|
|
Post by South Wirral Blue on Jul 11, 2019 10:25:33 GMT
Anybody been following this year's tournament?
I've seen most of England's matches and a few of the others. The fact it's all on Sky Sports makes it harder to follow for me.
Anyway, Australia are currently 28 for 3 off 11 in the second semi-final against England.
Winners play New Zealand after their upset against India yesterday.
|
|
|
|
Post by South Wirral Blue on Jul 11, 2019 13:14:01 GMT
Aus 223 all out
|
|
|
|
Post by Hannibal on Jul 11, 2019 17:47:31 GMT
Sunday's final between England and New Zealand will be shown on Channel 4. That's my Sunday sorted.
|
|
|
|
Post by South Wirral Blue on Jul 11, 2019 18:06:44 GMT
Me too mate, quite right too that it's on free to air TV.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hannibal on Jul 12, 2019 8:12:17 GMT
I watched the highlights on Channel 4 last night and it was absolutely marvellous. They need to sort out this referral business though. There was no need for Bairstow to refer as he looked absolutely plumb. That wasted referral would have reprieved Roy when he was wrongly given out. As it happened it didn't matter, but it could have done. Roy wasn't happy and rightly so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wortleyblue on Jul 14, 2019 9:35:51 GMT
Come on England you can do it
|
|
|
|
Post by Hannibal on Jul 14, 2019 10:24:33 GMT
Isn't it great to be watching top class live cricket on TV. This is something I've missed over the past how many years is it? It's not like football where you can go to the Bears Paw for a couple of hours.
|
|
|
|
Post by South Wirral Blue on Jul 14, 2019 11:32:49 GMT
Important wicket that, it was becoming a very decent partnership.
|
|
|
|
Post by South Wirral Blue on Jul 14, 2019 13:45:40 GMT
NZ 241 at the end of their innings.
We'd have taken that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hannibal on Jul 14, 2019 14:37:30 GMT
I'm quite a negative person, but I've always thought we'd win this especially when we got over that blip when Roy was out injured. Just as I type that the bugger is out. Still think we're ok though.
|
|
|
|
Post by South Wirral Blue on Jul 14, 2019 14:58:25 GMT
We've had some big let offs in this innings already.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hannibal on Jul 14, 2019 15:34:16 GMT
Shit ~~~ we're gonna lose this.
|
|
|
|
Post by South Wirral Blue on Jul 14, 2019 15:55:28 GMT
In big trouble now...
|
|
|
|
Post by South Wirral Blue on Jul 14, 2019 18:08:43 GMT
Really nervous here but it's an incredible ending to the tournament.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hannibal on Jul 14, 2019 18:32:28 GMT
Yipppeeeeeeeeee.
|
|
|
|
Post by South Wirral Blue on Jul 14, 2019 18:41:12 GMT
England win the Cricket World Cup.
Tied after 50 overs each.
Tied after the Super Over.
England win it on boundaries.
I suppose it's the football equivalent of a game going to penalties and it being won by the 8th or 9th choice penalty taker...
|
|
|
|
Post by Hannibal on Jul 14, 2019 18:55:27 GMT
I'd given up when Archer bowled a wide first ball, went for 6 second ball. We won on boundaries scored in the match proper I presume? Absolutely amazing. We rode our luck on several occasions, but got there in the end. Commiserations to a very good New Zealand side.
|
|
|
|
Post by South Wirral Blue on Jul 14, 2019 19:14:35 GMT
I'd given up when Archer bowled a wide first ball, went for 6 second ball. We won on boundaries scored in the match proper I presume? Absolutely amazing. We rode our luck on several occasions, but got there in the end. Commiserations to a very good New Zealand side. I think it was boundaries in the match proper and super over. |
|
|
|
Post by paulie on Jul 14, 2019 19:21:20 GMT
You won't see a final like that again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hannibal on Jul 15, 2019 8:48:31 GMT
We've waited 47 years for that. West Indies won the first one in 1972 (I think) and that would have been at Lords too. I remember watching that in the Liver Hotel near the station.
|
|
|
|
Post by backtottheleague on Jul 15, 2019 13:37:37 GMT
We've waited 47 years for that. West Indies won the first one in 1972 (I think) and that would have been at Lords too. I remember watching that in the Liver Hotel near the station. Yes fair play to England,but how could the umpires not realise they made a mistake regarding the six runs given to England on the overthrow.If they had known the rules they would have only given five runs as stokes had not completed the second run.That IS in the rule book.But we all make mistakes and it was an incredible game by two great teams. |
|
|
|
Post by Hannibal on Jul 15, 2019 14:13:41 GMT
We've waited 47 years for that. West Indies won the first one in 1972 (I think) and that would have been at Lords too. I remember watching that in the Liver Hotel near the station. Yes fair play to England,but how could the umpires not realise they made a mistake regarding the six runs given to England on the overthrow.If they had known the rules they would have only given five runs as stokes had not completed the second run.That IS in the rule book.But we all make mistakes and it was an incredible game by two great teams. Of course he completed the 2nd run, otherwise you're right it would only have been 5 runs. What made you think he didn't complete the 2nd run? |
|
|
|
Post by South Wirral Blue on Jul 15, 2019 15:05:12 GMT
We've waited 47 years for that. West Indies won the first one in 1972 (I think) and that would have been at Lords too. I remember watching that in the Liver Hotel near the station. Yes fair play to England,but how could the umpires not realise they made a mistake regarding the six runs given to England on the overthrow.If they had known the rules they would have only given five runs as stokes had not completed the second run.That IS in the rule book.But we all make mistakes and it was an incredible game by two great teams. Wrong I'm afraid. Although he hadn't completed the run when the ball struck his bat, he HAD completed the run by the time the ball reached the boundary - which is what matters. Six was the correct decision. |
|
|
|
Post by backtottheleague on Jul 15, 2019 16:01:01 GMT
Yes fair play to England,but how could the umpires not realise they made a mistake regarding the six runs given to England on the overthrow.If they had known the rules they would have only given five runs as stokes had not completed the second run.That IS in the rule book.But we all make mistakes and it was an incredible game by two great teams. Wrong I'm afraid. Although he hadn't completed the run when the ball struck his bat, he HAD completed the run by the time the ball reached the boundary - which is what matters. Six was the correct decision. Read law 19.8. It clearly states the the batsman must have crossed at the the time the ball was thrown by the fielder.They had not crossed at this time.as the experts have clearly agreed with this statement of the law. |
|
|
|
Post by South Wirral Blue on Jul 15, 2019 18:16:05 GMT
Wrong I'm afraid. Although he hadn't completed the run when the ball struck his bat, he HAD completed the run by the time the ball reached the boundary - which is what matters. Six was the correct decision. Read law 19.8. It clearly states the the batsman must have crossed at the the time the ball was thrown by the fielder.They had not crossed at this time.as the experts have clearly agreed with this statement of the law. Fair enough, I stand corrected if that's the case. |
|
|
|
Post by Wortleyblue on Jul 16, 2019 8:05:05 GMT
Wrong I'm afraid. Although he hadn't completed the run when the ball struck his bat, he HAD completed the run by the time the ball reached the boundary - which is what matters. Six was the correct decision. Read law 19.8. It clearly states the the batsman must have crossed at the the time the ball was thrown by the fielder.They had not crossed at this time.as the experts have clearly agreed with this statement of the law. Absolutley right bttl one of those rules that only umpires would be aware of I suppose as none of the commentators picked up on it. It would be quite diificult I imagine for the umpires to determine whether the batsmen had crossed or not in real time, in hindsight maybe they should have used the technology available. This would of course meant England needed 3 runs from the last ball which Stokes would no doubt played differently who knows I hope this doesnt lead to people saying England should not have won. It was a great game played by 2 great sides who both had the desire to win neither deserved to lose. |
|
|
|
Post by Firestick Frank on Jul 16, 2019 10:12:05 GMT
Read law 19.8. It clearly states the the batsman must have crossed at the the time the ball was thrown by the fielder.They had not crossed at this time.as the experts have clearly agreed with this statement of the law. Absolutley right bttl one of those rules that only umpires would be aware of I suppose as none of the commentators picked up on it. It would be quite diificult I imagine for the umpires to determine whether the batsmen had crossed or not in real time, in hindsight maybe they should have used the technology available. This would of course meant England needed 3 runs from the last ball which Stokes would no doubt played differently who knows I hope this doesnt lead to people saying England should not have won. It was a great game played by 2 great sides who both had the desire to win neither deserved to lose. To be fair that’s exactly what it means - England should not have won due to a clear and obvious umpire error. Still, we’ll take it. |
|
|
|
Post by Hannibal on Aug 4, 2019 17:42:49 GMT
Bloody hell how did England manage to pull this one out of the bag. First innings lead of 90 and desperate to hang on for a draw which probably won't happen.
|
|
