Results 801 to 825 of 968

  1. Post
    Another reason we lost was rub of the green with lbws. They fired Henry and Ross when they weren't out but we were only able to save Henry. Poor umpiring to fire Ross, it always looked high.

  2. Post
    Ins0mn1ac wrote:
    They should've gone with Lockie he would mixed it up a lot more. Boult was too predictable. It was obvious he was just going to go for yorkers every ball.
    Yeah, but again see my point though that two or three times this tournament he bowled a bouncer so high it went for 5 wides, so that was the problem with picking him.

  3. Post
    I guess I'm so salty because England weren't necessarily the better team on the day - they were generally lucky, and the rules fell in their direction.

    Not to say they don't deserve it, but it does seem more down to luck than skill which seems really unfair.

  4. Post
    Jacinda Ardern has acknowledged the blackcaps

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricke...ckland-pm-says

  5. Post
    KevinL wrote:
    I guess I'm so salty because England weren't necessarily the better team on the day - they were generally lucky, and the rules fell in their direction.

    Not to say they don't deserve it, but it does seem more down to luck than skill which seems really unfair.
    Also a lot of the unwritten laws of cricket got broken like "catches win matches". We took screamers.

  6. Post
    KevinL wrote:
    I guess I'm so salty because England weren't necessarily the better team on the day - they were generally lucky, and the rules fell in their direction.

    Not to say they don't deserve it, but it does seem more down to luck than skill which seems really unfair.
    I think maybe if you tie a super over you should split the cup. Deciding on stats or tie breaker rules is a nonsense.
    They just as easily could have given it to us for only being 8 wickets down.

  7. Post
    I thought de Grandhomme was going to bowl it, he was the one we couldn't get away. Thought it should have been the experienced head of Woakes for us.

  8. Post
    wrighty wrote:
    I think maybe if you tie a super over you should split the cup. Deciding on stats or tie breaker rules is a nonsense.
    They just as easily could have given it to us for only being 8 wickets down.
    Yeah agreed, I feel like a shared win would have been much more palatable

    I wonder if the English win feels a bit hollow to their supporters for similar reasons

  9. Post
    Super overs are an awful way to end a game, just like penalty shootouts really. The winner should have been the team that had the most batsman left I reckon.

  10. Post
    KevinL wrote:
    Yeah agreed, I feel like a shared win would have been much more palatable

    I wonder if the English win feels a bit hollow to their supporters for similar reasons
    Most English fans on cricket forums are 100% claiming the victory but feel sorry for NZ.

  11. Post
    ChizzBo wrote:
    Super overs are an awful way to end a game, just like penalty shootouts really. The winner should have been the team that had the most batsman left I reckon.
    I have played club cricket with those rules you mention.

  12. Post
    Has anyone checked on Paddles today? He was getting quite excited at one stage...

  13. Post
    Or you could calculate it on who won the head-to-head in the round robin, or who finished highest in the round robin, or who had the best net run rate..... Last 4 wickets English guys were sacrificing so hard. If wickets in hand became important you'd chase differently.

  14. Post

  15. Post
    ^

  16. Post
    Honestly think the rule is trash.
    Boundary hitting decides a WC Final? Seriously?
    Is this sending the right message to grassroots, going out and blazing away is more important than working hard running 2's and 3's,ticking over the strike, accumulation etc.

  17. Post
    Such a weird way to decide a game. So bizarre. In all my years it has always been wickets. Wickets were first and if they was tied, then they went for wides (which is weird also).

  18. Post
    Kinda ironic that KW got the man of the tournament despite being a type of guy that nudges for 1's and 2's.

  19. Post
    Bobs wrote:
    Kinda ironic that KW got the man of the tournament despite being a type of guy that nudges for 1's and 2's.
    Probably a pity vote tbh. They probably thought BC's should get something at least.

  20. Post
    Wides is a trash rule aswell.
    If you score the same amount of runs, but take more wickets, you should win, simple.

  21. Post
    Ins0mn1ac wrote:
    Probably a pity vote tbh. They probably thought BC's should get something at least.
    Yeah it did look like a last second thing. I was surprised he won anyway.

    - - - Updated - - -

    matt8485 wrote:
    Wides is a trash rule aswell.
    If you score the same amount of runs, but take more wickets, you should win, simple.
    I was saying that in the old days wickets was the first tie breaker and if that was even, then they went for wides. There was no super over, that is a recent 20/20 thing.

  22. Post
    matt8485 wrote:
    Honestly think the rule is trash.
    Boundary hitting decides a WC Final? Seriously?
    Is this sending the right message to grassroots, going out and blazing away is more important than working hard running 2's and 3's,ticking over the strike, accumulation etc.
    It is starting to annoy me the more I think about it,

    Somehow I would be MORE annoyed if other things had been used such as their position in group play.

  23. Post
    We lost. It is sinking in more. We didn't tie at all. We lost.

  24. Post
    Who was in the semi final that was tied in 1999 and how was that decided Paddles? N? Indigo?

  25. Post
    Aus Vs SA, Aus went through to higher NRR.