The better ones on the day made it to the last two, and arguably the best ones on the day won. The best performers of the tournament made it to the last four. Instead of three rounds of knockouts, where – quite bizarrely – eight teams out of ten play each other again, we had just two. My favourite thing about this tournament has been its changed format – each team had to play every other, and the top four were truly the top four. In the fifth decade of the Cricket World Cup, it has finally been claimed by the country which invented the game, and no one can grudge this particular team its victory. If we were to look at the facts fairly, we must take into account that while New Zealand scraped through to the knockouts, and then to the final, thanks to Williamson and the weather, England got there almost before anyone else.Įvery time their backs were up against the wall, a different member of the team pitched in to save England.
Over the last four years, they have averaged the highest in the slog overs while batting first they have completed many a hard chase successfully. It was after their failed 2015 campaign that they decided to change the way the team would play.
Ironically enough, England had lost out four years ago to a similarly controversial umpiring decision. There are two big debates – first, how is it fair for a team which lost more wickets on the day to win on boundary count, of all things? How is "keeping the scoreboard ticking", the mantra of most commentators and experts, less than hitting the ball to the fence? Second, if Stokes had been awarded five runs on the overthrows rather than six, as he should have – since he and Rashid had not yet crossed when the ball was picked up – New Zealand would have won by at least a run in the main match they might even have won by more, since Rashid and not Stokes would have been on strike for the last balls of the game.īut, there can be little doubt that the cup went to the best team – if not on the day, certainly throughout the tournament. No one is even sure which team actually won the day. Start neutralizing the novelty.On July 14, at Lord's, there was a near-repeat, except it was even closer. We want empowerment, connections, belonging. Want diversity, not minority:We are focusing on so many more things than numbers.Interdependencies matter:Create psychological safety to remove the arbitrary differences and distances.It’s uncomfortable until it isn’t:As HR professionals we need to acknowledge and help employees work through the transition.Know the fairest for them all:Define what owning diversity and inclusion looks like for all the stakeholders.Love your new shirt:We as HR professionals need to manage the transition that comes with embracing the change.We shouldn’t be comfortable with incremental changes. Let’s just break the needle:Let’s get past moving the needle inch by inch.It’s not about being political, it’s about supporting your employees. Stay ready for disruption:Be ready to take morale stances on things.Get into real, intimate conversations that will drive intrinsic change. Go deep, go wide:Start provoking with purpose.To Khalilah, it’s not a program that is put in place that can have a beginning and an end. Say what ain’t so:Explain exactly what diversity and inclusion is NOT.Know your ABC’s:Know what diversity and inclusion means to you and your organization.Here are 10 mantras to help you think about Diversity and Inclusion: Inclusion is being invited to dance at the party. Khalilah Lyons from ConAgra how she thinks about diversity and inclusion using an analogy attributable to Verna Meyers, and we think it’s awesome.