Talk:2019 Cricket World Cup final

Super over

@Lugnuts: I’m afraid you are mistaken. It isn’t “nothing to do with the boundary counts” because the super over was tied and they only won because of winning more boundaries, as stated in the rules of a super over. Please read this to clear up any misconceptions. маsтегрнатаLк 18:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough - thanks for the link. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I was trying to find out what all the excitement was about. Now I know: it's metaphysics. Well done everybody.--Po Mieczu (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to be the one to ask this?

England were all out - New Zealand weren't. Why didn't New Zealand get the win? 141.92.67.44 (talk) 07:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not how the rules work at the moment, but it's not an unreasonable suggestion. But perhaps a Super Over is more exciting and entertaining. --2A00:23C4:6C38:3500:AD4A:4CA9:D4E9:DDBE (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I suppose it’s like football I dunno, like if the game ended a tie 2-2 you would go to a Penalty shootout, not award the game to whoever had the most players sent off, perhaps maybe if the super over ends in a tie then a sudden death of a bowl-out would be more appropriate for settling a tie see Bowl-out but let’s be honest here we are Wikipedia editors not cricket officials🤣82.37.192.227 (talk)

In all seriousness, Wickets are a strategic resource and it would be unfair to judge a result on number of wickets. Obviously a team with more wickets can have a more aggressive attack etc and would probably lose mor wickets if they are chasing etc. --82.37.192.227 (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Law 19.8

Lots of coverage on this, mainly from the Southern Hemisphere for some reason...

• Cricinfo
• SMH
• RNZ
• 7 News
• ODT

Maybe can be used in a post-match section at some point in the future. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

BBC also reporting the possible error - see "12:52 Former umpire says there was a clear error" 141.92.67.44 (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Duration

For how many hours and minutes did they play in the final? In literature they always say that a cricket match lasts all day, but I can't seem to find the duration of this anywhere :( 176.72.138.119 (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The toss took place at 10:15, play began at 10:45 and the match ended at 19:30. I'll take a look to find a source that states this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Did they have a lunch and a tea break :) 176.72.138.119 (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Just an innings break of 30 minutes. Here's the full timeline. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Photo Request

If anyone could find a nice copyright free photo of the trophy lift, or the wicket winning moment for the infobox image that would be nice thankyou Jamie1128 (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Who removed the quote and why?

Was just wondering who removed the quote line and why? It was pretty good --82.37.192.227 (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for these sections?

More detail in match details composing of

• Match Details (we could be split into more clear subsections it is quite a small tangled stub)
  • Team Composition
  • Match Officials
  • Coin Toss
  • New Zealand innings
  • England innings
  • Super Over

• Broadcast (A section describing about the worldwide broadcast channels viewers etc)

Better organised post match analysis

• Post Match
  • Reaction
  • Celebrations
  • Reception in England
  • Reception in New Zealand
  • Extra sub-sections as events happen and unfold

--82.37.192.227 (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Super Over (again)

For info, I've started this discussion on the Super Over page, following an undiscussed page move. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Lock this page?

An unregistered user changed the words "boundary count" to "pure luck and dumb logic". I fixed it but it may be necessary to lock this page Upelly (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

controversy

Perhaps a controversy section would be useful simply because of the nature of the victory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.251.20 (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It's already covered. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps to be precise and not obtuse

I should be able to use with this url in by chrome browser and the find option with the word controversy and get a hit. Hit return on controversy find entry? Nothing. Ideally is a section just 'wishful thinking' ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.218.187 (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Runner-Up curse?

Has anyone ever noticed the new unfortunate pain for runners-up in the cricket world cup?

• England, Runners up in 1987 went on to lose again in the next final (1992)
• Sri Lanka, Runners up in 2003 went on to lose again in the next final (2007)
• New Zealand, Runners up in 2015 went on to lose again in the next final (2019)

Just an eye brow raising curse that means that the runner-up of the 2023 world cup will be runner-up in 2027? --82.37.192.227 (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Please can someone help me add more detail in the New Zealand innings

Compared to the England innings section the New Zealand innings section is a one line stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie1128 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Please be warned of some troll that keeps putting "Awarded" instead of "won"

This is obviously an unbiased opinion by someone only, England won the World Cup it was not Awarded... Jamie1128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Trophylift2019cwc.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Appeal: I am 100% sure this is not a TV feed, No TV camera was that at that angle, it must be a blurry angle or bad photo? but it is not a TV feed. I am 99.5% sure but as I am not the uploader I can not be certain but I am sure. If you watch genuine replays of the footage ICC officials and match staff stood at that area, So I am assuming this is just an amatuer photo/video still from an iPhone/Android or a low end quality non-pro camera Jamie1128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Lead Umpire's mistake

Umpire Kumar Dharmasena admitted to an error in the crucial last over when he awarded 6 runs instead of 5 which as the batsmen had not crossed over and would have meant Adil Rashid rather than the well set Ben Stokes would have to face the strike with only 2 balls to go.Thorough Dharmasena said 'I will never regret the decision.Marylebone Cricket Club said it will review the overthrow rule in cricket after this incident.Needs to be article preferably in the lead.Clearly sourced.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think this is appropriate for the main summary, I think it should be moved to down to the reaction section. 82.37.192.227 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. That boundary was probably the most noteworthy incident of the whole match, and the extra run definitely increased England’s chances of victory immeasurably. – PeeJay 08:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

not significantly, it would have been 4 from 2 balls (not 3 from 2)... England would have probably won outright as more risk would have been taken rather than safely do single 82.37.192.227 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

4 from 2 but with Rashid on strike. Definitely a more difficult proposition. – PeeJay 14:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

By NOTFORUM, I am not referring to the whole section, just the battle of opinions whether Rashid's strike would have changed the game. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The point of the matter, should this paragraph be in the post match section instead of at the top! It should be in the reaction section 82.37.192.227 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Photo caption

I don’t think Eoin Morgan is holding the trophy. He’s the player that’s being interviewed. Mrmariomaster (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure there has been a discussion which stated it was Wood holding the trophy. Anyway, the file uploader added a description saying it was Morgan, though he could obviously be wrong. Spike 'em (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually it is just in the edit summaries, as someone else tried changing the caption a while back. Spike 'em (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cricket World Cup which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC

England lifting the trophy

Why don't someone copyright & add the photo of the moment when English players posed with the Cricket World Cup trophy? There is a similar photo of France football team lifting the FIFA World Cup trophy - File:France champion of the Football World Cup Russia 2018.jpg @Kirubar: @Lugnuts: RIDHVAN SHARMA (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

That photo of the France team is free to use because it was published using a compatible licence. Do you know of any such photos of the England team? – PeeJay 07:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@PeeJay: No I don't know about such photos of England cricket team. RIDHVAN SHARMA (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

That's probably why no one has added a similar photo of the England team. No one does. – PeeJay 15:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Controversy section (again!)

I think the mention of super-over / tie-break and overthrows is best placed as inline reporting rather than as a separate section. per WP:BRD I have reverted and opening a discussion. It has been mentioned at least twice already above, and there seems to be slightly more support for this than splitting it out. Spike 'em (talk) 08:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The fact that this issue has been raised already shows that there is support for it to be its own section, I disagree with your interpretation that there is slightly more evidence to report this inline rather than a separate section - Lugnuts merely pointed out the information was already there not that it was presented as well as possible/in its own section.

The other time the controversy is mentioned above (Lead umpires mistake) the consensus is that it shouldn't be at the top, again not that it shouldn't have its own section.

I also note that there has been 4-5 attempts to add more detail about the controversies of the match which you have promptly reverted, and that's just on the front page of the history so again that shows others are wanting to add more detail about the controversies of the match.

The real question is, is the article made better by moving the two separate controversies into their own section.

I would say it does, as there are two controversies to cover (the extra run, and the odd method of determining the winner in the event of a tie used at the time) and they should be grouped.

Also the detail of the controversies is hidden in the article, which is why I made the change - I came to the article specifically to get the details of the controversies and found it hard to extract from the article due to being spread throughout.

Lastly as noted in my edit notes it is common to have a controversy section on pages about sporting events with controversy with the examples given of the pages about the 1972 Olympic Men's Basketball Final, 2014 Russian Grand Prix, 2016 European Grand Prix, 2018 NFC Championship Game. This list is very incomplete and I found many more in my 1 minute check to see how this detail was handled on other pages.

As a personal note, I see from your page you are an avid supporter of the England Cricket team, and would ask you to put what appears to be your personal feelings about the controversy tainting England's win in one of the greatest games of all time aside, and stop reverting the changes which give detail about the controversies after all they did result in changes made to the rules of the game so it is significant information. NoDepartment8328 (talk) 09:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

May I ask what your resistance to include a controversies section is? As demonstrated it is common on pages about sports events with controversies.

Your proposed solution still muddies the waters with the detail on the controversies sandwiched between details about people's reaction to the match and doesn't present this information in a useful way. Like I said in the real life example from today I arrived at this page specifically to get the details of the controversy of the match (which I knew about but wanted to be exact on the details). I found the details were there but spread out and hidden amongst the other details and not readily obvious. I would say this alone should be a compelling reason to split these details out into their own section as it demonstrably improves the article and makes the information more accessible, and we can see I'm not the first to want this information to be separated out and easily found as previously mentioned above

"I should be able to use with this url in by chrome browser and the find option with the word controversy and get a hit. Hit return on controversy find entry?"

This is exactly what I tried to do (except I read the table of contents looking for the controversy section)

Also, the support I mentioned was the better detailing of the controversy, if you look through the history you and you alone have repeatedly reverted people making changes which spell out the controversy, so there is obvious community support for this to be better emphasized.

Given the above, I would say it would be up to you to demonstrate how the article is better without these details being separated out into their own section. I don't think resistance to change is a good enough reason. NoDepartment8328 (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted adding duplicate information, not the creation of a controversy section. If people feel it is better mentioned in the course of the England innings, then I'm happy to discuss that too. You claimed "substantial support" for a controversy section, which I do not see. 09:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Just because a topic has been discussed multiple times doesn't mean the subject has any merit. I don't think the controversy is substantial enough to justify a separate section. The subject has been covered in sufficient depth already. – PeeJay 10:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

(You've added a bunch of additional text in between what I was replying to and my reply). A controversy section adds WP:UNDUE weight to something. I'm thought I'd seen guidelines that say that such a section should be avoided and to cover the incident in the appropriate place in an article, but I cannot find it, so may be mistaken on that point. However, I think that separating it out is not needed. If you feel mention should be made in the section on England's inning then I'd not object to that. Spike 'em (talk) 11:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

You're not mistaken. Check out WP:CSECTION. – PeeJay 12:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks: I'm glad I'm not going senile! Spike 'em (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Cricfan71

Did you not read my last edit summary? You are duplicating content that is already in the article. Please undo your last edit and explain here why you think we need the same material to be put into the article twice. – PeeJay 00:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)