HMMM DELICIOUS SALT
(;D etc etc)
More seriously: glad I have seen the highlights with TMS over it, rather than Sky. Agnew did it really well.
Last edited:
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Official Cricket Thread
- Thread starter crazy monkey
- Start date
- OT
HMMM DELICIOUS SALT
(;D etc etc)
More seriously: glad I have seen the highlights with TMS over it, rather than Sky. Agnew did it really well.
I don't know what the rest of the world got, but I have to say the commentary in general, was absolutely fucking awful. They seemed to pick the worst possible commentators from each country.... and well no that was pretty much the problem.
I think we all got the same feed. NZ commentators got good press here. Sanga is always good value. Michael Clarke...
Where are they please? I've heard some of the TMS commentary. It was literally goosebumps compared to sky. You could hear the crowd so loudly - their broadcast captured the atomosphere. Hear the guys like Vaughan and Tuffers literally praying. Unreal stuff.
Sadly only snippets - sorry to disappoint!
+
I feel like I saw more, somewhere... much better than the TV commentary, for me.
Last edited:
I actually really want them to win the next one now.
Very likeable team and superb sportsmanship too. Guptill indicating a 6 when Boult fell over the boundary, top lad.
Last edited:
Why are they salty?
Also, how long until the BBC dramatisation, 2020?!?
Indian cricket fans seem to hate ex-England players now commentators. Every tweet from Vaughan no matter how innocuous is hammered. And I find Michael Vaughan a bit dour personally - not exactly a tub-thumping irritating twitter personality.
You know it was a great final when countries that weren't even involved are fucking mad. :D
What an amazing game. I still cannot get over it. Just absolutely batshit insane.
What an amazing game. I still cannot get over it. Just absolutely batshit insane.
Sky commentary is ass pretty much. Listening to TMS while at work has bee great, it's so much better!
They were just unlucky this time around. Everything went against them. Their sportsmanship was something else though.
Honestly I'm not sure I totally agree with this... for a start they won the toss, which is massive in a WC final with the chance to put on scoreboard pressure. Literally the very first big moment of luck in the whole game went NZ's way. The Stokes incident was indeed a ridiculous amount of bad luck, but Boult stepping on the boundary was bad play, not bad luck.
I feel for NZ and I would certainly love to see them win the next WC, but to say "everything went against them" is doing a huge disservice to England.
Here's the question in my mind: At what point does a throw become an overthrow? Prior to the deflection, was it still an overthrow?
It looks like the term overthrow isn't actually explicitly well-defined in the laws of cricket, which is where the ambiguity comes in. What would happen if the ball hit a helmet in this context then trundles to the boundary (ignoring the penalty runs in that context, of course)? The rules around that seem to be more concrete.
it's been postponed twice before, so I wouldn't get your hopes up, and test cricket is not exactly a priority for many nations these days so I'm not sure how much of a spectacle a lot of it will be.
world t20 next year though should be good. I couldn't give a toss about random t20 internationals or the various leagues, but the world t20 was gripping, and I'm glad ben stokes was able to complete his redemption arc after getting carted about in the final over in 2016.
Not taking anything from England and Stokes' heroic innings. However, having moments like the one with Boult, Taylor's wicket (yes, I know they wasted their review), ball hitting Stokes' bat and going for 4 just at that point in the game did make a huge difference. And you're right about the toss. I should've said everything went against them in the last crucial moments in the match (bad play/luck or not).
So I had a Sunday game as well but luckily our drinks break in the second innings coincided with the runout in the final over. So we were able to watch the final ball of the second innings and England t levelling the scores.
Unsurprisingly everybody just turned it into a very extended break as both teams were crammed into the clubhouse bar to watch the super over in its entirety. It was pretty fucking mental.
Then we went back out and got absolutely hammered as a guy scored a hundred after being dropped literally seven times.
And i did my back while batting in the first innings and have been bed ridden all day.
So my enduring memory of a legendary World Cup victory is going to be one where I am really fucking annoyed at losing a flipping Sunday league match.
The test match championship is even dumber than the format for this World Cup. I won't even waste my time watching it, and I'm someone who would wake up at 2am to watch all 5 days of tests down under.
Unsurprisingly everybody just turned it into a very extended break as both teams were crammed into the clubhouse bar to watch the super over in its entirety. It was pretty fucking mental.
Then we went back out and got absolutely hammered as a guy scored a hundred after being dropped literally seven times.
And i did my back while batting in the first innings and have been bed ridden all day.
So my enduring memory of a legendary World Cup victory is going to be one where I am really fucking annoyed at losing a flipping Sunday league match.
The test match championship is even dumber than the format for this World Cup. I won't even waste my time watching it, and I'm someone who would wake up at 2am to watch all 5 days of tests down under.
The commentary on Sky was the ICC one that they package and sell to broadcasters, although it featured Sky personnel.
I did see it at 65% NZ at one point. I assume England needing 15 off 4 would have been worse?
The people who commentate on sky sports generally are far poorer than the test match special peeps. Not just for this world cup, but all sky cricket coverage.
Clarke can occasionally say something insightful but it's (1) said in his seemingly permanent upward inflection and (2) in between a hundred comments that amount to variations of "they really need a wicket here".
Many England fans are obnoxious and very aggressive but they deserved to win the world cup after demolishing Australia - the defending champions - in the semis.
As far as I have noticed England rarely have any luck in such tournaments and if NZ had won no one would be surprised, so it's fine luck went their way for once.
As far as I have noticed England rarely have any luck in such tournaments and if NZ had won no one would be surprised, so it's fine luck went their way for once.
The tournament once again just reinforced to me how much superior ODI cricket is compared to 20/20 crap.
Indeed. I also got reminded today about The Hundred that the ECB are running next year... what a crock of shit.
It's sad. It feels like The Hundred exists because the ECB were too shit to cash in on T20, a format they created, while every other country has flourished with it.
Even with this new format they have already sold off the games to Sky with free to air only getting 10 games.
I am so cynical about this whole thing.
It's funny how 10 to 20 years ago the best commentators were Australian which also coincides with Australia having the best ODI team that the world have ever seen. I don't think I ever see either of those again.
I actually really like Slats... when he's on with Athers I get a cool retro 90s feeling going on, even if it was the Aussies smashing us every single time. I have massive respect for the guy, for all the shit he's been through in his life he stuck with the game through commentary and it's helped him manage his bi-polar / panic attack issues. I really like his commentary style to boot, hopefully Sky have got him for the Ashes.
That class though.
Given NZ both tied the match and scored almost all the runs for England, they have a fair point.
He is pretty good at what he does, unfortunately what he does is commentate the last two overs of a 20/20 match every single ball. In a one dayer? It is almost something you can put up with. But in a test match? Fuck me dead.
The 100 is so fucking stupid. Is twenty less balls an innings really gonna make more people come and watch? Why can't they just revamp the t20 domestic competition?
I can understand their frustration, but cricket gets the "boring" tag enough as it is without the world laughing if we have a 6+ week tournament and still can't find a winner at the end.... you just have to have a winner at the end of a World Cup, whatever sport.
I'm glad they got rid of the wickets in the main game tie-breaker from yesteryear (I appreciate I would say that as an Englishman...!), because that put undue pressure on the team batting second, when that's already enough pressure as it is with historically more teams winning when batting first. A team chasing should not have to worry about not losing as many wickets as the oppo, it should 100% simply be about getting the runs. I believe that's why that rule was scrapped. I do however agree that the boundary countback seems a totally random and nonsense way of doing it.
I can't see any fair way other than just keep doing super overs until there's a winner...
Yeah number of boundaries is dumber than sharing the trophy imo.
If a team scores 300 from 300 singles they shouldn't lose because the opposition scores 300 from 50 sixes. One side faces no dot balls in 50 overs while the other team faces 250 dot balls and yet the former team is the one being penalised in this (albeit extremely exaggerated) scenario.
It'd be like the tie breaker in football being whichever team scored the most volleys over the course of the season because, while overhead kicks are incredibly entertaining, a goal should be a goal no matter how it was scored and a run is a run whether you open the face to glide it down to third man or close your eyes and top edge a pull over the slip cordon.
it'd be stupid to share it, you can't have co champions, it's daft. England won with the criteria that was set in place to break ties before the tournament.I get the logic why it was more boundaries, they've tried to make Odis be less dreary for a while and the encouraging of boundaries is one small part of that, even if it's something that usually isn't a factor as ties are so rare.
They should definitely just do another super over in future though.
They should definitely just do another super over in future though.
Na Michael Holding is the GOAT. No better voice for cricket.
yup, whoever wrote that rule is an idiot. Which team had more wickets in hand is a better way to evaluate the team than who scored more 4s. Nothing can be done now but hopefully going forward they should make some changes
One commentator that always winds me up is Ian Bishop... never liked him. He even managed to piss me off in the minutes after winning the World Cup, in one of the first replays he blurted out "they left Archer to celebrate on his own". What kind of veiled bullshit is that? They all ran after Buttler for the first celebration after he had just whipped the bails off, then literally 5 seconds later they all ran over to Archer.
It's not a better way, it's just another wrong way. There is a reason that rule got scrapped in the first place.
Wickets in hand isn't great either, net run rate might be slightly better but even then I'm not a fan of that.
I would be fine with another super over but you have to send out different batsmen and bowlers a bit like you have to cycle through penalty takers in a shootout. Who doesn't want to see Boult and Ferguson trying to score 9 off the 10th super over while Jos Buttler is chucking down some pies?
