You can sympathise with NZ but your comment is nonsense
There was no criticism but to win on a fluke when without it you would have lost convincingly makes the victory hollow
No it doesn't, and they'd hardly have lost convincingly without it, they'd have lost by a handful of runs. There's always tight moments that can decide matches like this, that was just a very unusual example of one, but the full toss that someone gets out on, the run out when thebowler luckily deflects onto the stumps, and so on. Sometimes the flukes go your way, it doesn't mean the victory becomes hollow.
Lay. It's a long way from now to December, and a lot of sport to play.
Plus there are quite a few who'd never vote Stokes as he's ultimately a poor role model for other, well publicised, reasons.
Archer in with a shout, I'd have thought, just for one over, but backing a cricketer before the Ashes might be premature.
There’s not a whole lot more sport to come this year. It’s going to be between a cricketer, Lewis Hamilton and possibly a rugby player.
Tour de France. Vueleta Espana. Rugby World Cup. US Open. The Open. IAAF World Championship. Gymnastics World Championships (you'd be surprised). F1 as you say. 5/2 is way too short on one particular cricketer in July.
Does anyone know which fielder threw the ball in to Buttler at the end? The whole tournament rested on their fairly accurate return. A tiny mistake in picking up the ball or throwing it in would have resulted in a NZ victory.
Does anyone know which fielder threw the ball in to Buttler at the end? The whole tournament rested on their fairly accurate return. A tiny mistake in picking up the ball or throwing it in would have resulted in a NZ victory.
Does anyone know which fielder threw the ball in to Buttler at the end? The whole tournament rested on their fairly accurate return. A tiny mistake in picking up the ball or throwing it in would have resulted in a NZ victory.
Does anyone know which fielder threw the ball in to Buttler at the end? The whole tournament rested on their fairly accurate return. A tiny mistake in picking up the ball or throwing it in would have resulted in a NZ victory.
I think it is a tragedy that we have to find a winner all the time. WE are not Americans. Cricket has a tradition of draws and ties. Some of the best matches I have seen were draws. Remember Monty and Jimmy at Cardiff.
What's wrong in sharing a trophy ? This was a tie if ever there was one. Apparently England scored more boundaries.
No You can sympathise with NZ but your comment is nonsense
There was no criticism but to win on a fluke when without it you would have lost convincingly makes the victory hollow
No it doesn't, and they'd hardly have lost convincingly without it, they'd have lost by a handful of runs. There's always tight moments that can decide matches like this, that was just a very unusual example of one, but the full toss that someone gets out on, the run out when thebowler luckily deflects onto the stumps, and so on. Sometimes the flukes go your way, it doesn't mean the victory becomes hollow.
Not even definitely true they would have lost. Without the 'fluke' they would have needed 7 off 2 balls with Stokes on strike. Which means it would have definitely gone to the last ball, as at that stage they would have been 1 shot from a tie. (and Stokes hit a six the previous ball).
The way he played the last two balls was a consequence of the situation.
You can sympathise with NZ but your comment is nonsense
There was no criticism but to win on a fluke when without it you would have lost convincingly makes the victory hollow
No it doesn't, and they'd hardly have lost convincingly without it, they'd have lost by a handful of runs. There's always tight moments that can decide matches like this, that was just a very unusual example of one, but the full toss that someone gets out on, the run out when thebowler luckily deflects onto the stumps, and so on. Sometimes the flukes go your way, it doesn't mean the victory becomes hollow.
I agree. Cricket is full of wafts that didn't get a tickle when they could've, bobbles that led to a misfield, poor shots that fell just short of the fielder and so on. They don't all happen in the last few balls of a game, but still matter as much.
Hollow would be Henry's handball for France v Ireland in 2009, for example. Here, everything was played fairly and England won by the narrowest possible margin. It's not hollow to win a tight one that could've gone either way.
Lay. It's a long way from now to December, and a lot of sport to play.
Plus there are quite a few who'd never vote Stokes as he's ultimately a poor role model for other, well publicised, reasons.
Archer in with a shout, I'd have thought, just for one over, but backing a cricketer before the Ashes might be premature.
There’s not a whole lot more sport to come this year. It’s going to be between a cricketer, Lewis Hamilton and possibly a rugby player.
Tour de France. Vueleta Espana. Rugby World Cup. US Open. The Open. IAAF World Championship. Gymnastics World Championships (you'd be surprised). F1 as you say. 5/2 is way too short on one particular cricketer in July.
Maybe someone from the athletics to add too, good call. They key to this market is usually laying whoever just won something, so Stokes and Hamilton today.
I think it is a tragedy that we have to find a winner all the time. WE are not Americans. Cricket has a tradition of draws and ties. Some of the best matches I have seen were draws. Remember Monty and Jimmy at Cardiff.
What's wrong in sharing a trophy ? This was a tie if ever there was one. Apparently England scored more boundaries.
But New Zealand lost fewer wickets.
Draws and ties aren't the same thing. Draws are a part of Test cricket (part of the point is saving the game from a bad position after day 3, say). But ties are vanishingly rare in 50 overs and 20/20 (as they are in US sport). And we've always had tie-breakers (as opposed to draw-breakers) for trophies.
I think it is a tragedy that we have to find a winner all the time. WE are not Americans. Cricket has a tradition of draws and ties. Some of the best matches I have seen were draws. Remember Monty and Jimmy at Cardiff.
What's wrong in sharing a trophy ? This was a tie if ever there was one. Apparently England scored more boundaries.
But New Zealand lost fewer wickets.
Should have had a replay. Another 30,000 £100 tickets sold for doing it all again tomorrow.
I think it is a tragedy that we have to find a winner all the time. WE are not Americans. Cricket has a tradition of draws and ties. Some of the best matches I have seen were draws. Remember Monty and Jimmy at Cardiff.
What's wrong in sharing a trophy ? This was a tie if ever there was one. Apparently England scored more boundaries.
But New Zealand lost fewer wickets.
I like that though the zeitgeist would be against you. Far too Lib Demy for these harsh times
Sky got 10 hours free advertising on Channel 4 today. I wonder if they might think this is something worth doing more often...?
There’s going to be an interesting story to be told, as to how that arrangement came about. I’ll take a wild guess that the last hour of the match saw the biggest TV audience of the year for anything.
I think it is a tragedy that we have to find a winner all the time. WE are not Americans. Cricket has a tradition of draws and ties. Some of the best matches I have seen were draws. Remember Monty and Jimmy at Cardiff.
What's wrong in sharing a trophy ? This was a tie if ever there was one. Apparently England scored more boundaries.
But New Zealand lost fewer wickets.
I like that though the zeitgeist would be against you. Far too Lib Demy for these harsh times
Sky got 10 hours free advertising on Channel 4 today. I wonder if they might think this is something worth doing more often...?
There’s going to be an interesting story to be told, as to how that arrangement came about. I’ll take a wild guess that the last hour of the match saw the biggest TV audience of the year for anything.
Did the C4 audience get Sky’s adverts and idents?
Would be surprised if it got more than the ladies world cup semi final. As that was on the BBC and had been massively plugged.
Sky got 10 hours free advertising on Channel 4 today. I wonder if they might think this is something worth doing more often...?
There’s going to be an interesting story to be told, as to how that arrangement came about. I’ll take a wild guess that the last hour of the match saw the biggest TV audience of the year for anything.
Did the C4 audience get Sky’s adverts and idents?
Would be surprised if it got more than the ladies world cup semi final. As that was on the BBC and had been massively plugged.
The combined audience figures for the cricket and the tennis (arguably the greatest Wimbledon final of all time) should be interesting. There might be a bit of a double count!
Sky got 10 hours free advertising on Channel 4 today. I wonder if they might think this is something worth doing more often...?
There’s going to be an interesting story to be told, as to how that arrangement came about. I’ll take a wild guess that the last hour of the match saw the biggest TV audience of the year for anything.
Did the C4 audience get Sky’s adverts and idents?
Would be surprised if it got more than the ladies world cup semi final. As that was on the BBC and had been massively plugged.
The women’s football actually got a good audience? Didn’t seem that way watching from afar, although the media were certainly interested in it.
I think it is a tragedy that we have to find a winner all the time. WE are not Americans. Cricket has a tradition of draws and ties. Some of the best matches I have seen were draws. Remember Monty and Jimmy at Cardiff.
What's wrong in sharing a trophy ? This was a tie if ever there was one. Apparently England scored more boundaries.
But New Zealand lost fewer wickets.
Enough of your "prizes for everyone" nonsense!
That final moment of winning the cricket World Cup? That's going to be the essence of Boris's time as PM. You see....
Sky got 10 hours free advertising on Channel 4 today. I wonder if they might think this is something worth doing more often...?
There’s going to be an interesting story to be told, as to how that arrangement came about. I’ll take a wild guess that the last hour of the match saw the biggest TV audience of the year for anything.
Did the C4 audience get Sky’s adverts and idents?
Would be surprised if it got more than the ladies world cup semi final. As that was on the BBC and had been massively plugged.
The combined audience figures for the cricket and the tennis (arguably the greatest Wimbledon final of all time) should be interesting. There might be a bit of a double count!
The tennis was done before the super over (I think), so a whole lot of people might have turned over to CH4. The peak figure for the cricket will be big.
Sky got 10 hours free advertising on Channel 4 today. I wonder if they might think this is something worth doing more often...?
There’s going to be an interesting story to be told, as to how that arrangement came about. I’ll take a wild guess that the last hour of the match saw the biggest TV audience of the year for anything.
Did the C4 audience get Sky’s adverts and idents?
I had it on on C4 when the F1 was on and there seemed to be waaay more adverts on Channel 4, switched back after the F1 had finished.
Sky got 10 hours free advertising on Channel 4 today. I wonder if they might think this is something worth doing more often...?
There’s going to be an interesting story to be told, as to how that arrangement came about. I’ll take a wild guess that the last hour of the match saw the biggest TV audience of the year for anything.
Did the C4 audience get Sky’s adverts and idents?
Would be surprised if it got more than the ladies world cup semi final. As that was on the BBC and had been massively plugged.
The women’s football actually got a good audience? Didn’t seem that way watching from afar, although the media were certainly interested in it.
In the UK, England's semi-final defeat by the United States attracted the highest peak UK television audience of the year so far with 11.7m - setting a new record for women's football in the UK.
I think it is a tragedy that we have to find a winner all the time. WE are not Americans. Cricket has a tradition of draws and ties. Some of the best matches I have seen were draws. Remember Monty and Jimmy at Cardiff.
What's wrong in sharing a trophy ? This was a tie if ever there was one. Apparently England scored more boundaries.
But New Zealand lost fewer wickets.
Draws and ties aren't the same thing. Draws are a part of Test cricket (part of the point is saving the game from a bad position after day 3, say). But ties are vanishingly rare in 50 overs and 20/20 (as they are in US sport). And we've always had tie-breakers (as opposed to draw-breakers) for trophies.
Exactly. If an Ashes series gets drawn, the previous winners keep the trophy; it isn't shared.
I think it is a tragedy that we have to find a winner all the time. WE are not Americans. Cricket has a tradition of draws and ties. Some of the best matches I have seen were draws. Remember Monty and Jimmy at Cardiff.
What's wrong in sharing a trophy ? This was a tie if ever there was one. Apparently England scored more boundaries.
But New Zealand lost fewer wickets.
Good point. I suppose the boundaries rule was introduced to encourage positive play, but the number of wickets would seem a fairer measure.
Sky got 10 hours free advertising on Channel 4 today. I wonder if they might think this is something worth doing more often...?
There’s going to be an interesting story to be told, as to how that arrangement came about. I’ll take a wild guess that the last hour of the match saw the biggest TV audience of the year for anything.
Did the C4 audience get Sky’s adverts and idents?
I had it on on C4 when the F1 was on and there seemed to be waaay more adverts on Channel 4, switched back after the F1 had finished.
I think Channel 4 had their own adverts. Everything else obviously was all Sky.
Sky got 10 hours free advertising on Channel 4 today. I wonder if they might think this is something worth doing more often...?
There’s going to be an interesting story to be told, as to how that arrangement came about. I’ll take a wild guess that the last hour of the match saw the biggest TV audience of the year for anything.
Did the C4 audience get Sky’s adverts and idents?
Would be surprised if it got more than the ladies world cup semi final. As that was on the BBC and had been massively plugged.
The women’s football actually got a good audience? Didn’t seem that way watching from afar, although the media were certainly interested in it.
I think it is a tragedy that we have to find a winner all the time. WE are not Americans. Cricket has a tradition of draws and ties. Some of the best matches I have seen were draws. Remember Monty and Jimmy at Cardiff.
What's wrong in sharing a trophy ? This was a tie if ever there was one. Apparently England scored more boundaries.
But New Zealand lost fewer wickets.
Good point. I suppose the boundaries rule was introduced to encourage positive play, but the number of wickets would seem a fairer measure.
To be honest, if the tie break was wickets, I think England would have won. They would have been heavy favourites to get 3 runs off 2 balls if needed. Stokes played safe for the tie hoping for fielding errors.
I think it is a tragedy that we have to find a winner all the time. WE are not Americans. Cricket has a tradition of draws and ties. Some of the best matches I have seen were draws. Remember Monty and Jimmy at Cardiff.
What's wrong in sharing a trophy ? This was a tie if ever there was one. Apparently England scored more boundaries.
But New Zealand lost fewer wickets.
Draws and ties aren't the same thing. Draws are a part of Test cricket (part of the point is saving the game from a bad position after day 3, say). But ties are vanishingly rare in 50 overs and 20/20 (as they are in US sport). And we've always had tie-breakers (as opposed to draw-breakers) for trophies.
Exactly. If an Ashes series gets drawn, the previous winners keep the trophy; it isn't shared.
Fun fact. You have to go back to 1972 for the last drawn Ashes series. Although, the 1998-99 series could well have been drawn had the 3rd umpire been competent.
I think it is a tragedy that we have to find a winner all the time. WE are not Americans. Cricket has a tradition of draws and ties. Some of the best matches I have seen were draws. Remember Monty and Jimmy at Cardiff.
What's wrong in sharing a trophy ? This was a tie if ever there was one. Apparently England scored more boundaries.
But New Zealand lost fewer wickets.
Good point. I suppose the boundaries rule was introduced to encourage positive play, but the number of wickets would seem a fairer measure.
i think nobody who made up the rule ever thought it would be needed. They could have gone for a dance -off and thought nothing more of it!
Sky got 10 hours free advertising on Channel 4 today. I wonder if they might think this is something worth doing more often...?
There’s going to be an interesting story to be told, as to how that arrangement came about. I’ll take a wild guess that the last hour of the match saw the biggest TV audience of the year for anything.
Did the C4 audience get Sky’s adverts and idents?
Would be surprised if it got more than the ladies world cup semi final. As that was on the BBC and had been massively plugged.
The women’s football actually got a good audience? Didn’t seem that way watching from afar, although the media were certainly interested in it.
In the UK, England's semi-final defeat by the United States attracted the highest peak UK television audience of the year so far with 11.7m - setting a new record for women's football in the UK.
11.7m is now a high peak, didn’t something like 25m watch the men’s World Cup semi final last year?
Fair enough though, I’ll stand corrected. I thought the women’s World Cup was something the media was trying to ram down the throats of an unwilling public.
That 11.7m is probably going to be 4th after today’s events though.
Sky got 10 hours free advertising on Channel 4 today. I wonder if they might think this is something worth doing more often...?
There’s going to be an interesting story to be told, as to how that arrangement came about. I’ll take a wild guess that the last hour of the match saw the biggest TV audience of the year for anything.
Did the C4 audience get Sky’s adverts and idents?
Would be surprised if it got more than the ladies world cup semi final. As that was on the BBC and had been massively plugged.
The combined audience figures for the cricket and the tennis (arguably the greatest Wimbledon final of all time) should be interesting. There might be a bit of a double count!
In the pub I was watching both, and also the British GP followed by the Senegal-Tunisia AFCON match after it. It made it a long afternoon...
If the Tory leadership election unfolds as widely expected, the UK will basically be ruled by a Fathers4Injustice activist. Boris Johnson is the kind of guy who’d don Spider-Man pyjamas and scale a building in order to see less of his kids. Sorry, fewer.
Sky got 10 hours free advertising on Channel 4 today. I wonder if they might think this is something worth doing more often...?
There’s going to be an interesting story to be told, as to how that arrangement came about. I’ll take a wild guess that the last hour of the match saw the biggest TV audience of the year for anything.
Did the C4 audience get Sky’s adverts and idents?
Would be surprised if it got more than the ladies world cup semi final. As that was on the BBC and had been massively plugged.
The women’s football actually got a good audience? Didn’t seem that way watching from afar, although the media were certainly interested in it.
In the UK, England's semi-final defeat by the United States attracted the highest peak UK television audience of the year so far with 11.7m - setting a new record for women's football in the UK.
11.7m is now a high peak, didn’t something like 25m watch the men’s World Cup semi final last year?
Fair enough though, I’ll stand corrected. I thought the women’s World Cup was something the media was trying to ram down the throats of an unwilling public.
That 11.7m is probably going to be 4th after today’s events though.
I always wonder how they get the viewing figures, particularly now people can watch stuff on their phones, tablet, laptop, desktop and plenty probably have watched more than one at once today at the same time.
When they open it up properly as a prototype series (next couple of years) it’ll be more interesting, but they need to use real tracks instead of the street circuits.
Sky got 10 hours free advertising on Channel 4 today. I wonder if they might think this is something worth doing more often...?
There’s going to be an interesting story to be told, as to how that arrangement came about. I’ll take a wild guess that the last hour of the match saw the biggest TV audience of the year for anything.
Did the C4 audience get Sky’s adverts and idents?
Would be surprised if it got more than the ladies world cup semi final. As that was on the BBC and had been massively plugged.
The women’s football actually got a good audience? Didn’t seem that way watching from afar, although the media were certainly interested in it.
In the UK, England's semi-final defeat by the United States attracted the highest peak UK television audience of the year so far with 11.7m - setting a new record for women's football in the UK.
11.7m is now a high peak, didn’t something like 25m watch the men’s World Cup semi final last year?
Fair enough though, I’ll stand corrected. I thought the women’s World Cup was something the media was trying to ram down the throats of an unwilling public.
That 11.7m is probably going to be 4th after today’s events though.
Wasn't over half of the 11.7m male ?
If so it suggests that it wasn't the big breakthrough event for female viewers it was hyped to be.
I think it is a tragedy that we have to find a winner all the time. WE are not Americans. Cricket has a tradition of draws and ties. Some of the best matches I have seen were draws. Remember Monty and Jimmy at Cardiff.
What's wrong in sharing a trophy ? This was a tie if ever there was one. Apparently England scored more boundaries.
But New Zealand lost fewer wickets.
Draws and ties aren't the same thing. Draws are a part of Test cricket (part of the point is saving the game from a bad position after day 3, say). But ties are vanishingly rare in 50 overs and 20/20 (as they are in US sport). And we've always had tie-breakers (as opposed to draw-breakers) for trophies.
Exactly. If an Ashes series gets drawn, the previous winners keep the trophy; it isn't shared.
It would seem a bit unfair to award today’s trophy to Australia on that basis...
Comments
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1150480789655752705?s=19
Which should be a positive for the country and game.
What's wrong in sharing a trophy ? This was a tie if ever there was one. Apparently England scored more boundaries.
But New Zealand lost fewer wickets.
The way he played the last two balls was a consequence of the situation.
Hollow would be Henry's handball for France v Ireland in 2009, for example. Here, everything was played fairly and England won by the narrowest possible margin. It's not hollow to win a tight one that could've gone either way.
Did the C4 audience get Sky’s adverts and idents?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/event/article-7236105/Clive-Anderson-return-Edinburgh-Fringe.html
That final moment of winning the cricket World Cup? That's going to be the essence of Boris's time as PM. You see....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-48882465
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DaAuxN1hJVU
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jul/03/england-world-cup-defeat-to-usa-watched-by-117m-tv-viewers
Related: am I alone in finding the BBC's references to the "men's World Cup" to be thoroughly annoying?
Plunkett 85
Morgan 86
Bairstow 89
Rashid 88
Woakes 89
Roy 90
Root 90
Buttler 90
Wood 90
Stokes 91
Archer 95
Fair enough though, I’ll stand corrected. I thought the women’s World Cup was something the media was trying to ram down the throats of an unwilling public.
That 11.7m is probably going to be 4th after today’s events though.
If the Tory leadership election unfolds as widely expected, the UK will basically be ruled by a Fathers4Injustice activist. Boris Johnson is the kind of guy who’d don Spider-Man pyjamas and scale a building in order to see less of his kids. Sorry, fewer.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/12/country-beta-males-alphas-latin-president-tweeting-enemies
Moeen Ali 87
Liam Dawson 90
James Vince 91
Tom Curran 95
Add in:
David Willey 90
Sam Curran 98
and in looks very promising.
When they open it up properly as a prototype series (next couple of years) it’ll be more interesting, but they need to use real tracks instead of the street circuits.
If so it suggests that it wasn't the big breakthrough event for female viewers it was hyped to be.
Blair
May
He claimed the women "originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe", before suggesting they "go back".
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48982172