invergowrie arab Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 4 minutes ago, Muzza81 said: You get them with overthrows as well - which are a pretty common part of cricket. Not a valid point When you have played second XI Strathmore & #Perthshire Union Cricket you can tell me what is common in cricket and what is a valid point. Fucking cheek 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 Don't know how anyone can support England after watching some of the crowd scenes (which included Teresa May and Piers Morgan, I mean FFS) and for them to win with the biggest slice of luck I've seen in cricket with the Stokes "six". Hamilton taking a predictable win in the Grand Prix just rubs it in.They’re a pretty easy team to root for, to be fair, excuse the pun. Stokes being a possible exception, but Woakes, Root, Bairstow and Ali seem like pretty sound blokes. It’s not like they’re a team of Steve Smiths. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peternapper Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 What is the difference between a no ball & a wide, noticed NZ first chance to score was given 1 as a wide what happens with a no ball, seemed a bit harsh with only six goes at hitting one is ruled basically a foul, they could have just bowled another 5 of them meaning NZ could only have scored 6 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bob Mahelp Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 England got every rub of the green going in the final, of that there's no doubt. They were also though the best team throughout the tournament as a whole, so deserved winners. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hip Priest Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 The problem is how else to end a drawn super over? You can’t do it on wickets lost, as that would end it prematurely if the second team lost a wicket. I’ve never seen a super over before, but presumably they very rarely end in tied scores?Couldn't you just play another over? The tournament has been going on for seven weeks or something, not sure another ten minutes would matter too much. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 Although in practice it didnt seem to matter i think a batsman in decent nick getting to bat first and a team in the field having to carry on seems a bit off. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peternapper Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 1 minute ago, ali_91 said: The ball doesn’t count for a wide or a no ball. No ball is normally the front foot being over the line, or as seen in New Zealand’s innings, a dangerous delivery on the full. Thought NZ got 1 run for it but was watching the golf & just noticed something on text 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 does seem a bit of a shite way to decide things when you consider that NZ made their fifty-over total losing two fewer wickets than england - i'd consider that a more significant factor than the 'number of boundaries' count... But is it better or worse than deciding the groups on net run rate? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 Couldn't you just play another over? The tournament has been going on for seven weeks or something, not sure another ten minutes would matter too much. I was assuming there’s a reason that they can’t, but I have no idea what. I suspect it’s not very healthy for a fast bowler to go hurtling in for half a day’s cricket, take another half off, and then come charging back in for one over. That’d be my guess, but it isn’t a great one. For the sake of ten minutes, as you say. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peternapper Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 Just now, ali_91 said: Sorry, they do, but they also get to face the ball again, Ok. Makes a change for cricket not to end in a draw, usually one team has 200 & the other has 580 & its a draw 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloPerth Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 Really tough to take for NZ the way it ended, and another over a piece or even Ali's bowl off would have been great entertainment. But can't understand folk complaining about it being decided on boundaries. Surely big hits and boundaries are the exciting part of batting, and get more non-avid cricket fans watching, which is a big part of one day cricket, so a rule encouraging that kind of play isn't that unreasonable. Better than the away goals in football!! The kiwis knew the rule before the superover, and just had to score 1 run more than England. Think it's also a bit of an advantage in that situation batting second as you know what score you have to get. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasy23 Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 Got a few of my Brexit supporting English mates seething by pointing out that more than a third of the team are immigrants. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanius Mullarkey Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 Anybody mentioned 1966 yet? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 What is the difference between a no ball & a wide, noticed NZ first chance to score was given 1 as a wide what happens with a no ball, seemed a bit harsh with only six goes at hitting one is ruled basically a foul, they could have just bowled another 5 of them meaning NZ could only have scored 6You get another ball either way. Generally a no ball is seen as more of a crime than a wide because it can be genuinely dangerous and intimidatory. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 Ok. Makes a change for cricket not to end in a draw, usually one team has 200 & the other has 580 & its a drawThere’s actually a case for having four day tests as so few go into a full fifth day. I personally think it’s nonsense, but there is a case. They even tried it in South Africa but as far as I know it hasn’t caught on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Tarmo Kink Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 The problem is how else to end a drawn super over? You can’t do it on wickets lost, as that would end it prematurely if the second team lost a wicket. I’ve never seen a super over before, but presumably they very rarely end in tied scores?You not watch much T20? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 Just now, Tarmo Kink said: You not watch much T20? Almost none, to be honest. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 12 minutes ago, PauloPerth said: Really tough to take for NZ the way it ended, and another over a piece or even Ali's bowl off would have been great entertainment. But can't understand folk complaining about it being decided on boundaries. Surely big hits and boundaries are the exciting part of batting, and get more non-avid cricket fans watching, which is a big part of one day cricket, so a rule encouraging that kind of play isn't that unreasonable. Better than the away goals in football!! The kiwis knew the rule before the superover, and just had to score 1 run more than England. Think it's also a bit of an advantage in that situation batting second as you know what score you have to get. Surely taking wickets is a huge part of the game too? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 25 minutes ago, craigkillie said: I'm not sure what you mean by that. It would only come into play at the end of the over - if the second team lost a wicket then they would still have balls remaining to chase the target. Not if the first team scored thirty without loss and the second team loses a wicket first up, which isn't that unfeasible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herman Hessian Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 14 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said: But is it better or worse than deciding the groups on net run rate? don't think there's too much of an issue with that given that it's a good indicator of the relative dominance (or otherwise) of teams against the same set of opponents over a fixed number of games; you can argue that the vagaries of the weather impact it but hey, it's cricket in england - live with it just think that with scoring runs and taking wickets being the two prime purposes of the game, they should possibly be used to determine a winner before resorting to the manner in which just one of those has been achieved - fact is, while both teams were level by the first mark, NZ were better at the second and yet they lost the game - seems a bit odd.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.