When the weather allows New Zealand to get onto the field for the first Test against England, their attack will be without Kyle Jamieson (stress fracture) and Matt Henry (looming child). It will also be without Trent Boult because apparently no one has really decided on a selection policy for him and his situation yet. That means Scott Kuggeleijn has made the squad.

The Boult situation seemingly boils down to ‘technically available but never actually picked’ now that he’s no longer a contracted player.

Head coach Gary Stead said New Zealand would, “give priority to the locally contracted players,” before adding: “It does not mean we have ruled Trent out from anything in the future.”

So what does that amount to? He’ll only get picked once every other professional cricketer in the entire country is unavailable? Is that the position?

Unboulted

Boult has declined a national contract and New Zealand clearly want to be fair to other players. This fiercely-held commitment to common decency means they have instead picked Scott Kuggeleijn, a man who – like most cricketers – wasn’t convicted of rape in 2016 or 2017.

He wasn’t convicted in any other year either, but he did stand trial on those two occasions. There was a hung jury first time around and second time he was found not guilty.

Outlining their position on Kuggeleijn’s availability, New Zealand have previously said that, “The court is the most appropriate forum for judging matters as serious as this.”

This is true. But then the court was only concerned with determining whether Kuggeleijn had definitely raped someone. It wasn’t concerned with matters fractionally less serious than that. Many would argue that behaviour fractionally less serious than ‘definitely legally rape’ can also be a bit bad. These people may also argue that some of Kuggeleijn’s behaviour as outlined in his own words during the trial falls into the ‘a bit bad’ category.

Unkuggeleijned

A national sports team can, if it wants, choose not to pick someone, even without a rape conviction to point to as justification for the decision. If you believe that national sides are there to provide entertainment and to serve as a fun thing for the people of that country to get behind, then when a player’s behaviour impinges on those things, it makes sense to factor that in.

The All Blacks have famously operated a “no dickheads” policy and discussions about Kuggeleijn often bring suggestions that the Black Caps could do the same. While everyone has a slightly different understanding of what consitutes a dickhead, it seems safe to assume that quite a lot of people would be comfortable assigning that label in this instance.

Unrepentant

But then, you know – second chances? We’ve all learned from our mistakes, even if none of them were as bad as Kuggeleijn’s. If you go down that route, the question becomes whether or not he seems like a person ready to grasp a second chance and use it as an opportunity. Has he learned? Is he now more likely to behave in a way where not quite so many people would think he’s a dickhead? You don’t need to give someone international caps to explore these things. A lot of New Zealanders will already have formed opinions based on his behaviour and public pronouncements since 2017.

And fair’s fair. Maybe Trent Boult could also be given a second chance for his heinous decision to decline a national contract while remaining available to play for the national side. Boult bowled England out for 58 in 2018. Maybe that could be factored into selectorial decision-making? If we were a New Zealand fan pondering which of two entirely-available seam bowlers might get picked for the Test team, maybe we’d like to see the potential for that level of fun and enjoyment given a little more weight.

Subscribe to the King Cricket email. Critics are saying, “It goes out less often than you’d think. Didn’t it used to go out more often? I’m sure it used to out more often. Is he writing less these days or something?”

2019 Cricket World Cup final, England v New Zealand

Cricket is at its very purest and best when it’s completely village; when the bowlers are batting and people are being run-out and everyone has to keep checking the laws and playing regulations because they don’t have the faintest idea what’s going.

Cricket chaos is the greatest chaos. Cricket chaos is the greatest thing of all.

Here are five bonkers moments from the climax of the World Cup final. Let’s try and work out which was the cricketiest one.

The Trent Boult boundary non-catch

Recap: With 22 runs needed to win off the last nine balls, Ben Stokes hit the ball high and hard. Not so hard that the ball flew into the stands though. It dropped within reach of Trent Boult on the boundary who caught it.

Why it was very cricket: A clean, fair catch and the game was basically New Zealand’s, but six runs would mean England still had a chance. Trent Boult trod on the foam toblerone that represents the boundary. He did it while holding the ball, so it was a six. It was not entirely clear that the ball itself at any point actually crossed the boundary, but that doesn’t matter.

How uniquely cricket was this moment? It was pretty damn cricket.

The deflected overthrow for four/six

Recap: England needed nine runs to win the World Cup off three balls. Ben Stokes hit the ball, ran two, and dived for his ground. As he was doing this, he hit a second shot and it went for four. Here’s why it was the greatest shot anyone has ever hit.

Why it was very cricket: Overthrows – scoring surprise extra runs when the fielding side can’t get the ball where it needs to be at the first time of asking – is tremendously cricket. This particular instance was unusually fine because the ball deflected off Stokes. Standard practice is not to run in these situations because it feels a bit mean. And England didn’t run. They stood there and watched the ball go over the ropes for four (additional) runs. You don’t have to claim overthrows; they’re added automatically, so that delivery went down as a six and there was nothing anyone could do about it. As a final flourish, people are still arguing about whether it should have been a five because of the ambiguity of the wording of the game’s laws. Does ‘the act’ of an overthrow take place when the ball is thrown or when it fails to be safely gathered? There was a one run difference depending on how you answer that question.

How uniquely cricket was this moment? It was quite insanely cricket really.

The Adil Rashid run-out

Recap: England needed three to win off two balls. Ben Stokes pocked a yorker into the outfield while falling over and he and Adil Rashid tried to run a near-impossible two. Rashid didn’t even get close to making it and was run-out.

Why it was very cricket: Firstly, Rashid was out without even facing a ball. Secondly, it didn’t matter. Thirdly, it did matter. Being out without even doing the thing you’re there to do is very cricket. It didn’t matter because the losing of a wicket was of much less importance than engineering a situation where Ben Stokes would face the next ball. It did matter because running Rashid out negated the second run. The run was more important than the wicket.

How uniquely cricket was this moment? It was pretty damn cricket.

The Mark Wood run-out

Recap: England needed two to win off the final ball. Ben Stokes planted his bat in the way of a full toss and then he just started running. He and Mark Wood completed the first run in zero seconds, but this still didn’t give them enough to time to complete the second and Wood was run out.

Why it was very cricket: As with Rashid, Wood was out without facing a ball. Running him out also prevented what would have been the match-winning run. Again, the run was more important than the wicket – a complete inversion of normal priorities that only really applies for a few deliveries a match. The dismissal meant the game was tied – both teams had the same number of runs. It used to be that the team that lost fewest wickets (New Zealand) would be declared the winner in these situations, but they don’t do that any more because a Super Over is of course so much more satisfactory…

How uniquely cricket was the moment? About as cricket as the Rashid one, but with the added nuance that this decided the match. Or rather didn’t.

The Martin Guptill run-out

Recap: New Zealand needed two to win off the final ball of the Super Over. Martin Guptill and Jimmy Neesham ran an easy one but England got the ball to Jos Buttler in time to prevent the second.

Why it was very cricket: All of the reasons that applied to the Rashid and Wood run-outs, but with the added bonus that even though the Super Over scores were level, England won because they’d hit more fours during their main innings. Nobody knew (or cared) about this random ‘it’ll never be needed anyway’ rule until after England’s Super Over when it became apparent what New Zealand’s target was.

How uniquely cricket was the moment? This was the most uniquely cricket moment of all and we’ll tell you why. The four events before this were all purely match-level cricket, but this moment – the winning of the World Cup by England – was cricket on a broader level too. For an event to be truly 100 per cent cricket, you also need a dose of strategic confusion. The moment when Jos Buttler broke the bails and ran out Martin Guptill to win the World Cup for the very first time also marked the moment when English cricketers basically stopped playing 50-over cricket.

How insane is that?

Domestic 50-over cricket had finished for the season in May.

Also – and this was the really astonishing part considering enthusiasm for 50-over cricket was presumably at a peak – this was the moment when counties kind of stopped playing the format altogether.

Almost as if it were a videogame that they’d completed and didn’t ever want to pick up again, England pretty much binned one-day cricket at the exact moment they’d got the hang of it.

In 2021, the county cricket 50-over competition is essentially a second XI competition. The Hundred – a 100-ball competition – takes place at the same time and anyone who’s any good at cricket is playing that instead.

One of the main selling points of The Hundred is that it’s supposed to be simpler to follow, but (a) good luck with that (see above), and (b) why do you even want the game to be simpler anyway?

Witness the end of the 2019 World Cup final, people! Look upon the chaos and know that it was beautiful and good!

First published in July 2019.

If you like the features we do here on King Cricket and you’d like us to do more of them, you can always flip us a coin or buy us a pint each month via Patreon. The more we get, the more easily we can sack off other stuff and do this kind of thing instead. Cheers.

You can also sign up to get our articles emailed to you. (This is free. You don’t have to back us on Patreon or anything.)

2019 Cricket World Cup, Game 29, New Zealand v West Indies

About 80 per cent of Carlos Brathwaite’s international career has involved impossibly dramatic finishes in world tournaments. We’ve literally no idea what he does the rest of the time.

Carlos has a method in these situations. That method is to have a monumental and colossally effective slog.

It doesn’t all make sense.

This one went for six.

That made sense.

Spoiler alert: this one went for six too.

Again, that made sense.

But then look at this. Look at this classic ‘I’ve just hit a six’ follow-through.

That does not make sense. It was clear at that moment that Carlos Brathwaite was no longer operating in the terrestrial realm.

Now choosing to operate within the celestial realm was a great move from Brathwaite in one respect because it allowed him to hit sixes that would not have been possible under normal physical conditions. However, the flipside was that some other normal, everyday rules about how things work no longer applied either and this is what finally did for him.

Earlier this week, someone – we forget who – dollied a piss-easy catch pretty much directly at Trent Boult.

Boult gently trotted round to gather it and then, at the last moment, completely inexplicably jumped into the air.

The catch was not above Boult. It was about chest height, so jumping meant he had to jab his hands downwards. He deliberately unsteadied himself for the catch. It was demented. It didn’t work. He dropped the ball.

Earlier in the match against the West Indies, he dropped another. Boult has taken some unreal catches in his time, but very occasionally he can also seem like he has lubricated golf balls for hands.

With the West Indies needing just six runs to win, with one wicket remaining, Carlos Brathwaite did what he does best and pongoed the ball towards the boundary.

This is how Trent Boult made contact with the ball.

And this is where he ended up, having successfully caught the ball.

With literally the whole outcome of the match on the line and Brathwaite defying physics, Boult skirted the boundary and caught a cricket ball.

Seeing what had happened, Brathwaite sank to the floor and visibly retreated into hibernation until the next world tournament.

2 minute read

England were 58 all out today and New Zealand didn’t even have to stoop to a bowling change. Being as play largely took place during the UK night, England supporters will have first seen the score at all sorts of different points, depending on bedtime, alarm time and bladder size.

When was the worst moment to start following events?

0-0 in England’s innings

There’s a case for saying that those who were there from the beginning got it worst. We disagree. Even though it occurred at hellish pace, seeing a collapse unfold gives more time to come to terms with what’s happening. There’s greatly reduced shock value.

18-3

This probably gets our vote. At 18-3, the score is already bad enough to provide an unhelpfllu sleep-denying burst of adrenaline in the middle of the night. You would then have seen the score become 18-4 and then 18-5 and then 18-6.

Six wickets is a lot of wickets, while 18 runs is very few runs. 18 is the score at which the situation officially moved from ‘gravely troubling’ to ‘hugely disastrous’.

58 all out

A horrifying score, but yet you’ve missed the light relief of Craig Overton’s forlorn late sally and now have to endure the protracted drip-drip erosion of hope via Kane Williamson’s bat. This is not a good moment at which to tune in.

123-3 in New Zealand’s innings (England 58 all out)

We just felt like we should include a mid-New Zealand innings option. This seemed the best/worst. At 123-3 and England 58 all out, the situation is already full-on dogshit and there will be precisely nothing else to cheer for the whole of the rest of the night/day.

175-3 in New Zealand’s innings (England 58 all out)

The full and complete horror, all in one go.