Cricket WCF
Wang's Upon a Time 14 Jul 19 12:10
Reply |

Need to get rid of these chaps

the dharmasena review system proving its name again

eh? no he’s renowned for having his decisions overturned

England lucky with the LBW decision earlier. I think NZ will set 280 and bowl England out for sub 200

he is a great find now anderson and broad are heading into their twighlights

The way woakes has bowled this tournament, I wouldn’t start broad in the ashes over him

Agreed - though dont know enough about the technical differences between white and redball to understand why eg stokes is crap all of a sudden

I am a nervy spectator.  If we get off to a good start I'll relax a bit.

how does the win predictor work? 87% england appaz, but that cannot be right 

Kiwis have got this. Cant believe you can still get 3s on them

miserable stuff

and yet the win predictor said 75% england (just before the bairstow w)

must be watching a different match

I called this. Can’t believe people fancied england so much after they lost the toss

If one more wicket goes it is game over. They need a 100 partnership from these two

Don’t watch international cricket much but why do they have a kiwi as main commentator?

its like England v Argentina in football World Cup final and maradona was commentating for the bbc.

Because the kiwi knows more about NZ cricket than anyone else.

Point taken. I suppose Diego would be the dogs bollocks on cocaine and handballs.

England cannot lose from here.


Cake walk.

I am getting so stressed watching it on TV


I am pretty certain Daddy Caulfield who is in the ground is going to give himself a heart attack

That’s it done. 

England are hilariously shite. Good job wellerz took the 3/1 on offer on NZ

so annoying this is exactly the same time as the fifth set tie break 

If England win this Stokes will become the new Johnny Wilkinson

One of the best finishes to any sporting event I’ve ever seen in my life

I am exhausted!  Brilliant stuff.

Got to feel sorry for the blackcaps

Lol @ wellers and his remarkably fortuitous and prescient betting.

Incredibly cruel on NZ though. I know it’s the laws of the game but that stokes moment when it went off his bat for 4 is so harsh 

And tbh this repairs a small modicum of damage their rugby team inflicts on mine year after year so I’ll take it.

i should have known england would have it in the bag as soon as wellers called it

Ben Stokes is the new Freddy Flintoff.  He just swore live on Sky Sports

. . . . . . . . now redeeming himself by talking clearly and coherently.

surprised phoebs isn’t gushing over strauss tho

Due to my love of gingers Stokes does a lot for me, but his young age, tattoos, and fighting count against him

Just watching the highlights, the whole thing really was ridiculous.  rewatching the stokes fluke there is a moment just outside the crease where his bat twitches left but he deffo doesnt look.  think it was just exhaustion.  I just went on a 20 minute bike ride round the woods and i am bollocksed

Just watching the highlights, the whole thing really was ridiculous.  rewatching the stokes fluke there is a moment just outside the crease where his bat twitches left but he deffo doesnt look.  think it was just exhaustion.  I just went on a 20 minute bike ride round the woods and i am bollocksed

When Boult stands on the boundary rope. Such fine margins

Pointless ever watching cricket again after that. Nothing will come close.

in august Bento will be all like "we won the ashes, meh"

My nan used to love it.  never watched on telly, always live or 5 (or 4 as it probably was then).

Wellington14 Jul 19 16:50

Reply | Report

Embarrassing display 


Indeed. This thread must hold the record for the number embarrassingly wrong posts in the entire history of rof, nay the internet.

Stokes obviously didn’t intend to block that ball but can someone explain why it would been a problem if he had?

it would be great skill to be aware and block on purpose a ball coming into the wicket from a fielder with a dive. I appreciate you can’t have bats being thrown down the wicket but diving in is great skill. Or it is to stop someone in simply standing by ticket and hitting it second time?

Would have been ‘obstructing the field’ which requires intent and is a dismissible offence (I had to ask someone too lol).

having watched the highlights again, overall I thought england were outplayed today and got more than their fair share of luck. It was actually a fairly poor performance by the team with the exception of stokes with the bat and archer and Plunkett with the balls

we did make colin de grandhomme look like glenn bleddy McGrath

root and morgan had shockers with the bat

but we won!

Our bowlers did well, it seemed, on a pitch which didn’t let batters get comfortable. The openers stayed on length. The middle overs were a problem - no wickets to be had- and NZ looked to be getting ahead. The anxiety above demonstrates. Then the closing overs were restricting again. But chasing a modest score wasn’t so easy as it made our batsmen focus on not playing loose shots and as a result they struggled to play any. It seemed that NZ’s bowlers were doing a fine job of pinning us back on a troublesome pitch as we had done to them. Then in the closing overs we had our lucky moments.

Boult treading over the boundary is the thing that makes it a fair win for England to me. It’s hard for NZ but this is not ‘lucky England’ but a NZ error, if truly avoidable, or a good six if inevitable. 

The Stokes deflection was luck. 

What is not luck, but bad choice making in the heat of it, was which end to throw to from the deep and leaving Stokes on strike. 

NZ got the benefit of a misfield.

Both teams had proper sixes struck off the middle of the bat.

it was a tie and a tie and a decision in favour of England on a performance measure - number of 6s and 4s. 

Good fielding and good hands from Butler in the end. 

A fair outcome but a hair’s breadth of a difference and NZ played superbly. 

I think the 6s and 4s metric was a bit arbitrary but fairer metrics would have been either NRR or the result between the two in the group stages, both of which England would have won anyway.

Arguably wickets on the day could have been the metric but if that was the case England may have chased differently.

England fortunate to win (tie) the final but NZ pretty fortunate to get through the group stages. England the best team in the competition.

great throw from surrey man Jason roy :)

Making up from his miss field earlier in the super over

Arguably wickets on the day could have been the metric

You might as well award it to whoever wins the toss in that case.

you could revert to whoever won the group stage match....

Welly would prefer that the limited for of the game had no limit

4s 6s was the right measure. You've got to sponsor big hitting for a circus game like 50 over or T20.  Wickets measure would motivate defensive batting and low(er) totals as teams chased "not losing" rather than "winning". 

Well - it is only in the event of a tie so I am not sure that teams would actually chase trying to lose fewer wickets if they can clearly get over the target. Im pretty sure its what they used to do back in the day (didn't the famous Aus SA semi final in 99 get decided on that basis?)

Anyway - I am not saying that is what it should have been, just one of the many ways the ICC could have adopted to split a tie. Glad they didn't...

Lols - and apparently the umpires incorrectly awarded 6 for the overthrow when it should have been 5 as the second run should have been measured on whether the batsmen crossed when Guptil threw the ball not when the ball hit Stokes' bat. The rules of cricket are enough to make even a lawyer blush.

It really was our day.

I the England players had anything about them, they would concede the trophy to New Zealand. THe black caps would almost certainly have done the same if the situation was reversed.

You're still sore about the money you lost backing NZ.

The 6 runs debate is an overstretch IMO. Yes, the exact wording does refer to counting only the runs if the batsmen crossed before the overthrow. However, was it an overthrow, technically?