The New Cricket Thread

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Just now, Jarvinja Ilnow said:

He did. Knuckle balls might have something to do with it.

I thought it was just my hearing, hahaha. I hope someone points it out to him. 

[Bjornebye]

"No-one I can tell you no-one has left the ground" as the camera cuts to a part of the ground with about 30 empty seats and shit loads of people actually walking out.....

[Captain Turdseye]

24 minutes ago, Dougie Do'ins said:

Where's Captin Howdy ?

 

Last I saw of him he was in the Wimbledon thread slagging off Federer fans. 

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Stokes just swearing on live interview. 

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Just showed that super over again. That throw at the end and Buttler's calmness to take the ball and finish off the run out, amazing cricket under immense pressure. 

[J-V]

43 minutes ago, Pistonbroke said:

Fucking Kip on that Blond bird. 

She was a right miserable cunt.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

1 minute ago, J-V said:

She was a right miserable cunt.

Probably upset she had to put her mobile in her pocket for more than 5 minutes. She definitely didn't look happy to be there. Mind you, she's probably had to sit next to some fat old member all day and listen to him trying to flirt. 

[Trumo]

Fucking hell, it's really hard to beat sport for genuine drama. The end of that super-over reminded me of Harmison to Kasprowicz at Edgbaston in 2005, in terms of England pulling out a win at the death just when it seemed as though they'd blown it. That Edgbaston test lit the touch paper for the Ashes series in 2005. It's rare for Lord's of all places to deliver this level of excitement because the pitches and the crowds are better basically everywhere else, but even the Lord's crowd got more pumped up and vociferous as the match went on.

 

How do you deal with that if your a New Zealand player though? Apart from Guptill's wasted review early on, they didn't actually do anything wrong. England benefitted from a massive doses of good fortune when Roy wasn't given out first ball, and also when Stokes inadvertantly deflected that throw to the boundary to turn a 2 into a 6.

 

Hopefully this World Cup win brings renewed focus and will-to-win to the test side later this summer.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Just now, Trumo said:

Fucking hell, it's really hard to beat sport for genuine drama. The end of that super-over reminded me of Harmison to Kasprowicz at Edgbaston in 2005, in terms of England pulling out a win at the death just when it seemed as though they'd blown it. That Edgbaston test lit the touch paper for the Ashes series in 2005. It's rare for Lord's of all places to deliver this level of excitement because the pitches and the crowds are better basically everywhere else, but even the Lord's crowd got more pumped up and vociferous as the match went on.

 

How do you deal with that if your a New Zealand player though? Apart from Guptill's wasted review early on, they didn't actually do anything wrong. England benefitted from a massive doses of good fortune when Roy wasn't given out first ball, and also when Stokes inadvertantly deflected that throw to the boundary to turn a 2 into a 6.

 

Hopefully this World Cup win brings renewed focus and will-to-win to the test side later this summer.

Also that catch on the boundary that ended up being a six as he didn't throw the ball away quick enough. Small margins though. I'm sure if we watched the whole match again we can point out a few situations were the Kiwi's benefited due to a bit of luck. Just great to witness it all, especially being as it was on free to air TV. A lot of people are robbed of live sport due to Sky etc. 

Personally thought it was a good WC, mainly due to the wickets which gave bowlers a far better chance. Exciting games, fans giving it their all. A fair few bad umpiring decisions though, and a few rained off games. All in all, a tournament that will stick in the memory banks. 

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Woot, Netball starts tomorrow.........one to miss. Roll on the Ashes then a certain other sport. 

[Creator Supreme]

Just watching it again on +1, amazing finish, really feel for the NZ lads, very harsh losing when the scores are equal, but the rules are there. Brilliant game in the end considering I was bored shirtless early on! Credit to all.

[Pidge]

Don't worry, I'm sure they'll make up for it at the rugby world cup by not getting called for numerous offsides and high tackles.

[sir roger]

Got the rub of the green today , but I felt quite a lot went NZ's way with weather etc. getting them past India in the semis.

[s(k)aturation]

3 hours ago, Pistonbroke said:

Respect to NZ, I'm not sure many teams would be so gracious in defeat, especially those circumstances. 

 

I'd say the fact they tied the game, twice, is of great consolation to them.

 

They can almost literally feel like they didn't lose.

 

But England's name is on the Cup.  And they'll do the double in the next couple of months.

 

[A_S]

I never thought the '99 semi-final could be beaten as the best ODI I've ever seen. That topped it. Just an unbelievable game of cricket, which again was helped by the conditions giving the bowlers a chance. 

 

It's a bit unfortunate that the tie-breaking rule is as ridiculous as 'most boundaries'. Why not just have whoever finished higher on the table? It achieves the same result here, yet is far more fair overall. That said, I'd prefer head-to-head to decide teams level on points rather than net run rate, in which case Pakistan would've made the semis. That's a discussion for another day though. 

 

This tournament proved (again) that ODIs just need proper context to become relevant again. For the most maligned version of the game, the World Cup is still the biggest trophy in it. T20s are predominantly domestic leagues where each game carries points. Tests are the purest form of the game, giving them sufficient standing in and of themselves. Except for the 12 months leading into a WC, ODIs get caught in a no-man's land of sorts. 

 

Well done England, you finally got your hands on the trophy. It'll be fascinating to see what effect, if any, this has on the upcoming Ashes series. Will they ride the wave to another series win, or could there be a hangover of sorts, allowing the Aussies a jump on them to start the series?

 

Unlucky New Zealand, who may not get another chance as good as this to win one. You can console yourselves with your all-conquering All Blacks most likely adding another trophy to their bulging cabinet. 

 

Overall, a fantastic advertisement for the game. 

[s(k)aturation]

 

The only trouble with head-to-head, I think it was mentioned, is what if 3 teams are on the same points?

 

It was a fantastic game of cricket... and the reason it was a fantastic game of cricket was that it resembled proper cricket... bowlers in with a chance, batsman having to fight, ups and downs etc.

 

These formulaic 300-plus games played on roads are generally as boring as batshit, I think... that's the problem with ODIs... 7 hours of slogging becomes tedious when you can have an hour and a half each in a T20 and people get a kick out of it.

 

One Day Cricket was much more interesting years ago, when the basics of cricket were still more closely adhered to.  The best, most exciting games I've seen by far, were the ones where sub-200 totals won matches.

 

Anyway, hats off to to England and NZ... that was a good, old-fashioned fantastic game of one day cricket, and a fitting way for a new name to go on the trophy.

 

As for the Ashes, I simply don't trust Australia's batting in English conditions - especially since the only two decent batsmen in the side remain Warner and Smith.  The rest are pish.

 

Those two would need to make 450-500 each for the series.

 

That and/or Starc and Cummins go ape shit with the ball.

 

These "ifs" are far too big for my liking.

 

 

 

 

[A_S]

And as if all that wasn't enough, according to the laws of the game, the overthrow 6 should've only been a 5. Oh dear. 

[s(k)aturation]

56 minutes ago, A_S said:

And as if all that wasn't enough, according to the laws of the game, the overthrow 6 should've only been a 5. Oh dear. 

 

What, the second run shouldn't have counted because the ball deflected off the bat prior to completion of the second run?

 

[Jose Jones]

26 minutes ago, skaro said:

 

What, the second run shouldn't have counted because the ball deflected off the bat prior to completion of the second run?

 

Apparently it's because the law is a bit wishy washy as to whether it counts the runs they had completed before the ball hit the bat (2), or before Guptil threw it (1), plus the four for the boundary:

 

The law states: "If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be any runs for penalties awarded to either side, and the allowance for the boundary, and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act."

Miller said the "crucial clause is the last part".

 

"A review of the footage of the incident shows clearly that, at the moment the ball was released by the New Zealand fielder, Martin Guptill, Stokes and his partner, Adil Rashid, had not yet crossed for their second run.

 

Miller said there was "potential scope for ambiguity in the wording of the law, given that it references throw or "act", which may pertain to the moment that the ball deflected off Stokes' bat. However, there is no reference to the batsman's actions at any other point in the Law."

 

[s(k)aturation]

 

Perhaps they should have just had a replay on Wednesday!

[Remmie]

New Zealand were an absolute class act I thought, perfectly emphasised when Guptill immediately signalled a 6 off Stokes in that last over. Cruel on him that those overthrows and missing out on 2 in the super over followed - surely proof there is no such thing as karma

[Spy Bee]

It was epic stuff. New Zealand were very unlucky, but I think England are due some luck really. The cricket they have played for the last two years has been incredible. 

 

It's been a brilliant World Cup. I bloody love cricket, I do!

[Spy Bee]

I thought Stokes should have been player of the tournament too. He's batted brilliantly in high pressure situations, and is the only front line bowler not to have been hit for six. Also, his impact yesterday was huge, it decided the tournament.

 

Would anyone have bowled Woakes instead of Jofra in that Super Over?

[Jairzinho]

Just now, Spy Bee said:

 

Would anyone have bowled Woakes instead of Jofra in that Super Over?

Probably not actually, but I was surprised by how Jofra bowled.

 

I was expecting an over of short stuff at varying paces. 

[Spy Bee]

4 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Probably not actually, but I was surprised by how Jofra bowled.

 

I was expecting an over of short stuff at varying paces. 

Me too, but I suppose any short ball is a possible six.