Missed watching that T20 final live, listened to some of it on the car radio on the drive down to Wembley - it was the same day as our play-off final against York in 2010.Plus, we had previously won the T20 World Cup under Collingwood.
Missed watching that T20 final live, listened to some of it on the car radio on the drive down to Wembley - it was the same day as our play-off final against York in 2010.Plus, we had previously won the T20 World Cup under Collingwood.
Missed watching that T20 final live, listened to some of it on the car radio on the drive down to Wembley - it was the same day as our play-off final against York in 2010.
Great article from the BBC website
England win Cricket World Cup: A golden hour ends in a champagne super over
England's stunning victory in a champagne super over was a very English way to win a World Cup, writes Tom Fordyce.www.bbc.co.uk
I'm sitting between one of each right now at work!
If you're referencing Jon Pierik, then the guy is an absolute plum.
My favourite (read, least favourite) quote was something about how it "seemed unfair that England were allowed to bat on [in the Super Over] with Stokes and Buttler already warmed up".
A grown adult journalist with the writings of the playground....embarrassing lack of grace, to say the least.
Was it a draw??? Or just a bitter convict??
Cricket World Cup 2019 final: Simon Taufel claims ‘clear mistake’ made awarding England six runs
EXCLUSIVE: ‘It’s a clear mistake’ — Cricket official confirms major World Cup gaffewww.foxsports.com.au
If you're referencing Jon Pierik, then the guy is an absolute plum.
My favourite (read, least favourite) quote was something about how it "seemed unfair that England were allowed to bat on [in the Super Over] with Stokes and Buttler already warmed up".
A grown adult journalist with the writings of the playground....embarrassing lack of grace, to say the least.
Exactly. It always makes me laugh when a football manager says (after a draw), 'If we'd put that chance in after ten minutes, then we'd have won that match.' Nope - the other 80 minutes would have played out completely differently, so there is absolutely no way you can say that...You can go crazy with the ifs and buts of a sporting occasion.
As a matter of interest - why did we bat first? Was there another toss?
risking a Whoosh....& Im not 100% on this, but the super over scenario, I think(?) , as to who bats first ( in the super over shoot out) is a reversal of which team batted first in the 50 overs apiece contest.... it was explained , sort of, in between the 2x 50 overs sessions ending in a draw and the super overs shoot out commencing, by the commentators.... who were probably as aux fait with how super overs work as just about everyone else, apart from presumably ICC or match officials ensuring said commentators had the super overs rules on a print out handed to them after the 50 overs contest was drawnAs a matter of interest - why did we bat first? Was there another toss?
Not so - tournament rules set in stone - bat second in the main dig, bat first in the Super Over.
risking a Whoosh....& Im not 100% on this, but the super over scenario, I think(?) , as to who bats first ( in the super over shoot out) is a reversal of which team batted first in the 50 overs apiece contest.... it was explained , sort of, in between the 2x 50 overs sessions ending in a draw and the super overs shoot out commencing, by the commentators.... who were probably as aux fait with how super overs work as just about everyone else, apart from presumably ICC or match officials ensuring said commentators had the super overs rules on a print out handed to them after the 50 overs contest was drawn
What that idiot oz journo failed to mention though was the unfair advantage given to the NZ bowler who was already "warmed up".That’s fascinating. I wonder what the reasoning behind that is? Some Ozzie “journo” was complaining that it gave our batsmen an unfair advantage because they were “warmed up”.
Maybe they did, as @Marked Ox says in post #266, the rule can be interpreted more than one wayUmpires didn’t know the overthrow rule though [emoji2371]
Maybe they did, as @Marked Ox says in post #266, the rule can be interpreted more than one way