Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:45 am
I don't know that much about cricket but surely as ties are so rare the obvious thing to do would be to share the trophy in a final.
The most amazing finish in a sporting event ive seen, up there with Tyson Fury doing his Lazarus impression and Scott Houghton's arse.
I too know nothing about this souped up game of rounders. But if it was a draw it should have gone to penalties and inevitably Englands bottle would have crashed and they would have lost as usual.
To win on a pure technicality is not worth boasting about and nothing to be proud of.
Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:45 am
I don't know that much about cricket but surely as ties are so rare the obvious thing to do would be to share the trophy in a final.
The most amazing finish in a sporting event ive seen, up there with Tyson Fury doing his Lazarus impression and Scott Houghton's arse.
I too know nothing about this souped up game of rounders. But if it was a draw it should have gone to penalties and inevitably Englands bottle would have crashed and they would have lost as usual.
To win on a pure technicality is not worth boasting about and nothing to be proud of.
The rules were set out in advance and applied to both teams equally. Technicality, not at all, part of the rules for deciding a tied game. All fair and above board. Cannot do more that win according to the rules of the match.
Fantastic game, credit to both teams. NZ in the driving seat during the game and half way through the Super Over. Thought they were going to do it. But huge credit to England, they stuck to it and ground out a fantastic win. I doubt any of us will ever witness a game of cricket like that again.
NZ absolutely robbed, even moreso now it transpires that England were erroneously awarded an extra run when Stokes deliberately diverted the ball for those crucial overthrows. The ECB should agree to share the title, it's the only appropriate outcome.
Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:17 pm
NZ absolutely robbed, even moreso now it transpires that England were erroneously awarded an extra run when Stokes deliberately diverted the ball for those crucial overthrows. The ECB should agree to share the title, it's the only appropriate outcome.
If England were incorrectly awarded a run then NZ win once VAR has been looked at. Typical England always cheating at the World Series for Cricketbats.
Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:17 pm
NZ absolutely robbed, even moreso now it transpires that England were erroneously awarded an extra run when Stokes deliberately diverted the ball for those crucial overthrows. The ECB should agree to share the title, it's the only appropriate outcome.
What's that about an extra run then and how do you know Stokes deliberately diverted the ball? I would have thought the Kiwis might have objected at the time if that was the case.
Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:17 pm
NZ absolutely robbed, even moreso now it transpires that England were erroneously awarded an extra run when Stokes deliberately diverted the ball for those crucial overthrows. The ECB should agree to share the title, it's the only appropriate outcome.
Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:17 pm
NZ absolutely robbed, even moreso now it transpires that England were erroneously awarded an extra run when Stokes deliberately diverted the ball for those crucial overthrows. The ECB should agree to share the title, it's the only appropriate outcome.
So you read an article where a retired Australian umpire has quoted some obscure law and claims England were given one run too many. If you feel that strongly about it, go to Lords and protest outside with a sandwich board that says 'NZ wuz robbed coz an Aussie said so'.
Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:17 pm
NZ absolutely robbed, even moreso now it transpires that England were erroneously awarded an extra run when Stokes deliberately diverted the ball for those crucial overthrows. The ECB should agree to share the title, it's the only appropriate outcome.
If England were incorrectly awarded a run then NZ win once VAR has been looked at. Typical England always cheating at the World Series for Cricketbats.
You was watching the All Blacks yesterday, how many tries did they score whilst England were cheating their way to winning the World Cup?
Last edited by Lovejoy on Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:17 pm
NZ absolutely robbed, even moreso now it transpires that England were erroneously awarded an extra run when Stokes deliberately diverted the ball for those crucial overthrows. The ECB should agree to share the title, it's the only appropriate outcome.
If England were incorrectly awarded a run then NZ win once VAR has been looked at. Typical England always cheating at the World Series for Cricketbats.
You was watching the All Blacks yesterday, how many tries did they score whilst England were cheating their way to winning the World Cup?
Don't be daft of course I wasn't watching it. It's a boring imperialistic remnant of Empire.
I was watching the tennisbats. Now that was mildly interesting and at least their tiebreak made sense in that it prevented the cheating we have come so used to England perpetrating.
Lovejoy wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:44 pm
If Scotland wasn't a third world country like Liam Gallagher claims, they could enter decent tournaments and cheat.
Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:17 pm
NZ absolutely robbed, even moreso now it transpires that England were erroneously awarded an extra run when Stokes deliberately diverted the ball for those crucial overthrows. The ECB should agree to share the title, it's the only appropriate outcome.
So you read an article where a retired Australian umpire has quoted some obscure law and claims England were given one run too many. If you feel that strongly about it, go to Lords and protest outside with a sandwich board that says 'NZ wuz robbed coz an Aussie said so'.
Rulea are rules & are set out before the game starts etc etc .
Obscure law or not .
England were given an extra run which enabled them to tie the match on 241 all out instead of 240 all out .
Meaning no super over needed as NZ had 1 more run
Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:17 pm
NZ absolutely robbed, even moreso now it transpires that England were erroneously awarded an extra run when Stokes deliberately diverted the ball for those crucial overthrows. The ECB should agree to share the title, it's the only appropriate outcome.
So you read an article where a retired Australian umpire has quoted some obscure law and claims England were given one run too many. If you feel that strongly about it, go to Lords and protest outside with a sandwich board that says 'NZ wuz robbed coz an Aussie said so'.
Rulea are rules & are set out before the game starts etc etc .
Obscure law or not .
England were given an extra run which enabled them to tie the match on 241 all out instead of 240 all out .
Meaning no super over needed as NZ had 1 more run
Rules is rules.
But meaningless in this case. Just assuming that England had got 5 instead of 6 then the following ball(s) (can't recall where in the over this happened but it wasn't the last ball) would have been played differently. Stokes wouldn't have gone for the 2 on the last ball for instance. So you're basically wrong. We won - get over it and feel the joy for your English brothers
So you read an article where a retired Australian umpire has quoted some obscure law and claims England were given one run too many. If you feel that strongly about it, go to Lords and protest outside with a sandwich board that says 'NZ wuz robbed coz an Aussie said so'.
Rulea are rules & are set out before the game starts etc etc .
Obscure law or not .
England were given an extra run which enabled them to tie the match on 241 all out instead of 240 all out .
Meaning no super over needed as NZ had 1 more run
Rules is rules.
But meaningless in this case. Just assuming that England had got 5 instead of 6 then the following ball(s) (can't recall where in the over this happened but it wasn't the last ball) would have been played differently. Stokes wouldn't have gone for the 2 on the last ball for instance. So you're basically wrong. We won - get over it and feel the joy for your English brothers
Why am I not surprised that you are happy to condone cheating. W G Grace would be spinning in his grave were he not so obese that this manoeuvre would not be possible.
Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:17 pm
NZ absolutely robbed, even moreso now it transpires that England were erroneously awarded an extra run when Stokes deliberately diverted the ball for those crucial overthrows. The ECB should agree to share the title, it's the only appropriate outcome.
So you read an article where a retired Australian umpire has quoted some obscure law and claims England were given one run too many. If you feel that strongly about it, go to Lords and protest outside with a sandwich board that says 'NZ wuz robbed coz an Aussie said so'.
Rulea are rules & are set out before the game starts etc etc .
Obscure law or not .
England were given an extra run which enabled them to tie the match on 241 all out instead of 240 all out .
Meaning no super over needed as NZ had 1 more run
Rules is rules.
It's interesting because it works in both ways.
I believe NZ were the better side and were desperately unlucky not to win, but Archer's first in the super over was never a wide.
I do believe that had Stokes known he needed two to tie, he would have played a more attacking shot on the last shot. That said Rashid would have been on strike rather than Stokes, so who knows what would have happened.
I write this as a cricket fan first, and an England fan second, so whilst I'm thrilled for England, I have so much sympathy for New Zealand and the terrific Kane Williamson.
I'm just glad that cricket is being talked about again in this country after an alarming decline since 2005.
Rulea are rules & are set out before the game starts etc etc .
Obscure law or not .
England were given an extra run which enabled them to tie the match on 241 all out instead of 240 all out .
Meaning no super over needed as NZ had 1 more run
Rules is rules.
But meaningless in this case. Just assuming that England had got 5 instead of 6 then the following ball(s) (can't recall where in the over this happened but it wasn't the last ball) would have been played differently. Stokes wouldn't have gone for the 2 on the last ball for instance. So you're basically wrong. We won - get over it and feel the joy for your English brothers
Why am I not surprised that you are happy to condone cheating. W G Grace would be spinning in his grave were he not so obese that this manoeuvre would not be possible.
W. G. Grace was a cheat. I used to go out with his many times great grand daughter and she told me so. She said he never listened to Scotsmen waffling on about cricket because they were crap and knew nothing. They were also crap at football, netball and any sport you can name.
Rulea are rules & are set out before the game starts etc etc .
Obscure law or not .
England were given an extra run which enabled them to tie the match on 241 all out instead of 240 all out .
Meaning no super over needed as NZ had 1 more run
Rules is rules.
But meaningless in this case. Just assuming that England had got 5 instead of 6 then the following ball(s) (can't recall where in the over this happened but it wasn't the last ball) would have been played differently. Stokes wouldn't have gone for the 2 on the last ball for instance. So you're basically wrong. We won - get over it and feel the joy for your English brothers
Why am I not surprised that you are happy to condone cheating. W G Grace would be spinning in his grave were he not so obese that this manoeuvre would not be possible.
To be honest I doubt WG would give a monkeys. Now he was a proper cheat, well known for refusing to leave the field when called out by the umpire. As for yesterday there was no cheating, just a thoroughly brilliant game finishing with a well deserved England Win. Hurrah !
But meaningless in this case. Just assuming that England had got 5 instead of 6 then the following ball(s) (can't recall where in the over this happened but it wasn't the last ball) would have been played differently. Stokes wouldn't have gone for the 2 on the last ball for instance. So you're basically wrong. We won - get over it and feel the joy for your English brothers
Why am I not surprised that you are happy to condone cheating. W G Grace would be spinning in his grave were he not so obese that this manoeuvre would not be possible.
To be honest I doubt WG would give a monkeys. Now he was a proper cheat, well known for refusing to leave the field when called out by the umpire. As for yesterday there was no cheating, just a thoroughly brilliant game finishing with a well deserved England Win. Hurrah !
Interesting. So you're now telling me cheating has always been the mainstay of the English cricket bats team in the World Series Cups etc. Colour me surprised.
So you read an article where a retired Australian umpire has quoted some obscure law and claims England were given one run too many. If you feel that strongly about it, go to Lords and protest outside with a sandwich board that says 'NZ wuz robbed coz an Aussie said so'.
Rulea are rules & are set out before the game starts etc etc .
Obscure law or not .
England were given an extra run which enabled them to tie the match on 241 all out instead of 240 all out .
Meaning no super over needed as NZ had 1 more run
Rules is rules.
It's interesting because it works in both ways.
I believe NZ were the better side and were desperately unlucky not to win, but Archer's first in the super over was never a wide.
I do believe that had Stokes known he needed two to tie, he would have played a more attacking shot on the last shot. That said Rashid would have been on strike rather than Stokes, so who knows what would have happened.
I write this as a cricket fan first, and an England fan second, so whilst I'm thrilled for England, I have so much sympathy for New Zealand and the terrific Kane Williamson.
I'm just glad that cricket is being talked about again in this country after an alarming decline since 2005.
How does it work both ways ?
The Wide was shown quite clearly on the tv screens to have hit the wide marks on the batting crease.
The runners hadn't crossed for the 2nd run before the ball was thrown so , 5 runs need to be scored , not as were 6 .
If you are happy to claim a questioned cup for the most pointless thing that is classed as a game or indeed even a sport , then by all means claim it , regardless of the fact
the minnows of Empire will see it as bending of the knees of slavery to there beligerant masters once more.
So you read an article where a retired Australian umpire has quoted some obscure law and claims England were given one run too many. If you feel that strongly about it, go to Lords and protest outside with a sandwich board that says 'NZ wuz robbed coz an Aussie said so'.
Rulea are rules & are set out before the game starts etc etc .
Obscure law or not .
England were given an extra run which enabled them to tie the match on 241 all out instead of 240 all out .
Meaning no super over needed as NZ had 1 more run
Rules is rules.
But meaningless in this case. Just assuming that England had got 5 instead of 6 then the following ball(s) (can't recall where in the over this happened but it wasn't the last ball) would have been played differently. Stokes wouldn't have gone for the 2 on the last ball for instance. So you're basically wrong. We won - get over it and feel the joy for your English brothers
Stokes wouldnt have gone for 2 ?
Like New Zeland wouldnt have closed the field in saving a single . Dont try to kid a kidder with waffle .
Course it matters.
The English have no brothers .
You stabbed them all in the back creating your empire & there all dead now !!
Rulea are rules & are set out before the game starts etc etc .
Obscure law or not .
England were given an extra run which enabled them to tie the match on 241 all out instead of 240 all out .
Meaning no super over needed as NZ had 1 more run
Rules is rules.
But meaningless in this case. Just assuming that England had got 5 instead of 6 then the following ball(s) (can't recall where in the over this happened but it wasn't the last ball) would have been played differently. Stokes wouldn't have gone for the 2 on the last ball for instance. So you're basically wrong. We won - get over it and feel the joy for your English brothers
Stokes wouldnt have gone for 2 ?
Like New Zeland wouldnt have closed the field in saving a single . Dont try to kid a kidder with waffle .
Course it matters.
The English have no brothers .
You stabbed them all in the back creating your empire & there all dead now !!
Well, Stokes knew that 2 would do it so that's why he went for 2. If he'd needed more he would have gone for that. Whether he would have got more will for ever be unknown. But yes, he would have changed his stroke to reflect what was needed.
Please join the line of people who have a gripe (real or mostly imaginary) with the English. It's quite a long line, but as I argued with an Irish colleague over a beer or 10 in a Dublin boozer many years ago, your gripe is with the English Establishment, the privileged few who continue to rule our lives. My family, and I'd suggest just about everyone's on here, would have just been the cannon fodder that these scumbags used (and continue to use) for their own personal gain. However he still preferred to continue to blame me for the potato famine so I bought him a bag of crisps. That didn't seem to go down well either.
Fact is England WON according to the final score of the Super over, following a 'draw' in the normal fifty overs.
Whilst I, and I suspect a lot of other people, did not know the finer details of the rules, both teams knew exactly what the rules were and interestingly NZ were good losers and did not blame or throw wobblies. The game could have gone either way right up to and including the last ball of the game. Fantastic and brilliant tv and yes accept it ENGLAND won and, whilst (for once) we may have had Lady Luck on our side, the result was undisputed by both teams and the impartial umpires. What is this thing about public schools and the Empire? Had neither existed we would probably be subservient to Nazi rule.
