Jump to content

Cricket: General Chat


Milfner

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Mic09 said:

Not a fan of cricket but I watched a lot of it today, pretty interesting. I never thought cricket could be exciting!

Why were there so many empty seats? Surely this would have been a sell out?

Indian fans bought s load of the allocation in the hope they got to the final. 

Apparently they were changing hands for £2k. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love my cricket. Always have. I have family in South Africa and Oz, so the shit really flies about when we're crap - and we've been crap for most of my life.

I was in the Hollies at Edgbaston in 2005 and never thought I'd top that.
Yesterday was another planet. I could list 10 things that we amazing in that game, and still miss a few. And I was hungover as **** all day.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Dante_Lockhart said:

One question, why was the ball that hit him a 6? It rolled to the boundary so I figured it was a 4.

When a fielder throws the ball back in and this results in the ball going to the boundary the 4 runs are added to completed runs at the time. These four runs are 'overthrows'. Additionally if the ball doesn't reach the boundary the batsmen can run overthrows which are added to runs before the fielder's throw comes in but this is irrelevant here.

This appears to have got quite controversial in this case as apparently the rule states that the 4 runs will be awarded as well as any completed runs at the point of the throw and any run in progress where the two batsmen have crossed. Given that Stokes and Rashid hadn't crossed at the point that Guptill threw the ball in, it seems that 5 rather than 6 runs may have been the correct decision here.

Obviously there is some confusion as to how the deflection off the bat affects this ruling but its being questioned fairly widely this morning by the look of it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, choffer said:

What is it about Kiwi sportsmen? They all seem like genuine good guys. I'm sure it would be easy to find exceptions but in the main they seem like top blokes.

Think that's just New Zealanders in general. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

Think that's just New Zealanders in general. 

Yep. Having been there a couple of times recently, I kinda knew the answer. They are just good human beings. The fact that the All Blacks have a rule that they leave every dressing room cleaner than they found it (and every player has a role in this) tells you everything you need to know about Kiwi sport. I was lucky enough to meet a few high profile sportsmen and a couple of politicians when I was over there and they were all genuinely nice people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone in the office talking about it today.... been a long time since cricket has had that effect on the nation.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Kiwivillan said:

I'm going to have to agree 😁

Most Kiwis I know would be far too polite to agree. I guess there’s an exception to every rule ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 wickets fell today at Chesterfield on Day 2 against Derbs. Resuming on 34-1 we bowled them out for 146. Didn't enforce the follow-on and were bowled out in 30 overs for 122. They finished the day on 155-5.

Things are looking really tight in Div 2 behind Lancs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, choffer said:

What is it about Kiwi sportsmen? They all seem like genuine good guys. I'm sure it would be easy to find exceptions but in the main they seem like top blokes.

They just try to be the opposite of their Aussie neighbours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â