Talk:Martin Guptill

World Cup Final

So, we have a proposal to add something along the lines of:

Guptill cost New Zealand the 2019 ICC Cricket World Cup with an errant overthrow in the ultimate over of the match and the failure to get more than a single run off the final ball of the super over.

Using the source: India today

I've not read all that many reports of the final. Is this a widely held belief?

Having read the single source presented it, quite frankly, seems to be a claim that's not in the report at all - certainly the idea of him costing his team the match.

Are there any reports that actually suggest that Guptil cost his team the match? Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

How about changing it to:

"An errant overthrow in the ultimate over of the match and the failure to get more than a single run off the final ball of the super over, by Martin Guptill, were factors contributing to New Zealand's loss in the World Cup Final." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.13.130 (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, why don't you answer the following question:

• What's your definition of "costing the team the match"?

My definition is if an act committed by the player, had been slightly different, then the match would have been won by the player's team. So Guptill's two actions there certainly changed the course of the match in that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.13.130 (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

My opinion is irrelevant (although see below). The question is what can we find in multiple, reliable sources which will substantiate anything like that? For what it's worth, I don't believe the throw was errant at all - it seemed entirely fine to me - the problem was that Stokes managed, by chance, to get his bat in the way. It wasn't the throw that was the problem, and I'm unconvinced that anyone who suggests that he should have held on to the ball is being very fair either.

In terms of costing the match - my word, your definition is so vague that you could blame it on anyone. An act that is slightly different? You can blame it on any batsman who got out then, or any bowler who committed a no ball or wide. I'd want to see something that was so flagrantly stupid a thing to do that almost every report of the match mentions it as a clear factor. Which, happily, would see us with lots of reliable sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• Merv Hughes also cost New Zealand the match by failing to run onto the field and kneecap England's bowling attack. To say that one throw "cost" New Zealand the match is nonsense, it is an insult to the subject of the article, and so far as I can tell, it is not supported by reliable sources. As an aside, I found this article to be excellent. In particular:

Was that what happened? Well, it seems as good an explanation as any. Given unlimited time, unlimited resources and unlimited co-operation, I suppose you could concoct a more scientific explanation of the deflection that won England the Cricket World Cup last Sunday: some combination of the tension in Martin Guptill’s shoulder as he hurled the ball in, the friction of the Lord’s turf, the geometry of Ben Stokes’s dive, the speed of the outfield, the anticipation and positioning of the New Zealand fielders - notice how Colin de Grandhomme takes a step to his left at short third man, anticipating the original path of the throw, because why on earth would you anticipate anything else? You could break down that passage of play to the millisecond, model the scenario in a NASA-level of detail, and it would explain everything, and it would also explain nothing. And five days after that deflection, after that over, after that final, after that victory, perhaps this is the safest place to start: by admitting that neither you nor I nor anyone else can really explain what happened, or why.

You can play around with the counterfactuals, of course. Perhaps England still win even without that deflection. Perhaps if England need six rather than two off the last ball, Stokes smashes that full toss from Trent Boult into the stands rather than bunting it safely down the ground. Then again, if the umpires apply the rules correctly, notice the batsmen hadn’t crossed at the time of Guptill’s throw and deduct a run from England’s total, Adil Rashid is on strike, and maybe Stokes doesn’t face another ball.

Is Guptill the best opener in modern odi cricket...

I think he is arguably one of the best Moh shameel14 (talk) 06:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)