RugbyRebels

Big D wrote:It is completely understandable why the ICC don't allow ties. I can't think of many/any world cups held once every four years that allows for shared winners.

Perhaps a better alternative for a tie breaker after a super over would be a penalty shootout style 5 bowlers get 1 ball each and must hit the stumps and then carry on if tied like a penalty shoot out.

There was the last Jamboree tour which was tied between NZ and the Lions and that's arguably every 12 years, and that felt a bit weird (still no idea why Aaron Smith got taken off in that 3rd test as an aside).

I think the only thing to say is it's a bit like a contentious decision from the officials in the last minute of play, if you want to avoid it do something better earlier in the day. I still jumped out of my chair when we won, and I don't even really like cricket if it's not the longer format

canta_brian wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Thrilling match. Tough one for anyone to lose, but rules are rules.
Stokes was brilliant at the end.
Glad it got aired on free to view tv. If you want to grow the game and generate maximum interest that has to be the way to go.

Yep. Rules are rules...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source= ... 2979498702

Tough call for the umpires to make given how unusual an occurrence that was. Rashid should have been on strike too.

Would have been interesting in a parallel universe to see if Rashid would have gotten a single, would Boult have bowled a knee high full toss and Stokes almost certainly wouldn't have bunted looking for 2 etc.

double post

Had to be the most dramatic ending to a cricket match ever. To make matters worse, my stream failed two balls from the end of extra time only to come back and fail again two balls before the end of the second super over.

And it keeps giving! Seems NZ really won.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/ ... ew-zealand

Scotland losing to the Crims in rwc 2015 was probably worse.

Digby wrote:

Big D wrote:It is completely understandable why the ICC don't allow ties. I can't think of many/any world cups held once every four years that allows for shared winners.

Perhaps a better alternative for a tie breaker after a super over would be a penalty shootout style 5 bowlers get 1 ball each and must hit the stumps and then carry on if tied like a penalty shoot out.

There was the last Jamboree tour which was tied between NZ and the Lions and that's arguably every 12 years, and that felt a bit weird (still no idea why Aaron Smith got taken off in that 3rd test as an aside).

I think the only thing to say is it's a bit like a contentious decision from the officials in the last minute of play, if you want to avoid it do something better earlier in the day. I still jumped out of my chair when we won, and I don't even really like cricket if it's not the longer format

No one calls the winner of the Lions tour the world champions though. That is an invitational event. All of the major sports that hold their event every 4 years have some sort of method of breaking a tie in the final and often in the group stages too (world rankings is the final tie breaker in the RWC groups).

canta_brian wrote:Scotland losing to the Crims in rwc 2015 was probably worse.

Entirely our own doing to be fair.

J Dory wrote:Had to be the most dramatic ending to a cricket match ever. To make matters worse, my stream failed two balls from the end of extra time only to come back and fail again two balls before the end of the second super over.

And it keeps giving! Seems NZ really won.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/ ... ew-zealand

Is the act the throw or the ball striking Stoke’s bat?
If the ball had hit the stumps and he was just home and then deflected to the rope it would be 6. I know he is home in this situation but they would have crossed after the throw. Possibly.

So white ball cricket is done.

Now for the test match next week and the Ashes the following week.

Interesting selection conundrum for England. Do any of the one day specialists come into the test team? Roy? Archer?

If Archer is to be picked he probably has to play in the Ireland game to get some red ball cricket in.

Big D wrote:So white ball cricket is done.

Now for the test match next week and the Ashes the following week.

Interesting selection conundrum for England. Do any of the one day specialists come into the test team? Roy? Archer?

If Archer is to be picked he probably has to play in the Ireland game to get some red ball cricket in.

You surely have to pick Roy, although that's as much an indictment of the available red ball openers as anything else.

Will Jimmy be fit for the start of the Ashes? That will surely inform the need for Archer. Mind, there are very few situations in which you wouldn't want a 90mph+ bowler in the mix for selection.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Big D wrote:So white ball cricket is done.

Now for the test match next week and the Ashes the following week.

Interesting selection conundrum for England. Do any of the one day specialists come into the test team? Roy? Archer?

If Archer is to be picked he probably has to play in the Ireland game to get some red ball cricket in.

You surely have to pick Roy, although that's as much an indictment of the available red ball openers as anything else.

Will Jimmy be fit for the start of the Ashes? That will surely inform the need for Archer. Mind, there are very few situations in which you wouldn't want a 90mph+ bowler in the mix for selection.

Puja

They have plenty of bowling options. It will be interesting to see what line up they go with v Ireland. Case for "resting" a few of the 1 day team but if they really are considering Roy/Bairstow opening (as Vaughan has suggested) and playing Archer then they could probably do with playing.

Not been keeping up to date with CC. Has anyone like Burns, Foakes etc really stood out?

Archer and Roy will both be in the test match squad.
Archer looks a quality bowler to me and should easily adapt to the demands of test cricket. Roy has earned a chance. I'm not convinced his defensive technique is sound enough to open in red ball cricket but no one else has made much of a fist of opening so he's got to be worth a shot.

fivepointer wrote:Roy.....not convinced his defensive technique is sound enough to open in red ball cricket

Move Root to 3 and stick him at 4. He won’t be opening, as such, but will in the action by the third over at the latest.

Mellsblue wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Roy.....not convinced his defensive technique is sound enough to open in red ball cricket

Move Root to 3 and stick him at 4. He won’t be opening, as such, but will in the action by the third over at the latest.

The point of picking him is to fill a howling gap at the top of the order, so there's no real point in having him at 4 to be part of the middle-order collapse.

I'd rather have him attacking the new ball than watching the likes of Hales and Jennings cowering from it. He might only last for a 6 ball 12, but he might get his eye in and get a quick 50 that knocks the wind out of the bowlers.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Roy.....not convinced his defensive technique is sound enough to open in red ball cricket

Move Root to 3 and stick him at 4. He won’t be opening, as such, but will in the action by the third over at the latest.

The point of picking him is to fill a howling gap at the top of the order, so there's no real point in having him at 4 to be part of the middle-order collapse.

I'd rather have him attacking the new ball than watching the likes of Hales and Jennings cowering from it. He might only last for a 6 ball 12, but he might get his eye in and get a quick 50 that knocks the wind out of the bowlers.

Puja

Should’ve used the tongue-in-cheek emoji.

I hope your balls are sandpapered for all eternity in payment of the debt you owe to some deity. Somewhere.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Move Root to 3 and stick him at 4. He won’t be opening, as such, but will in the action by the third over at the latest.

The point of picking him is to fill a howling gap at the top of the order, so there's no real point in having him at 4 to be part of the middle-order collapse.

I'd rather have him attacking the new ball than watching the likes of Hales and Jennings cowering from it. He might only last for a 6 ball 12, but he might get his eye in and get a quick 50 that knocks the wind out of the bowlers.

Puja

Should’ve used the tongue-in-cheek emoji.

I probably still would've watched it fly over my head, like New Zealand fielders watching our matchwinning sixes.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Roy.....not convinced his defensive technique is sound enough to open in red ball cricket

Move Root to 3 and stick him at 4. He won’t be opening, as such, but will in the action by the third over at the latest.

The point of picking him is to fill a howling gap at the top of the order, so there's no real point in having him at 4 to be part of the middle-order collapse.

I'd rather have him attacking the new ball than watching the likes of Hales and Jennings cowering from it. He might only last for a 6 ball 12, but he might get his eye in and get a quick 50 that knocks the wind out of the bowlers.

Puja

Hales hardly cowers from the new ball. Unless it’s drug induced paranoia. Great one day opener, time will tell if he can revive his career.

Who will be Englands spinner is an interesting call too. Rashid, Ali and Leach all have decent claims.

I imagine some of the players will get time off but I think I would go with something like the following v Ireland:

Roy
Sibley
Ballance - Ship has sailed for me but can't think of anyone else. Maybe Ali batting below Curran.
Root
North East
Foakes (w)
Woakes
Curran
Broad
Leach
Wood

Archer has a side strain apparently.

I'm either going mad or from a long time back the talk was Archer would only play white ball cricket as his back was a problem for red ball cricket. So is that a false memory on my part built on the back of a poorly remembered argument in the pub or is he thought okay, and either way how does he go from 20/20 and ODIs to putting in 20 over days and coming back out the following day, and then rinse and repeat through the series?

Digby wrote:I'm either going mad or from a long time back the talk was Archer would only play white ball cricket as his back was a problem for red ball cricket. So is that a false memory on my part built on the back of a poorly remembered argument in the pub or is he thought okay, and either way how does he go from 20/20 and ODIs to putting in 20 over days and coming back out the following day, and then rinse and repeat through the series?

You're thinking of Tymal Mills, I believe.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:I'm either going mad or from a long time back the talk was Archer would only play white ball cricket as his back was a problem for red ball cricket. So is that a false memory on my part built on the back of a poorly remembered argument in the pub or is he thought okay, and either way how does he go from 20/20 and ODIs to putting in 20 over days and coming back out the following day, and then rinse and repeat through the series?

You're thinking of Tymal Mills, I believe.

Puja

Is that why I was surprised Archer wasn't left arm fast?

I still want to know how he's supposed to bowl 15+ overs a day

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:I'm either going mad or from a long time back the talk was Archer would only play white ball cricket as his back was a problem for red ball cricket. So is that a false memory on my part built on the back of a poorly remembered argument in the pub or is he thought okay, and either way how does he go from 20/20 and ODIs to putting in 20 over days and coming back out the following day, and then rinse and repeat through the series?

You're thinking of Tymal Mills, I believe.

Puja

Is that why I was surprised Archer wasn't left arm fast?

I still want to know how he's supposed to bowl 15+ overs a day

He has such a smooth action, I imagine he quite easily could.

But with Stokes, Woakes, Wood, Curran around, he wouldn't need to bowl a stupid amount if overs in a row. I think he'd be fine.

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:I'm either going mad or from a long time back the talk was Archer would only play white ball cricket as his back was a problem for red ball cricket. So is that a false memory on my part built on the back of a poorly remembered argument in the pub or is he thought okay, and either way how does he go from 20/20 and ODIs to putting in 20 over days and coming back out the following day, and then rinse and repeat through the series?

You're thinking of Tymal Mills, I believe.

Puja

Is that why I was surprised Archer wasn't left arm fast?

I still want to know how he's supposed to bowl 15+ overs a day

He has played 4 day cricket for Sussex - 28 first class games across 3 seasons - so it's not unknown to him.

Puja