Best game of cricket ever?

[Simon G]

I recall Ben Stokes aged about 14 playing for Cockermouth U15s against Egremont U15s, which included one of my sons.  To put it mildly, Stokes was rather good.  He also displayed a steely determination and ruthlessness to win at that age.  Needless to say, Cockermouth won easily.  The only team to trouble them locally was a village team called Cleator, and two former juniors from there are currently playing top level county cricket ( Jordan and Graham Clark).

 

Like so many others, I felt sorry for the New Zealand team.  They didn’t deserve to lose in that fashion.

[melmoth]

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

I agree. I also thought it was a pretty average game until near the end.

 

242 isn't even five an over. Hardly thrilling batsmanship.

 

 

It's not just about batting though. The game was full of the sort of tactical nuances that happen when there is a fairly well balanced contest between bat and ball. I thought it was thoroughly compelling from start to finish.

[melmoth]

8 minutes ago, Simon G said:

I recall Ben Stokes aged about 14 playing for Cockermouth U15s against Egremont U15s, which included one of my sons.  To put it mildly, Stokes was rather good.  He also displayed a steely determination and ruthlessness to win at that age.  Needless to say, Cockermouth won easily.  The only team to trouble them locally was a village team called Cleator, and two former juniors from there are currently playing top level county cricket ( Jordan and Graham Clark).

 

Like so many others, I felt sorry for the New Zealand team.  They didn’t deserve to lose in that fashion.

 

I presume that was when his dad was coaching the Workington RL team?

[Ohmisterporter]

I watched a lot of the games in the highlights show and almost every team had a special moment that did them credit, win or lose. Some of the bowling and fielding has been exemplary, and some batting had to be brilliant to overcome it. To say that 241 runs each was hardly a batting fest may well be true; but it shows the quality of bowling and fielding. NZ bowling four maiden overs in the CWC final is testament to this. Congratulations to both teams; NZ for winning under the old rules and England who won under the new rules. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

2 hours ago, south_tyne said:

 

Yes. Let's hope the feel good factor spills over into the Ashes. I can't wait for the test series to begin now. Proper cricket!!!

 

Just so long as it is only the feel-good factor. Too many players these days play Test cricket as though it was a limited overs game.

[bbishop]

8 hours ago, Kingzance said:

Were you doing your stuff Bill? I hope you were and that you had a great time too! There was some comment that defibrilators were going to be in demand but I hope that wasn’t the case. I have attended a few special events in the past and the atmosphere can be electric. There were three generations and four nationalities covered in the ten people crowded in to a small room to see the super overs with me!

 

Yes KZ, I was carrying an AED around the ground.  I will post comprehensively in ER sometime later.

 

Bill

[Joseph_Pestell]

3 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

I agree. I also thought it was a pretty average game until near the end.

 

242 isn't even five an over. Hardly thrilling batsmanship.

 

 

 

Jason

 

I'm not the first to disagree with you there.

 

I did not actually see the NZ innings as we were out and about in Purbeck. So when I started watching, early in the England innings, I too thought that 241 was a low total. But batting conditions were very difficult indeed at Lord's yesterday and New Zealand had exactly the right type of bowlers to thrive in those conditions.

 

It's what made it, to those who like longer forms of the game, a good match. Too often, one-day cricket is just a slogfest. Quite fun but no subtlety. Perhaps the best aspect of the match was superb ground-fielding with both captains placing their fields very well.

 

Lord's may not be the best place to play the next World Cup Final that is in England. Edgbaston might offer a bit more balance between bat and ball.

[bbishop]

In my opinion, no, I preferred the Ladies final a couple of years back.  I got to see the end of the Ladies game as well.  I spent the super overs in the Compton stand, but with my back to the game, treating a rather sick person.  

 

Bill

[Torper]

No, that was not the best game of cricket ever.  The best game occurred many many years ago when I, normally an undostinguished No.7 batsman, was required to open the innings in a minor school match.  While wickets tumbled round me, I remained resolute, carrying my bat undefeated until we were all out (except me).  As the innings progressed I even felt able to approach new batsmen as they made their way to crease and offer some words of advice, not that it seemed to do much good.  That, IMO, was without doubt the best game of cricket ever.  I do have to admit that it is a personal and probably unique opinion.....

 

I should add that the second best game of cricket ever took place at The Grange Club in Edinburgh on 10th June last year when, much to everyone's astonshment, Scotland, for the first and probably last time, beat England by a handsome 6 runs in a high scoring ODI.

 

DT

[Ian Stewart]

Oh yes!

A pleasing starter for the ordered main Ashes course, against our "friends" (and beaten Semi-finalists) from Australia.

 

I shall be listening on Test Match Special, covering a Test Match Series at last, while building a new layout.

I shall not, however, be lining out a locomotive while England are batting!

 

Ian.

[EddieB]

4 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

As a practical point I count as "native English" for cricket purposes anyone who is a product of the English cricket system . Technically Nasser Hussain was born outside the UK and came here as a small boy. In practice is father was a local coach in Ilford, he learnt his cricket in East London (Essex not SA) and played his entire professional career for Essex CCC his local team. 

We used to book net practices at Joe Hussain’s cricket school, sometimes using the services of his coaches and/or the bowling machine.  One of those places where you never knew who might turn up on a given evening.

 

To add to England’s all-time “World XI”, I offer Derek Pringle (born Kenya, or Keeenya as it was then) and the ever fidgeting and arse-scratching Dermot Reeve (Hong Kong)...

[jjb1970]

3 hours ago, melmoth said:

 

It's not just about batting though. The game was full of the sort of tactical nuances that happen when there is a fairly well balanced contest between bat and ball. I thought it was thoroughly compelling from start to finish.

 

To me one of the great joys of cricket is that a game in which little appears to be happening can be utterly enthralling. There are few things more fascinating than the battle of wits and skill between a good spin bowler on a pitch with enough to make the ball move and a good batsman. Quite often such contests can go over after over with virtually no runs being scored and have people on the edges of their seats with the suspense. 

[jonny777]

1 hour ago, Torper said:

No, that was not the best game of cricket ever. 

 

No, it certainly wasn't

 

And not even the best England game ever, as promoted by the over-hyped MSM coverage today. 

 

On a par with football at Wembley 1966, or the Rugby World Cup 2003? Certainly not. 

 

 

It was not even on a par with the 1968 test series in England, when one day in June our sadistic and authoritarian Latin master entered the form room to inform us that he had good news and bad news. 

 

The bad news was that he was setting double homework. The good news was that England had bowled out Australia for 78. 

 

Yeah right - we all jeered, try another joke. No one bowls out the Australians for 78. 

 

Try as he might he couldn't get us to believe him. Due to the weather, the game was drawn. And who could forget that photo of everyone around the bat at the Oval in the final match of the series, with Derek Underwood bowling?

 

Days when cricket really was cricket, and not a weird version of baseball. 

[caradoc]

It was indeed a magnificent game of cricket, with England winning by the narrowest of margins. However personally I class England's demolition of Australia in the semi-final as the best game ever - There was not a shred of doubt about that one !

 

I fully agree that New Zealand's sportsmanship was wonderful (and a contrast to their near neighbours). 

 

[stovepipe]

9 minutes ago, jonny777 said:

It was not even on a par with the 1968 test series in England, when one day in June our sadistic and authoritarian Latin master entered the form room to inform us that he had good news and bad news. 

 

 

 

Not even better than a game you didn't watch? I'm not sure that counts for much.

 

It wasn't an easy watch granted, but I didn't move a muscle all day, I found it utterly compelling, tense and hard-fought, just like top flight sport should be, with a series of incredible twists at the denouement. It was like a mini-test match in many ways. Well done to all the players.

[griffgriff]

5 hours ago, DLT said:

 

sorry....

Beaker Bairstow... sorry JB

[Clagsniffer]

1 hour ago, jonny777 said:

 

No, it certainly wasn't

 

And not even the best England game ever, as promoted by the over-hyped MSM coverage today. 

 

On a par with football at Wembley 1966, or the Rugby World Cup 2003? Certainly not. 

 

 

It was not even on a par with the 1968 test series in England, when one day in June our sadistic and authoritarian Latin master entered the form room to inform us that he had good news and bad news. 

 

The bad news was that he was setting double homework. The good news was that England had bowled out Australia for 78. 

 

Yeah right - we all jeered, try another joke. No one bowls out the Australians for 78. 

 

Try as he might he couldn't get us to believe him. Due to the weather, the game was drawn. And who could forget that photo of everyone around the bat at the Oval in the final match of the series, with Derek Underwood bowling?

 

Days when cricket really was cricket, and not a weird version of baseball. 

Come on now, are you telling me you weren’t even the teeniest bit excited during the last hour of play? Granted parts of the day weren’t as thrilling but was still full of interest, twists and turns. You clearly don’t like this format of the game, and that’s fine, but you can’t deny the skill that was on show surely? The bowling of Plunkett, archer  and de grandhomme, the stand between Buttler and stokes and the fielding of both sides, all added up to keep me gripped. 

 

Bit disrespectful to all the cricketers involved to refer to what they put on show as ‘a weird form of baseball’.

 

Aren't you even a little happy that we won the World Cup?

[t-b-g]

I really don't think that this was the best game of cricket ever. Sorry but it just wasn't.

 

The only exceptional thing about it was the 50th over and the two "super" overs.

 

If England had fallen short by a few runs short because he fielder didn't step on the rope or those fluke (and dodgy) overthrows hadn't gone England's way, nobody would be talking about "the best game ever".

 

The first 99 overs were hard fought, tight and good cricket but never the "best ever".

 

So a great finish, maybe the tightest and most gripping ever. Decided in a slightly contrived way that was rather hard on New Zealand.

 

If the result had gone the other way due to such incidents, would people still be talking about "the best game"? Probably not, they would be talking about how cruel it was.

[brack]

2 minutes ago, Clagsniffer said:

Aren't you even a little happy that we won the World Cup

There is a subset of english cricket supporters for whom the entire experience is about shared suffering and having something to complain about. Given what was served up for their delectation in the 90s its understandable.

 

I still struggle to get my head around playing in crap tracksuits, it just isn't right, they should wear proper whites. The flashy lights in the stumps is an utter abomination.

However the match was tremendous, gripping and frankly ridiculous at the end. I think I walked about 10 miles back and forth in the living room!

I cant say I'm a proper cricket fan, but I enjoy watching a test on TV on a lazy sunny summer day, or listening to tms on a long solitary drive. I prefer the proper format for those reasons, and deplore some of the excesses of hype built in to limited over formats (i know it's a cliche, but the truth is it's just not cricket - that other stuff seems to be just for the subcontinent market and is too americanised), but my goodness yesterday was brilliant. Not so much for the quality of the cricket (although there was some excellent bowling out there. NZ's first few overs certainly removed any optimism I might have had) but the spectacle and the contest were great. Certainly it didn't feel like anyone deserved to lose it, but I don't feel the result was unfair - you cant go to wickets as the chasing side will always sacrifice those in return for runs at the end, boundaries is arbitrary but rewards attacking play, and is what was decided before the whole thing started. How else would you decide it? Results in the pool stage? Most convincing semi final performance? previous head to head result in the tournament? They'd all favour England in any case.

[Torper]

2 hours ago, jonny777 said:

It was not even on a par with the 1968 test series in England, when one day in June our sadistic and authoritarian Latin master entered the form room to inform us that he had good news and bad news. 

The bad news was that he was setting double homework. The good news was that England had bowled out Australia for 78. 

Yeah right - we all jeered, try another joke. No one bowls out the Australians for 78.

 

Im afraid that my recollection of form masters and cricket news goes back further than that.  I can still remember Mr McGeorge coming into Assembly one day in 1956 when England was playing Australia in the third test and announcing "Laker - 9 for 37".  It was quite unbelievable, although perhaps not as unbelievable as Laker's performance in Australia's second innings when he took 10 for 53.

 

DT

[EddieB]

I thought we’d put all the fuss about pyjamas behind us, recognising that the 50-over version of cricket stands in its own right.  Then again, the rumpus at West Indian fans making a din bashing tin cans together during the first World Cup has given way to bursts of rock music to greet every boundary or wicket - and at Lords, heaven forfend.

 

It was a great tournament all through.  Some great matches, some marvellous performances. A great advertisement for cricket - and for bringing back free-to-air TV coverage.

 

I’m disappointed that the final came down to a piece of luck in the end.  A shame that it couldn’t be left as a tie - neither team deserved to lose.  

 

[Ozexpatriate]

40 minutes ago, brack said:

I still struggle to get my head around playing in crap tracksuits, it just isn't right, they should wear proper whites. The flashy lights in the stumps is an utter abomination.

It surprises me that the uni-colour kit of Kerry Packer's Circus (World Series Cricket) persists to this day.

 

Packer wanted something for colour TV. Ironically baseball and football uniforms in the US are a more 'traditional' in their own style than the uni-colour kit.  They could do with something that looks less like pajamas for the colour-blind. I think a uniform that make it obvious at first glance that you're not watching proper cricket is OK.

 

I have no objection to flashy stumps and bails, just not in a test match. I don't like oblong advertising painted on the field.

 

45 minutes ago, brack said:

that other stuff seems to be just for the subcontinent market and is too americanised

Surely "Indianized?" A 20/20 IPL match is really nothing like you would see in any outdoors US professional sporting event.

[lightengine]

Should it have been 6 runs or 5 for the "batted" boundary throw?

Edited July 15, 2019 by lightengine

[brack]

2 minutes ago, lightengine said:

Should it have been 6 runs or 5 for the "batted" boundary throw?

If you're allowed umpires call on a wicket then surely you can have it on a run - it's not as if anyone was appealing for it. If neither sides players are complaining I'm not sure that the rest of us have much right.

[south_tyne]

8 hours ago, Ozexpatriate said:

It surprises me that the uni-colour kit of Kerry Packer's Circus (World Series Cricket) persists to this day.

 

Packer wanted something for colour TV. Ironically baseball and football uniforms in the US are a more 'traditional' in their own style than the uni-colour kit.  They could do with something that looks less like pajamas for the colour-blind. I think a uniform that make it obvious at first glance that you're not watching proper cricket is OK.

 

I have no objection to flashy stumps and bails, just not in a test match. I don't like oblong advertising painted on the field.

 

Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with any form of cricket and that test, 50-over and T20 all have a role to play. 

 

Some of the posts above smack of a "everything was better in the past" mindset. It wasn't but neither are all the changes to the game good. It's just different now. 

 

I love test cricket. I would rather watch that than any other form of the game. However there is no doubt that T20 has been unbelievably successful around the world. T20 games over here regularly sell-out and the games have fantastic atmosphere. Importantly they are packed with a really diverse crowd of families and youngsters. The music, colours, drama and interactive atmosphere are what attracts people and gets them watching cricket. The fact that it is over in a few hours also helps, particularly for the attention and concentration spans of kids. If cricket wants to grow new markets, say the USA, then T20 is the only way to do it. Compare that to the County Championship, where there are crowds in just hundreds and it is the domain of the white, middle-class, old, grey-haired, Daily Telegraph, jacket and tie brigade (that's somewhat tongue in cheek but only a little). 

 

There is still a place for the traditional aspects of the game. Test match cricket is the pinnacle of the game and the traditions are a wonderful part of the game. But there is opportunity and space for all three forms of the game. T20 in particular has revolutionised the way players approach the game, both in technique and mindset. Innovation, power and speed has transferred to every form of the game. However, the best players can still do it in ALL types of cricket. There is still room for a Joe Root or a Kane Williamson in 50-over cricket, alongside the Jos Butlers of this world. 

 

The hope is that kids and new fans will be hooked in and attracted by the World Cup win and/or T20 cricket, but then that interest and love will spread to longer formats. Some might not like the showiness of the one-day game but ultimately 7.5m people watched the final on Sunday..... 7.5 million!! That's publicity that the ICC and ECB could only dream of. Hopefully local cricket clubs will see that knock-on impact too, with increased interest and attendance. This is the time to grasp the momentum and ensure a legacy (whilst I dislike that phrase and concept but it is probably appropriate here).

 

Kerry Packer was criticised for what he did, and rightly so for some reasons, but what he did do is shake up a somewhat staid game and the very conservative minsets that dominates. Whilst ultimately his 'revolution' was not lasting, it made folk think about how to change cricket and lead to a lot of the innovations we see today. So the legacy and impact have been lasting.

 

I'll stop waffling but, to summarise my drivel, there is room for all formats and styles of cricket. We need to attract new fans, particularly kids, otherwise the game will wither. Stand still and you die...... 

 

PS - actually that last point is something that could equally be applied to the model railway hobby!