and I really feel sad for NZ) and if this becomes less rare, possibly then ICC will look into it.

I think if the intention is to decide winner under all circumstances then the rules should allow it to take the game all the way to its logical conclusion i.e. Another Super over if the first one is also tied. Look at how Wimbledon last set is played. Would have given more transparent / fair chance to both the teams. Let them sweat it out for one more over.

BTW that overthrow deflection should have been called Five runs.

[hemanth.anand]

If Guptill had let the ball go to the boundary, it would've reduced 2 runs (4 instead of 6)
All in all, it was a very well fought match and worthy of a world cup final. Feel sorry for New Zealand!

[msdivy]

England was the best-prepared side in the WC. All their batsmen, bowlers were in form and fielding was excellent.

And New Zealand was led by Kane Williamson.

Guptill was NZ's top batsman and in this WC and he was utterly out of form. Williamson covered for Guptill's batting. He led his team of non-superstars brilliantly. Nobody in NZ team wilted under pressure. Kane Williamson deserved the man of the series for both his batting & captaincy. NZ usually punch above their weight (this must be their 8 or 9th appearance in ODI WC semi-finals), but were losing in the knockouts. Yesterday, they matched the winners in all aspects and finally, it had to boil down to an elimination rule, on the particular rule to find on who must lose, rather than who must win.

Like we have 'Hand of God' in Football, we got to see 'Bat of God' in this match. How can NZ compete against that?

Ben Stokes is the only top England batsman without a century in this WC. But he has been instrumental in most of England wins in this WC. Being born in NZ, the irony is he helped his adopted country win the WC against his home country. But he has played one of the greatest ODI matches in history. That being the finals of WC makes it all the more remarkable feat and he deservedly gets the man of the match.

Originally Posted by hemanth.anand

What happened yesterday is a rare occurrence (and I really feel sad for NZ) and if this becomes less rare, possibly then ICC will look into it.

That's right. Tie in ODI is very rare. Tie in super over is extremely rare. When the match has reached such a stage, then an elimination rule is required rather than way to find the winner. It could be the team with most dot balls, most wickets. Unfortunately, they selected fewer boundaries. It is a pity that this rare event occurred in WC finals and the cup cannot be shared.

Originally Posted by TorqueyTechie

I still like Harsha Bhogle (far better than others) but yes I do agree that he has mellowed down his views but not political.

I watch cricket on mute. But on times when I get to hear, I find Harsha to be always second-guessing. Some of them: if Dhoni doesn't come at No 5, he might have niggle on his finger (which outdoor sportsman doesn't a niggle?); if India start cautiously, then it is new strategy (nevermind the Indian openers are aware that there in no middle order and hence they have to bat slowly). I am fine with any commentary, as long they do not make factual mistakes. BTW, I never got why Ganguly calls Shikar Dhawan as 'Shekar Dhawan'.

On the performance of other teams:

1) Australia: Came with weak middle order. Did well till semis due to the top order and good bowling. Need to fix their middle order.

2) India: Came with non-existent middle order. Did well till semis due to the top order and good bowling. Need to fix their middle order, batting line-up & team selection.

3) Pakistan: Batting is rusty, fielding must improve to match International standards.

4) Sri Lanka: They needs superstars (ie performers) in their team. Missing them since Jayawardane & Sangakara retired.

5) South Africa: Came with out-of-form batsmen and paid the price. Their fielding standard is slipping and must improve.

6) Bangladesh: Played valiantly. Their wins don't reflect their performance. Must keep the same tempo.

7) West Indies: Players flashed in bits & pieces. They never had a coordinated team effort. They planned & approached like a T20 match.

8) Afghanistan: Again, they were Off & On. On their 'On' days they gave a tough fight. They will do better with a better captain.