CWC 19 : England V New Zealand CWC Final

MJB

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
4,386
Missed watching that T20 final live, listened to some of it on the car radio on the drive down to Wembley - it was the same day as our play-off final against York in 2010.

I wondered why that victory was so vague in my memory - thanks for clearing that up!
 

Jon-ioualways

Active member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
736
Great article from the BBC website


It really is a great article, and captures well the spirit of the last hour of what has to be the most brilliant, exciting, terrifying, tension-producing game of cricket EVER.
 

Marked Ox

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
26,449
If you're referencing Jon Pierik, then the guy is an absolute plum.

My favourite (read, least favourite) quote was something about how it "seemed unfair that England were allowed to bat on [in the Super Over] with Stokes and Buttler already warmed up".

A grown adult journalist with the writings of the playground....embarrassing lack of grace, to say the least.

It is and that is an accurate summary of him. It was really enjoyable seeing how bitter and peed off he was by England's victory.
 

Marked Ox

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
26,449
Was it a draw??? Or just a bitter convict?? :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:



Even the New Zealand team have dismissed this claim as irrelevant.

Also, it is his interpretation anyway, as the rule also states when the throw or act happens. So the on-field Umpires could interprete that the act was when the ball hit the bat so they had crossed.
 

tonyw

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
2,986
Loved this quote from Jimmy Neesham - fair reflection of who they were of a team, and why I feel sympathy for them (whereas if it had been Australia or India, their arrogance would have made the lucky ending even sweeter/more hilarious). At least their fans have got another chance for glory in October/November.
“That’s the way we are as Kiwis, we get par scores and then scrap like hell"

Course although no one could argue that England were insanely lucky with that second '6'.....the last two balls would've played out differently if that hadn't happened. Boult's final ball was a high full toss on his pads. If Stokes had been trying to slog it, rather than bunt for two, maybe he would have stuck it into the stands and the super over wouldn't have been necessary?

You can go crazy with the ifs and buts of a sporting occasion.
It was a tight game, we got the big break and won, time to move on (as the Kiwis are doing.....or at least trying to).
Only the English would have an element of their fanbase hand-wringing and worrying about not having won the 'right' way. Every other nation in the world would be universally celebrating!
 

makv

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
3,295
If you're referencing Jon Pierik, then the guy is an absolute plum.

My favourite (read, least favourite) quote was something about how it "seemed unfair that England were allowed to bat on [in the Super Over] with Stokes and Buttler already warmed up".

A grown adult journalist with the writings of the playground....embarrassing lack of grace, to say the least.

As a matter of interest - why did we bat first? Was there another toss?
 

Big Ronaldo

Well-known member
Joined
16 Dec 2017
Messages
1,486
My goodness makv, that’s a mass debatable lot of questionable tossing off!???
 

Gary Baldi

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
7,061
Apparently their coach thinks the trophy should be shared in that scenario. Get over it!
 

ZeroTheHero

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
7,281
You can go crazy with the ifs and buts of a sporting occasion.
Exactly. It always makes me laugh when a football manager says (after a draw), 'If we'd put that chance in after ten minutes, then we'd have won that match.' Nope - the other 80 minutes would have played out completely differently, so there is absolutely no way you can say that...
 

Sarge

God like member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
45,410
As a matter of interest - why did we bat first? Was there another toss?
risking a Whoosh....& Im not 100% on this, but the super over scenario, I think(?) , as to who bats first ( in the super over shoot out) is a reversal of which team batted first in the 50 overs apiece contest.... it was explained , sort of, in between the 2x 50 overs sessions ending in a draw and the super overs shoot out commencing, by the commentators.... who were probably as aux fait with how super overs work as just about everyone else, apart from presumably ICC or match officials ensuring said commentators had the super overs rules on a print out handed to them after the 50 overs contest was drawn
 

makv

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
3,295
Not so - tournament rules set in stone - bat second in the main dig, bat first in the Super Over.

That’s fascinating. I wonder what the reasoning behind that is? Some Ozzie “journo” was complaining that it gave our batsmen an unfair advantage because they were “warmed up”.
 

makv

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
3,295
risking a Whoosh....& Im not 100% on this, but the super over scenario, I think(?) , as to who bats first ( in the super over shoot out) is a reversal of which team batted first in the 50 overs apiece contest.... it was explained , sort of, in between the 2x 50 overs sessions ending in a draw and the super overs shoot out commencing, by the commentators.... who were probably as aux fait with how super overs work as just about everyone else, apart from presumably ICC or match officials ensuring said commentators had the super overs rules on a print out handed to them after the 50 overs contest was drawn

Umpires didn’t know the overthrow rule though
 

warksox

Active member
Joined
4 Jan 2018
Messages
432
That’s fascinating. I wonder what the reasoning behind that is? Some Ozzie “journo” was complaining that it gave our batsmen an unfair advantage because they were “warmed up”.
What that idiot oz journo failed to mention though was the unfair advantage given to the NZ bowler who was already "warmed up".
 

BigCrompy

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
1,708
Maybe they did, as @Marked Ox says in post #266, the rule can be interpreted more than one way

Agree with this point entirely - and also, at the village green level (and laws should be applicable across the board) there are circumstances where it is absolutely impossible for one umpire to be watching the fielder as he releases a throw, and simultaneously the stumps, the crease, and the runners whether they have crossed or not; as Simon Taufel's rather silly interpretation would require the umpire to do. Particularly, as it is literally impossible to predict when buzzers will take place.

(I acknowledge DRS and the amount of cameras at an international venue does aid this).
 

Similar threads


Top Bottom