CWC Final - Black Caps v England
-
@canefan said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Snowy said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@pakman Yeah. If he had realised where he was and just flung it back in the field of play...
Chances are Guppy would have been able to catch it too.The worst luck, and possibly incorrect ruling by umpires, was the deflection off Stokes bat for a boundary.
Just a shit night, luck wise, for us for the second time against the home team.
He did through it back into the field of play. He just ran out of space
Yes he did throw it back he just didn't realise that he was that close as I said.
-
@Bones said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Snowy said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@akan004 Yeah better shot would have helped - speed between the wickets on that one, very unlikely.
So if he'd hit it better, but been slower, speed wouldn't have helped?
With that shot I doubt that anyone would have made it. Hitting it better would have meant less time. Speed between the wickets wasn't the issue.
-
@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
England probably should have taken the game away from us. It is ironic that they won because of more boundaries scored. It was relying on boundaries which was their problem. Stokes showed limitations as a batsman in that he couldn't rotate the strike. Root also got out because he just couldn't get enough singles and got frustrated. Credit to all our bowlers but especially Neesham and CDG.
I don't have a huge problem with how the game ended. If it is tied on the day, you should go back to who did better throughout the tournament. That is England. So the right winner in the end.
Luck did seem to go against us. Then again both Ferguson and Southee only just made catches. In some ways they were lucky to take those. So it depends how you look at it. Overall, we were fortunate to be in the semis.
it's not lucky to take fine catches, it's skilful. it is unlucky to get a ridiculous deflection for 5 that gets given 6, or for taylor to get wrongly given out.
-
Possibly a more informed opinion, Hesson:
"To then just copy and paste the playing conditions from Twenty20 and use the highest number of boundaries to determine who wins in the event of a tied Super Over is not at all necessary."
-
they shoulda had a penalty shootout instead, England suck at those!!
Sucks to go out like that, but the cricket gods were smiling on England and the luck fell thier way.
That Stokes incident, as Forrest Gump famously coined...It happens
-
Felt that Boult could have bowled a few more slower balls and cutters in his last spell during the 50 overs. Good on him for trying yorkers but most of his deliveries were the same pace and became predictable. The English bowlers and Furgerson at times showed how difficult the slower ball was to hit as the ball became older.
-
@Bones said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@pakman said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
IMG_2514.jpeg
Agree wholeheartedly.
I was just thinking the same thing. It summed up my feelings exactly.
-
@Bones said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@pakman said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
IMG_2514.jpeg
Agree wholeheartedly.
Trying to paste Wiki page!
-
-
Some smartrse in IT changed my work PC screensaver to the picture of Morgan hoisting the cup.
And a pommie colleague claims we deserved to lose, as batting second in a super over is such an advantage that a tie should go to the side setting the target.
Today is going to be a long day..
-
@barbarian said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Random thought - I'm pretty sure that there is no law in cricket that mandates the use of pads. Couldn't Guptill take off his pads for the final delivery, with the view that if it hits him on the legs he's fucked regardless, but if he makes contact he would be faster through the wickets?
It's a largely pointless hypothetical, but these boards are built on this sort of shit I suppose.
This is interesting. Both could've ditched their pads for the last ball. Also might be harder psychologically to bowl at a padless guy knowing that you could break his leg, even though it's his "fault".
-
@TeWaio said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@barbarian said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Random thought - I'm pretty sure that there is no law in cricket that mandates the use of pads. Couldn't Guptill take off his pads for the final delivery, with the view that if it hits him on the legs he's fucked regardless, but if he makes contact he would be faster through the wickets?
It's a largely pointless hypothetical, but these boards are built on this sort of shit I suppose.
This is interesting. Both could've ditched their pads for the last ball. Also might be harder psychologically to bowl at a padless guy knowing that you could break his leg, even though it's his "fault".
Methinks you're probably not as confident taking a slog at a low full toss without pads...
-
-
@TeWaio said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Some smartrse in IT changed my work PC screensaver to the picture of Morgan hoisting the cup.
And a pommie colleague claims we deserved to lose, as batting second in a super over is such an advantage that a tie should go to the side setting the target.
Today is going to be a long day..
I have decided I shall never recognise England as winners of the 2019 Cricket World Cup.
I'm sure they're devastated.
-
@TeWaio said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Some smartrse in IT changed my work PC screensaver to the picture of Morgan hoisting the cup.
Was it eve the same person that hooked you up with tickets?
-
@Donsteppa said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Am thinking something like "tied final, England win the trophy" might be a fair summary.
Which is reflected in some corners of the web, not others so far...!
I keep hoping that the ICC discover a Belarusian shot putter in the England XI and we’ll be awarded the world cup retrospectively
-
@canefan said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12249789
Law is clear -- second run only counts if they've crossed. Had they?
