Another super over would have been fine. Imagine England would've gone with Roy and Morgan with Woakes bowling. Assume NZ would have bowled Ferguson? Who would've batted? De Bigman and Williamson maybe?
-
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
Taylor. He can hit em big and is a better batsmen than CDG, who had a poor innings in the match.
This seems the most logical to me should of been a second super over but whoever took part in the first is excluded from selection
Holding is fine. And to be fair some of the shiter voices seem to be getting phased out but radio commentary is just so superior to tv commentary in almost every way.
One big reason for TMS being the bestest is the lack of ad breaks. The massive amount of downtime during cricket games mean they have plenty of time to just chat shit about buses and cake. You could grab some of the shitty Channel 9 Aussie commentators and put them on TMS and they'd instantly be better.
England cricket fans? I'm not having that. Also I find any sort of comment that generalises a nationality of sports fans quite offensive. And could give many examples that you would consider offensive exactly in the same vein.
So if you lose a wicket in the super over it limits your options? (Not that it came into effect in this game since NZ's 3rd batsman never came on)
Yeah. Seems fair enough. I wouldn't have a minded a bowl-off tbh
Spoken like someone that didn't hear Shane Warne talking about his favourite pizza for fifteen minutes during the Boxing Day year a few years ago (on TV too!).
If it rained it would have been shared.
The lesson is that sometimes "don't worry about it, it isn't going to happen in a big game" happens. Hopefully the BCCI can learn from this for their next big event.
keep playing super overs until one isn't a tie is the simplest solution
you played 102 overs already, 2 more isn't gonna kill you
you played 102 overs already, 2 more isn't gonna kill you
I honestly don't see what is daft about it. Seems perfectly sensible to me.
It's a throw or an act when he throws or deliberately steps out, incidental contact after that isn't a factor: the laws say nothing about deflections of the stumps or the batters. If the ball hit an extra helmet it's dead and 5 penalty runs are awarded (see law 20.1.1.7: there is contravention of Law 28.3 (Protective helmets belonging to the fielding side) which incidentally uses the same criteria for determining how to add runs already 'ran' as the overthrow law
The umpires fucked up, which isn't surprising since Dharmasena had a poor tournament. A two second tv check would have made it 5 runs instead of 6, which at that point would have put the pressure on Rashid who would have been facing instead of Stokes. It's the job of the umpire to apply the laws and not get carried away with events on the field. They didn't, and fair play to England who jammied a win out of a position they probably shouldn't have.
As for the laws, it's simple the ball should become dead if it hits the batter attempting to make his ground unless that batter is purposefully attempting to obstruct the field (in which case he's out). In practice unless it goes to the boundary it's dead anyway as the batsman by convention don't run. It's a stupid gap in the laws which the MCC have looked at but haven't bothered to fix.
btw TMS is terrible. It used to be good, but is anyone really amused by Swann(y) barely watching the game and gurning his way through his 'impressions'? Far too often now in TMS, the cricket merely interrupts whatever inane anecdote they happen to be retelling (at least with them not having away series now, we're spared the usual tales from the hotel, winery, beach or helicopter tour)
I thought that too, but theoretically the match could go on forever then.
You could bring in boundary countback or something like that just for the super over perhaps, at least teams would go into the super over with that in mind and there would be no debate. Could still tie on boundaries of course but then just do another super over, with a tie-breaker like that it'd still be over sooner rather than later. Having boundaries as a tie-breaker in a one off "who can scores the most runs" superover slog seems logical to me.
Last edited:
Eh, that's the same for pretty much every sport I can think of. Football could have an endless penalty shootout, tennis could have an endless tiebreak. Plus it's not like cricket has a reputation for brevity.
Shane Warne is not just a shitty Channel 9 commentator though, he's spent years travelling the globe to hone the art of chatting pure shit and promoting himself and his mates.
Has he tried to take credit for England winning the World Cup because he once had a chat with Adil Rashid 10 years ago yet?
Swannis terrible and Vaughan is a low quality troll but there are far more good commentators than bad ones. Dan Norcross, Alison Mitchell, Ebony Rainford-Brent, Vic Marks. They've even got Andy Zaltzmann now, though there is a disheartening lack of pun runs.
Alison Mitchell is dull as dishwater but a decent commentator I suppose. Not much in the anecdote stakes. I fucking hate Vaughan though. Excellent on batting technique, a fucking clown on all other matters. How he ever became captain of England I will never know. An idiot.
Private Eye has a bit of a thing against Vaughan - he crops up in columns (or used to, I don't remember any recently) about Vaughan's backroom contracts and deals in sports management/promotion (IIRC).
I don't know even with the good ones there's far too much of "when I was talking to X and he said...oh and that's out"
That has literally always been the charm of TMS. Listening to Blofeld talk about the chocolate cake they've been sent "Yes its delicious a really nice thick icing..oh look there's a pigeon...oh he's bowled him...."
That's TMS. Its utterly brilliant. Captures the atmosphere of a long game of cricket perfectly.
May as well all five tests will be the same outcome as the semi-final.
Besides the World Cup, being in OT instead of community probably helps as well.
Disagree. Aggers is great. Tuffers is great. I quite like Swann. Vaughan is a bit dour but his insight can be interesting especially into mentality.
Boycott (is he finished now) an absolute chore and a horrid man to boot. But if he's not there...
I did think that Jeremy Coney was absolutely dreadful. The personality of a pessimistic fan continually trying to say NZ had no chance even when they were massively on top and then his suggestions that the "trophy be shared" utterly ridiculous. Contrast with Ian Smith on sky who inspite of his allegiances commentated on that final over brilliantly and didn't sit there whinging about this and that in a whiny voice like Coney....
You quite like Swann. I don't think there's any point in us continue to discuss this. Aggers is a pumped up little right wing English nationalist who's mask slips a bit when ever England win and moreso when they lose. Tuffers is great apart from when he's talking about cricket which is a bit of a handicap on a programme about Cricket, his insight into the game is mostly that batting is hard and he's glad he didn't have to bowl pace.
Don't know why you're comparing Coney with Smith, TMS in general was the most partial of partial commentators during the entire final. They were fucking praying at one point.
It's no coincidence that they had reasonable success earlier this year when they didn't have the rights to broadcast live Cricket with The Cricket Social, which was basically TMS with cricket on in the background.
So here's a weird wrinkle (I'm sorry for going on about this, but the rulesy stuff is fascinating me): I think there's an argument that NZ could have got the bizarre deflection down to 2 if they hadn't tried to chase the ball.
No, really, bear with me here.
I found this from a little while ago from an 'ask the umpire' discussion, talking about a situation not dissimilar to this one:
I would suggest that Stokes - following the general convention of not running in this situation - was in favour of that. But the NZ team member chasing the ball to the boundary could not be regarded as treating the ball as dead!
So, if that NZ player had let it run... could it have been justifiably been called a dead ball and regarded as just 2?
No, really, bear with me here.
I found this from a little while ago from an 'ask the umpire' discussion, talking about a situation not dissimilar to this one:
I would suggest that Stokes - following the general convention of not running in this situation - was in favour of that. But the NZ team member chasing the ball to the boundary could not be regarded as treating the ball as dead!
So, if that NZ player had let it run... could it have been justifiably been called a dead ball and regarded as just 2?
Last edited:
Yeah, I absolutely couldn't see anyone actually doing that in the spur of the moment.
Makes sense but the rules were known to everyone well in advance. before the tournament even started. You cant just keep playing Super overs over and over again. NZ knew that boundries would factor in and played it like a test match in the middle innings. IIRC like 20 overs went without a boundry or something crazy like that.
They had been playing defensive cricket for the second half of the tournament after winning their first five matches. It worked for them against England in the group stages and got them through to the semis on NRR. It worked for them against india and got them through to the finals. It simply caught up to them in the final. They tried pulling a Dhoni and it blew up in their face.
Again, they knew the rules going in. This is on the NZ captain and the coaching staff. I remember Pakistan tying India in the WT20 in 2007 and then losing the bowl off 3-0. They couldnt hit the wickets once. They were laughing and having fun as if it was backyard cricket while Indian bowlers hit the stumps every time. The Indians later admitted that they had practiced this scenario and chose part time bowlers because they were the most accurate while Pakistani players didnt even know about the rules. No sympathy for Pakistan in that scenario and no sympathy for NZ here.
I like Cricket, but it's annoyances have been getting annoying more and more recently. The laws need root and branch reform (and I don't say this because of the WC final although that is a clear case in point) as they've been extended and co-opted by the ICC's own playing conditions: I remain unconvinced that this current ODI format is better. DRS remains a bit of a joke, and umpiring is pretty poor. Unfortunately the set up with the ICC and the MCC means that it takes high profile failures for anything to be done about it. The overthrow law being case in point, they'd looked at it in 2011 and thought the batsmen not running convention was enough.
TMS is a major annoyance recently, the county coverage on sports extra is far better than the main stream TMS although it's obviously far drier, you could get away with one of Vaughan or Boycott (to be fair he's not been on in a while) or one of the 'comic' relief in Tuffers or Swann(y) but both of them back to back are an absolute nightmare. In a day, TMS should go through periods of serious talk about cricket, and periods of whimsy, but there's too much forced whimsy and not enough about the game which is often an afterthought.
Even Sky's coverage has went downhill a bit and it's clear they've cut the budget significantly.
You cannot be serious. No team is factoring in a 1/10000 outcome in their game plan. Not NZ neither England would have planned for tied game AND a super over tie. That both teams knew the rule before hand is irrelevant to whether it is a fair rule.
England did exactly that. Watch the post game interviews from the players.
There's nothing defensive about not scoring boundaries. England and NZ ended up on the same score, England had more boundaries ergo NZ had far more scoring shots than England. England had 21 more dots than NZ in 50 overs.
The bigger story is the failure of the umpires to actually apply the laws of the sport at the crunch point of the match.
Oh please. They got a 1 million to one fluke to end up in a superover coupled with the umpires making an absolute howler of a mistake when it comes to basic scoring. They've been playing exactly the same way since the last world cup including in bilaterals where superovers aren't a thing. This is a team who got lucky in the end up trying to act as if they're masterminds. If they planned to have just enough boundaries to need a miscounted 6 off the back of a runners bat in the last over to creep into a superover then fair play to them.
Last edited: