CWC Final - Black Caps v England
-
@MN5 I think you are confusing Hadlee the test cricketer with the ODI one.
Paddles consistency made him a little predictable. His figures are great but he bowled in an era when 220 was a great score and the opposition were prepared to just see him off.
I would have Bond ahead of him if I was picking an all time ODI side. Hadlee would be a good first change option to keep it tight in the middle overs.
I would say Kane was already a greater ODI player for NZ and probably Roscoe too.
-
@MN5 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Bovidae said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@MN5 Refer back to the 2016 T20 WC tournament in India. Santner and Sodhi were very good in Indian conditions. Santner took 4/11 vs India off his 4 overs and Sodhi 3/18.
pffft that's like saying someone had a good Sevens tourny so let's get them in the ABs !
But seriously, that's a brilliant effort from them both.
Joe Rokocoko 2002...
-
@SynicBast said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@booboo said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Regarding the overthrow thing. I reckon it's more like a bad LBW decision.
Nah, LBW is left up to interpretation - the law regarding overthrows wasn't even applied correctly - it's more like when a catch was not given because the umpires were looking for short runs by the batsmen.
Yeah given the factors at play with an LBW decision - height, outside the line, swing of the ball, etc - as we know they are variable.
There is really only one question with this, did they cross?
I was devastated that morning for the loss and seeing the disappointment of the players, but by Monday night I felt pretty proud as a Kiwi and for what we had been part of and the win against India and the drawn final loss to England.
-
@dogmeat said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@MN5 I think you are confusing Hadlee the test cricketer with the ODI one.
Paddles consistency made him a little predictable. His figures are great but he bowled in an era when 220 was a great score and the opposition were prepared to just see him off.
I would have Bond ahead of him if I was picking an all time ODI side. Hadlee would be a good first change option to keep it tight in the middle overs.
I would say Kane was already a greater ODI player for NZ and probably Roscoe too.
I hear some of this and it’s tough to compare eras but his stats don’t lie. As you say the game was very different in those days and economy rates for one were a lot lower.
Of course Rossco and KW have it over Paddles in terms of longevity but Paddles can’t help that!
-
@dogmeat said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Catogrande I agree about the dynamics but the caveat to that is there were only two balls remaining and Stokes would have been off strike. At that late stage of the game it was hugely influential whereas if it had been 10 overs earlier it would have been an interesting pub quiz what happened next but no more.
I'm not bitter - I am hugely disappointed for the team who I think were the better side on the day. I think the arbitrary nature of the boundary countback is ridiculous but that given England reamed us in pool play and finished above us it's hard to argue they are undeserving. Personally I'd have had another Super Over, but even that is a less than satisfactory way to win/lose
3 from 2 with your best batsman facing and he didn't deliver the win or 4 from 2 with a tailender yet to face a ball on strike. Now he could have scrambled a single and Stokes would have then had to go for the boundary - so yes it could have been different but imagine if they had applied the law correctly and Boult had yorked Rashid and Wood.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@SynicBast said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@booboo said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Regarding the overthrow thing. I reckon it's more like a bad LBW decision.
Nah, LBW is left up to interpretation - the law regarding overthrows wasn't even applied correctly - it's more like when a catch was not given because the umpires were looking for short runs by the batsmen.
Yeah given the factors at play with an LBW decision - height, outside the line, swing of the ball, etc - as we know they are variable.
There is really only one question with this, did they cross?
I was devastated that morning for the loss and seeing the disappointment of the players, but by Monday night I felt pretty proud as a Kiwi and for what we had been part of and the win against India and the drawn final loss to England.
Even with ball tracking an LBW decision (and a close one especially) is as much an art as a science. An umpire getting an LBW decision wrong is equivalent to a batsman getting done by a peach.
The boundary call on the other hand is a batsman leaving a straight one and getting bowled. It's a basic error and one that a batsman should feel terrible about.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
There is really only one question with this, did they cross?
No they didn't at the time of the throw (apparently it is clear from video). The wording of the law isn't exactly obvious though:
"together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act."
So the throw seems obvious enough - the time that the ball leaves Guppy's hand (so one run + the 4) but what is the "act"? When it comes off Stoke's bat? Are they talking about someone kicking the ball, rather than throwing?
-
@MN5 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Sneakdefreak said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@SynicBast said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@akan004 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Catogrande said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@No-Quarter said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Catogrande said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Frank said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Can we talk about rugby please?
Not just yet.
Cheating pommy bastard, you're banned from commenting on cricket for at least 6 months.
Fair enough, that will still leave me three and a half years of gloating before we inevitably get dumped out in the first round next time.
Who would want to gloat after a result like that? I certainly wouldn't had NZ been awarded the Cup.
I'd actually feel slightly sick about the result if we'd been the ones awarded the Cup. Thankfully there are some good memories I cxan bask in - like knocking out India in the SF - that is something i will saviour for fucking years
We all know Kane would have declared the match a tie and share the spoils with the English team because he's apparently the reincarnation of Mother Theresa in cricket pads.
This is the kind of wank shit fluffybunny post I'd expect from @NTA
Get off this site you troublemaker.
Go @Sneakdefreak ! Don't listen to this ranga Scots fuck - he was backing Stokes all the way.
Tho yes I think it was a definite possibility that Kane would have built a cross out of bats and stumps and mounted out on a hill above The Basin for his future ascension 😉
-
-
@NTA said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@MN5 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Sneakdefreak said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@SynicBast said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@akan004 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Catogrande said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@No-Quarter said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Catogrande said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Frank said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Can we talk about rugby please?
Not just yet.
Cheating pommy bastard, you're banned from commenting on cricket for at least 6 months.
Fair enough, that will still leave me three and a half years of gloating before we inevitably get dumped out in the first round next time.
Who would want to gloat after a result like that? I certainly wouldn't had NZ been awarded the Cup.
I'd actually feel slightly sick about the result if we'd been the ones awarded the Cup. Thankfully there are some good memories I cxan bask in - like knocking out India in the SF - that is something i will saviour for fucking years
We all know Kane would have declared the match a tie and share the spoils with the English team because he's apparently the reincarnation of Mother Theresa in cricket pads.
This is the kind of wank shit fluffybunny post I'd expect from @NTA
Get off this site you troublemaker.
Go @Sneakdefreak ! Don't listen to this ranga Scots fuck - he was backing Stokes all the way.
Tho yes I think it was a definite possibility that Kane would have built a cross out of bats and stumps and mounted out on a hill above The Basin for his future ascension 😉
A bloke born in Christchurch triggers my Wellington ness. The fact he chooses to play for England triggers my Scottish ness.
His complexion is the only good thing about him.
-
@Snowy said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@ACT-Crusader said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
There is really only one question with this, did they cross?
No they didn't at the time of the throw (apparently it is clear from video). The wording of the law isn't exactly obvious though:
"together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act."
So the throw seems obvious enough - the time that the ball leaves Guppy's hand (so one run + the 4) but what is the "act"? When it comes off Stoke's bat? Are they talking about someone kicking the ball, rather than throwing?
The previous clause makes that clear though, because it's 'willful act of the fielder'. I think that's designed to cover situations where fielders do something dodgy to manipulate strike.
I remember about 10 years ago India were trying to win a test on the last day vs South Africa but Amla was looking untouchable and had scored a triple ton. They were 9 down and he was doing a great job of shepherding the number 11, so Sehwag (I think) tried to be a bit cunning and 'accidentally' kicked a ball over the boundary (to keep Amla on strike at the end of the over). Except the umpires didn't buy it and so it was a 'willful act' and so given as four overthrows instead of a straight boundary.
-
Just adding to my last post, the relevant rule in full:
If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be any runs for penalties awarded to either side, and the allowance for the boundary, and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act
-
In regard to the five runs rather than six - everyone who was watching had the opportunity to be a national hero by observing what had happened and quickly texting Ian Smith to roll down the stairs and onto the field to require the umpires to apply Law 16.9.2 If, at this call of Time, the overs have been completed and no Playing time remains, or if the side batting last has completed its innings, the umpires shall immediately inform both captains of the necessary corrections to the scores and to the result.
In fact, unless someone can provide video evidence of the requirements of 16.10 being completed - perhaps we can still do it!
16.10 16.10 Result not to be changed
Once the umpires have agreed with the scorers the correctness of the scores at the conclusion of the match – see Laws 2.15 (Correctness of scores) and 3.2 (Correctness of scores) – the result cannot thereafter be changed.
-
@SynicBast said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Missing a kickable penalty is on the players - correct application of the laws is the responsibility and raison d'être of umpires and unlike an lbw, there is no interpretation or umpires judgement - it was a black/white application. all three umpires got the relevant law completely wrong despite having the timeand opportunity to get it right - Stokes should have been off strike....
On that subject, Ashley Giles is showing his ignorance.
@Catogrande You do realise that England has used up all of their luck before the Ashes.
-
@Bovidae said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@SynicBast said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Missing a kickable penalty is on the players - correct application of the laws is the responsibility and raison d'être of umpires and unlike an lbw, there is no interpretation or umpires judgement - it was a black/white application. all three umpires got the relevant law completely wrong despite having the timeand opportunity to get it right - Stokes should have been off strike....
On that subject, Ashley Giles is showing his ignorance.
@Catogrande You do realise that England has used up all of their luck before the Ashes.
They've used up all their luck for the whole year at least!
-
-
@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
The problem with the overthrows is I have never seen it ruled that way. I don't see why they would suddenly say it was only five runs because it is a final.
It's easy to focus on that one thing, but in truth so many things didn't go our way. It simply wasn't our day despite creating more than enough chances to win. Guppy burning the review on a dead cert plumb LBW, Rosco getting a poor decision, Roy getting a favourable decision, the overthrows, Boult not quite being able to stay in the field for his catch, that's 5 clear cut examples of not coming out on the right side of defining moments in the game.
It was however a cruel and bizarre way to contribute to us not winning the cup -
@canefan Fate was against us, plain and simple. Boult actually bowled almost the perfect last over apart from one half volley which was an attempted yorker gone wrong and was dispatched for six. Unfortunately that was the third ball of the over and gave England a chance at reaching the target, every other ball were yorkers or close to yorkers. Had that bad ball been later in the over, we win, simple as that as the freakish overthrow would not have happened and the equation would have been impossible at that point.
-
@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
The problem with the overthrows is I have never seen it ruled that way. I don't see why they would suddenly say it was only five runs because it is a final.
But why would the umpires consult each other if they had thought it was a straightforward six runs?
