Cricket

[Ethiaa]

It's a bit sad this thread has no comment on the great tests we have just seen but comment on the antics of a pissed up bloke being an idiot.

We should rectify that. Roll on the weekend!

[mrblackbat]

That last test was a great win but not a great test. Difficult to watch cricket at the moment with a scamper-crawlering little one
...

[Ethiaa]

A great win is a great test in my book

[Gibbon]

Difficult to watch cricket at the moment with a scamper-crawlering little one
...

[mrblackbat]

I don't know why he doesn't want to sit still for three two hour sessions in a day....

[Ethiaa]

Put some pads on him, that'll slow him down AND get him into the game.

[Rover the Top]

I don't know why he doesn't want to sit still for three two hour sessions in a day....

Last test should have been perfect then

[Rover the Top]

Nice series win

[Rover the Top]

Utterly brilliant match yesterday. Seems harsh on New Zealand that they "lost" on a boundary count, another super over or sharing the trophy would seem more fitting. I've seen some suggest New Zealand should have won because they lost fewer wickets, but that misses the point that Rashid wouldn't have taken a suicidal second run at 240-8 if that had been the rule. Anyway, England world cup winners, nice to see cricket take centre stage.

[mcteeth]

Yeah amazing stuff, I think across the tournament England deserved the victory but we had a lot of good fortune. Really just an incredible sequence of events.

Was reading today that the deflection off Stokes' bat for the additional 4 runs should have been awarded as 5 instead of 6 as neither Stokes or Rashid had crossed the wicket at the point the ball being thrown so had only completed a single run.

[Rover the Top]

Yeah amazing stuff, I think across the tournament England deserved the victory but we had a lot of good fortune. Really just an incredible sequence of events.

Was reading today that the deflection off Stokes' bat for the additional 4 runs should have been awarded as 5 instead of 6 as neither Stokes or Rashid had crossed the wicket at the point the ball being thrown so had only completed a single run.

Some think so, although it's taking an ambiguity in how the rule is written to interpret that an overthrow occurs when the fielder releases the ball rather than when it passes the stumps. I can't think what the justification would be for disallowing a run that forced an overthrow. If England had run an overthrow instead of it going to the boundary, would these people be arguing it would only be 2 runs for the batsmen running 3?

[mrblackbat]

Utterly brilliant match yesterday. Seems harsh on New Zealand that they "lost" on a boundary count, another super over or sharing the trophy would seem more fitting. I've seen some suggest New Zealand should have won because they lost fewer wickets, but that misses the point that Rashid wouldn't have taken a suicidal second run at 240-8 if that had been the rule. Anyway, England world cup winners, nice to see cricket take centre stage.

But had Rashid not taken a suicidal run then Stokes wouldn't have remained on strike. And I'm sure New Zealand might have chanced a few more suicidal runs had they known one or two more runs would have won them the game.

I'm in agreement that I think they should have won the game, not because they had fewer wickets but because we were all out whilst chasing.

[Rover the Top]

What are you talking about, what difference does it make that England were all out? You can't make up new rules retrospectively to fit what you want the outcome to be. Stokes and Wood wouldn't have attempted a highly unlikely second from the last ball if being run out meant they would lose instead of tying. Whilst the boundary count rule may have come as a surprise to the casual viewer, it wasn't thought up at the end of the super overs, both teams knew from the start of the match that it was a possible determining factor. New Zealand knew 15 wasn't enough, like England at the end of the 50 overs they treid a second run off the last ball knowing it wouldn't make a difference if they were run out. So whilst it seems an unsatisfactory way to decide a match, England deserved the win under the match conditions they were playing to.

[mcteeth]

Yeah amazing stuff, I think across the tournament England deserved the victory but we had a lot of good fortune. Really just an incredible sequence of events.

Was reading today that the deflection off Stokes' bat for the additional 4 runs should have been awarded as 5 instead of 6 as neither Stokes or Rashid had crossed the wicket at the point the ball being thrown so had only completed a single run.

Some think so, although it's taking an ambiguity in how the rule is written to interpret that an overthrow occurs when the fielder releases the ball rather than when it passes the stumps. I can't think what the justification would be for disallowing a run that forced an overthrow. If England had run an overthrow instead of it going to the boundary, would these people be arguing it would only be 2 runs for the batsmen running 3?

Yeah I'm inclined to agree it was just an interesting opinion to read. At the time I didn't see an issue with them being awarded the 2 runs plus the 4 as it was clearly an unintentional deflection off Stokes' bat.