TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
yes
-
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.
Final - England v New Zealand
- Thread starter James
- Start date
cnerd123
likes this
NZ literally scored less runs off the bat tho. England conceded 30 extras NZ 17
The Hutt Rec
International Vice-Captain
I see Stokes asked the umpires not to count the four overthrows. I think it would have been a good commonsense move from the umpires to accept his request. Good on him for asking though.
More evidence, if any is needed, that the rule should be changed ASAP.
More evidence, if any is needed, that the rule should be changed ASAP.
So England bowled worse then
Athlai
Not Terrible
Who said anything about "off the bat" ya numpty.
cnerd123
likes this
He was talking about singles Vs boundaries. So he's got a point in that England were 'more restrictive' by way of giving away less boundaries but more singles, compared to how they scored Vs NZ. And the trade off is not proportional because the NZ batsmen did score less runs off the bat than Eng. It's just offset by all the extras Eng bowled too.
In any case that line of thought wasn't relevant to the final point he was making.
Athlai
Not Terrible
The whole point was utter ****.
It does not matter how runs come. It's ****ing cricket. I literally can't believe I'm reading this.
Should kiwis start getting up in arms that the tiebreaker wasn't decided by giving it to the team the conceded the least extras? Other sport certainly looks at penalties and infractions as a means of measuring it. It's just as arbitrary, so why not?
^
I am not actually advocating this so before you start getting all weird administration-apologist about it, try to understand that the POINT here is that this is all bull****. Cricket is a high scoring game, and the manner the runs should not be favoured one way or another and to believe otherwise means you have rocks for brains. I have been gracious here, and I am not trying to take it away from England, but actually defending the stupid tiebreaker call is dumb as hell. It WILL change because it IS ****.
It does not matter how runs come. It's ****ing cricket. I literally can't believe I'm reading this.
Should kiwis start getting up in arms that the tiebreaker wasn't decided by giving it to the team the conceded the least extras? Other sport certainly looks at penalties and infractions as a means of measuring it. It's just as arbitrary, so why not?
^
I am not actually advocating this so before you start getting all weird administration-apologist about it, try to understand that the POINT here is that this is all bull****. Cricket is a high scoring game, and the manner the runs should not be favoured one way or another and to believe otherwise means you have rocks for brains. I have been gracious here, and I am not trying to take it away from England, but actually defending the stupid tiebreaker call is dumb as hell. It WILL change because it IS ****.
cnerd123
likes this
Greenlite
U19 Debutant
I'm more cynical I thought that was just the PR guy telling the TV one reporter that
If he meant it he could have left/block the next ball for a dot or volunteer to stand on the non-striker's end because it's 5 runs until the umpire calls him back, all I saw was him apologizing on the striker's end then carried on afterwards.
It's like some guy telling the reporter Roy volunteered to walk after been given not out but the review showed umpires call so he stayed....nothing wrong with standing your ground but feels like the PR team sugar coating it for the press and drama
But again it was 7am in the morning and we could have missed a lot of the footage
Last edited:
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Bowling 13 more extras isn't being more restrictive
The Hutt Rec
International Vice-Captain
Yeah there’s a lot not shown on the tv coverage ... and they were focusing on replays at the time I think. So I’ll take their word for it.
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
I wasn't posting at the time, but someone said CW crashed?
Put an * on the thread and declare it the winner.
_Ed_
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah it did, and then my phone went flat and I cbf. Not that I would have added much.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
I had to put my phone down for the last ten overs or so. I was behind a mate in a WhatsApp group by about ten seconds (presumably because I consume sports via a Now TV box) and the spoilers were starting to get out of hand
Had no idea CW had gone down until Cribbage told me about it
Had no idea CW had gone down until Cribbage told me about it
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Thread wins because more NZTailender posts on countback?
cnerd123
likes this
I mean we've easily crossed India/NZ if you see the number of threads this game has spawned
Far too many moaning about the result for my liking though.