Cricket World Cup

[Howling Mad Murdock]

Don't matter we won.End of.

Bin those sour grapes.Thanks.

[Max B Gold]

Don't matter we won.End of.

Bin those sour grapes.Thanks.

Call it sour grapes if you must and it makes you feel better but please don't use it as a cover for cheating.

[Max B Gold]

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.

Ignorance and racism in the same post.

There was no famine. It was English created genocide. As the poor of Ireland starved boats full of wheat and beef left Irish ports in their hundreds.

[BoniO]

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.

Ignorance and racism in the same post.

There was no famine. It was English created genocide. As the poor of Ireland starved boats full of wheat and beef left Irish ports in their hundreds.

Oops, missed the point by a country mile there Max. I'm differentiating between "the English" and "the English Establishment". I've made no claim that the English establishment weren't to blame.

[Max B Gold]

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.

Ignorance and racism in the same post.

There was no famine. It was English created genocide. As the poor of Ireland starved boats full of wheat and beef left Irish ports in their hundreds.

Oops, missed the point by a country mile there Max. I'm differentiating between "the English" and "the English Establishment". I've made no claim that the English establishment weren't to blame.

That wasn't my point. You called it a potatoes famine it wasn't. That was the point you missed.

[BoniO]

Ignorance and racism in the same post.

There was no famine. It was English created genocide. As the poor of Ireland starved boats full of wheat and beef left Irish ports in their hundreds.

Oops, missed the point by a country mile there Max. I'm differentiating between "the English" and "the English Establishment". I've made no claim that the English establishment weren't to blame.

That wasn't my point. You called it a potatoes famine it wasn't. That was the point you missed.

That was what my Irish colleague called it and it's how it's referred to historically by many. Google it. So no racism or ignorance from me then. Please, no need to apologise

But we seem to have drifted from cricket somewhat. So yet again, what a great Victory it was for England!!

[tuffers#1]

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.

If 1 run was required off the last ball i guarentee England would have lost.




As for Cannon fodder .
They took a shilling for murdering others.
Id rather not take the shilling & die an honest man rather than be part of a murderous regime .

Only a follied fool would use an excuse like that as an excuse for genocide by the ruling classes .
Which is who the game of cricket was for .
A sh*te game for landed gentry!

[Max B Gold]

Ignorance and racism in the same post.

There was no famine. It was English created genocide. As the poor of Ireland starved boats full of wheat and beef left Irish ports in their hundreds.

Oops, missed the point by a country mile there Max. I'm differentiating between "the English" and "the English Establishment". I've made no claim that the English establishment weren't to blame.

That wasn't my point. You called it a potatoes famine it wasn't. That was the point you missed.

That was what my Irish colleague called it and it's how it's referred to historically by many. Google it. So no racism or ignorance from me then. Please, no need to apologise

But we seem to have drifted from cricket somewhat. So yet again, what a great Victory it was for England!!

You're still missing the point. You are perpetuating a myth by using uncritical analysis and language to excuse genocide.

[tuffers#1]

Oops, missed the point by a country mile there Max. I'm differentiating between "the English" and "the English Establishment". I've made no claim that the English establishment weren't to blame.

That wasn't my point. You called it a potatoes famine it wasn't. That was the point you missed.

That was what my Irish colleague called it and it's how it's referred to historically by many. Google it. So no racism or ignorance from me then. Please, no need to apologise

But we seem to have drifted from cricket somewhat. So yet again, what a great Victory it was for England!!

You're still missing the point. You are perpetuating a myth by using uncritical analysis and language to excuse genocide.

The proximate cause of the famine was a natural event, a potato blight, which infected potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, precipitating some 100,000 deaths in total in the worst affected areas and among similar tenant farmers of Europe. The food crisis influenced much of the unrest in the more widespread European Revolutions of 1848. 

###The event is sometimes referred to as the Irish Potato Famine, mostly outside Ireland. ###

The impact of the blight was exacerbated by political belief in laissez-faireeconomics


I think he needs to revisit the entire potato blight thing as it was a European disease .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_F ... prov=sfla1


### denotes its called the irish potato famine outside of Ireland. Very few Irish people would call it that.

[Howling Mad Murdock]

Don't matter we won.End of.

Bin those sour grapes.Thanks.

Call it sour grapes if you must and it makes you feel better but please don't use it as a cover for cheating.

We won.TIA.

[tuffers#1]

Don't matter we won.End of.

Bin those sour grapes.Thanks.

Call it sour grapes if you must and it makes you feel better but please don't use it as a cover for cheating.

We won.TIA.

You drew twice & claimed victory.

Senor Wenger would say
Non Non Non
The Gallic Blood will not accept this fodder & falseness
We must play again or share.

[Proposition Joe]

The very expression 'it's just not cricket' is supposed to demonstrate a particularly English adherence to fair play. How ironic that they manage to cheat their way to winning in this of all sports.

World champions in three sports and only the rugby was won fair and square.

[F*ck The Poor & Fat]

I think this logic should be applied to football. Ignore the score after 90 the get panel of referees to review the game and look into any and every instance when a corner was given incorrectly, throw went the wrong way or if the referee incorrectly awarded a free kick, or missed one. Then the panel can adjust the score accordingly and we can all enjoy a clean, vetted result.

Alternatively we can just accept in sport all sorts of incidents happen. Use replays for key decisions and accept this stuff is all part of the game. Sometimes you win, like yesterday. Sometimes you lose, like the hand of god.

And who is to say England got the extra run unfairly anyway? Not the match umpires.

[Red_Army]

The very expression 'it's just not cricket' is supposed to demonstrate a particularly English adherence to fair play. How ironic that they manage to cheat their way to winning in this of all sports.

World champions in three sports and only the rugby was won fair and square.

England may well have been very lucky at certain moments, but cheating is not the correct way to describe what happened.

[F*ck The Poor & Fat]

The very expression 'it's just not cricket' is supposed to demonstrate a particularly English adherence to fair play. How ironic that they manage to cheat their way to winning in this of all sports.

World champions in three sports and only the rugby was won fair and square.

England may well have been very lucky at certain moments, but cheating is not the correct way to describe what happened.

Of course it’s not cheating. Sure they got the rib of the green at times but these things even themselves out over a tournament. But to call it cheating is nonsense, and insulting to a team who overcame all sorts of setbacks to win.

[Lovejoy]

The very expression 'it's just not cricket' is supposed to demonstrate a particularly English adherence to fair play. How ironic that they manage to cheat their way to winning in this of all sports.

World champions in three sports and only the rugby was won fair and square.

Not quite, there was an alleged Bloodgate scandal during the 2003 Rugby World Cup. England were accused of using fake blood to feign injuries and stop games thus slowing down play. There was also an accusation that the whole pack were professional cheats, Lawrence Dallaglio being the main culprit with the rest not far behind him.

[Proposition Joe]

And who is to say England got the extra run unfairly anyway?

The rules do. Happy to help.

[Proposition Joe]

The very expression 'it's just not cricket' is supposed to demonstrate a particularly English adherence to fair play. How ironic that they manage to cheat their way to winning in this of all sports.

World champions in three sports and only the rugby was won fair and square.

Not quite, there was an alleged Bloodgate scandal during the 2003 Rugby World Cup. England were accused of using fake blood to feign injuries and stop games thus slowing down play. There was also an accusation that the whole pack were professional cheats, Lawrence Dallaglio being the main culprit with the rest not far behind him.

I stand corrected. Dallaglio is a right Tory bell anyway so happy to label him a cheat as well.

[Lovejoy]

The very expression 'it's just not cricket' is supposed to demonstrate a particularly English adherence to fair play. How ironic that they manage to cheat their way to winning in this of all sports.

World champions in three sports and only the rugby was won fair and square.

Not quite, there was an alleged Bloodgate scandal during the 2003 Rugby World Cup. England were accused of using fake blood to feign injuries and stop games thus slowing down play. There was also an accusation that the whole pack were professional cheats, Lawrence Dallaglio being the main culprit with the rest not far behind him.

I stand corrected. Dallaglio is a right Tory bell anyway so happy to label him a cheat as well.

He is probably an awful lot bigger than you so pray that he does not read your post.

[Article_50]

Stupid Game
2 teams draw in 50 legs each
2 teams draw in a super leg &
1 team is deemed a winner


What a waste of F*cking time & energy

YOU MUST BE A KIWI

[DonaldRocks]

Thought it was epic, unreal drama, no idea how England won but a won is a won. They can also thank the many nationalities that made up the team. Unlike the Con man in chief, POS, embrace diversity and as a nation Britain can excel. Embrace ultra nationalism as a project and isolate the country from its place among the nation's of the world.

[tuffers#1]

Stupid Game
2 teams draw in 50 legs each
2 teams draw in a super leg &
1 team is deemed a winner


What a waste of F*cking time & energy

YOU MUST BE A KIWI

Sh*t !!
How could you tell ?

[LeapsAndBounds]

I think the super over is a really great idea. Cricket's equivalent of a penalty shoot out! I was at Leon in 1970 when England lost to Germany 3-2. At the end of the game Keith Newton had a brilliant shot saved by the German keeper. It it had gone in the result would have been decided on a toss of a coin.

Because the super over cannot be tied England went into the super over with a one run advantage due to having scored more boundaries. Both sides were aware of this and we had the greatest finish in cricket history and a clear winner.

[Max B Gold]

That was what my Irish colleague called it and it's how it's referred to historically by many. Google it. So no racism or ignorance from me then. Please, no need to apologise

But we seem to have drifted from cricket somewhat. So yet again, what a great Victory it was for England!!

You're still missing the point. You are perpetuating a myth by using uncritical analysis and language to excuse genocide.

The proximate cause of the famine was a natural event, a potato blight, which infected potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, precipitating some 100,000 deaths in total in the worst affected areas and among similar tenant farmers of Europe. The food crisis influenced much of the unrest in the more widespread European Revolutions of 1848. 

###The event is sometimes referred to as the Irish Potato Famine, mostly outside Ireland. ###

The impact of the blight was exacerbated by political belief in laissez-faireeconomics


I think he needs to revisit the entire potato blight thing as it was a European disease .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_F ... prov=sfla1


### denotes its called the irish potato famine outside of Ireland. Very few Irish people would call it that.

During the Famine, Ireland produced enough food, flax, and wool to feed and clothe double its nine million people.[28] When Ireland had suffered a famine in 1782–83, its ports were closed to keep Irish-grown food in Ireland to feed the Irish. Local food prices promptly dropped. Merchants lobbied against the export ban, but Grattan's Parliament, exercising the short-lived powers within the Constitution of 1782, overrode their protests. There was no such export ban in the 1840s.[29] Some historians[30] have argued, because exports were not stopped, the famine was artificial and a consequence of the British government's failure to retain foodstuffs in the country. [28]

[Ornchurch]

I think the super over is a really great idea. Cricket's equivalent of a penalty shoot out! I was at Leon in 1970 when England lost to Germany 3-2. At the end of the game Keith Newton had a brilliant shot saved by the German keeper. It it had gone in the result would have been decided on a toss of a coin.

Because the super over cannot be tied England went into the super over with a one run advantage due to having scored more boundaries. Both sides were aware of this and we had the greatest finish in cricket history and a clear winner.

Exactly this. Not difficult to understand.