Anderson v Stokes

[Line and Length]

All of these emotional, biased views need to look at reality. The game was tied and England were awarded the game because of predetermined rules. Those rules may have been obscure but they weren't suddenly introduced to favour one side.

 

[Burgey]

Thank you.

 

[harsh.ag]

All of these emotional, biased views need to look at reality. The game was tied and England were awarded the game because of predetermined rules. Those rules may have been obscure but they weren't suddenly introduced to favour one side.

How about the rule on overthrows which the umpires got horribly wrong, which would have meant 4 off 2 with Rashid on strike instead of 3 off 2 with Stokes on strike?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

the overthrow thing is like when VAR overrules something on a football technicality. If a rule is broken in the woods and no one is around to hear it, it definitely doesn't make a sound.

 

[honestbharani]

(atleast relative to population)

You had to, didn't you?

 

[Dan]

If only ***** were umpiring.

I mean he'd almost certainly have botched every other decision but he'd have been all over weird overthrow situations, I'm sure.

 

[Flem274*]

preca-overratedsanity trying to talk tough like he doesn't come from the most melodramatic cricketing nation on the planet.

All of these emotional, biased views need to look at reality.

i agree, ross taylor was sawn off, jason roy was out first ball and england needed a huge slice of good fortune and incompetent umpiring from dharmasena just to fluke a super over in the final, which they managed to tie and run off with the cup based on the stupidest rule imaginable.

 

[GIMH]

Happy to accept that if you were awarded it, you won it, as long as we can all agree the WC Final was a tie that would've likely gone NZ's way had the umpires done their job properly.

We won it via the conditions that were in the rules all along. Silly ones, yes, but when the super over started it was very clear we needed to match NZ's runs.

That aside, the 5 or 6 thing, it's a bit churlish to then pretend everything else plays out the same. Stokes plays a different shot on the last ball if we need an extra run to tie.

No other sport has this. People don't say Brazil tied the 1994 WC or whatever. Boundaries is a stupid way to settle it and the rules should be for a 2nd super over. But if they were the rules then the final balls of the actual super over also play out differently. Everyone knows this, and those who try and pretend are either dumb, trolls or both (eg Burgey in the case of the latter)

 

[Lillian Thomson]

England winning the World Cup isn’t about bias or simple emotion, it’s just a strait forward fact. I haven’t seen any England fan deny the rub of the green or that the second level of tie breaker isn’t fit for purpose.

 

[honestbharani]

preca-overratedsanity trying to talk tough

precaratedsanity... Its obvious he has gotten to you.

 

[honestbharani]

When the last ball was bowled, NZ KNEW they needed 2 runs to win. If you look at it that way, the rules were not unfair. Stupid, sure, insensible, yes but unfair? Not at all.

 

[GIMH]

England winning the World Cup isn’t about bias or simple emotion, it’s just a strait forward fact. I haven’t seen any England fan deny the rub of the green or that the second level of tie breaker isn’t fit for purpose.

Basic logic that some numbskulls still cling to 13 months later.

Pathetic losers. Sad!

 

[Daemon]

We won it via the conditions that were in the rules all along. Silly ones, yes, but when the super over started it was very clear we needed to match NZ's runs.

That aside, the 5 or 6 thing, it's a bit churlish to then pretend everything else plays out the same. Stokes plays a different shot on the last ball if we need an extra run to tie.

No other sport has this. People don't say Brazil tied the 1994 WC or whatever. Boundaries is a stupid way to settle it and the rules should be for a 2nd super over. But if they were the rules then the final balls of the actual super over also play out differently. Everyone knows this, and those who try and pretend are either dumb, trolls or both (eg Burgey in the case of the latter)

Sure, I'm just saying it's more likely England would've lost at that point because Stokes wouldn't be on strike either.

Not controversial surely.