Cricket

[MD Jazz]

Trying to think of a more dramatic sporting event and I can't.
That four overthrows off the bat - never seen anything so unfortunate at a moment of such significance.

Agree. Just watched the replay and it was an insane finish. Boult was a terrible joice for the super over. He had been the kiwis worst bowler that innings and the ball wasn’t swinging. If he didn’t hit his Yorkers he is very hittable. So unlucky the kiwis.

 

[toby64]

Great game of cricket...surely one of the best ODIs of all time. So many twists and turns.

But a terrible way for the champion to be decided.

 

[jb03]

Kiwis very stiff. When Boult caught Stokes he should have thrown it back in before stepping on the boundary. And i can't believe it is not a dead ball when the throw hits the batsmen or his bat. And agree with Jazz about Boult not bowling the last over.

Instead of deciding on most boundaries, Kiwis should have been declared the winner by 2 wickets as they reached the score by losing 8 wickets whereas England were all out.

 

[mrposhman]

I don't see the need for the 'super' over, other than theatres...After 50 overs, if both teams are tied on runs, then surely it should be the team that took the most wickets wins ?

I'd ask why? In no forms of cricket do wickets matter unless you are bowled out so why should it determine the fate of the game? All forms of cricket, the winning team is down to runs scored so I'd think it makes sense that the result should be determined in some way related to scoring rather than wickets.

 

[mrposhman]

Great game of cricket...surely one of the best ODIs of all time. So many twists and turns.

But a terrible way for the champion to be decided.

Agree on both counts, its never nice to lose on technicalities but they have to separate teams in 1 way or the other and something related to runs scored seems the most obvious to me.

I feel for the kiwis, as a pom we have had more than our fair share of sporting heartbreak over the years so I know exactly how it hurts. There were a number of times I thought about going to bed last night (largely to stop Ian Smith from pounding my head with garbage) but something kept me up.

That was probably one of if not the best game of cricket ever, so many ebbs and flows. England certainly got the better of lady luck who was definitely smiling on us last night.

 

[MD Jazz]

And i can't believe it is not a dead ball when the throw hits the batsmen or his bat.
Instead of deciding on most boundaries, Kiwis should have been declared the winner by 2 wickets as they reached the score by losing 8 wickets whereas England were all out.

Agree, if it didn’t reach the boundary they would have chosen not to run anyway as that is the done thing.

They may have to look at adding a rule to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

And boult surely knew he was close to the boundary so should have reacted earlier. So unlucky.

 

[TigerFlag2017]

An option would have been to have a second over from each team to determine the result. Most fours is pretty random. Could easily be most sixes, least no balls or wides.

Amazing finish to a pretty good tournament.

 

[mrposhman]

Agree, if it didn’t reach the boundary they would have chosen not to run anyway as that is the done thing.

They may have to look at adding a rule to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

And boult surely knew he was close to the boundary so should have reacted earlier. So unlucky.

I agree they should change this rules, ie. if an overthrow is caused by intentional involvement of the batsment then it is ruled a deadball, not sure whether it should be a deadball or just allow the number of completed runs (probably the latter I would think).

 

[MD Jazz]

I agree they should change this rules, ie. if an overthrow is caused by intentional involvement of the batsment then it is ruled a deadball, not sure whether it should be a deadball or just allow the number of completed runs (probably the latter I would think).

Some dispute whether it should have been 5 instead of 6 anyway. The ball was thrown before they crossed so only one run should have counted. Hopefully the kiwis appeal.

 

[MD Jazz]

On the Aussie ashes squad how does Handscomb get in the 25?

 

[craig]

Spewing , well done England and all that ,

But to lose after you draw , is a bitter pill to swallow ,

proud of our team though , they gave it their all

Bad luck Kiwi ...Kia Ora

 

[jb03]

Geez, saying now England should only have been awarded 5 runs with Stokes not on strike if the letter of the rule was followed. (When the outfield throw hit his bat).

 

[MD Jazz]

Geez, saying now England should only have been awarded 5 runs with Stokes not on strike if the letter of the rule was followed. (When the outfield throw hit his bat).

Hopefully kiwis appeal but it’s not in their nature.

 

[tigerman]

Geez, saying now England should only have been awarded 5 runs with Stokes not on strike if the letter of the rule was followed. (When the outfield throw hit his bat).

Gee it's a bit "underhanded" for our Kiwis brothers to have to cop that

 

[kiwitiger]

I think the part that hurts most kiwis,

We arent a super power of cricket,

We are battlers, and we are fully aware of that,

This opportunity may not come again

 

[tigerman]

I think the part that hurts most kiwis,

We arent a super power of cricket,

We are battlers, and we are fully aware of that,

This opportunity may not come again

I'm sure that you're proud of the guys kiwitiger, and so you should be. Good on England for their win, but NZ were unlucky and no one can say that they weren't.

 

[kiwitiger]

Anyway it is what it is, so from here going forward,

Do we continue to say team a beat team b by x amount of wickets ?

Or is it now team a beat team b by x amount of boundaries?

 

[tigertim]

The Trent Boult catch that was awarded a 6 shows the stupidity of that rule. He caught it, controlled it but stepped on the boundary padding but the ball was a metre inside the playing field.

 

[MD Jazz]

The Trent Boult catch that was awarded a 6 shows the stupidity of that rule. He caught it, controlled it but stepped on the boundary padding but the ball was a metre inside the playing field.

Good point. It should only matter where the ball was caught and completed.

 

[Wildride]

Good point. It should only matter where the ball was caught and completed.

The rule dates back to when the boundary was a fence, and it was preventing you from leaning on the fence to take a catch, or even climbing the fence to reach a ball. It's probably moot now that the boundaries have been brought in and are now defined by ropes.