Off Topic Cricket 2019

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
stick said:
MCC’s law 19.8, which deals with overthrows, says: “If the boundary results from an overthrow... runs scored shall be any runs for penalties awarded... and allowance for the boundary, and runs completed by batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act.”
Click to expand...

So there we have it. New Zealand are the "moral" Champions! :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiwiqpr and stick
QPRski said:
So there we have it. New Zealand are the "moral" Champions! :)
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, Rashid might have hit a four or six from the next ball, which he should have faced. England could have been outright winners without the need for a super over. It’s a shame that there might be a question mark over the result. England beat all the other three top teams during the competition, and absolutely destroyed the Aussies in the semi finals, the best performance of the whole thing. We didn’t play to our potential yesterday, but I think we demonstrated that we deserve to be champions. Desperately unfortunate for the Black Caps though.

Great sport yesterday. The last hour of the cricket was as tense as it comes (thought the six or so before it were quite boring though, some good tight bowling and dogged unspectacular batting and that’s it, like the first morning of an old fashioned test), some great racing between Leclerc and Verstappen at the Grand Prix, and a completely epic Wimbledon Final.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoop-Leif, Tramore Ranger, Steelmonkey and 1 other person
sb_73 said:
Not necessarily, Rashid might have hit a four or six from the next ball, which he should have faced. England could have been outright winners without the need for a super over. It’s a shame that there might be a question mark over the result. England beat all the other three top teams during the competition, and absolutely destroyed the Aussies in the semi finals, the best performance of the whole thing. We didn’t play to our potential yesterday, but I think we demonstrated that we deserve to be champions. Desperately unfortunate for the Black Caps though.

Great sport yesterday. The last hour of the cricket was as tense as it comes (thought the six or so before it were quite boring though, some good tight bowling and dogged unspectacular batting and that’s it, like the first morning of an old fashioned test), some great racing between Leclerc and Verstappen at the Grand Prix, and a completely epic Wimbledon Final.
Click to expand...

Those "boring" overs were vital.
 
Great stuff on Radio 5, where Phil Tufnell and Michael Vaughn are reviewing the final stages ball by ball, giving their analysis after the radio commentary for each ball has been played. Tuffers has an interesting theory about how things might have panned out if the umpires hadn't got the call wrong on the overthrows. He says that if England had needed three off the final ball rather than two, Stokes would probably have hit the last delivery, which was a full toss, to the boundary. As it was - and Vaughn concurred on this - Stokes played circumspectly, trying for two but making certain of one. If he'd needed three, he would have smashed it and we'd have won without needing the super over!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deleted......., rangercol, kiwiqpr and 2 others
Stroller said:
Great stuff on Radio 5, where Phil Tufnell and Michael Vaughn are reviewing the final stages ball by ball, giving their analysis after the radio commentary for each ball has been played. Tuffers has an interesting theory about how things might have panned out if the umpires hadn't got the call wrong on the overthrows. He says that if England had needed three off the final ball rather than two, Stokes would probably have hit the last delivery, which was a full toss, to the boundary. As it was - and Vaughn concurred on this - Stokes played circumspectly, trying for two but making certain of one. If he'd needed three, he would have smashed it and we'd have won without needing the super over!
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was thinking today.
It was a juicy, knee high full toss on leg stump.
I'm sure he would have twatted it over the rope had we needed more than 1 to tie.
 
I've watched the last three overs three times now ( and the super over ) and still don't believe how England won. I didn't enjoy one bit of that final, a bit like our play off final v Derby.
89 minutes of hell ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uber_Hoop
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back