Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by Duke of York, Jul 13, 2019.
I think those in terms of dumbness who come top are those unable to recognise a tongue-in-the-cheek remark when they see one.
Just think. If the game had only been on $ky then most of us wouldn't even know we won!
I think it would have made it as a news item.
Oh I don't know. The BBC seem to be pushing the Netball World cup quite hard.
NZ must be gutted
Without the freak four overthrows off Stokes' bat, they'd be celebrating now.
The cricketing equivalent of the ball going in off the ref to win a world cup final
And winning on boundaries? Bit lame.
In a nation starved of international success, most England fans would settle for the win however fortuitous it was. Also the contribution of Ben Stokes was a major factor, it was truly of heroic proportions: 80 odd not out at the end of the innings having had to not only score under pressure but deal with a succession of hapless tail enders and then coming out to bat again in the extra over. I just think we should celebrate the win and not carp about the validity of it.
1966 and all that.
Sorry no idea what this means.
Yes, the Russian Linesman story is well known but I am struggling to see a connection between this and what happened yesterday. The umpires/match officials did not make any errors of judgement in the final stages of the game. England had "the rub of the green", there is no disputing that, but why cant we enjoy this vary rare victory instead of moaning about it?
I've been watching cricket for 63 years. I had no idea what a super-over was!
A) 50-over matches just don't end in a draw
B) nobody has any idea what super-overs are
C) like a super-over would end in a tie - that's just silly
D) so, given A and B and C, nobody could ever have thought that boundaries would EVER, EVER come into it
I 100% agree although I presume the management if not the players would have been aware of the "Super Over" rule at the start of the game if not the tournament. I would also say that looking at the tournament over all England deserved to be Champions. They also beat the Kiwis fairly easily in the group game. If you get rewarded for scoring more boundaries that has to be a good thing.
No one's moaning.
Just pointing out the luck involved with the overthrows and that the final win was on boundaries. Hurst's goal was never in. That victory has always been hollow. As a player, I would never have been happy winning like that. It's different for fans, of course.
As I said above, we finally won something so let us enjoy it.
Yes that's luck, so is a dropped catch. So is an outside edge that doesn't make it to a fielder but runs to the boundary. Impossible catches that stick. Being incorrectly given out when there are no reviews available and tredding in the poo left by the umpire's guide dog. It's all luck, good or bad.
Cricket has more rules than other sports, more ways to win or lose. More variations in the skills required to be outstanding and frequently more bravery required. Both teams are expected to know the rules and play accordingly. Overthrows are a consequence of poor teamwork and fielding. No team expects them to become part of their score, but if it happens and a team loses the game because of overthrows, surely they deserve to lose.
As for winning on boundaries, all teams knew from the word go, it was a possibility, so teams that choose to amass as many boundaries as possible as part of their strategy, bearing in mind that shots to the boundary are frequently risky shots to play, deserve to win on them.
So scoring with lots of 4s is better than a smaller number of 6's? If there is a tie
Off a bat? NZ didn't deserve to lose due to an incredible fluke.
I've seen the England football team pilloried as useless after losing a world cup semi final to a dubious decision, but that was like getting into extra time after the ball goes in off the ref, and then drawing but being given the game at the end as the other team had more offsides.
Potentially. It all depends what the game situation is. Sometimes hitting sixes is the only way to win a game, but knocking up the runs with fours is less likely to result in getting caught. Root can be a proliffic batsman who hits plenty of fours and makes up the other runs with singles, but you rarely see him trying to hit sixes.
The biggest issue with trying to score sixes is getting the ball high enough to clear the boundary and getting enough power into the shot. A slight error in timing the shot and the ball can go anywhere at catchable height.
To my mind the only time a limited overs game should be seen as a draw or tie is when both sides have scored the same amount of runs and lost the same number of wickets in the same number of overs (I have been involved in one game that finished that way). In this situation, New Zealand would have won through losing fewer wickets. Failing that, after the super-over it should have been the number of wickets lost that decided it rather than the number of boundaries. Or they could have said there were joint winners.
Given all that, the rules gave us a win and we should be happy .