Wow, what a game!
Kane Williamson edged the trophy and was the best captain. Pipped by Eoin Morgan though, England have been clear and fair winners,
Printable View
Wow, what a game!
Kane Williamson edged the trophy and was the best captain. Pipped by Eoin Morgan though, England have been clear and fair winners,
Phenomenal to watch. Proper excitement.
That was entertainment.. how unlucky were NZ ..? I was heartbroken for them.. I don’t understand why the team batting 2nd in the super over has to score more runs.. seems really unfair.. it would be like a penalty shout out ending say 4-4 and the game being awarded to the team who took the 1st penalty.. crazy
I'm not a cricket fan but I did watch the end after the tennis had finished and it was quite exciting.
I can't say it will persuade me to start watching cricket regularly but I do get why people like it when it's played like that.
Not sure I agree with the 'more boundaries' rule. Is swinging and missing at 5 deliveries in an over then hitting a 6 off the last ball really better than scoring off every ball? All a bit unsatisfactory. Not just saying that because England won, I don't actually mind that, just seems a shame that such a great match ends in such a way.
Jimmy Neesham on twitter:
Quote:
Kids, don’t take up sport. Take up baking or something. Die at 60 really fat and happy.
Hiberniankb, the Metro nicked your line!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D_f9Ak9XsAASSk8?format=jpg
It’s a difficult one to resolve, I doubt the rule-makers ever expected to be in this situation so didn’t give much thought to this level of tiebreaker.
There’s numerous options, all of which would have upset someone: least wickets lost, higher placing in the group stage, even a bowl off. All have their pros and cons but like I say, I doubt anyone ever thought it would be needed.
Yeah, or made it 3 overs each. I'm happy England won but would rather they'd beaten anyone apart from the Black Caps.
There didn't deserve to be a loser yesterday.
Looking forward to the Ashes now. England are on a high and the Aussies will be relishing the chance to bring them back to earth!
Excuse my ignorance of cricket so feel free to correct me if anyone thinks i'm talking nonsense.
However surely one of the fundamental rules of cricket is to take wickets of the opposition. Why then do they place more significance on the number of boundaries a team has achieved, rather than the number of wickets?
I get that the primary objective is to score runs and that should always be the main deciding factor. But if New Zealand had taken all of England's wickets during regulation time, the match would have been stopped and New Zealand would have won. I can't understand why this wasn't the next thing they looked at when the number of runs was tied.
Considering New Zealand only had 8 men out during their 50 overs and England had 9, I think New Zealand can count themselves unlucky.
I suppose what happened is similar to a team losing the league due to goal difference. I’m not so sure repeating the super over after nearly 8 hours of cricket would be the best thing either. What if the next one is a tie and the next one? A line has to be drawn somewhere.
England actually threw away 2 wickets chasing the win. Probably 4 if you include Plunkett and Archer. There's not that necessity when batting first.
The fairest thing would have been for both countries to share the trophy but given the one day format there has to be a winner.
I guess if settled on wickets folk would find that unfair as the wicket changes throughout the day so I'm not sure there's a win win solution in the rare event of a tied one dayer.
Anyone know if there are extended highlights of the final? I was working and listened to it on the radio but would like to see more than the 8 minute package doing the rounds. Thanks in advance!
Jammy Fvkkas!