2019 Cricket World Cup

My heart is sinking.  This match would be a real test of a great strong side. Only a good mid order partnership can save India.  With one more wicket down,  the chances are getting doomed. 

Jadeja is playing well, hope I am not jinxing him, but if he plays till last, India have a chance.

India paid the price of a wrong team selection in this semi. Shammi or Mayank agrwal was a better choice in place of Karthik. Kartik is almost a spent force in International cricket.

I thought it was okay for Karthik to be there, as he lends some experience in the middle order batting and give some stability to a rather inexperienced players like Rishabh.

In hindsight, I feel that India not getting the middle order right, through the 4 years time from 2015 has hurt them a lot.

Rohit was disappointed, Kohli too and Dhoni was crying after he got out. He did his best as always, but time must have come. His absence would have made the team to not enter semis also may be.

He has made 2 wrong lbw calls by asking Kohli to not take, then in the semi finals he was silent when bhuvi thought he trapped Guptill and this time Kohli got it wrong.

One of the most unexpected thing was that India will lose due to batting as they were batters till No.9 which they kept as a strategy, but even then it failed.

Jadeja was the highlight of the day for India. In the end Dhoni tried to accelerate but could not, and hence Jadeja tried doing so, but by taking risk, which he did not take till that time, and he got dismissed.

 Dhoni's run out was the most heart breaking moment of the match. He backed himself, but Guptill was better on the day.

Sad ending of world cup 2019 for Indians. Now it is history and time to gossip.

I don't think it's sad ending but a bad day for our top three. I think the Indian team will make a lot of changes like Jadhav, Shankar, Karthik and select some players like Shreyas Ayyar, Shubham Gill, Saini in place of some of the present members.

suni51 wrote:

I don't think it's sad ending but a bad day for our top three. I think the Indian team will make a lot of changes like Jadhav, Shankar, Karthik and select some players like Shreyas Ayyar, Shubham Gill, Saini in place of some of the present members.

Cricket is game of day, so you are right that it was bad day for top three, We wants to see India in final so it is sad ending for us.

Although India did not feature, still the match played between New Zealand and England was the best ever world cup final I have ever seen. It was thrilling and engrossing till the very end. We also witnessed the first ever super over in the ODIs. However, having said all that, I felt the super over also getting tied was not only dramatic but unfortunate at the same time. Felt sad for the Black Caps as they finally lost the match on the boundaries count. I felt there should have been one more super over in order to decide a clear and deserving winner. In other sports like tennis we have tie-breakers, and it goes on till the winner is decided. Similarly, in football we have tie-breaks as well, and even sudden deaths if required. Therefore, ICC should give a close look at their rules for further clarity in the future matches.

Even though the final was great but what I feel that the match should have been decided who lost more wickets. The other solution was to declare both of them joint winner. Also, the 6 runs instead of 5 for the overthrow in last over by T Boult was a wrong decision. Selecting a winner based on more boundaries hit rule is absolutely ridicules. 

Saurav Banerjee wrote:

Although India did not feature, still the match played between New Zealand and England was the best ever world cup final I have ever seen. It was thrilling and engrossing till the very end. We also witnessed the first ever super over in the ODIs. However, having said all that, I felt the super over also getting tied was not only dramatic but unfortunate at the same time. Felt sad for the Black Caps as they finally lost the match on the boundaries count. I felt there should have been one more super over in order to decide a clear and deserving winner. In other sports like tennis we have tie-breakers, and it goes on till the winner is decided. Similarly, in football we have tie-breaks as well, and even sudden deaths if required. Therefore, ICC should give a close look at their rules for further clarity in the future matches.

Although England won, everyones heart went out to the NewZeland team because they were more than equal and deserved to win. Luck played a great factor for Englands win.

usha manohar wrote:

Saurav Banerjee wrote:

Although India did not feature, still the match played between New Zealand and England was the best ever world cup final I have ever seen. It was thrilling and engrossing till the very end. We also witnessed the first ever super over in the ODIs. However, having said all that, I felt the super over also getting tied was not only dramatic but unfortunate at the same time. Felt sad for the Black Caps as they finally lost the match on the boundaries count. I felt there should have been one more super over in order to decide a clear and deserving winner. In other sports like tennis we have tie-breakers, and it goes on till the winner is decided. Similarly, in football we have tie-breaks as well, and even sudden deaths if required. Therefore, ICC should give a close look at their rules for further clarity in the future matches.

Although England won, everyones heart went out to the NewZeland team because they were more than equal and deserved to win. Luck played a great factor for Englands win.

Not luck, ICC favor England. Most of cricket lovers and even players don't know about rule of most boundries. 

anil wrote:

usha manohar wrote:

Saurav Banerjee wrote:

Although India did not feature, still the match played between New Zealand and England was the best ever world cup final I have ever seen. It was thrilling and engrossing till the very end. We also witnessed the first ever super over in the ODIs. However, having said all that, I felt the super over also getting tied was not only dramatic but unfortunate at the same time. Felt sad for the Black Caps as they finally lost the match on the boundaries count. I felt there should have been one more super over in order to decide a clear and deserving winner. In other sports like tennis we have tie-breakers, and it goes on till the winner is decided. Similarly, in football we have tie-breaks as well, and even sudden deaths if required. Therefore, ICC should give a close look at their rules for further clarity in the future matches.

Although England won, everyones heart went out to the NewZeland team because they were more than equal and deserved to win. Luck played a great factor for Englands win.

Not luck, ICC favor England. Most of cricket lovers and even players don't know about rule of most boundries. 

ICC favours no one, the rule was already known to the Cricketing Experts, however it was criticized because of it's not so good point. The thing that this issue came up in the final has sparked off the debate, if it was any other less intense and not significant match, it would have gone under the carpet for sure.

usha manohar wrote:

Saurav Banerjee wrote:

Although India did not feature, still the match played between New Zealand and England was the best ever world cup final I have ever seen. It was thrilling and engrossing till the very end. We also witnessed the first ever super over in the ODIs. However, having said all that, I felt the super over also getting tied was not only dramatic but unfortunate at the same time. Felt sad for the Black Caps as they finally lost the match on the boundaries count. I felt there should have been one more super over in order to decide a clear and deserving winner. In other sports like tennis we have tie-breakers, and it goes on till the winner is decided. Similarly, in football we have tie-breaks as well, and even sudden deaths if required. Therefore, ICC should give a close look at their rules for further clarity in the future matches.

Although England won, everyones heart went out to the NewZeland team because they were more than equal and deserved to win. Luck played a great factor for Englands win.

Most of them should have felt the same.After New Zealand posted it's score, I was like, it is okay if we are playing against other teams, but it is England.

However New Zealand again gave it's all and should have actually won it, though it might have been by a less margin. However that unlucky boundary which resulted in 4 extra runs proved fatal for the team.

New Zealand deserved every bit of the Cup as much as England, probably even more, but can't do much about the rule now.

Love Kane for his Captaincy skills and his beyond the imagination cool head and humble persona, most of them from New Zealand might be like that.

I like him more than the Indian counterparts, though Country to Country different things are required to grow.

Ben Strokes had requested the umpire to disallow the runs as he had redirected the ball to the boundary while diving to avoid the run-out. But umpires did not agreed to him and that was that. Sorry for NZ, I would have given the WC to both of these teams or given it to the team that lost lesser wickets in their allotted 50 overs.

One more thing is that the awarded 6 runs were wrong, only 5 runs should have been awarded, as at the point of deflection, The bat hadn't crossed the crease.

Hence 4+1 run should have been awarded is what even former Umpire's were saying.

epraneeth77 wrote:

anil wrote:

usha manohar wrote:

Saurav Banerjee wrote:

Although India did not feature, still the match played between New Zealand and England was the best ever world cup final I have ever seen. It was thrilling and engrossing till the very end. We also witnessed the first ever super over in the ODIs. However, having said all that, I felt the super over also getting tied was not only dramatic but unfortunate at the same time. Felt sad for the Black Caps as they finally lost the match on the boundaries count. I felt there should have been one more super over in order to decide a clear and deserving winner. In other sports like tennis we have tie-breakers, and it goes on till the winner is decided. Similarly, in football we have tie-breaks as well, and even sudden deaths if required. Therefore, ICC should give a close look at their rules for further clarity in the future matches.

Although England won, everyones heart went out to the NewZeland team because they were more than equal and deserved to win. Luck played a great factor for Englands win.

Not luck, ICC favor England. Most of cricket lovers and even players don't know about rule of most boundries. 

ICC favours no one, the rule was already known to the Cricketing Experts, however it was criticized because of it's not so good point. The thing that this issue came up in the final has sparked off the debate, if it was any other less intense and not significant match, it would have gone under the carpet for sure.

Earlier this rule was not used in tied matches, If I am not wrong India and New Zealand played tie match in last worldcup. At that time teams share points.

That was not in finals, even here I think if there was a tie in group stage, points would have been shared, though I am not completely sure.

epraneeth77 wrote:

That was not in finals, even here I think if there was a tie in group stage, points would have been shared, though I am not completely sure.

Most of cricket lovers don't agree with this decision. It would be better if both shared trophy.

epraneeth77 wrote:

That was not in finals, even here I think if there was a tie in group stage, points would have been shared, though I am not completely sure.

As per the rules of this edition of the world cup (as far as I know), there would have been a super over in place if there was a tie in the league stages as well.

anil wrote:

epraneeth77 wrote:

That was not in finals, even here I think if there was a tie in group stage, points would have been shared, though I am not completely sure.

Most of cricket lovers don't agree with this decision. It would be better if both shared trophy.

True, either both of them should have shared the trophy or another super over should have been contested.

Alternatively, I thought of bowl out option.

New Zealanders would have felt hard done by the result.