CWC Final - Black Caps v England
-
@dogmeat Abdul Aziz will win NZer of the Year. Throwing an eftpos machine at a terrorist is far more impressive than deflecting a ball with your cricket bat. Actually throwing an eftpos machine at anything is more impressive full stop.
-
@dogmeat said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Mokey a quick google (again didn't even read the links) suggests that his wife has contracted cancer and he quit his job to be her caregiver.
Now while this is laudable and the situation must be tragic for those directly concerned, I don't think it is NZer of the year worthy any more than a nifty paso doble is.
Yeah I'm sure there could well be hundreds of people in NZ doing the same as Barnett, just not broadcasting it to the country.
-
@Sneakdefreak said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@dogmeat Abdul Aziz will win NZer of the Year. Throwing an eftpos machine at a terrorist is far more impressive than deflecting a ball with your cricket bat. Actually throwing an eftpos machine at anything is more impressive full stop.
Heard a great suggestion recently.
If the “crusaders” name is too offensive, let’s rename the team the “Canterbury eftpos machine hurlers”
-
@Bones said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@dogmeat said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Mokey a quick google (again didn't even read the links) suggests that his wife has contracted cancer and he quit his job to be her caregiver.
Now while this is laudable and the situation must be tragic for those directly concerned, I don't think it is NZer of the year worthy any more than a nifty paso doble is.
Yeah I'm sure there could well be hundreds of people in NZ doing the same as Barnett, just not broadcasting it to the country.
Him and Phil Gifford are actually good value on Newstalk ZB on long car rides I have to say. The latter is amazingly good if you disassociate him from the bloke who writes all that Crusader wank.
But no, Simon Barnett doesn’t deserve to be NZer of the year.
Give it to KW. The rest are joke nominations compared to him.
-
When the captain of the winning side doesn't feel good about how the game was decided then I think that's a pretty clear indication that the ICC fucked up badly.
Surely the most obvious solution is to keep playing super overs until a winner is found. At least that way the game is decided by the players in the moment rather than some arbitrary calculation.
If TV stations don't want billions of people around the world staying tuned in for an extra 10 or 20 minutes then they've got rocks in their head.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12251249
-
@No-Quarter it's not fair for either team to finish like that. Morgan and his team don't deserve to feel that way in what should be the greatest moment of their sporting lives. But part of them will feel a little guilty for the rest of their lives, or until they win another one in a less controversial way. And of course it's not fair on the runners up either
-
@SynicBast said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Still not over it.
Yep, this one is going to gnaw away until such time as if/when we actually win the thing.
-
I strongly favour settling the whole thing within the 50 overs. A super over after a month of cricket, a super over ain't far removed from a coin toss.
Have contingencies for a tie.
Cricket is half batting and half bowling and fielding. You gotta do both to win a game. Top of the hierarchy is runs, so in the event of a tie, simply turn to the other half of cricket and it's about wickets lost. For sure I have to wear this if 8 and all out was reversed. Actually I thought it was wickets. Wickets is best because everyone knows them in real time.
If wickets and runs tied, then find something else in that particular game, could be boundaries, anything that reflects that day's performances.
A shared title isn't the end of the world either, or better yet another game tomorrow. See how our sporting principles get walked over due to tv schedules and marketing?
Nothing wrong with the notion of 2 combatants ferociously going toe to toe, can't be separated, so shake hands and go home friends and champs. Not the worst message to send to an increasingly selfish society
No, I'm not over it yet either...
-
@Siam I agree that wickets is by far the best, and probably only other way of separating the sides.
I don't mind the super over though, it's pretty exciting. Only change I'd make is keep who bats first and second the same, otherwise it's tired bowlers vs set batsmen as we saw in the final.
-
How about wickets lost in the deciding Super Over?
Ok, OK I'll get my coat.
-
@No-Quarter said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Siam I agree that wickets is by far the best, and probably only other way of separating the sides.
I don't mind the super over though, it's pretty exciting. Only change I'd make is keep who bats first and second the same, otherwise it's tired bowlers vs set batsmen as we saw in the final.
@No-Quarter said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Siam I agree that wickets is by far the best, and probably only other way of separating the sides.
I don't mind the super over though, it's pretty exciting. Only change I'd make is keep who bats first and second the same, otherwise it's tired bowlers vs set batsmen as we saw in the final.
Like football you should only be allowed to select each player once. So the more overs you have the deeper into your team you have to go
-
@Catogrande said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
How about wickets lost in the deciding Super Over?
Ok, OK I'll get my coat.
We wouldn't have run that $%^&ing second run then
-
@Donsteppa said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Catogrande said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
How about wickets lost in the deciding Super Over?
Ok, OK I'll get my coat.
We wouldn't have run that $%^&ing second run then
Well, technically, you didn’t...
-
@No-Quarter said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
I don't mind the super over though, it's pretty exciting. Only change I'd make is keep who bats first and second the same, otherwise it's tired bowlers vs set batsmen as we saw in the final.
I think in a vaccum the super over is great, and if a tied super over was followed by another up to a maximum of say three (?) before going to a tie breaker that would be ideal.
The issue for me was that one side got to start play a run up and in a contest which is going to be decided with scores <36 runs that makes a big difference. Imagine a golf major being decided on a three hole playoff where if it ended tied the golfer with the most birdies wins? Major advantage - but you still have to do the business.
-
@Catogrande said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Donsteppa said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Catogrande said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
How about wickets lost in the deciding Super Over?
Ok, OK I'll get my coat.
We wouldn't have run that $%^&ing second run then
Well, technically, you didn’t...
[Pedant mode for Poms] wouldn't have attempted that $%^&ing second run, then countback on wickets from the main game, beating the team who were all out...
Bugger...
-
@Catogrande said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Donsteppa said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Catogrande said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
How about wickets lost in the deciding Super Over?
Ok, OK I'll get my coat.
We wouldn't have run that $%^&ing second run then
Well, technically, you didn’t...
Oy, you! Sling yer ‘ook. We don’t stand for that kind of thing in here. Oh, and you’re barred.
-
www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12251485
This is not helpful and won't change a thing
-
@canefan The fluffybunny admitted that he had "guessed" that the batsmen had crossed, and made a mistake, but doesn't feel bad about it. Even had the nerve to say that the ICC praised him for it. How can anyone not feel bad about potentially costing a team a wc? All the piston wristed gibbon had to do was to refer it upstairs. Incompetent prick.
