[Cricket] Cricket World Cup Final: ENGLAND v New Zealand *** Official Match Thread ***

[colinz]

As much as I think the umpiring in this competition was diabolical you already called your review, as we did when Roy was given out v the convicts, don't blame us for that.

Where have I blamed the POMs for that. It was not out, the review decision process wasn't set up so you can blame a poor umpiring decision on an unfortunate player, who earlier in the game incorrectly called for a review.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Where have I blamed the POMs for that. It was not out, the review decision process wasn't set up so you can blame a poor umpiring decision on an unfortunate player, who earlier in the game incorrectly called for a review.

Sounds like Roy v the convicts. Swings and roundabouts, as I already said.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

And if you think you only lost because Roy wasn't given out, I'm sorry my friend but England isn't all about one player. He went for 17, cheaply, if he had made 150, fair enough. Just accept it. I think you'll find most decent minded Kiwi's have. Anyway up in 5 hours, don't chew that bitterness for to long.

 

[colinz]

And if you think you only lost because Roy wasn't given out, I'm sorry my friend but England isn't all about one player. He went for 17, cheaply, if he had made 150, fair enough. Just accept it. I think you'll find most decent minded Kiwi's have. Anyway up in 5 hours, don't chew that bitterness for to long.

That's 17 runs subtracted from a tie.
Plus I haven't said that England are a one man team, I think Bairstow & Stokes (an ex Kiwi) are their best players. The Roy decision wasn't the only unlucky decision that went against the Kiwis.
As Williamson said the rules need to be looked at. At the very least another super over. And maybe the most number of boundaries should be replaced by the most number of scoring shots. That may have even suited England given that they gave away 30 extras.

 

[LlcoolJ]

That's 17 runs subtracted from a tie.
Plus I haven't said that England are a one man team, I think Bairstow & Stokes (an ex Kiwi) are their best players. The Roy decision wasn't the only unlucky decision that went against the Kiwis.
As Williamson said the rules need to be looked at. At the very least another super over. And maybe the most number of boundaries should be replaced by the most number of scoring shots. That may have even suited England given that they gave away 30 extras.

Bloody hell mate. It's possibly the greatest cricket match of all time. Both teams played by the same rules.

Your players accepted that it was a fair game and we could all see that whoever lost, it wouldn't be fair. Just down to tiny margins of luck and skill.

So England got that for once, and held their nerve at the death.

Can we not just say "WOW!".

 

[colinz]

Bloody hell mate. It's possibly the greatest cricket match of all time. Both teams played by the same rules.

Your players accepted that it was a fair game and we could all see that whoever lost, it wouldn't be fair. Just down to tiny margins of luck and skill.

So England got that for once, and held their nerve at the death.

Can we not just say "WOW!".

 

[OzMike]

Just got up at 10am here, match went on till 2.45am.
Crazy game and never really thought we would get it to be honest, especially when the runs required far exceeded the balls left.
The pitch must have been a tough one as no one seemed to get to grips with it, made it look like they were not trying.
I know we won by the ‘rules’, but can’t help feeling that the Kiwis were mugged.
The way they accepted it was noble and my respect for them has greatly increased, really hope they get the next one, decent team full of professionals.

 

[Triggaaar]

You're counting Trent's catch tight on the boundary rope as a fielding mistake? That's a perfectionist speaking, right there! He didn't really get any time to offload the ball.

I'm not having a go at him for making a howler, I'm just saying it doesn't really feel like bad luck (in the way that the extra runs for Stoke did). It was a mistake (although quite understandable). Had he realised he was that close, he'd have offloaded it after the catch for an easy wicket. We've seen incredible catches like that where the fielder is over the ropes and in the air, catches the ball and offloads it before landing, for his teammate in the boundary to take the catch. This wasn't so extreme, he just lost his bearings.

 

[LlcoolJ]

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

 

[LlcoolJ]

[emoji38] I'm not having a go at him for making a howler, I'm just saying it doesn't really feel like bad luck (in the way that the extra runs for Stoke did). It was a mistake (although quite understandable). Had he realised he was that close, he'd have offloaded it after the catch for an easy wicket. We've seen incredible catches like that where the fielder is over the ropes and in the air, catches the ball and offloads it before landing, for his teammate in the boundary to take the catch. This wasn't so extreme, he just lost his bearings.

And what an amazing moment that was. EVERYONE went "Yeah!!!!, No!!!!!!, Oh............YEAHHHH!".

 

[dazzer6666]

And what an amazing moment that was. EVERYONE went "Yeah!!!!, No!!!!!!, Oh............YEAHHHH!".

The middle-aged bloke screaming ‘six’ is hilarious......

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

That's 17 runs subtracted from a tie.
Plus I haven't said that England are a one man team, I think Bairstow & Stokes (an ex Kiwi) are their best players. The Roy decision wasn't the only unlucky decision that went against the Kiwis.
As Williamson said the rules need to be looked at. At the very least another super over. And maybe the most number of boundaries should be replaced by the most number of scoring shots. That may have even suited England given that they gave away 30 extras.

Swings and roundabouts some of the wides given against Archer were questionable and did not appear to be applied to the same level at NZ bowlers.

I think 3 super overs should be the starting point, but they as we stand they aren’t.

Just an amazing game....

I feel dreadfully sorry for NZ, a great sporting team...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[knocky1]

Ridiculous rule, should have just played another Super Over. In the history of sport never has & will a team ever lose by a closer margin, and be as undeserving to miss out.

The Queen has started an online petition on her Facebook page to award the Game to NZ for losing less wickets rather than team with most boundaries.

You could sign that. It’s no less an injustice than when the great Englishman Edmund Hillary said he was first man on the top of Everest when it was actually Sherpa Tenzing.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

I'm not having a go at him for making a howler, I'm just saying it doesn't really feel like bad luck (in the way that the extra runs for Stoke did). It was a mistake (although quite understandable). Had he realised he was that close, he'd have offloaded it after the catch for an easy wicket. We've seen incredible catches like that where the fielder is over the ropes and in the air, catches the ball and offloads it before landing, for his teammate in the boundary to take the catch. This wasn't so extreme, he just lost his bearings.

He actually got a bit of stick on the radio as they felt he was a little nonchalant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

On the huge disappointment for the NZ side and the tremendous way they competed, I understand that the All Blacks have a 'no dickheads' rule with respect to selection. I suppose our version of this was applied to Alex Hales, who will live to his dying day to regret that he could have been part of that but for the more transitory highs afforded to him through other means...……………(While another former candidate for this category, Ben Stokes, showed very non-dickhead characteristic by his immediate signalling of wanting to reverse those 4 extra runs that were deflected off his bat.)

 

[fleet]

[MENTION=659]fleet[/MENTION], when you get home, memorable day?

Unforgettable - that sort of thing doesn’t happen. And for England to win and not be the brave runners up, just wonderful.

 

[mikeyjh]

Ridiculous rule, should have just played another Super Over. In the history of sport never has & will a team ever lose by a closer margin, and be as undeserving to miss out.

In terms of the Super Over, justice to NZ because of the decisions that went against them during the regular game.

"The rules need to be looked at" (Kane Williamson)

I don't know. But probably not because NZ were the deserving winners after the 50 over game. Given the decisions that went against them.

See my edited post. Plus the Australia game wasn't exactly close otherwise some POMs may have whinged about the decision.

Where have I blamed the POMs for that. It was not out, the review decision process wasn't set up so you can blame a poor umpiring decision on an unfortunate player, who earlier in the game incorrectly called for a review.

That's 17 runs subtracted from a tie.
Plus I haven't said that England are a one man team, I think Bairstow & Stokes (an ex Kiwi) are their best players. The Roy decision wasn't the only unlucky decision that went against the Kiwis.
As Williamson said the rules need to be looked at. At the very least another super over. And maybe the most number of boundaries should be replaced by the most number of scoring shots. That may have even suited England given that they gave away 30 extras.

It's not so much as bitterness as some rules are just not right.

Ok mate

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

I can see why you feel hard done by, but I'd be thinking about the ridiculous decision to review the first wicket that threw away your opportunity to challenge the Taylor decision. A game so close that it went past the back up process for deciding the winner into the back up for the back up is as close as it can be, but you weren't cheated and the rules were very clear from the start,

 

[colinz]

The Queen has started an online petition on her Facebook page to award the Game to NZ for losing less wickets rather than team with most boundaries.

You could sign that. It’s no less an injustice than when the great Englishman Edmund Hillary said he was first man on the top of Everest when it was actually Sherpa Tenzing.

New Zealand actually won the game by one run. Because 5 runs should have been awarded and not 6 when Gupi's throw hit Stokes's bat, because the 4 is awarded to what ever is scored at the time of the ball hitting the bat, Stokes at the time hadn't crossed the crease.
There has often been instances where a team's overall score has been changed, after their innings, because a 4 or 6 has been incorrectly called.

Of course it makes sense to award the game to the side that had lost the least wickets, this is even factored into Duckworth Lewis rules.
I've seen past one day tournaments where on a tie the game is awarded to the team losing the least wickets.

If this was the case it would be more in keeping with the spirit of the game. Stokes would think twice about running a suicidal second run to sacrifice the other batsman just to stay on strike and at the same time accumulate another run.

If it was Australia or India they would be demanding a replay. Where as England would probably comfortably beat NZ in a replay.

BTW Hilary was a Bee Keeper from Tuakau, you couldn't meet a more modest man he was always trying to give credit to Sherpa Tenzing.
.

 

[colinz]

(While another former candidate for this category, Ben Stokes, showed very non-dickhead characteristic by his immediate signalling of wanting to reverse those 4 extra runs that were deflected off his bat.)

Maybe that was simply him expressing his Kiwi sense of fair play. People who like to play by the rules are not neccasarily Dick Heads.

Edit: misread post, Ben Stokes not a Dick Head for respecting the rules..