- Apr 5, 2014
- 25,887
Taufel is correct. It is something I looked at and they have called it wrong. He's right to point it out. Pretty sure we would have raised it on the other foot.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Cricket] Cricket World Cup Final: ENGLAND v New Zealand *** Official Match Thread ***
- Thread starter Sussex Nomad
- Start date
Taufel is correct. It is something I looked at and they have called it wrong. He's right to point it out. Pretty sure we would have raised it on the other foot.
It's all more ifs and buts anyway. If we needed four from the last two balls and if we'd had Rashid on strike he might just have been tempted in to a huge mow that could have gone anywhere, including an edged four that would have handed us victory without the need for the super over. We played the last two balls exactly as the match conditions - including the "error" - dictated
Nitram
Well-known member
- Jul 16, 2013
- 2,265
Great advert for the game, I watched all day with an increasing sense of foreboding, the way the game went in the latter stages was gut wrenching, sustained highs and lows of emotion I cannot remember watching from any other event.
Absolutely brilliant entertainment that will never be repeated. The way Williamson and the Kiwis spoke in ‘defeat’ was commendable and a great credit to them and their nation.
A game played hard and to every possible limit but with grace and respect. A lot to learn from this.
Absolutely brilliant entertainment that will never be repeated. The way Williamson and the Kiwis spoke in ‘defeat’ was commendable and a great credit to them and their nation.
A game played hard and to every possible limit but with grace and respect. A lot to learn from this.
As per my post below yours, though he's technically correct. no one knows what would have then transpired. Could have got a streaky four, could have tapped a single for Stokes to slog the last ball, could have got out, could have bowled a dot
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Would be great to hear from someone else properly looking at it. The part I don't understand is the 'act'. The overthrow itself didn't happen until the act of the ball hitting the bat, therefore is the point at which the batsmen cross taken from the throw, or from the act of hitting Stokes bat which caused the throw to become an overthrow? I don't think it's as clear as Taufel is saying. Had it not hit the bat and gone for 4 direct from the throw I might agree.
- Apr 5, 2014
- 25,887
As per my post below yours, though he's technically correct. no one knows what would have then transpired. Could have got a streaky four, could have tapped a single for Stokes to slog the last ball, could have got out, could have bowled a dot
Butterflies and wings, yes. I'd still be a pissed off Kiwi though. I feel for them.
Wouldn't give a shit if it was Australia.
It's all more ifs and buts anyway. If we needed four from the last two balls and if we'd had Rashid on strike he might just have been tempted in to a huge mow that could have gone anywhere, including an edged four that would have handed us victory without the need for the super over. We played the last two balls exactly as the match conditions - including the "error" - dictated
You shrug like it's no big deal
I find it incredible nobody can be sure exactly what the ruling should have been, umpires included.
pasty
A different kind of pasty
Think it is time to move on.
Yes, the award of 6 runs when Stokes diverted the ball should have only been 5, but it wasn't. Nothing anyone can do about it now. England won the World Cup.
The only thing that could possibly have made yesterday any better, was if it had been against the Aussies.
Yes, the award of 6 runs when Stokes diverted the ball should have only been 5, but it wasn't. Nothing anyone can do about it now. England won the World Cup.
The only thing that could possibly have made yesterday any better, was if it had been against the Aussies.
I'm genuinely gutted it was against NZ. Tremendous sports and competitors throughout the tournament. If that had been the Aussies I'd probably still be out celebrating now, while if it had been India I'd be laughing my socks off till Kingdom Come (though I'd be quite unpopular in my office).
You shrug like it's no big deal
I find it incredible nobody can be sure exactly what the ruling should have been, umpires included.
I think an error was made in the heat of the moment but no one thought to check if they'd crossed.
pasty
A different kind of pasty
It's all more ifs and buts anyway. If we needed four from the last two balls and if we'd had Rashid on strike he might just have been tempted in to a huge mow that could have gone anywhere, including an edged four that would have handed us victory without the need for the super over. We played the last two balls exactly as the match conditions - including the "error" - dictated
He was never going to get a 2 off the last ball. Yet I don't think he would play for the tie either, he looked knackered.
I had the remote controls in my hand as I was ready to storm off (I've had my fill of England losing in tournaments). When he was caught, I hit the power button and the TV went off. Then just before I switched off the sound I heard Ian shouting 6. What? TV back on. **** me, he stepped on the rope. We just went from needing 22 off 8 with Stokes out, to needing 16 off 8 Stokes back in and on strike.
Last edited:
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Leg side full toss, had he needed a six, reckon he'd had dispatched it into the Mound Stand as he had the delivery a few balls before, probably the worse ball of Boult's match. Only reason I think he played it as he did has he premeditated getting the single at least.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned at all (sorry if it makes colinz even MORE pissed off) is that the very last ball of the super-over, with two needed to win, would have been called a wide, had Guptil just stood still and left it.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
To be fair, as mentioned above, Stokes could have left Boult's last ball and it would have been a wide, would have missed an additional leg stump that one.
Yes, but England WON.
Maybe, maybe (although a bit early in his career I'd say) an England legend, but absolutely not a Sussex legend. To be a Sussex legend surely he'd have had to done some amazing stuff for the county?
Poor Gupi he must be feeling like shit.
England did win, but I think it also fair to say New Zealand did not lose. Both teams were all square after 51 overs. Quite simply the most incredible cricket match in history, and in a final to boot. We'll be picking the bones from this one for a while yet.
Last edited: