What's new

The Cricket Thread

littlewilly

Well-Known Member
May 28, 2013
1,670
5,181
See its shit like this that make me firmly believe you have more interest in us than we really do in you.
We have more Ashes than you, more Rugby world cups than you (oh thats right, you dont have one) More Wimbledon titles in the Pro era, and yes, more swimming everything. As for football, well yes you have one World title, and we are unlikely to ever get one.
Just some perspective, your population 55.62m (England, not UK) and ours 25.09m.

So take your "shit at all sports" and ram it down your throat.

Sorry guys but I'm pretty even on most things but don't disrespect our history.
And the Kiwi population is around 4 million, yet we mercilessly tonk the Aussies at rugby with joyous regularity.
 

Spurs 1961

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
6,665
8,739
Had this chat at work. There’s no sense in bewailing the result as everyone had agreed to and understood the rules.
Having said that, I do think the “most boundaries “ ruling is bollocks, it doesn’t demonstrate that a team is more attacking at all. For example, you could have a team that racks up 300 plus because the batsmen have consistently attacked the field, putting constant pressure on them by running singles, two’and three’s almost constantly, with a few boundaries thrown in. Conversely, you could have another team offering a dead bat to 4 balls each over but hitting a boundary each over. Both get to the same run total, but one side has bored the pants off you for two thirds of the game, yet they’d win it as the stat actually skews the truth.

I don’t agree with the wickets in hand angle either. The fact is that both scored the same amount of runs, wickets in hand are, and should remain, irrelevant.

The fairest way to end it is the simplest, keep playing the extra over until 1 side out scores the other. No fucking about with silly statistics, just play until one has more runs than the other. Simple

Guess it's just the equivalent of the away goals rule. The problem is I doubt anyone playing has even been in a match where this has been used before so unlike away goals they just did not know. However the umpires did tell them clearly before the super overs started so they at least knew then. Never a great way to settle a tournament but it was exciting

Interestingly we watched it on a recording a bit later and missed the explanation of the rule which I assumed the commentators said. So when it was 15-15 we were trying ti understand why England won, coming to the conclusion that as NZ batted second and knew the target then they had to score more than England who batted first.
 

JimmyG2

SC Supporter
Dec 7, 2006
15,014
20,779
You've done nothing except moan all tournament, pretty sad stuff really if this is all you've got to say when we've just won the World Cup.
Very sad stuff infact...maybe you should just stick to the tests.

I've just watched the final couple of overs, and the super over again, I couldn't really take it all in yesterday as I was just a bag of nerves.
Ben Stokes performance was just incredible.
No I haven't.
I have stated my initial doubts about the limited over format and then on several occasions my appreciation of the play and the tournament in general.
I agree about Stokes .
The rules produced an undeserved result
and a shared crown would have been more in the spirit of sport in general and cricket in particular
In my day batsmen w.alked
 

SteveH

BSoDL candidate for SW London
Jul 21, 2003
8,642
9,313
England play New Zealand in a cricket final!
Why do these Australians yet again get all bitter and twisted?
 

SteveH

BSoDL candidate for SW London
Jul 21, 2003
8,642
9,313
No I haven't.
I have stated my initial doubts about the limited over format and then on several occasions my appreciation of the play and the tournament in general.
I agree about Stokes .
The rules produced an undeserved result
and a shared crown would have been more in the spirit of sport in general and cricket in particular
In my day batsmen w.alked

is that you Geoffrey?
 

SteveH

BSoDL candidate for SW London
Jul 21, 2003
8,642
9,313
Like the Scousers, everything has to be about them.

one of the umps was Australian I believe?
very good he was too! (edit Marais Erasmus was excellent. I must apologise here for thinking he was Australia.)
 
Last edited:

Gb160

Well done boys. Good process
Jun 20, 2012
23,646
93,315
oh well!
Merve Hughes was in the crowd they will have settle for that?
Surprised that berk earlier didn't include that in his list of Aussie honours...he included swimming, might as well put boomeranging world champions in as well.
 
Last edited:

Arnoldtoo

The thinking ape's ape
May 18, 2006
35,338
54,974
One for the nostalgists like me. He (Randall) was some fielder and as fast as a whippet. They nicknamed him arkle after the racehorse

I used to like Randall.

It was a shame when he got injured going for a quick single and they shot him.
 

Ionman34

SC Supporter
Jun 1, 2011
7,182
16,793
At all? Not even a bit?

haha, that's ridiculous

But yeah, replaying the super over until a winner is found would probably be a decent shout
Pedantic alert.

Yes it was incorrect to have the at all in there, but I'd have thought you'd appreciate what I meant from the rest of the post...

*sigh*
 

Archibald&Crooks

Aegina Expat
Admin
Feb 1, 2005
55,533
204,721
Pedantic alert.

Yes it was incorrect to have the at all in there, but I'd have thought you'd appreciate what I meant from the rest of the post...

*sigh*
Well obviously I didn't. I took what you wrote at face value, I don't sit there figuring out and extracting hidden nuance, it either slaps me in the face or it doesn't :D

*really long sigh which rivals money supermaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhket* :woot:
 

Buggsy61

Washed Up Member
Aug 31, 2012
5,551
8,921
I used to like Randall.

It was a shame when he got injured going for a quick single and they shot him.
Never quite got into the top tier as a batsman (i.e test average of 40+), but had a great record against Australia, including that memorable 174 at the centenary test when he took Dennis Lillee apart. One of my favourite players when I was a kid. Sure I saw something that he was still playing at club level until quite recently.
 
Last edited:

fatpiranha

dismember
Jun 9, 2003
8,337
21,678
A Tale of Two Dereks.

When I was a kid I loved watching Derek Randall. He had an impish enthusiasm that brought to mind a mongrel puppy I once owned. He could do no wrong in my eyes. However his musical selection for Desert Island discs demonstrates spectacularly awful taste :sick:. I suspect if we had ever met we would not have got along :(.

His antithesis was Derek Pringle. He came along a bit later but seemed to epitomise mediocrity and beige-tinged despair in all aspects of the game. Couldn't bat, couldn't bowl, couldn't field. So warped was my opinion of him that even if he scored runs or took wickets it would depress me as it would merely prolong the likelihood of future selection :banghead:.

I later discovered, to my chagrin, that off the pitch Derek Pringle is a really cool, likable guy and I now feel quite guilty for the undeserved opprobrium I used to heap upon him :sorry:.
 
Top