Cricket Thread

[ncurd]

**** I'm gutted

That's natural it's a horrible way to lose. There are few good ways to resolve it at that point though.

Williamson player of the tournament and it's deserved.

 

[Which Tyler]

I'm okay with the super over, that was pure drama; but after that? Nothing wrong with sharing the honours.

Seems like both finals today we're won by the "wrong" side

 

[smartcooky]

Problem is how do you deal with stopping overthrows by deliberetarely throwing to hit batsman?t Hell why should they ve forced to stopped running?

Your reasoning is stupid.

Why would a fielding team risk throwing the ball at a moving target to "stop overthrows" when the task could be done more simply by throwing it to the keeper. If you throw at the player, and miss, you are more likely to give away overthrows (and you lose a chance to run him out), because the chances are that there will be no player backing up, When the ball is thrown at the stumps, everyone knows it is going there, and players train to get into back up positions.

It happens so bloody rarely it's a law that doesn't need touching and is designed to protect players.

Bullshit. Protecting the players isn't even considered in that Law, its not even mentioned.

Oh, and it doesn't happen "rarely" either.

Finally, in the spirit of the game, players often don't attempt to take overthrows when that happens. Stokes didn't, he stayed even though it was plain that he could have easily run another two.

 

[ncurd]

Smartcooky take your sour grapes elsewhere.

 

[ncurd]

Ah disliking my posts now yeah your a great loser. God you wonder why people don't like your attitude at times.

 

[smartcooky]

Smartcooky take your sour grapes elsewhere.

Its not sour grapes. Its a genuine complaint, and if that had happened to England, and we won, while I'd be happy about that, I would feel some shame that we won it that way - and I'd still think that Law needs looking at.

But go ahead, accuse me of sour grapes if you like... its all you have, because you clearly can't address the argument.

 

[smartcooky]

Ah disliking my posts now yeah your a great loser. God you wonder why people don't like your attitude at times.

I "disliked" your post because you were being a prick and not addressing what I said.

I don't wonder why people don't like my attitude, I know some don't, and I don't care why!

See my signature for reference.

 

[ncurd]

The fact you don't think it rarely happened clearly marks out your nonsense. I have never seen it (ball go for 4 after hitting batsman) a cricket match.

I've seen overthrows without hitting anyone go for 4 but then player get punished for shite fielding.

 

[smartcooky]

The fact you don't think it rarely happened clearly marks out your nonsense. I have never seen it (ball go for 4 after hitting batsman) a cricket match.

I've seen overthrows without hitting anyone go for 4 but then player get punished for shite fielding.

I've seen it many dozens of times in my 50+ years of watching, playing and umpiring cricket.

 

[Carlito]

Tuned in to watch Nz bowling to another NZer for the game...so could say a win win for NZ ...showcasing the best cricket talent in the world are in fact Kiwis....
and NZ er takes out Player of the Tournament = icing on the cake... game tied up in the end and England win on some minor technicality... but well hosted English anyway, pat on the head...

 

[ncurd]

I've seen it many dozens of times in my 50+ years of watching, playing and umpiring cricket.

We are talking international and List A level cricket here not poxy village stuff where all manner of insane ******** is common.

 

[ncurd]

I'm okay with the super over, that was pure drama; but after that? Nothing wrong with sharing the honours.

Seems like both finals today we're won by the "wrong" side

I think sharing the honours after a super over is fair. After that is debating over some statistical ********.

 

[smartcooky]

We are talking international and List A level cricket here not poxy village stuff where all manner of insane ******** is common.

Your rude disdain for the grass roots of the sport is noted. Always thought you were one of those haughty elitists; have you always looked down your nose at us mere mortals who play the game for the love of it?

However, I have seen it happen in plenty of "international and List A level cricket".

 

[ncurd]

Nothing wrong with lower levels I was an utterly shite village player, my Dad was an average to good one and my brother in law....well he still plays just below List A status. But let's not pretend the more obscure elements of the lawbook occur more often at those levels.

Here's the debate in a nutshell find me an instance of it happening in an international match in the last 4 years excluding the final. If it's happened dozens you should be able to find one.

 

[smartcooky]

Nothing wrong with lower levels

Then why did you insult lower level players by calling their game... what was it now, oh yes "poxy village stuff" ?

Here's the debate in a nutshell find me an instance of it happening in an international match in the last 4 years excluding the final. If it's happened dozens you should be able to find one.

Yeah, I'm going to watch hours of cricket just to win an internet point? Not likely.

I simply recall that I have seen overthrows from the ball striking a batsman many, many times I know this, because I have always considered it to be unfair to the fielding side, who have no way to defend against it. It IS a rule in Indoor Cricket (ball is dead if it strikes either the batsman or the runner from a fielder's throw), so its possibly where the thought first occurred to me. I haven't played Indoor Cricket for over 30 years.

 

[ncurd]

Because it not played to a high level? Village cricket is a wonderful thing I grew up travelling to grounds throughout the westcountry and helping to prepare our ground. I have extremely fond memories of it. I don't pretend the players are extremely skilled. Referring to it as poxy is just joking around rather than dismissive of the joy of it.




Okay doesn't happen as often as you said then if you don't want to provide evidence to your claim I see.no point in talking about it.

 

[ncurd]

So England are the first country to win World Cups in cricket, football and rugby...

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

so as someone brand new to cricket:

the whole runner getting hit by ball and staying live makes sense to me but that's probably cause that's how baseball is... it's a little different cause cricket runners carry their bat but weird **** happens in sport sometimes

what I don't get is the whole super over? Pretty much every other sport treats extra time as a continuation of the game. But in the super over the entire game reset. It was less extra time and more a one over replay. Teams that lose less wickets during the 50 overs should have an advantage during the super over.

 

[ncurd]

The wicket thing is mainly because 50 over cricket is considered a game of resources. If you get to 50 overs without using all your batsman up tough. If you require to use them all it doesnt matter it's all about getting to the score.

Super Overs were to stop statistical reasons for determining ties of which very few make sense and can be argued against on way or another. Sadly it didn't work today.

 

[Every Time Ref]

so as someone brand new to cricket:

the whole runner getting hit by ball and staying live makes sense to me but that's probably cause that's how baseball is... it's a little different cause cricket runners carry their bat but weird **** happens in sport sometimes

what I don't get is the whole super over? Pretty much every other sport treats extra time as a continuation of the game. But in the super over the entire game reset. It was less extra time and more a one over replay. Teams that lose less wickets during the 50 overs should have an advantage during the super over.

Did you watch the final? That's amazing, I'm so weirdly proud of our bizarre little sport somehow

To respond to your point - the thing is it's very hard to find a satisfactory version of "extra time" for cricket because the format is so uniquely different to

They used to award a tied game to whoever had the most wickets left, which is broadly in line with your idea (in principle). I can't remember exactly when it changed but for me that always made perfect sense to be honest I'm not sure why but was changed.

I think until recently all tied games in knockout tournaments were decided by a bowl off? That meant bowlers bowling at a stump without a batsman, just a weird, ****, pointless arbitrary tiebreak which fundamentally tested very few of the skills of cricket. I'm really glad that's gone.

Can't argue with the super over for drama and entertainment value though, I think today proved that...