The World Cup thread

[roo blitz]

If that is the case how can you have the batsmen completing 2 runs and Stokes being on strike again if it was only 5 runs. Stokes was down the batsmens end again when the ball hit him. The rule says when fieldsman "throws ball"or ïn the act". The act was when the ball hit Stokes bat after completing his 2nd run so ruling is very unclear. 6 runs makes more sense. If it was 5 runs would Stokes be on strike or would batsmen have to change ends when they have completed a full 2 runs. It wouldn't make sense. Was tough on the kiwis though

 

[muttley45]

He would have choked like he did in 2015.

I know we beat them in the final, but weren't they unbeaten until then ?

 

[roo blitz]

Also if it was awarded 5 runs Stokes would not have pushed for 2 runs on final ball a little later to win it, but would have tried to hit a 4 or a six so England could have won if that was the case. His method would have changed by the circumstances so its all circumstantial in the end. For what its worth Archers wide in final super over was on the line not over it so technically it wasn't a wide so it opens door to further debate

 

[Horace]

Hallow win. Turn it up. England have been the best side for 4 years and thumped New Zealand only last week and finished higher on table than NZ. The rub of the green went the poms way but luck works both ways and NZ won toss against both England and India and played on pitches that suited them more than the other sides. If that was on a true wicket the poms would have won by a big margin. The innings by Stokes is getting lost in all of this. One of the greatest ever. I feel for NZ I really do. It was a David and Goliath effort and they nearly pulled it off. The sportsmanship of the kiwis leaves all the other teams behind.

Rubbish. This was the Final of the World Cup. Absolutely England has been the best team over the last 4 years, but this was not a judgement of what has happened in the past, but rather what happened on the day in the final of this competition. Just like an AFL Grand Final, which very often is not won by the best team over the H & A season. Look no further than the Dogs in 2016, Richmond in 2017 and West Coast last year. If you want to award a prize for the best team over a period of time then have it in the same vein as the English Premier League.

As for your bit about "true wicket". That's your opinion only as to what would have happened. The conditions were the same for both teams and in case you missed it, it was played at the home of cricket, Lords, surely England's home ground. Surely also England would have had more than a little say in the preparation of the wicket.

So I still say "hollow" victory (and not hallow)

 

[SpiderBurton22]

I know we beat them in the final, but weren't they unbeaten until then ?

Correct They went 6-0 through the group stages, including beating us. Bowled us out for 151, then were cruising at 4/130 before collapsing and getting them 9 down. Starc got 6 and McCallum made 50 off about 20 odd balls.

 

[AGC]

Also if it was awarded 5 runs Stokes would not have pushed for 2 runs on final ball a little later to win it, but would have tried to hit a 4 or a six so England could have won if that was the case. His method would have changed by the circumstances so its all circumstantial in the end. For what its worth Archers wide in final super over was on the line not over it so technically it wasn't a wide so it opens door to further debate

The line is a guide, not a hard and fast rule.

 

[KiwiRoo]

Hallow win. Turn it up. England have been the best side for 4 years and thumped New Zealand only last week and finished higher on table than NZ. The rub of the green went the poms way but luck works both ways and NZ won toss against both England and India and played on pitches that suited them more than the other sides. If that was on a true wicket the poms would have won by a big margin. The innings by Stokes is getting lost in all of this. One of the greatest ever. I feel for NZ I really do. It was a David and Goliath effort and they nearly pulled it off. The sportsmanship of the kiwis leaves all the other teams behind.

enough with this David & Goliath crap , we've beaten the poms plenty of times before on all sorts of wickets.
We've also been ranked very highly in ODI cricket for about a decade

we don't want a pat on the head

Of course it wasn't a Hollow win for the poms. They deserved it as much as we did

But because of a moronic rule the side who didn't score more runs than the opposition and lost more wickets, won the game ?
That is clouding what was a fabulous game, and as you say a great innings for Stokes.

 

[KiwiRoo]

Correct They went 6-0 through the group stages, including beating us. Bowled us out for 151, then were cruising at 4/130 before collapsing and getting them 9 down. Starc got 6 and McCallum made 50 off about 20 odd balls.

and in other stats for the game Kiwiroo went through 6 beers, 10 cigarettes(even though Ive given up), 10 fingernails and 2 pairs of underpants

 

[Hojuman]

and in other stats for the game Kiwiroo went through 6 beers, 10 cigarettes(even though Ive given up), 10 fingernails and 2 pairs of underpants

You chewed through 2 pairs of jocks bro ? Hope they were unused.

 

[KiwiRoo]

You chewed through 2 pairs of jocks bro ? Hope they were unused.

we normally wear em in NZ, but whatever floats your boat Hojuman

 

[wolvesRoos]

Everyone knew the rules in advance. The only alternative tie breakers I would use would be either the head to head record or who finished higher in the table, both of which would give England the win. It was an amazing game and New Zealand were really unlucky. I think they cracked under the pressure, stepping on that boundary and with England still needing 9 why risk over throws trying for an unlikely run out.

 

[KiwiRoo]

Everyone knew the rules in advance. The only alternative tie breakers I would use would be either the head to head record or who finished higher in the table, both of which would give England the win. It was an amazing game and New Zealand were really unlucky. I think they cracked under the pressure, stepping on that boundary and with England still needing 9 why risk over throws trying for an unlikely run out.

yep that would be fair enough. I'd prefer who finished higher in the table rather than head to head as its fairer.

 

[roo blitz]

I still say England deserved to win cup and were most worthy winners. Best run rate, finished higher than NZ on table and defeated NZ in preliminary rounds. They also beat all the semi finals teams pretty comfortably. Based on this the right winner was crowned as much as I hate the silly most boundaries rule. Kerry Okeefe and Rob Craddock also said England were most worthy winners on the Back Page. Interesting fact is that NZ only made finals dispute finishing on same points on table as Pakistan even though Pakistan beat them so the higher team was the winner there due to run rate. I would sacrifice the cup to play that final again as I would be confident poms would win. I reckon NZ had a really good final where poms were not at their best on day in conditions that did not suit them. For Grandhomme to bowl 10 overs for 25 runs shows pitch was not great for batting but more for a close contest. Just my true feelings on what happened some 6 days later and Im not trying to start a argument with anyone but the result was fair as far as tied games go. I give NZ a heap of credit for making it such a great final and almost winning it.Other quick point is Grandhomme was beaten all ends up by Archer and the ball hit him and went for 4 leg byes off his body. I hate this rule almost as the 4 overthrows off Stokes bat but its the rules and you have to cop it unfortunatly. With poms needing two runs off final ball Stokes played it safe despite Boults full toss on leg side. I would have backed him to hit a 4 or a 6 if circumstances meant poms needed more than 2 off last ball. As it was he couldnt risk it with 2 to win incase he holed out when only 1 was needed to tie game. So had the overthrows not counted everything would have played out differently anyway

 

[SpiderBurton22]

While the Aussies bowl each other out for 100, the Poms are collapsing against Ireland in a Test match. Currently 6/42.

 

[Hojuman]

While the Aussies bowl each other out for 100, the Poms are collapsing against Ireland in a Test match. Currently 6/42.

How many of those Irishmen have;
a) English heritage
b) English passports
c) voted for Boris ?

Sure the MCC could fit a couple into their Ashes squad.

 

[Hojuman]

Now 8/58
Murtagh 5/13

They'll find a Pommy grandparent for him somewhere

 

[Yatmax]

How many of those Irishmen have;
a) English heritage
b) English passports
c) voted for Boris ?

Sure the MCC could fit a couple into their Ashes squad.

*looks at eoin morgan*
damn irishman playing for england again

 

[SpiderBurton22]

How many of those Irishmen have;
a) English heritage
b) English passports
c) voted for Boris ?

Sure the MCC could fit a couple into their Ashes squad.

Not sure, Boyd Rankin is an Irishman who played a few tests For England before going back to Ireland.

I played against Ireland's keeper back in the day.

 

[SpiderBurton22]

Now that Ireland have full Test status, hopefully we won't see anymore Eoin Morgan's playing for England.

 

[Hojuman]

9/67

All out 85

 

[big_e]

How many of those Irishmen have;
a) English heritage
b) English passports
c) voted for Boris ?

Sure the MCC could fit a couple into their Ashes squad.

Why would you leave Ireland and play for one of the minnows?

 

[Gumble Frankieton]

Ireland are 0/29 chasing the marvellous English total. This could be pretty damn enjoyable.

 

[Gumble Frankieton]

Ireland are now 2/79....

 

[KiwiRoo]

9/67

All out 85

85 !..is this cricket or the British open ?

 

[Hojuman]

85 !..is this cricket or the British open ?

Think an lrishman just won the British open in lreland.