It’s Just Not Wickets

There is no doubt that the Cricket World Cup was a game that no one who watched it will ever forget. It is a game that has had many feeling that there did not deserve to be a loser. Certainly that is an argument that most New Zealanders would agree with.

As discussed on Podcast #68 the tournament dragged on. A tournament with 10 teams playing 48 games lasted 45 days. In 1975 the first tournament which featured 8 teams was all over in 14 days!

The ICC wisely changed the format for 2019, but the format change was designed to suit the big three now running international cricket, India, Australia and England.

At the 2007 World Cup India lost to Bangladesh in Trinidad, a result that saw them crash out of the tournament in the first round. That tournament in the Caribbean 12 years ago started with four pools of four teams. Which meant that India, cricket’s most powerful economic drawcard, only played only three matches in the whole tournament.

Following that outcome the ICC, at the behest of the BCCI, Indian Cricket’s governing body and along with broadcasters, – in particular Star Sports of India – ensured that this would never happen again. In 2015 the tournament consisted of 14 teams split into two pools of seven, guaranteeing everyone six games. There were then quarter finals, ensuring the top four teams in each pool progressed.

This year the format was changed again. Teams were reduced to 10 and the ICC extended the first-round stage having each team play each other. Therefore each team was guaranteed a minimum of nine matches at the tournament.

By having each nation play each other once, and the top four progressing to the semi finals the powers that be felt assured that all three of India, Australia and England would make it through. Which they did.

What they did not bank on was New Zealand beating India in the semi final.

India and Australia were everyone’s tip for the final leading into the tournament. Both bowed out in the semi finals.

There were few who shed a tear for Australia. With disgraced players Stephen Smith and David Warner brought straight back into the squad after serving their bans for the sandpaper incident in South Africa, many felt that this was simply not right. That they should have had to bide their time before being welcomed back to the fold. Smith suffered boos whatever he did in England and some in the Australian media felt this was unfair. Amazing how it wasn’t unfair when the Australian fans booed Stuart Broad when he came to Australia after he had failed to walk in a crucial Ashes Test in England. Also how Sir Richard Hadlee was subjected to constant chants all day of “Hadlee’s a Wanker,” and all he had done was his job, bowling out Australia! What is it they say about a bully not liking it when people stand up to them?

Following India’s defeat to New Zealand their Captain Virat Kohli suggested that in 2023 when India once again plays host that the format may be best suited by following the model of the Indian Premier League. In this league teams who finish top in the regular season get another chance to reach the final if they lose their first play‑off match. Oh how India, the ICC and the TV Stations in India would have loved that in 2019. Don’t be surprised if he gets his wish in 2023, as India look to cover every base to give their team the best chance of winning as hosts.

Come the final in 2019 the powerbrokers at least had one team in the mix, England. A team that many were saying was the best England one Day side ever.

In the round robin games both England and New Zealand lost three matches. The Black Caps lost to Pakistan, Australia and England and had their game v India rained off. England lost to Pakistan, Australia and Sri Lanka.

On the day there was nothing to seperate the two teams except for luck, which clearly favoured England. An LBW decision went England’s way at the start of their innings. That could have had a huge impact on proceedings, and showed that although the referral system is better in cricket than some sports, it is still not perfect.

To show luck was not on their side New Zealand’s Trent Boult stepped back onto the boundary after taking a catch that would have dismissed the man of the match in the final, Ben Stokes. The bizarre circumstances of the four overthrows off the fourth ball of the last over to leave England in with a realistic chance, needing three runs off two balls was one of those moments when you realise it just isn’t your day.

Eventually it came down to two runs needed off the last ball as Rashid was run out attempting to make a second run and tie the scores, but importantly keep Stokes on strike.

Now here is where the game becomes interesting, as for years if the scores were level at the end of 50 overs the team that lost the least wickets would be declared the winner.

With the last ball to be bowled England were one run behind New Zealand and had lost nine wickets to New Zealand’s eight. In the past they would have been able to allow England a single and would have been declared World Champions, but some administrator somewhere opted to change all of that.

England went for two, managed one run, and Wood was run out so both teams finished on 241. England all out, New Zealand on the same score but having lost only eight wickets.

In domestic one day cricket many years ago they had a nominated bowler bowl six balls at one stump to decide tied matches. Yesterday it was a “Super over.” Six balls from which the batsman must plunder as many runs as possible.

The drama continued in the “Super over.” Where yet again the two teams finished level. There would be no additional play this time. Now, rather than that the said administrators had decided that it would be based on the number of boundaries scored in the final. New Zealand had managed 14 fours and three sixes, whereas England plundered 24 fours and two sixes. England were therefore crowned World Champions for 2019.

It was a very unsatisfactory way to decide such an important match. It was also a cruel way for a team who had matched their opponents every step of the way to lose.

A few people have queried whether this form of count-back was in fact created to favour the two big hitting sides of India and Australia. We will probably never know.

Why in a game in which it is a battle between bat and ball would the count-back not be as it was in the past? If the runs scored are equal, why would you not then automatically look at the number of wickets taken by each team? It seems a far more logical and fair way to decide such an outcome, if you are not prepared to have both teams share the title.

It was an outstanding match and one that will live long in the memory. It would be wrong to take anything away from England who under the rules of the competition as they were when it started were deservedly crowned Champion. However, after such a great game of cricket it just does not seem right that a game was decided in such a way.

Hopefully this is something that is discussed and reviewed, as judging by comments on social media in the aftermath of the match most fans agree it is not the way to settle a World Cup Final.

However at the end of the day alls well that ends well as one of the Triumvirate running International cricket took home the prize!