| Cricket WC 20:12 - Jun 12 with 13659 views | Nigeriamark |
Big win by the Aussies today. Not yet halfway through but already looking like a 5 horse race with NZ, Oz, India, England & WI's going for the 4 qualifying places. Huge game on Friday between us against the WIs , and with Afghanistan & Sri Lanka up next a win would set us up nicely. Wouldn't like to see us in 4th after 6 games with our last three being India, the Aussies & NZ
SA have choked earlier than normal & other than the game against us Pakisan seem to have lost their discipline. SL only have 4 points because of 2 washouts so I don't expect any of these 3 to challenge. Afghanistan & Bangladesh were always unlikely to challenge although the latter are always good for a shock
All in all a decent start to the tournament and I for one am happy it has not been the batters tournament as predicted. Let's hope for the weather to clear up & for some close matches over the next 5 weeks |  | | |  |
| Cricket WC on 23:38 - Jul 14 with 1156 views | Shun |
| Cricket WC on 21:56 - Jul 14 by kiwidale |
Germany win 2022 Fifa world cup on most corners. [Post edited 14 Jul 2019 22:31]
|
Not even remotely comparable. The way in which this magnificent game was decided is more similar to the way a football league with two teams tied at the top is decided by goal difference, and then goals scored. |  | | |
| Cricket WC on 23:48 - Jul 14 with 1139 views | D_Alien |
| Cricket WC on 23:35 - Jul 14 by FalingeParka |
Utterly daft stuff on here about the wickets lost vs 6s and 4s rule. The chasing team sacrificed wickets in critical moments to try to keep the guy on strike who could win the game by scoring most runs. No-one was trying to tie in the 50 or the extra over.
A tie is weird situation, and it happened twice. One off game, never to be repeated. Both teams were utterly magnificent.
Why on god's earth someone wants to nitpick in such ridiculous fashion or go on about the pitch, (Lord's is Lord's), is beyond me. |
Well said
England didn't make the current rules, and they're not as arbitrary as they might seem, but designed to encourage positive cricket
NZ deserve great credit for their sportsmanship, but nothing should (or can) be taken away from an England side coming out winners for once when it mattered most |  |
| |
| Cricket WC on 00:38 - Jul 15 with 1086 views | DiddyDave |
| Cricket WC on 23:48 - Jul 14 by D_Alien |
Well said
England didn't make the current rules, and they're not as arbitrary as they might seem, but designed to encourage positive cricket
NZ deserve great credit for their sportsmanship, but nothing should (or can) be taken away from an England side coming out winners for once when it mattered most |
The game should be decided on who scores the most runs. Why didn`t they have another Super Over(s) so that eventually one team scores more runs than the other? As I say,England didn`t actually win,did they? |  | | |
| Cricket WC on 00:43 - Jul 15 with 1084 views | kiwidale |
Cricket is a simple game or it was. The two main objectives being to score runs and to take wickets. Results are generally arrived at by a pretty simple formula one way to win is to score more runs than them the other way to win is to take 10 wickets thus preventing them scoring more runs than us either way the result is the same. In the event of a tie as was the case in question another way to determine a result is needed it can be as simple and as obvious as the team that takes the most wickets wins, see list of main objectives. If you don't like that method as is the case there are other options some having more merit than others. It can be as silly as the team that wins the toss -there are many instances of games being decided by the toss of a coin- or the team that bowls more dot balls or bowls more maidens or score more boundaries, the last three examples are as silly as each other. Its been mentioned on this thread that the rule used was to encourage positive cricket, which begs the question when did the art of fast bowling become negative? Try telling that to the great exponents of fast bowling over the years, when did the sight of a fast bowler knocking the castle over become negative? Try telling the greatest bowler of all time of any variety Shane Warne that he was killing the game with his negative approach or try telling James Anderson that the the sooner he retires the game will become more positive and entertaining. [Post edited 15 Jul 2019 4:14]
| |
| This is not the time for bickering.
|
| |
| Cricket WC on 04:37 - Jul 15 with 1007 views | kiwidale |
| Cricket WC on 23:38 - Jul 14 by Shun |
Not even remotely comparable. The way in which this magnificent game was decided is more similar to the way a football league with two teams tied at the top is decided by goal difference, and then goals scored. |
My use of hyperbole was perfectly acceptable in my comment. | |
| This is not the time for bickering.
|
| |
| Cricket WC on 04:45 - Jul 15 with 1002 views | kiwidale |
| Cricket WC on 23:35 - Jul 14 by FalingeParka |
Utterly daft stuff on here about the wickets lost vs 6s and 4s rule. The chasing team sacrificed wickets in critical moments to try to keep the guy on strike who could win the game by scoring most runs. No-one was trying to tie in the 50 or the extra over.
A tie is weird situation, and it happened twice. One off game, never to be repeated. Both teams were utterly magnificent.
Why on god's earth someone wants to nitpick in such ridiculous fashion or go on about the pitch, (Lord's is Lord's), is beyond me. |
What is utterly daft is the suggestion that any batsman from either side sacrificed their wicket. In the last over of the England innings Rashid was out going for the winning runs as was Wood trying to get the winning run. Guptil was run out in similar fashion going for the winning run in the champagne over. To suggest otherwise is nonsense. [Post edited 15 Jul 2019 4:56]
| |
| This is not the time for bickering.
|
| |
| Cricket WC on 06:13 - Jul 15 with 980 views | pioneer |
| Cricket WC on 20:05 - Jul 14 by D_Alien |
I doubt there'll ever be a more dramatic game of one day cricket
People refer to small margins, but today they were invisible. Key players stood up and held their nerve, and massive credit to both teams
We've got the monkey off our back. Stokes has removed the monkey of the final over in the T20 a couple of years ago. Just a great advert for sport, with the fantastic tennis final reaching it's climax at the very same time within just a few miles of Lord's
Hope the England lads have one hell of a party. Just go and get pissed*, then get back down to earth for the Ashes
* obviously not the Muslim lads, but whatever it takes to celebrate
[Post edited 14 Jul 2019 20:15]
|
preferably avoiding fracas outside nightclubs in the early hours...we have an ashes series to play. | | | |
| Cricket WC on 06:16 - Jul 15 with 978 views | pioneer |
| Cricket WC on 21:55 - Jul 14 by Sandyman |
Ah, the champagne super over 
What an incredible match. England and NZ were both brilliant in testing conditions and played the game in the spirit it should be played in. Joyous that England won but respect to NZ for some seriously good score defending. They weren't far off.
Must have hurt and been inconceivable to the few convicts that were there that the game was played properly. Something the sandpaper cheats have no concept of. Who did the Aussie cricket establishment want to encourage their fans to upset so much that they that would cry today? It's what they encourage is it not ? One of their own I hope - convict kurntz |
Wasnt the semi final played properly and werent the aussies gracious in defeat?
All I have seen is there players saying this England team are argubly the best one day team ever. athats some compliment coming from a country with umpteen world cup wins. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Cricket WC on 06:20 - Jul 15 with 977 views | DiddyDave |
| Cricket WC on 23:33 - Jul 14 by KenBoon |
Boundaries scored is a perfectly fair way of deciding a tied one-day game. New Zealand had many chances to put the game to bed (including the super over) but didn't. Sometimes unlucky (extras off the bat) and sometimes not (the six given away for standing over the boundary). |
Ken,mate,you know that`s a load of bollox. What`s so difficult in keeping going,three different batsmen and two different bowlers? It`s the only rational way to sort it out,that way the team who scores the most runs wins,as has happened in every other of other game of cricket that`s been played in the last three hundred years. It wasn`t England`s fault that it came to this,I rather think it`s the TV people these days who run the show. No doubt six million grannies were waiting for Coronation Street to come on,or summat else equally fooking daft. | | | |
| Cricket WC on 07:20 - Jul 15 with 930 views | Sandyman |
| Cricket WC on 06:20 - Jul 15 by DiddyDave |
Ken,mate,you know that`s a load of bollox. What`s so difficult in keeping going,three different batsmen and two different bowlers? It`s the only rational way to sort it out,that way the team who scores the most runs wins,as has happened in every other of other game of cricket that`s been played in the last three hundred years. It wasn`t England`s fault that it came to this,I rather think it`s the TV people these days who run the show. No doubt six million grannies were waiting for Coronation Street to come on,or summat else equally fooking daft. |
Not so. Plenty of games have been sorted out using the Super Over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_over |  | | |
| Cricket WC on 07:26 - Jul 15 with 920 views | Mass_Debater |
| Cricket WC on 06:20 - Jul 15 by DiddyDave |
Ken,mate,you know that`s a load of bollox. What`s so difficult in keeping going,three different batsmen and two different bowlers? It`s the only rational way to sort it out,that way the team who scores the most runs wins,as has happened in every other of other game of cricket that`s been played in the last three hundred years. It wasn`t England`s fault that it came to this,I rather think it`s the TV people these days who run the show. No doubt six million grannies were waiting for Coronation Street to come on,or summat else equally fooking daft. |
No surprise that you come out with your usual anti-England shite.
The rules weren’t decided halfway through the game, you know. | | | |
| Cricket WC on 07:36 - Jul 15 with 910 views | fitzochris |
As has been said, the rules for this match were known well before a ball had been bowled.
As I’ve also said on other forums, either side deserved to win the game on balance and I’d have had no complaints had New Zealand done so. I’m just glad England did.
The knock on of the drama created has been similar to the Edgbaston Ashes test of 2005. People who only have a causal interest in cricket, or even none at all, were captivated and may now be inspired to follow the game more closely.
Then again, nobody knew the game was on... apparently. [Post edited 15 Jul 2019 9:11]
|  |
| |
| Cricket WC on 07:52 - Jul 15 with 896 views | pioneer |
| Cricket WC on 07:36 - Jul 15 by fitzochris |
As has been said, the rules for this match were known well before a ball had been bowled.
As I’ve also said on other forums, either side deserved to win the game on balance and I’d have had no complaints had New Zealand done so. I’m just glad England did.
The knock on of the drama created has been similar to the Edgbaston Ashes test of 2005. People who only have a causal interest in cricket, or even none at all, were captivated and may now be inspired to follow the game more closely.
Then again, nobody knew the game was on... apparently. [Post edited 15 Jul 2019 9:11]
|
They will have to get sky if they want to follow the ashes, or try and find the freeto air australian bal by ball coverage on line. | | | |
| Cricket WC on 07:58 - Jul 15 with 890 views | EllDale |
Let's win the netball now! | | | |
| Cricket WC on 08:39 - Jul 15 with 836 views | fitzochris |
| Cricket WC on 07:52 - Jul 15 by pioneer |
They will have to get sky if they want to follow the ashes, or try and find the freeto air australian bal by ball coverage on line. |
Or they could watch highlights shows, follow the coverage online or, heaven forbid, attend a game in person. Better still, young people up and down the country might actually want to give the game a try and head down to their local club. | |
| |
| Cricket WC on 08:44 - Jul 15 with 826 views | KenBoon |
| Cricket WC on 06:20 - Jul 15 by DiddyDave |
Ken,mate,you know that`s a load of bollox. What`s so difficult in keeping going,three different batsmen and two different bowlers? It`s the only rational way to sort it out,that way the team who scores the most runs wins,as has happened in every other of other game of cricket that`s been played in the last three hundred years. It wasn`t England`s fault that it came to this,I rather think it`s the TV people these days who run the show. No doubt six million grannies were waiting for Coronation Street to come on,or summat else equally fooking daft. |
I could understand maybe judging boundaries on the super over (number of 6's, number of 4s) before the 50 over boundaries, but the rules are known long in advanced. I guess they don't keep going because it might go on forever, but perhaps for finals they should (similar to tennis tie breaks). |  | | |
| Cricket WC on 08:49 - Jul 15 with 825 views | DiddyDave |
| Cricket WC on 07:26 - Jul 15 by Mass_Debater |
No surprise that you come out with your usual anti-England shite.
The rules weren’t decided halfway through the game, you know. |
I just said it wasn`t England`s fault ya knobhead. What I`m saying is,the rule that a team wins by scoring more fours is so silly it`s laughable even if it had gone NZ`s way. Anyway,an expert on cricketing rules has stated that England should only have been given five runs not six when the ball ricocheted off Stokes bat,so in that case NZ would`ve won. England didn`t win and NZ didn`t lose. | | | |
| Cricket WC on 08:52 - Jul 15 with 820 views | DiddyDave |
| Cricket WC on 08:44 - Jul 15 by KenBoon |
I could understand maybe judging boundaries on the super over (number of 6's, number of 4s) before the 50 over boundaries, but the rules are known long in advanced. I guess they don't keep going because it might go on forever, but perhaps for finals they should (similar to tennis tie breaks). |
That`s right Ken,they have floodlights had it gone on till midnight,so it would`ve been won on runs scored on the day. | | | |
| Cricket WC on 08:54 - Jul 15 with 816 views | isitme |
If the game had been completely rained off England would have won by virture of finishing higher in the table at the end of the group games. They also won the earlier head to head.
New Zealand didn't deserve to lose but those are the rules and to be fair their players took it gracefully. Glad I won't have to hear Ian Smith commentating for a while. |  | | |
| Cricket WC on 08:56 - Jul 15 with 808 views | DiddyDave |
| Cricket WC on 08:54 - Jul 15 by isitme |
If the game had been completely rained off England would have won by virture of finishing higher in the table at the end of the group games. They also won the earlier head to head.
New Zealand didn't deserve to lose but those are the rules and to be fair their players took it gracefully. Glad I won't have to hear Ian Smith commentating for a while. |
Me too! | | | |
| Cricket WC on 09:12 - Jul 15 with 787 views | TVOS1907 |
| Cricket WC on 08:39 - Jul 15 by fitzochris |
Or they could watch highlights shows, follow the coverage online or, heaven forbid, attend a game in person. Better still, young people up and down the country might actually want to give the game a try and head down to their local club. |
Stop talking sense. |  |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| Cricket WC on 09:15 - Jul 15 with 784 views | TVOS1907 |
| Cricket WC on 08:54 - Jul 15 by isitme |
If the game had been completely rained off England would have won by virture of finishing higher in the table at the end of the group games. They also won the earlier head to head.
New Zealand didn't deserve to lose but those are the rules and to be fair their players took it gracefully. Glad I won't have to hear Ian Smith commentating for a while. |
That's harsh; I always find him a decent bloke and very fair. And if Bumble likes him, that's good by me.
I just hope Sky aren't using the Michaels Clarke & Slater for the Ashes, as I wasn't overly impressed by them. | |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| Cricket WC on 09:17 - Jul 15 with 783 views | TVOS1907 |
| Cricket WC on 08:44 - Jul 15 by KenBoon |
I could understand maybe judging boundaries on the super over (number of 6's, number of 4s) before the 50 over boundaries, but the rules are known long in advanced. I guess they don't keep going because it might go on forever, but perhaps for finals they should (similar to tennis tie breaks). |
Talking of tennis, Federer won more games in the match yesterday, but Djokovic won more sets! | |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| Cricket WC on 09:22 - Jul 15 with 774 views | kiwidale |
Fair enough I hold my hand up the rules were known beforehand and all games were played under the same rules. The game was won and lost by the rules and while I accept it I don't have to like it. The scores were level after 15 overs and still level after the golden over with the result ultimately decided without another ball being bowled... England won. | |
| This is not the time for bickering.
|
| |
| Cricket WC on 09:23 - Jul 15 with 772 views | James1980 |
| Cricket WC on 09:17 - Jul 15 by TVOS1907 |
Talking of tennis, Federer won more games in the match yesterday, but Djokovic won more sets! |
Hillary got more votes than Trump. But he gained more electoral college votes | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
