IIRC at one time matches used to be decided on wickets lost, and that would have been a NZ victory because they only lost 8 wickets compared to 10 for England.
England have a bit of a knack for World Cup drama... extra time in only football win; extra time in only rugby union win; super over in only cricket win. Never do it the easy way!
IIRC at one time matches used to be decided on wickets lost, and that would have been a NZ victory because they only lost 8 wickets compared to 10 for England.
In Year 7, we won a district cup semi final on wickets lost. (I took 4-11 that day and turned the match our way).
That's the team of the year sorted for SPOTY night.
It all my 70 years of playing and watching cricket I have never seen anything as fantastic as that match. NZ were really unlucky but Ben Stokes, what a hero
IIRC at one time matches used to be decided on wickets lost, and that would have been a NZ victory because they only lost 8 wickets compared to 10 for England.
That's a better way but super overs are what tv likes.
Given how unlucky so many england teams in various sports have been, especially the football (men and women), it makes a change for the england to get a slice of luck.
That's the team of the year sorted for SPOTY night.
It all my 70 years of playing and watching cricket I have never seen anything as fantastic as that match. NZ were really unlucky but Ben Stokes, what a hero
He can go out drinking to celebrate, so long as he has a chaperone!
That's the team of the year sorted for SPOTY night.
It all my 70 years of playing and watching cricket I have never seen anything as fantastic as that match. NZ were really unlucky but Ben Stokes, what a hero
He can go out drinking to celebrate, so long as he has a chaperone!
My sister is at a concert. News of the cricket win just reached the crowd as the warm up act walked on to the stage. The poor soul thought all the cheering was for him.
So does Stokes's bat become the equivalent of Russian linesman ?
And enter common usage for victory from a 1/1,000,000 event ?
There were two crucial moments: that was one, and the other was the decision of the NZ fielder to look behind him at the boundary instead of immediately throwing the ball to the other fielder.
So does Stokes's bat become the equivalent of Russian linesman ?
And enter common usage for victory from a 1/1,000,000 event ?
There were two crucial moments: that was one, and the other was the decision of the NZ fielder to look behind him at the boundary instead of immediately throwing the ball to the other fielder.
Indeed.
New Zealand not bowling Santner sooner was also a mistake.
Comments
Luck really with England in that match.
But the betting odds and the experts view seemed wrong to me (hence my final loss).
When Morgan was out England were still rated at 52% to win the match.
And during the Stokes-Butler partnership it really wasn't "Englands' match to lose" as the commentators kept saying.
https://www.ft.com/content/de6e2b14-a3bc-11e9-974c-ad1c6ab5efd1?segmentId=b385c2ad-87ed-d8ff-aaec-0f8435cd42d9
Shakespeare, clearly an ODI fan.
Utterly unbelievable .
And enter common usage for victory from a 1/1,000,000 event ?
He plays big situations really well now.
Who would've thunk it?
New Zealand not bowling Santner sooner was also a mistake.
Beats watching Michael Atherton spend all day making 43 off 200 balls by a long way
Plus there are quite a few who'd never vote Stokes as he's ultimately a poor role model for other, well publicised, reasons.
But I still cherish Atherton's hundred against the Windies at the Oval in 2000.
https://tinyurl.com/y6lw2alt
108 off 331 balls in 444 minutes against Ambrose and Walsh. Absolutely brilliant.
https://twitter.com/nealerichmond/status/1150477822110130176
https://www.wsta.co.uk/challenge-25
Shocking decision.
Not right but that's how it is.
The player of the tournament often goes to someone in the losing finalists.
Messi wining it in 2014 being the most ridiculous example.
https://twitter.com/NickMiller79/status/1150483050280738818