Lollygate?Well who would have thought, Australia just don't seem to have turned up at all v the might and power of the 'gland.
Aus win toss, bat, lol.
England say they would have batted too, lol lol.
Starc magically lost all ability in the last two matches lol lol lol.
Last batsmen. He could and has won with boundary hitting, no point throwing away a slim chance of winning by swinging at balls outside his hitting zone.Your post reinforces my point. Not sure that was your intention though. But let's see if we can get someone to be brave enough to answer this question:
Do you think Dhoni did his absolute best to win that match v NZ? If so, any possible explanation for leaving a ball with 31 balls left needing 53 to win?
Warner selling pitch secrets to bookies. But not actually engaging in match fixing... as that’s un Australian. Unlike sandpaper if to win an ashes series, as fu** the Poms.You sit there with your conclusive proof that Dhoni was throwing the game and every other nationality are corrupt yet us aussies could not possibly stoop that low,
Melbourne threw the game against us for the tom Scully pick, the AFL condoned that match fixing, and you don’t think the 2016 grand final can be questioned.
Not as much as they got to Starc with the pies he served up $$$$$$$$$$$, and Stoinis well he doesn't have to play cricket ever again with the payout he got for playing crap, sucked the bookies in big time did ol Marcus, he forgot to tell them he is crap $$$$$$$$$$$, Maxwell was paid to slog slog then spoon fed a catch to cover $$$$$$$$$$Yeah our batting is better, maybe the bookies have got to finch and warner
Hindsight is a great thing but with his current form and experience, he is obviously the better choice than Handscomb who seems to crumble under pressure. Handscomb didn't look comfortable out there at all and was never going to make a good score with his foot movement as stagnant as it was. The selectors just don't like Wade for some reason and it may have cost us.Any selectors who didn’t want Wade picked should be sacked on the spot imo
Wade has been the in form batsman of domestic cricket for the best part of the last 12mths, piling on runs in every format of the game. Perhaps his international record isn’t great but he’s never been in this sort of form. The fact he hasn’t gotten a single game - in the lead up to the World Cup or in it - is quite ridiculous.Hindsight is a great thing but with his current form and experience, he is obviously the better choice than Handscomb who seems to crumble under pressure. Handscomb didn't look comfortable out there at all and was never going to make a good score with his foot movement as stagnant as it was. The selectors just don't like Wade for some reason and it may have cost us.
You obviously have faith in Dhoni. However, your post is in my opinion based on a few incorrect beliefs, namely:Last batsmen. He could and has won with boundary hitting, no point throwing away a slim chance of winning by swinging at balls outside his hitting zone.
If he was trying to lose then a big swing at a good length delivery is a lot easier than trying to dig in and bide your time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Totally agree... super overs with different players until a winner is found, or even like local cricket where higher on the ladder wins (England) or head to head during the tournament (England) but not wickets lost!fu**en pommies
Boundary countback is a s**t way to end that. Like having a tie in a golf.playoff and giving the win to the longest drive
Spot on.what an absolute fu** up of a way to finish a world cup.
I didn't care who won but the fact a winner has been declared that neither won the main game or the super over is a joke.
If they are going to do a count back it should have gone back to the fact that NZ still had wickets in hand but England were bowled all out.
not some bulls**t about most boundaries.
That would be like if there was a tie in the NBA just going back and seeing who hit the most 3 pointers..
just keep playing super overs until there is a winner.