Today's the day then, the cricket world cup final. If we play like we have for the past 3 games we will win yes!?

Yes

It’s coming home

Currently raining at Lords but meant to dry up within the next hour.

Could be good to go against the trend and bowl first...thoughts?

Come on boys!!

Only one game happening today and that's Crompton v Burnley. Can keep your world cup rubbish

RVclaret wrote:Currently raining at Lords but meant to dry up within the next hour.

Could be good to go against the trend and bowl first...thoughts?

I'm not sure what the answer is tbh but we haven't chased well in this world cup. Saying that we game managed brilliantly against Australia. If I had to choose and ignoring the conditions then I'd be batting first and trying to set the tempo. Let NZ have what will be a nervy chase.

Deffo winning this. Come on England!

Is it available online? Only when C4 goes to F1 I can’t get it in HD.

If the game can't be completed, due to the weather, would England win due to a better run rate or head-to-head?

Spijed wrote:If the game can't be completed, due to the weather, would England win due to a better run rate or head-to-head?

Best of 3 at darts in the long room.

Been a bit damp round here, still looks ‘dampish’ at Lords
- I think we will put them in if we win the toss.
I fancy Root will do well today, hanging around steadily while one or two of the big hitters come off ?... Bairstow or Buttler perhaps..? Archer to upset their batsmen badly.

Will Guptill get some this time ? Williamson is a very canny cricketer isn’t he?... NZ batting is a bit fragile and this is where we will win it I think.

Ideally it’s a close game (280-300 each ) with us winning by a handful.

A great opportunity to grow the great game today with a big new audience watching on TV including loads of curious youngsters... well done Sky for sharing it, Sky could benefit substantially if its a good match, with the Ashes just around the corner.

Come on England !

6.. I’m sure the local cricketer can explain clearly why he thinks the World Cup is rubbish.

Re the weather..it has been raining lightly in St John’s Wood but the forecast is decent so the game should finish today.

Looks like the weather will be dull & coolish for the first few hours with decent humidity. It has to be tempting to bowl first and bat in the warmer/ sunnier later afternoon hours.
Boult (especially) could be a handfull in the early overs. There've been quite a lot of big games in the past at Lords starting 10.30 where the side batting first in a one-dayer have pretty much lost the game in the first hour.

13.. yes that Final at Lords where Lancashire’s Chappell skittled half of the opposition for not many, before midday.

- pretty sure it was Essex.
We were there that day, we were in the pub a bit early.

Come on England

A win for me.

I hope bumble has a few slots on the commentary team, I've missed his enthusiasm and quickly catch phrases.

Now its England in the final I hope they do away with the box ticking type commentary people they've used.

I think we should go into bat first we were phenomenal at Edgbaston but saying that so was the bowlers
Still this is how we beat them at the riverside and clocked up 305 runs with N/Z just 186 all out off 45 overs
Come on England win the toss and get batting

New Zealand to bat

Good toss to lose I think. Pressure on NZ to do somethinf after choosing.

Come on England bring it home,along with Roger & Lewis and today will be just dandy.

Delayed start - now 10:45

All this build up is a bit OTT on the tv

Wish this was at Edgbaston this crowd needs to replicate that atmosphere we had their

JohnDearyMe wrote:All this build up is a bit OTT on the tv

Same as football when Burnley or England are involved, the build up just makes me more nervous, I have no work this week but I think 10:30 is a little early to have a beer to calm the nerves, hopefully Woakes and Archer can start the same as on Thursday and get 3/4 wickets in the first 10 overs.

No Haka?

A war dance with bats and stumps would be quite intimidating.

They should level the playing surface at Lords. Too much of an equaliser for visiting teams.

SalisburyClaret wrote:It’s coming home

It's never been 'Home'

claret wizard wrote:They should level the playing surface at Lords. Too much of an equaliser for visiting teams.

Sorry, don’t follow that logic.

Oh well.
Good review

Crikey, 2 given, 2 not given lol!

Wicket looks a bit green.

Archer needs to take the handbrake off.

TheFamilyCat wrote:Archer needs to take the handbrake off.

Let him bowl down the slope

Finally.....

Guptil gone great

Shocking review. Not that i’m complaining.

Just when we needed a wicket Guptil gone real do

Excellent bowling from Woakes. Jofra needs to match his length, been too short so far.

We’ve done ok here but probably needed that wicket.

Would be an interesting rule change if they had to explain their review.

Building up the pressure well here.
Just short of another wicket.

Bangers&Mash wrote:Would be an interesting rule change if they had to explain their review.

Not sure what you mean by that but is a bowler allowed to ask an umpire if they think s batsmen has got an edge before reviewing a LBW?

For example a bowler may feel a batter is plumb LBW but knowing why an umpire had given it not out would they may think fair enough and not waste a review.

Not good if Stokes has done his calf.

England win rate at lords is pretty poor i'm sure its only circa 45%

It might be interesting to measure the elapse of time typically taken between

1. the fielding team celebrating the umpire's original LBW decision,
2. the batsmen's conversation whether or not to appeal,
3. the TV replays of 1) the bowler's foot position, the 2) the two stages of deciding whether there's been contact with the bat and 3) following the ball's trajectory towards/around the wicket.
4. The umpire making a final decision.

In football one of the objections to VAR is that there's too much of a delay in confirming a good goal to stand and that this dampens/spoils the crowd's enjoyment/celebration. Was there a similar feeling in cricket when video replays were first introduced? If so has it gradually become more appreciated and enjoyed in its own way, maybe?

Sarum wrote:It might be interesting to measure the elapse of time typically taken between

1. the fielding team celebrating the umpire's original LBW decision,
2. the batsmen's conversation whether or not to appeal,
3. the TV replays of 1) the bowler's foot position, the 2) the two stages of deciding whether there's been contact with the bat and 3) following the ball's trajectory towards/around the wicket.
4. The umpire making a final decision.

In football one of the objections to VAR is that there's too much of a delay in confirming a good goal to stand and that this dampens/spoils the crowd's enjoyment/celebration. Was there a similar feeling in cricket when video replays were first introduced? If so has it gradually become more appreciated and enjoyed in its own way, maybe?

I think the difference is that even after the stages you mentioned have been checked it is still only 2 minutes maximum on most occasions and with LBW or catch dispute the rules are black and white, they is no interpretation whereas with VAR there could be 5+ minutes checking the replays and at the end it is still down to the referees interpretation on the day.

Sarum wrote:It might be interesting to measure the elapse of time typically taken between

1. the fielding team celebrating the umpire's original LBW decision,
2. the batsmen's conversation whether or not to appeal,
3. the TV replays of 1) the bowler's foot position, the 2) the two stages of deciding whether there's been contact with the bat and 3) following the ball's trajectory towards/around the wicket.
4. The umpire making a final decision.

In football one of the objections to VAR is that there's too much of a delay in confirming a good goal to stand and that this dampens/spoils the crowd's enjoyment/celebration. Was there a similar feeling in cricket when video replays were first introduced? If so has it gradually become more appreciated and enjoyed in its own way, maybe?

Cricket is a totally different game to football so any delays in using technology are not a concern as they are in football.

claretburns wrote:I think the difference is that even after the stages you mentioned have been checked it is still only 2 minutes maximum on most occasions and with LBW or catch dispute the rules are black and white, they is no interpretation whereas with VAR there could be 5+ minutes checking the replays and at the end it is still down to the referees interpretation on the day.

I mentioned this on the VAR thread during the Women’s WC.

VAR is only supposed to be for “clear & obvious” errors.
Decisions were taking far too long. If somebody cannot make a decision after 2 replays of each angle then to me it cannot be clear & obvious

TheFamilyCat wrote:Sorry, don’t follow that logic.

Hussain was explaining that Jimmy hadn’t worked out what his best end was at Lords. Our win rate is really low. Even with a home advantage the slope puts so many variables into the game that we struggle to master it. Similar to a poor pitch at football. It’s harder to play on and acts as an equaliser between good and poor teams. Even a poor bowler will get something out of the Lords pitch. When you talking in very small % difference between the teams, the slope can drag a good bowler down and push a good bowler up (or visa versa). But it’s a variable that could be removed. So hence my comment on the sloppy pitch being an equaliser.

Get Rashid off.