Results 926 to 950 of 968

  1. Post
    Name:  D_boXbbVUAAfjl1.jpg
Views: 262
Size:  106.7 KB

  2. Post
    Spaniard wrote:
    Should have been a continuation of super overs, but with the rule that Jofra Archer shouldn't bowl it, and Buttler/Roy not allowed to come out again (and vice versa, Trent Boult not allowed to bowl it, and Guptill/Neesham not allowed to face). You'd get a winner eventually. A co-winner would be even more of a farce.

    Definitely would like to understand the logic behind the boundaries thing. NZ aren't a big hitting team like the English so it's weird that they are being rewarded for that. I work in London and most English people say that they got fkng lucky with the ruling.
    You would be just creating controversy by not letting some of the best batmen & bowlers compete in a super over from these sides, any competitive player or team would definitely want to beat the opposition with all their best players involved otherwise it would be bit of a hollow victory.

    How do you come to the conclusion England is a bigger hitting team ? ...a lot of the NZ batsmen were poorly out of form in this tournament, just shows how brilliant Williamson was with the bat & the huge amount of pressure that was placed on him having to come in very early on most occasions... if you've watched NZ bat before you'd realize Guppy, Taylor, de Grandhomme & Neesham are massive strikers of the ball.

    That boundary rule was always going to be a ****wit decision no matter which team it was going to favour.

  3. Post
    ^^^ If there was a super over, would it be fair to only use/select the batters that were "not out/haven't batted" because it's a continuation into extra innings, rather than picking your best batters. It would then mean because England was all out, NZ should have won. i.e. boundary to determine winner is utterly shit (wickets in hand is way better). We got screwed alright and I'm sure the umpires knew the rules in awarding England that extra run.

  4. Post
    Boundaries is more fair than wickets, wickets in hand is almost always favouring the team batting first.

  5. Post
    If you're going to say only those not out can bat the super over as it's a "continuation of the innings" then surely only those who haven't already bowled the allowed 10 overs can bowl it too right?
    Best option IMO would have been another super over each with different batsmen and bowlers just like a penalty shootout still tied after 5 each would keep going down the team until there's a winner.

  6. Post
    Repeat the super over with the exact same rules until there is a winner. Perhaps the only change is if a player is out during the first super over then he can't bat in the second. And you can't use the same bowler in two overs in a row.

  7. Post
    Gerter wrote:
    Boundaries is more fair than wickets, wickets in hand is almost always favouring the team batting first.
    and Boundaries would generally favour the team batting second as they know ow many they need to hit, continuing super overs until there is a winner would we the best out of the options IMO

  8. Post
    WakeForest wrote:
    ^^^ If there was a super over, would it be fair to only use/select the batters that were "not out/haven't batted" because it's a continuation into extra innings, rather than picking your best batters. It would then mean because England was all out, NZ should have won. i.e. boundary to determine winner is utterly shit (wickets in hand is way better). We got screwed alright and I'm sure the umpires knew the rules in awarding England that extra run.
    Personally with it been a draw at the end of regular time reckon they should start over again with both teams using their best bowlers & batsmen in a super over.

    yeah, we were definitely screwed, unbelievable that they were awarded that extra run.

  9. Post
    I'm sad

  10. Post
    As a few others have said on the forum the more you think about it the more you get peeved off, that sums it up pretty well.

    Can you imagine if India were playing in a WC Final in India & a similar type of situation happened to them the opposition & their supporters would be lucky to get out of the ground alive

  11. Post
    Bobs wrote:
    Name:  D_boXbbVUAAfjl1.jpg
Views: 262
Size:  106.7 KB
    I lol'd. Indian cricket fans love making meme's like this.

  12. Post
    Certainly don't blame Gup for that last ball. Stokes had been in for a long time and had the exact same thing happen twice in the last two balls. He failed to get two off one as well.

  13. Post
    <N> wrote:
    Certainly don't blame Gup for that last ball. Stokes had been in for a long time and had the exact same thing happen twice in the last two balls. He failed to get two off one as well.
    Guptil gets a 7 out of ten for how he played the last ball. It was a very difficult ball. Kane or Ross might have done better though. Problem is we needed Guppy out there to run those twos, some of them we only made due to his speed so that is not to be forgotten.

  14. Post
    signman wrote:
    Can you imagine if India were playing in a WC Final in India & a similar type of situation happened to them the opposition & their supporters would be lucky to get out of the ground alive
    I have a better hypothetical for you
    Imagine if this happened to the All Blacks what the public reaction would be

  15. Post
    Kind of already did, Wayne Barnes is pretty infamous for one particular decision he made in a quarter final.

  16. Post
    <N> wrote:
    Certainly don't blame Gup for that last ball. Stokes had been in for a long time and had the exact same thing happen twice in the last two balls. He failed to get two off one as well.
    its really boult that ****ed up... literally dropped the WC

  17. Post
    turning_point wrote:
    its really boult that ****ed up... literally dropped the WC
    Why? He doesn't have eyes in the back of his head. As soon as the ball went up his sole focus was on the ball, he cannot check where the rope is when the six is that low, he said his only goal was to catch the ball. He didn't drop it. He said he couldn't hear Gup because it was so loud, and he likely didn't know how close he was without needing time to look down and check. By the time that happened he had stood on the rope.

    It was no different to what he did against the West Indies, that time he had enough room for that extra step, this time he didn't. Small margins of cricket. I hate trying to blame certain players and moments when there are so many of them.

  18. Post
    I don't blame Boult. I don't even blame Gup but I had no faith in him performing at all and said as much pre-tournament.

    It was a great game. The best ever.

    Well done NZC...

  19. Post
    I have decided to blot the game from my memory. I will not be buying the commemorative DVD and I hope there isn't a consolation parade.

  20. Post
    The blackcaps are feeling like we all are but even worse
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricke...world-cup-loss

  21. Post
    turning_point wrote:
    its really boult that ****ed up... literally dropped the WC
    There were so many things that happened in that game, no way can you pin anything on a single one of them.

    Kyle Mills was saying that is the biggest boundary at the ground, hence why the rope was in so far and he probably didn't realise/remember this when taking the catch (which is understandable given the moment/situation)

  22. Post
    wrighty wrote:
    I have decided to blot the game from my memory. I will not be buying the commemorative DVD and I hope there isn't a consolation parade.
    Same.
    I'm dealing with it by asking any cocky Pom 'how many runs/wickets did you win by again?' and the bumbling answers are quite funny.
    I also have taken the same approach Serbia does to Kosovo, in that I don't recognise England as World Champions based on that game (at the least I have an asterisk next to it).

  23. Post
    I dont like the Serbia Kosovo analogy - but I get the rest of the rest your post....

  24. Post
    Spaniard wrote:
    I'm dealing with it by asking any cocky Pom 'how many runs/wickets did you win by again?' and the bumbling answers are quite funny.
    That's a ripper !

  25. Post
    Is everyone familiar with the story of sour grapes?
    I am having sour grapes syndrome towards the cricket world cup. As time passes my emotions are diminishing the worth of the cup. I hope they win it in India, but if 2023 was tomorrow I would only follow the tournament like a normal fan rather than as a super fan.

    Have cancelled my plan to go Melbourne for boxing day, not feeling it anymore.