The greatest positive to leave the 2019 World Cup was the update—to the whole gang however especially those directors captivated by T20's prosperity—of what a decent round of cricket a 50-over challenge can be.
In the 50-over game there's an ideal opportunity to recuperate from a poor time of play; there's a spot for strategic moves and in spite of the impediments on bowlers and defenders, an all-inclusive great spell of bowling is conceivable. Played well it very well may be an energizing and emotional consolidated adaptation of the more drawn out game.
There was likewise a sharp update that colossal first innings scores with a plenty of limits isn't really the best formula for strain filled close wraps up. A course of sixes and fours regularly sentences the pursuing group to an enormous destruction and doesn't include any athletic and skilful handling, nor any challenging running between wickets.
At the point when the restricted overs game originally caught the open creative mind, handling and running between wickets were two of the frequently referenced angles that made the energy. The World Cup last given this and that's only the tip of the iceberg, including contention over the manner in which the inevitable outcome was chosen.
The perfect method to unwind a tied last is the situation of the two contending groups on the table after the primer rounds are finished. This gives a complete answer as the groups are put in that request either by ethicalness of the quantity of wins or by a net run-rate sudden death round.
On the off chance that the Super Over doesn't give a by and large victor, at that point this is the least dubious approach to choose a champ. Britain would even now have won under this framework and they additionally easily vanquished New Zealand in their round match.
The DRS experienced harsh criticism once more, especially after the rejection of Jason Roy in the semi-last and his tirade which pursued that choice. The DRS was presented, in the expressions of the ICC, "To dispose of the howler and to achieve the correct choice."
Most players utilize the audit to arbitrate on 50-50 choices and on events it's utilized as a strategic play.
Right off the bat, 50-50 choices don't cause enmity among adversaries and furthermore, umpiring ought to never be a piece of the strategies in a round of cricket. Furthermore, by what method can the correct choice consistently be accomplished when there's a limited number of audits?
An intensive update of the DRS should put it in the hands of the umpires and not the players. Also, if the ICC was extremely genuine about reasonableness in the basic leadership process they would be in all out charge of the innovation as opposed to rely upon the TV organization that is giving the inclusion. That way every arrangement would be played using precisely the same innovation and accordingly, under a similar arrangement of laws.
In any case, the Roy occurrence brought up another issue about the DRS.
Until the DRS was presented players grew up knowing the main standard when playing cricket was, "The umpire is in every case right."
In the event that the umpire gave an erroneous choice the player needed to figure out how to immediately leave the scene and advance toward the changing area without demonstrating question. This was one of the extraordinary character building parts of the game.
When the overseers presented the DRS they were urging players to differ with umpires. The most dire outcome imaginable is the thing that occurred in the Roy episode.
As so regularly happens the executives settle on poor choices yet the players at that point languish the discipline over that blunder in judgment.
An exhaustive audit of a World Cup that completed on a sublimely high note would ideally reach the accompanying resolutions:
1. That an even harmony among bat and ball is kept up at every possible opportunity. This will require intense choices to be taken on bats and limits and a confirmation that pitches give some consolation to the bowlers.
2. That a total redesign of the DRS is embraced. This would mean bringing the framework under the absolute control of the ICC umpires.