Thread: Cricket scores around the world

I'n not sure that's the rule in question as it refers to overthrows/wilful act of a fielder rather than what happened (i.e. the unwitting act of a batsman affecting the fielding side).

All a bit irrelevant anyways, can't go back to replay it and four from two would've been achievable anyways.

Still sucks to lose like that mind.

the englishers have no shame

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

four from two would've been achievable anyways.

stokes would not have been on strike

However, it has since emerged that under Law 19.8, extra runs are only awarded if the batsmen have crossed when the ball is thrown, which was not the case on Sunday.

It means that England should only have received five runs off the delivery, leaving it with four to win off two balls.

Crucially, it also would have seen number 10 Rashid on strike for the next ball, rather than the in-form Stokes.

Originally Posted by baldrick

stokes would not have been on strike

That turncoat ginga muthafucka shouldn't have even been playing for England!!

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

That turncoat ginga muthafucka shouldn't have even been playing for England!!

How good would the NZ team be with Stokes in it?

&, he likes playing against NZ:

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

How good would the NZ team be with Stokes in it?

Pretty bloody handy would be my guess!

Him being injected into the middle order would be a massive boon, not too mention a pretty handy bowling option also (though probably a bit 'samey' given the rest of the attack).

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

All the Aussies I know were saying to me how they hoped England slaughtered NZ in the final.

nope - obviously not real ockers

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

NZ were very unlucky, but ultimately, the match was in their hands to clearly win it.

yes - with 20 overs to go and more than a run a ball needed , the kiwis should have romped it in - they fcuked themselves

Originally Posted by baldrick

nope - obviously not real ockers



yes - with 20 overs to go and more than a run a ball needed , the kiwis should have romped it in - they fcuked themselves

The guy stepping on the rope when he could have caught Stokes was an error - the match could have been won there.

^True. In most close sporting events there's normally a few moments to reflect on that could've swung the game one way or the other. And that was one of them.

Yeah it is all could've, should've, would've's at this point but the main one is didn't.

Some nice gallows humor from Neesham also:

It's funny listening to all the Indians and Australians whining like stuck pigs.

Suck it up, losers.

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

It's a strange area where the rules seem pretty unclear because Stokes wasn't running for overthrows at any point - his running was over, and he didn't attempt another run after the incident, the ball ran away for 4. Personally, I don't see how the law above can be interpreted as by that salty Convict ex-umpire. Maybe there just isn't a clear rule in place for such an incident?

Just one of those things, like hitting the top of the net and it dropping over at tennis. Rules is rules, like the 26-17 which the Kiwis will understand betterYou can only apologise.

Only the bitter Aussies see it as the Bat of God

Originally Posted by baldrick

yes - with 20 overs to go and more than a run a ball needed , the kiwis should have romped it in - they fcuked themselves

You could make up 20 scenarios that could have changed the game for NZ. One being if you shit Aussie cnuts would have beaten England in the first place

^Anyway that's yesterday's fish 'n chips wrapping as the old saying goes.

The Poms can now turn their attention to the Rugby WC and they're well prepared to win that too with an Aussie coach and a star Kiwi in the team to save them

Aussies are taking this worse than Kiwis

An Australian bookmaker is refunding punters who backed the Black Caps to win the Cricket World Cup final, but the New Zealand TAB here will not be following suit.
Sportsbet labelled the method in which England was determined to be the winner of the tournament an "absolute disgrace", according to news agency AAP. It has refunded 11,458 people who waged a total of $426,223 on New Zealand to win the final or the tournament outright.

Sportsbet spokesman Rich Hummerston said they could not take money from customers who had bet on New Zealand to win as the Kiwis had effectively not been beaten, AAP reported.

^Errrrrr, you do realise the decision to refund by Sportsbet would have come from head office in the UK right?.

Brad Shields has not played well for England yet, and the WC is wide open. I would've given the Aussies a chance, but without the Christian lad at 15 they will struggle, imho.

But, what do I know, I thought Australia would win the cricket WC...

Originally Posted by Headworx

^Errrrrr, you do realise the decision to refund by Sportsbet would have come from head office in the UK right?.

Why would they do that when their HQ is in Melbourne?

Sportsbet.com.au, also known as Sportsbet, is an Australian online bookmaker, and as of October 2012, was Australia's biggest corporate bookmaker. Sportsbet was established in May 1993, and was Australia's first licensed bookmaker. Wikipedia

CEO: Barni Evans (Jan 10, 2018–)

Founded: May 1993

Headquarters: Melbourne, Australia

Parent organization: Flutter Entertainment

Subsidiaries: IAS Limited, Iasbet Sports Bookmakers Pty Ltd

Poor old Ant, it's just one thing on top of another.



https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ecord-steepest

England are only 20-1 to whitewash the Ashes

Originally Posted by Dillinger

England are only 20-1 to whitewash the Ashes

For good reason...

What odds are they to be whitewashed?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Why would they do that when their HQ is in Melbourne?

Because they're owned by Paddy Power / Betfair.

.....

Originally Posted by Headworx

Because they're owned by Paddy Power / Betfair.

I don't see Paddy Power offerimg the same