• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Group 1 Second Round - Sri Lanka, England, South Africa, New Zealand, Netherlands

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Only thing I'd agree with Broad on is that being fined for what he said is pathetic. Unless I've missed something he only said it was average decision-making, yes? Same as he'd say an umpire got it wrong for not giving out a nick off a teenaged left-arm orthodox that veers at left angles to slip.
:laugh:
 

Adders

Cricketer Of The Year
Same as he'd say an umpire got it wrong for not giving out a nick off a teenaged left-arm orthodox that veers at left angles to slip.
He did, and just ftr.......it got to first slip via a bigger nick off Brad Haddins gloves than Broads bat..

That clarified, I do agree with your comments on Broad over this incident. It was a stupid thing to say and whilst I don't think it warranted a fine it certainly warrants the stick he's been getting over it.

It's a **** way to lose a game but of course there is no doubt that if the situations were reversed then Broads concern for the players and supporters would have been diluted somewhat.
 

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
He did, and just ftr.......it got to first slip via a bigger nick off Brad Haddins gloves than Broads bat..

That clarified, I do agree with your comments on Broad over this incident. It was a stupid thing to say and whilst I don't think it warranted a fine it certainly warrants the stick he's been getting over it.

It's a **** way to lose a game but of course there is no doubt that if the situations were reversed then Broads concern for the players and supporters would have been diluted somewhat.
Quite right on the gloves, I just thought the left angles thing suited my post better.

Yeah it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine, such one-eyed viewpoints on incidents, and even more so when an obedient (usually local) media picks it up and runs with it without challenge.

Poor old Stuey, the lil lamb spent all winter running away from thunderbolts out of Johnson's hand and now he's got lightning and flash flooding to contend with as well. Someone tell him to stay away from Noah at the movie theatre (even ignoring that Russell Crowe is in it)
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
Rubbish. Here's a direct quote: 'I think it was distinctly average decision-making keeping us on after the first lightning strike at the start of the fifth over, keeping us on throughout that," Broad said. "That over has obviously given us a loss.'
I believe his point was that they should not have played the last over when lightning had already been sighted? Arguing that play should have stopped then, and the lightning was visible before the end of the 5th over.
Play should stop if it's dangerous.

But that didn't cost them the game.

What cost them the game was the fact that his over went for 16. That had nothing to do with lightning. Broad had just as much opportunity to win the game for England as McCullum.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
What cost them the game was the fact that his over went for 16. That had nothing to do with lightning. Broad had just as much opportunity to win the game for England as McCullum.
I want to preface this by saying that I agree that its sour grapes to complain considering he wouldn't had he won, but Broad can easily argue that having to bowl/field in the lightning is distracting and caused him to bowl poo. Its unlikely, but its not ridiculous that bowling or fielding during lightning can put you off your game and result in you being hit for 16.

Of course same can be said for the batsmen, no doubt. Fear of being struck is real though imo.
 
Last edited:

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
The NZ players agree that the game shouldn't have been played in lightning because it's dangerous. Not that it cost England the game.
Fundamentally the same thing. If they had taken them off when they should have, the game is a no result. I wouldn't blame the weather for the result in as much as I don't believe it affected the performance but the fact is they shouldn't have been out there.

DL is farcical in T20 as well but I think we all know that. Favours chasing sides far too much.
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
Fundamentally the same thing. If they had taken them off when they should have, the game is a no result.

"If they hadn't completed the game, they wouldn't have lost"?
Well sure, if that's what Broad and the NZ players agree on. It's very hard to lose a game that has no result...

Broad has said that playing the last over cost England the game. Well, yes it did, but it could also have won them the game. That it didn't has nothing to do with the umpires.
 

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Slightly negative decision to bowl first given it's an afternoon as opposed to an evening game? Will dew be a factor in an a couple of hours time when SA bowl (5.30pm local)?
 

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
That Southee-Boult bit was the most efficient summation of their bowling partnership I've ever seen
 

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
Haha, was just about to post that listening to his commentary makes me want to eat my own hand to distract myself from the agony that is his commentary.
 

Top