PDA

View Full Version : Farcical end to a farcical WC - here's what happened


OZGOD
April 28, 2007, 05:36 PM
It was pretty farcical stuff. Here's what happened:

1. SL batsmen were offered the light and took it (it was very dark - they showed a shot of the Kensington Oval without the cameras enhancing the lights and you could barely see the players).

2. OZ start to celebrate as they (and everyone) assume that SL won't be coming back out.

3. Organisers start to prepare the stage for the presentations.

4. Dar and Bucknor tell the OZ that they can't celebrate as the game isn't over yet and that 3 overs have to be completed, either tonight or tomorrow.

5. Jayawardene comes out and remonstrates with Dar, but Dar says that 3 overs have to be completed and SL have to come back tomorrow.

6. Jayawardene and Ponting get in a conversation. Jayawardene agrees to have his batsmen come back out as long as no fast bowlers bowl (as per the usual light rules).

7. Malinga and Vaas come back out to Symmo and Clarke bowling.

8. Symmo and Clarke hurry through the overs, taking Malinga's wicket in near-darkness before the match ends.

OZGOD
April 28, 2007, 05:37 PM
Can't believe they spent millions of dollars to redevelop Kensington Oval and forgot to put floodlights!

Hatebreed
April 28, 2007, 05:43 PM
Apart from our wins and a few close matches it's been a disappointing WC, mostly to do with organisation.

Xavier
April 28, 2007, 05:46 PM
The format was wrong too... the Super-8 was too long and some matches were quite boring as it was clear just after few games which teams were going to the semifinals.

Sovik
April 28, 2007, 05:47 PM
1996 was better. super 6 and super 8 only made the tournaments longer.

OZGOD
April 28, 2007, 05:51 PM
It's unfortunate that a WC that had some great moments, like:

1. the OZ running through the tournament undefeated
2. the great efforts of SL
3. Bangladesh and Ireland upsetting India and Pakistan and making the Super 8
4. Malinga's 4 wickets in 4 balls
5. Hayden's fastest WC ton
6. Gilly's fastest WC final ton
7. Gibbs' 6 6s in 1 over
8. the retirements of McGrath, Lara, et al

...will be remembered for things like the farcical way the tournament was organised. And of course Bob Woolmer's death will hang like a shadow over WC2007.

sandpiper
April 28, 2007, 05:52 PM
but only 12 teams were playing then in two different groups where quarter finals were the second stage.

I think the super six format is better with a maximum of 12 participating teams. (like 1999)
1996 was better. super 6 and super 8 only made the tournaments longer.

Sovik
April 28, 2007, 06:19 PM
this was a great tournament for us.

Kabir
April 28, 2007, 09:01 PM
Completely agree with OZGOD. And I would like to reiterate what I said in the match thread. Today's game would have been much much MUCH more fun to watch if there wasn't such bad management. It would've been a close match I would argue. Along with the organization, the DL method needs to be replaced with something that's more realistic. It's simply not fair to the teams if they face the DL target.

OZGOD also forgot to mention that the players were playing in the middle without any idea of what they're chasing. The scoreboard says something, and the players say something else. I've never seen such bad coordination at this level of a tournament.

Nocturnal
April 28, 2007, 09:10 PM
I was laughing today while watching the game ...it seemed just liked some local unorganized cricket tournament final what I used to play in Dhaka ...can't believe I was watching WC Final!

ialbd
April 28, 2007, 09:13 PM
OZGOD also forgot to mention that the players were playing in the middle without any idea of what they're chasing. The scoreboard says something, and the players say something else. I've never seen such bad coordination at this level of a tournament.

this happened in the BD-Bermuda match too but no one paid any heed as it was just Bangladesh & Bermuda. The same thing repeated in the final....haha.. the FINAL !!!!

Kabir
April 28, 2007, 09:41 PM
this happened in the BD-Bermuda match too but no one paid any heed as it was just Bangladesh & Bermuda. The same thing repeated in the final....haha.. the FINAL !!!!

We did talk about it, and we were all upset about it. But BCB failed to take any steps. And now that it happened in WC final, they even have Jayawardene and Ponting's post match pic when they were arguing with Buckner about the unprofessionalism depicted during the match.

Nobody will care for these small things if it's only BD and Bermuda involved. But now that it happened at the highest level of the tournament, it's bound to change. Mark my words.

Nocturnal
April 28, 2007, 10:07 PM
The match referee Jeff Crowe took the blame for the farcical finish to the World Cup final which saw Australia celebrate victory twice and forced Sri Lanka to bat in pitch-black darkness. ....
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wc2007/content/current/story/292771.html

gatekeeper
April 28, 2007, 10:24 PM
Apart from our wins and a few close matches it's been a disappointing WC, mostly to do with organisation.

Exactly right. Poor poor organization.

gatekeeper
April 28, 2007, 10:25 PM
1996 was better. super 6 and super 8 only made the tournaments longer.

I think all the other WCs were better than this. Off course, it'll be my most memorable one for obvious reasons.

asif619
April 28, 2007, 10:42 PM
yeah....... thats the worst world cup I ever seen... I miss the crowd part..
there was not so much crowd i mean noise during the world .. so disappaointed..

OZGOD
April 28, 2007, 10:51 PM
Pretty ordinary stuff, this.


Australia v Sri Lanka, World Cup final, Barbados

Crowe takes blame for light chaos

AFP

April 28, 2007

The match referee Jeff Crowe took the blame for the farcical finish to the World Cup final which saw Australia celebrate victory twice and forced Sri Lanka to bat in pitch-black darkness. But he suggested the third umpire Rudi Koertzen may have initiated the process leading to chaotic scenes at the climax of the game.

Crowe, despite heading up a team of officials which included the umpire Steve Bucknor, standing in a record fifth World Cup final, managed to overlook a basic playing condition which states that once 20 overs have been bowled in both innings enough cricket has been played to create a match. A result can then be declared under the Duckworth-Lewis system for rain-affected games.

Instead the teams, following instructions from Bucknor and Pakistan's Aleem Dar, came back on to bowl three more overs in gathering gloom. Both Mahela Jayawardene and Ricky Ponting rightly thought the game had finished. With the match gone from Sri Lanka, Jayawardene and Ponting came to an arrangement that it would finish with Sri Lanka facing slow bowling as a safety precaution after the umpires had incorrectly told them they would otherwise have to come back on Sunday's reserve day.

"In hindsight, I should have known the rules and said the game had been called off. I'm very embarrassed for the playing control team today," Crowe said after the officials had been booed during the trophy presentation ceremony. "For me the real confusion has come from the fact we were talking about resuming the game tomorrow, which was technically wrong."

Crowe said he and the on-field umpires, as well as Koertzen, were all involved in the discussion which left both sides stunned when, after Sri Lanka had gone off for bad light at the end of the 33rd over, they found themselves all coming back out again. "Sometimes you get a stronger voice which says: 'I know the rules - this is how it works'," Crowe said. "Then you get a bit of confusion in the group itself, and no one wants to overrule the other. The match referee should have known and said 'that's not right - the game should be completed now'."

Crowe said the officials took "collective" responsibility but suggested Koertzen had played a significant role. "Rudi was talking about the allowances and talking about the possibility of tomorrow," he said. "I don't think it's Rudi's mistake, it's a collective mistake. The fact Rudi might maybe have suggested it early doesn't mean the other umpires couldn't have over-ruled him. The two on-field umpires are the ones who control the match."

Asked if it was a resigning issue, Crowe said: "I'll have to talk with my superiors on that. But I hope not."

Jayawardene found out about the umpire's mistake after the match. "Obviously our understanding was that once we complete 20 overs under D/L it's a completed game," he said. "With 70 runs to get off 20 balls, and with Glenn McGrath and Shaun Tait bowling in that light, our guys wouldn't have seen anything, we just wanted to finish the game. "At that point [playing on] was a goodwill gesture. Australia deserved to win because the way they played today, simple as that."

Ponting joked: "If the umpires don't know, I don't know. It appeared we had a premature celebration for the best part of ten minutes. I thought Aleem was having a bit of a joke with us when he said it looks like we'd have to come back tomorrow and play three overs. I said: 'Mate, we've played the 20 overs, we've actually finished the game.'"

© Cricinfo

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wc2007/content/current/story/292771.html

Kabir
April 28, 2007, 11:00 PM
In my opinion, the biggest flaw here is the 20 over thing. These kinds of matches should really not be played with 20 overs.

Both Steve Bucknor and Aleem Dar were smoking something. But I simply hate it when they always point out the origin of the brown umpire. Whenever they talk about Aleem Dar, they have to mention he's from Pakistan. It's like the recent Virginia Tech gunman story...whenever the story pops up, there's a mention of South Korea next to his name. Quite stupid I must say.

Just glad to know that ICC got a slap on the face. Poor management isn't something that's acceptable at this stage of the game.

GoldenAsif
April 29, 2007, 05:37 AM
Yeah they do that.

When I was younger there was a famous athlete here in the UK called Linford Christie and in one TV programme a black lady said when he is successful the media always talked about him being British etc etc. However when he wasn't or when he did something wrong it was Jamaican-born Linford Christie.

Shame the WC ended like this. This WC kind of reminds me of the film "Cool runnings" in the way how comical, unpredictable and wild somethings were and with a West Indian flavour.

What really makes all of this shameful is that 1 billion people in India were really passionate about this WC, hundreds of millions of people watched it on TV and despite this the ICC produces garbage organization like this.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6305428387.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/01/25/fondue_coolrunnings_narrowweb__300x423,0.jpg

Banglatiger84
April 29, 2007, 05:54 AM
Johnathan Agnew of BBC believes the tournament was a farce because it allowed India and Pakistan to be eliminated..........

On second thoughts I think he is lamenting the fact that match fixing wasn't possible in this WC. The 4x4 format was devised to allow "big" teams the chance to easily progress to super 8's...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tms/2007/04/world_cup_leaves_sour_taste_1.shtml


You won’t find Ireland or Bangladesh complaining about any aspect of the tournament but it is clearly a dreadful error to devise a World Cup that can allow the remotest possibility of India and Pakistan being knocked out before it really gets going.

Tintin
April 29, 2007, 06:11 AM
1996 was better. super 6 and super 8 only made the tournaments longer.

In 1996, the first round was pointless because four teams out of the six qualified from each group and there was little doubt who those eight teams would be. Only the last seven matches (QF, SF, F) were of some interest.

Spitfire_x86
April 29, 2007, 11:11 AM
The format was fine. Two super 8 matches per day would make the tournament lot shorter and more intersting. They could even arrange four group matches per day if they wanted to.

al Furqaan
April 29, 2007, 01:40 PM
The format was fine. Two super 8 matches per day would make the tournament lot shorter and more intersting. They could even arrange four group matches per day if they wanted to.

i agree...

OZGOD
April 29, 2007, 04:43 PM
Yeah they do that.

When I was younger there was a famous athlete here in the UK called Linford Christie and in one TV programme a black lady said when he is successful the media always talked about him being British etc etc. However when he wasn't or when he did something wrong it was Jamaican-born Linford Christie.


That's like Russell Crowe mate - when he was winning Oscars the OZ media reported him as "Australian Russell Crowe", but when he was arrested for throwing a telephone at some bloke in a hotel it was suddenly "NZ-born Russell Crowe". :D

Alien
April 29, 2007, 08:01 PM
That's like Russell Crowe mate - when he was winning Oscars the OZ media reported him as "Australian Russell Crowe", but when he was arrested for throwing a telephone at some bloke in a hotel it was suddenly "NZ-born Russell Crowe". :D

LOL, yeah that was funny. He only became Australian recently, last year I think, was a permanent resident and Kiwi all along. Aussies are master of taking credits.

capslock
April 30, 2007, 07:05 AM
The format was fine. Two super 8 matches per day would make the tournament lot shorter and more intersting. They could even arrange four group matches per day if they wanted to.

ICC struggled to manage even one match a day, can you imagine the chaos if they tried 4?