Mark V

The Cricket Thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, balboa08 said:

India has won both cricket and hockey world cups :) Football/Soccer? Hmm we are ranked 101 in the world today, so....;) One good part is we have moved up 72 places since 2015

why don't you guys play rugby ?

just both our country's sporting preferences are influenced by what the English taught us to play ?

in NZ rugby has always been a sport for everyone - not at all snobbish like its English origins 

i also don't see India in the Netball world cup but when i googled and your ladies have been playing netball since 1926

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Born To Walk said:

Whilst I get your point, Roger Federer won 36 games to Novak Djokovic's 32 and broke serve three more times, but still lost at Wimbledon.

The rules are what they are, whether we agree with them or not.

i beg to differ on the parallel you have drawn ;) Tennis rules have existed for over a 100 years with respect to total points won having no final bearing on the result of a match. After the scores were tied at 6-6 and then at 12-12, they went into a tie break. Number of aces for example was not the deciding factor.Again Federer would have won. Current US President too got fewer votes .

 Similarly this too could have gone for another super over or any other such thing rather than bring in boundries.

Agree rules were there , this should serve as an eye opener not just for ICC but for respective boards to not frame/agree to dumb rules. My reasoning as to why NZ should be decalared joint winners is that the officials clearly bungled even on the rules front at a most crucial time and this did have a bearing on the final outcome. 

BTW, i am in no way suggesting that England are underserving. For all you know if the umpires had implented the rule correctly and Rashid was on strike , he could have scored a boundary as with 10 first class hundreds he is no bunny with the bat. My limited contention is that NZ did not deserve to lose-not only for the dumb rule but also faulty implentation of another

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, balboa08 said:

i beg to differ on the parallel you have drawn ;) Tennis rules have existed for over a 100 years with respect to total points won having no final bearing on the result of a match. After the scores were tied at 6-6 and then at 12-12, they went into a tie break. Number of aces for example was not the deciding factor.Again Federer would have won. Current US President too got fewer votes .

 Similarly this too could have gone for another super over or any other such thing rather than bring in boundries.

Agree rules were there , this should serve as an eye opener not just for ICC but for respective boards to not frame/agree to dumb rules. My reasoning as to why NZ should be decalared joint winners is that the officials clearly bungled even on the rules front at a most crucial time and this did have a bearing on the final outcome. 

BTW, i am in no way suggesting that England are underserving. For all you know if the umpires had implented the rule correctly and Rashid was on strike , he could have scored a boundary as with 10 first class hundreds he is no bunny with the bat. My limited contention is that NZ did not deserve to lose-not only for the dumb rule but also faulty implentation of another

Spot on my friend and exactly my point in my "sour grapes" (allegedly) post, there were various decisions during both innings which ALL favoured the home side....it was as if there was a whole team of Russian Linesmen officiating once again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Daisey Jeep said:

Spot on Daisey...this :-

Former test umpire Simon Taufel described the costly ruling in the final as a "clear mistake".

They should be banned for life from ever officiating in the future.

Once again the "home" nation steal another trophy, they are welcome to these TAINTED titles.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dr winston oboogie said:

Spot on Daisey...this :-

Former test umpire Simon Taufel described the costly ruling in the final as a "clear mistake".

They should be banned for life from ever officiating in the future.

Once again the "home" nation steal another trophy, they are welcome to these TAINTED titles.

our sporting history books are full of instances like this

however ' just this once ' the English team have been quite gracious 

i just wish it had been left as a tie and we could shere the cup

i must say if we had to 'not win' like this i wish it had been to the Aussies because i could jump up and down and rant and rave 

i also think - as has always been with English county cricket - is that with that Indian league cricket alot of the cricketers are friends nowdays and its nicer for the game

 

but i certainly wouldn't accept ant gloating from English fans (not that ive seen any) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Scotties don't read this ;))

i found it kind of funny how this medsage from the Queen and the Duke was written up different in the NZ press to the UK press 

however it made me feel better https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/cricket-world-cup/114260544/cricket-world-cup-final-queen-elizabeth-sends-her-commiserations-to-admirable-black-caps

however one complaint i have is why were the royals at the tennis and not the cricket

i know Prince Philip has been involved with cricket and indeed the MCC over the years and in his retirememnt im sure he was watching some of the tournament 

but where were the younger ones ?

Harry was briefly at the opening as patron of the event

then what ?

i read Andrew was there but i was asleep by the English innings and i never saw him on the news

i would have thought at least the Duke of Kent might have made an appearance 

i dont normally critize the royal family but...

ok im kind of pissed off the Sussexs went to watch baseball but not the national team of two of their countries battle it out in the final of the cricket world cup

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, balboa08 said:

i beg to differ on the parallel you have drawn ;) Tennis rules have existed for over a 100 years with respect to total points won having no final bearing on the result of a match. After the scores were tied at 6-6 and then at 12-12, they went into a tie break. Number of aces for example was not the deciding factor.Again Federer would have won. Current US President too got fewer votes .

 Similarly this too could have gone for another super over or any other such thing rather than bring in boundries.

Agree rules were there , this should serve as an eye opener not just for ICC but for respective boards to not frame/agree to dumb rules. My reasoning as to why NZ should be decalared joint winners is that the officials clearly bungled even on the rules front at a most crucial time and this did have a bearing on the final outcome. 

BTW, i am in no way suggesting that England are underserving. For all you know if the umpires had implented the rule correctly and Rashid was on strike , he could have scored a boundary as with 10 first class hundreds he is no bunny with the bat. My limited contention is that NZ did not deserve to lose-not only for the dumb rule but also faulty implentation of another

The rules about a Super Over to decide a tie followed by boundaries, then super over countback have been in place for over a decade (first used 2008) and 5 other T20 games have been settled on the boundaries rule (none has gone to countback).

It's not that it's new, it's just incredibly rare.

Equally, there was a pretty big debate about whether Net Run Rate is a fair way to decide which team progressed from the group stage after Pakistan lost out despite beating New Zealand head-to-head, but they were the rules of the competition and we all just accept them and get on with it. 

As for the "overthrows", it does look like Taufel believes there was an error, despite the less than clear laws, but we know that in general overthrows just get added to the number of completed runs - and Stokes completed 2 runs. It would have been pretty odd for Stokes to be credited for 2 completed runs if the ball had been stopped before reaching the boundary, but only 1 if it reached it.

Have you ever seen an umpire check after overthrows whether the batsmen had crossed before the throw came in? I certainly haven't, and I've played in and watched a lot of cricket!

Would have been a lot easier if Stokes had just done what Buttler said - belted Boult's last leg side full toss into the stands rather than looking for the 2!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Daisey Jeep said:

our sporting history books are full of instances like this

however ' just this once ' the English team have been quite gracious 

i just wish it had been left as a tie and we could shere the cup

i must say if we had to 'not win' like this i wish it had been to the Aussies because i could jump up and down and rant and rave 

i also think - as has always been with English county cricket - is that with that Indian league cricket alot of the cricketers are friends nowdays and its nicer for the game

 

but i certainly wouldn't accept ant gloating from English fans (not that ive seen any) 

Daisey. We've had our fair share of heartbreaking losses in many sports, often with arcane rules interpretations, so no gloating from us...!

  • Like 1
  • Love Love Love! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, thomam said:

Daisey. We've had our fair share of heartbreaking losses in many sports, often with arcane rules interpretations, so no gloating from us...!

i know

and i appreciate that

if it wasn't for England there would be no cricket or rugby

and cricket is a game of many laws

i must say something i did get abit excitted about was seeing the English players walk back through what im assuming is the long room at Lords

id never seen that before 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Daisey Jeep said:

i know

and i appreciate that

if it wasn't for England there would be no cricket or rugby

and cricket is a game of many laws

i must say something i did get abit excitted about was seeing the English players walk back through what im assuming is the long room at Lords

id never seen that before 

No, I'd never seen much from inside the Long Room - all very genteel compared to the mayhem outside...!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, thomam said:

No, I'd never seen much from inside the Long Room - all very genteel compared to the mayhem outside...!

i love the traditions of cricket

its genteel nature

the statistics 

the sound of leather on willow

the smell of the grass

the traditions and superstitions

that's why i like test cricket better 

when i pass a club cricket match my heart sings 

im sure it's played in heaven

i was born a generation too late

  • Love Love Love! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Daisey Jeep said:

our sporting history books are full of instances like this

however ' just this once ' the English team have been quite gracious 

i just wish it had been left as a tie and we could shere the cup

i must say if we had to 'not win' like this i wish it had been to the Aussies because i could jump up and down and rant and rave 

i also think - as has always been with English county cricket - is that with that Indian league cricket alot of the cricketers are friends nowdays and its nicer for the game

 

but i certainly wouldn't accept ant gloating from English fans (not that ive seen any) 

yes, guess Big Bash and IPL have made cricketers more friendly to each other and there is a lot less animosity between them

  • Bruuuuce! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thomam said:

The rules about a Super Over to decide a tie followed by boundaries, then super over countback have been in place for over a decade (first used 2008) and 5 other T20 games have been settled on the boundaries rule (none has gone to countback).

It's not that it's new, it's just incredibly rare.

Equally, there was a pretty big debate about whether Net Run Rate is a fair way to decide which team progressed from the group stage after Pakistan lost out despite beating New Zealand head-to-head, but they were the rules of the competition and we all just accept them and get on with it. 

As for the "overthrows", it does look like Taufel believes there was an error, despite the less than clear laws, but we know that in general overthrows just get added to the number of completed runs - and Stokes completed 2 runs. It would have been pretty odd for Stokes to be credited for 2 completed runs if the ball had been stopped before reaching the boundary, but only 1 if it reached it.

Have you ever seen an umpire check after overthrows whether the batsmen had crossed before the throw came in? I certainly haven't, and I've played in and watched a lot of cricket!

Would have been a lot easier if Stokes had just done what Buttler said - belted Boult's last leg side full toss into the stands rather than looking for the 2!!

Agree with most of what you say, what i have been saying all along is that some of the rules are dumb and they need to be changed. If the dumb rules are to be implented then the umpires should also be aware of the overthrow rule as well. Their ignorance cannot be an excuse especially when what's at stake is the world cup.

Not for a moment am i implying that rules or decisions were made favoring England. England was just the lucky benficiary in this case and it could have been any other team.

I honestly was not aware that this rule of boundries was in existance since 2008 as what i had read somewhere was thta it was added last year.

No, it would'nt have been any easier if Stokes had hit the last ball for 6 as he should not have been on strike in the first place ;)

Another thing i could never understand is role of the third umpire, is he there just to act when on field umpires refer to him. Understand the need to not slow the game down but surely, they can step in when things are obviously  wrong, like for instance Gayle being dismissed by Starc for what should have essentially a free hit.

  • Like 1
  • Love Love Love! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dr winston oboogie said:

Spot on Daisey...this :-

Former test umpire Simon Taufel described the costly ruling in the final as a "clear mistake".

They should be banned for life from ever officiating in the future.

Once again the "home" nation steal another trophy, they are welcome to these TAINTED titles.

Bye heck, that's some chip doc

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Daisey Jeep said:

i know

and i appreciate that

if it wasn't for England there would be no cricket or rugby

and cricket is a game of many laws

i must say something i did get abit excitted about was seeing the English players walk back through what im assuming is the long room at Lords

id never seen that before 

Lords isn’t really a cricket ground, it’s a cathedral of cricket. The Long Room is stunning, I’ve been in there many times.

  • Love Love Love! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.