Okay, how the holy funt did England win that today!!!
:o
;D
🏏
Solid batting, some very fast bowling, and some SUPERB fielding!
That catch was impressive, but after the inevitable collapse...
Pressure in the right places.
I had the radio on while I was painting a batch of goblins.
My own feeling was that they had not batted well and come up 30-60 runs short, with S.A. bowling some tricky stuff.
With hindsight, following the advice of experts of the radio, the batting was a well judged response to a tricky pitch.
They say, the England of 18 months ago would have set a "par" and collapsed chasing it.
The current lot kept a realistic view of possible score with a view to pitch conditions and wickets down.
When England Bowled, they first exerted pressure with some excellent fielding, then grabbed wickets regularly enough to stop South Africa's chase.
Oh! that World Cup.
I was wondering, as well !! (Then I saw 'The catch' mentioned)....I must go and find a clip of that.
Cheers - Phil
They always look more impressive if you start off in the wrong position and then try to make the catch with the wrong hand.
Even so, a spectacular piece of fielding, and unlikely to be the last one in the tournament.
Having seen the catch......That was damn impressive (possibly a shade on the fortunate side ?)
Looked more like a footy keeper trying to 'push the ball over the bar'...But it stuck....Good for Mr Stokes. :)
Cheers - Phil.
Heaven help us if they win it ...
England - WIN ??? Rule is England loses again, thats another win for the UK, so that the minor peripheral nations can claim some of the credit..... :D
Well...The England team do represent England & Wales, don't they ? :-\
Though I can't remember when the team last contained anyone Welsh.
Cheers - Phil
Quote from: ianrs54 on 01 June 2019, 07:01:10 AM
England - WIN ??? Rule is England loses again, thats another win for the UK, so that the minor peripheral nations can claim some of the credit..... :D
It's actually the team of the England & Wales cricket board, but no one calls them England & Wales. Scotland & Ireland do have their own separate teams.
But . . .
The current England captain is actually Irish, and under the rules of cricket - and it looks like the same rules apply to rugby - it sometimes seems like anyone can play for any country. A few years ago England could have been called South Africa (North).
Windies fair demolished Pakistan
Quote from: Raider4 on 01 June 2019, 08:40:47 AM
It's actually the team of the England & Wales cricket board, but no one calls them England & Wales. Scotland & Ireland do have their own separate teams.
- it sometimes seems like anyone can play for any country.
This is VERY true. ;D ;D
Cheers - Phil
Quote from: Techno on 01 June 2019, 07:38:25 AM
Well...The England team do represent England & Wales, don't they ? :-
Though I can't remember when the team last contained anyone Welsh.
Cheers - Phil
The one that springs to mind if Geraint Jones MBE who played around the 2005 Ashes Era along with the likes of Freddie Flintoff.
He took the catch that won the Edgbaston test by 2 runs.
Later held the record of most test innings without a duck.
Back in the Iron Age Tony Lewis, supported by the Druids, captained England against all comers. Couldn't stop the Romans, though!
Excuse me !!
When did the Romans ever play cricket !!... ;D ;D ;D ;D
(Actually....Tony Lewis does ring a bell...Nice one, M. :)....Then there was Tony Grieg, who captained England (?)....He was 'Seth Effrican', if I remember correctly.)
Cheers - Phil
I think geraint Jones was an Aussie.
Simon Jones is welsh though
Quote from: Techno on 01 June 2019, 11:14:15 AM
Excuse me !!
When did the Romans ever play cricket !!... ;D ;D ;D ;D
They didn't, that was the problem! Transfixing the bowler with a pilum was expressly outlawed by the MCC, but all the Romans did in response was nick the tea and burn the Pavilion down. I have played against the Italians, I know of what I speak!
(Actually....Tony Lewis does ring a bell...Nice one, M. :)....Then there was Tony Grieg, who captained England (?)....He was 'Seth Effrican', if I remember correctly.).
Tony Grieg actually captained the Norwegians, it was Tony Greig who captained England.
Cheers - Phil
Response to individual points contained in the quote. Cheers, Mollers!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Cheers - Phil
Quote from: Matt J on 01 June 2019, 01:55:27 PM
I think geraint Jones was an Aussie.
Simon Jones is welsh though
Geraint Jones was born in Papua New Guinea to Welsh parents and grew up in Australia.
As well as Simon Jones, Robert Croft was another Welsh semi-regular for England in (relatively) recent times. Then there were Matthew Maynard and Alex Wharf: Glamorgan players who played for England, although originally from oop North!
Cheers!
Meirion
Amazing result for Bangladesh today: go Tigers!
...and when did the Windies suddenly remember how to play crikkitt?! :o
ROOOOOOOOT!
BUUUUUUTTTTTLLLLEEEEEERRR!
And that jinxed him too...
Big win for Pakistan that.
How are the mighty fallen, in the midst of the battle! Congratulations to Pakistan, for taking advantage of a little bit of complacency?
And some poor fielding
I know the Windies lost today, but wow, that was some catch!
Guys, I don't know what you are on about.
The World Cup (that we yanks can win not to mention qualify for) starts tomorrow.
It's some sort of game, I believe,
Quote from: mad lemmey on 06 June 2019, 10:32:18 PM
I know the Windies lost today, but wow, that was some catch!
Better than Stokes in my opinion.
Very strong showing form Australia though.
Batting recovery brought them back from the dead, and then they bowled a very tight set to win the game.
It all bodes well for them as the tournament goes on.
Quote from: lowlylowlycook on 06 June 2019, 11:04:34 PM
Guys, I don't know what you are on about.
The World Cup (that we yanks can win not to mention qualify for) starts tomorrow.
Cricket, Cookie. ;)
Cheers - Phil
Quote from: mad lemmey on 06 June 2019, 10:32:18 PM
I know the Windies lost today, but wow, that was some catch!
It was indeed! And made me wonder what the rule / law is for a catch? Was it a catch when he took it one handed over the boundary, or only after he flicked it up, ran around the boundary 'rope' and caught it again? Superb athleticism and thinking whichever way.
if he'd have fallen over the boundary (or even touched the rope) holding the ball it would have been a 6.
The ball can hit/ricochet off any number of things before being caught as long as it doesn't hit the ground.
Only if he had his feet grounded when he took the catch, Forbes....If he's done it outside the rope with his feet in contact with the ground, it would have been a 6.
Saw something similar on the net from a few years ago.
Batsman hit the ball over the boundary rope.
Fielder was positioned OVER the rope....So he jumped in the air, so his feet weren't in contact with the ground, outside the field of play..... (He was beyond the boundary.)
He swatted the ball, while his feet weren't in contact with the ground, OUTSIDE the rope.
The 'pat' took the ball into the field of play.....So he could then catch the ball inside the field of play....and it didn't matter where he took the catch.....as long he was inside the field of play, at that point.
Cheers - Ted Dexter. ;)
Thanks both. I think it's the both feet grounded bit I wasn't aware of. I.e. when is a catch complete. And with the initial catch he only has one foot on the ground as he is running. Therefore the need for the acrobatics.
Quote from: fred. on 07 June 2019, 04:50:48 PM
Thanks both. I think it's the both feet grounded bit I wasn't aware of. I.e. when is a catch complete. And with the initial catch he only has one foot on the ground as he is running. Therefore the need for the acrobatics.
For a catch to be completed the fielder needs control of the ball, before it hits the ground, within the field of play. Doesn't matter how many feet are in contact with the ground (flat on the back with no feet on the ground is fine ;) )
On avoiding the six thing, the fielder must have jumped from the field of play. A fielder can't launch themself from beyond the boundary rope to take a catch.
As was said, you will occasionally see a fielder take a catch sprinting full-speed towards the boundary, toss the ball back into the air, run over the rope and then back into the field of play before completing the catch
or for another fielder to take it.
Quote from: O Dinas Powys on 07 June 2019, 05:15:21 PM
For a catch to be completed the fielder needs control of the ball, before it hits the ground, within the field of play. Doesn't matter how many feet are in contact with the ground (flat on the back with no feet on the ground is fine ;) )
On avoiding the six thing, the fielder must have jumped from the field of play. A fielder can't launch themself from beyond the boundary rope to take a catch.
As was said, you will occasionally see a fielder take a catch sprinting full-speed towards the boundary, toss the ball back into the air, run over the rope and then back into the field of play before completing the catch or for another fielder to take it.
As Meirion says, Forbes.....
Within the field of play.
Cheers - Phil
Absolutely - I knew that any touch of the player with the boundary (or beyond) counts as runs. The bit I was unsure of, is what counts as a completed catch.
Quote from: Matt J on 07 June 2019, 03:28:46 PM
if he'd have fallen over the boundary (or even touched the rope) holding the ball it would have been a 6.
The ball can hit/ricochet off any number of things before being caught as long as it doesn't hit the ground.
Except a fielder's helmet (Unless they've revised that recently).
Quote from: fred. on 07 June 2019, 07:08:15 PM
Absolutely - I knew that any touch of the player with the boundary (or beyond) counts as runs. The bit I was unsure of, is what counts as a completed catch.
Interesting titbit from Wikipedia:
Before 2000, the Laws of Cricket defined a catch as being completed when the player had "complete control over the further disposal of the ball". In the very strictest sense, this meant that the player did not finish catching the ball until he threw it away, though the player doesn't have to throw the ball to anyone in particular in so doing.
Quote from: fred. on 07 June 2019, 01:16:41 PM
It was indeed! And made me wonder what the rule / law is for a catch? Was it a catch when he took it one handed over the boundary, or only after he flicked it up, ran around the boundary 'rope' and caught it again? Superb athleticism and thinking whichever way.
Catcher has to have the ball under control and be stood in the field of play.
In this case he felt he was in danger of leaving the field with the ball, so flipped it up.
The catch was completed at the second grab.
Quote from: O Dinas Powys on 08 June 2019, 09:15:23 AM
Interesting titbit from Wikipedia:
Before 2000, the Laws of Cricket defined a catch as being completed when the player had "complete control over the further disposal of the ball". In the very strictest sense, this meant that the player did not finish catching the ball until he threw it away, though the player doesn't have to throw the ball to anyone in particular in so doing.
That'll explain why chaps of my age would take a catch and hurl it skyward by way of celebration (to catch again) while barking "Owzaaat!!".
Those modern types prefer to strut around showing the ball to every cameraman in the ground.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 08 June 2019, 09:14:41 AM
Except a fielder's helmet (Unless they've revised that recently).
Is that even if it's on his head? I knew that discarded bits of equipment can be an issue, and you certainly can't use your hat/cap as a method of catching the ball. Not that I'm sure this would help (as an aside many years ago I was in the USA for a summer, and played a lot of softball - I was given a catchers mitt, it really took a lot of getting used to. It would cause disbelief form the Americans when I was under a high ball, and I would throw off the mitt to take the catch bare handed, as that felt much more comfortable. After a while the mitt felt it was useful, but more I think for picking up low balls than for catching)
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 08 June 2019, 09:23:42 AM
That'll explain why chaps of my age would take a catch and hurl it skyward by way of celebration (to catch again) while barking "Owzaaat!!"..
It would indeed.
Quote from: fred. on 08 June 2019, 09:29:03 AM
Is that even if it's on his head? I knew that discarded bits of equipment can be an issue, and you certainly can't use your hat/cap as a method of catching the ball. Not that I'm sure this would help (as an aside many years ago I was in the USA for a summer, and played a lot of softball - I was given a catchers mitt, it really took a lot of getting used to. It would cause disbelief form the Americans when I was under a high ball, and I would throw off the mitt to take the catch bare handed, as that felt much more comfortable. After a while the mitt felt it was useful, but more I think for picking up low balls than for catching)
It would indeed.
Especially if the helmet is on the fielder's head.
If the ball strikes a helmet that's laying on the ground it's 5 runs, the rules that was originally developed to prevent Victorian cads form catching the ball in their top hats.
The deflection from the fielder's worn helmet (pardon if my memory plays tricks here), seems to have been added to the laws along these lines.
1. The helmet produces an unnatural bounce compared to a deflection off the body.
2. We don't want the spectacle of heavily armoured fielders crowding the bat with the express intention of acting as human blockhouses.
Which takes me back to the days of 'proper' Yorkshireman Brian Close.
"I'll get ion at short square leg, they'll have a lap (sweep), and I'll be there for the catch".
"What if it hits your head?"
"Mind you catch the rebound".
A bit of solid tap from England today against the graveyard of empires.
In which our Irish expat skipper broke the record for most sixes in an international innings.
I recommend the televised highlights.
Cool
Just watched, I say...
Good catch by the wikky too.
Do you think England can sort out theJapanese this time round without any own goals? No comments on placing guns in only one direction, thank you.
Depends, are Japan in the cricket world cup?
Quote from: mad lemmey on 19 June 2019, 12:43:08 PM
Depends, are Japan in the cricket world cup?
Nope. But it doesn't matter because cricket is so dull nobody watches it. :P
Women's Football on the other hand is very popular .... in some quarters at least. :)
Quote from: Ithoriel on 19 June 2019, 01:00:05 PM
Nope. But it doesn't matter because cricket is so dull nobody watches it. :P
Or, nobody watches it because it's not on free-to-air telly?
(actually I love Test cricket, but couldn't give two hoots about the one day stuff. Still not paying the Sky tax though. Test Match Special for me)
QuoteNope. But it doesn't matter because cricket is so dull nobody watches it.
you didn't catch Morgan's inning yesterday then... that was entertainment!
Quote from: Ithoriel on 19 June 2019, 01:00:05 PM
Nope. But it doesn't matter because cricket is so dull only nobodies watch it. :P
FIFM
:P :P :P :P :D :D :D :D
Seriously, if cricket floats your boat more power to your elbow but for me, I'd sooner watch a bird bath evaporate.
Done that...Got the tee-shirt...Until I used some milliput to seal the crack. (It was the MIL's birdbath.)
The joys of the different putties I use. :-*
Cheers - Phil
Quote from: Techno on 19 June 2019, 03:52:29 PM
The joys of the different putties I use. :-*
You put bandages around your ankles?
Quote from: Matt J on 19 June 2019, 03:15:43 PM
you didn't catch Morgan's inning yesterday then... that was entertainment!
Not really - it was against Afghanistan. Any other performance against such opposition would have been ridiculous. However, they could just as easily have been playing St Elizabeth's primary first eleven. And I agree, it is a bit dull. Rather like watching (rather than playing) a wargame.
The Aussies were a bit too good for the Kiwis in today's game - and they didn't bowl any underarm deliveries :o ;)
I say, what a move.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/cricket/48857917
Well, that's jolly satisfying.
Now let the kiwi banter begin! 8)
8) 8)
I've been very busy are work today. Saw that Aus were 20ish for 3, which was awesome. Then saw them all out for 225 and was a bit disappointed that we had let them get that many.
Saw England at 60 odd. Then got home expecting to hear the close and saw we had won!!!
So....Neither India or Australia are going to win then. ;)
Cheers - Mr Missed it on the radio.
Quote from: Techno on 11 July 2019, 06:28:27 PM
So....Neither India or Australia are going to win then. ;)
Cheers - Mr Missed it on the radio.
Yes. It's all going horribly wrong.
But the final will be live on terrestrial tv, Channel 4! Hurrah!
So is it England's to lose or the Kiwi's to win?
Pressure probably more on the Brits, as it's their home turf.
Quote from: Kiwidave on 12 July 2019, 04:43:09 AM
Pressure probably more on the Brits
"Brits" <> England!
On form England v. Australia should have been a close game, and India should comfortably have beaten NZ.
Neither game panned out that way. That's why we love sport - it's not (always) predictable.
And what genius thought it would be a good idea to have the British GP, the Wimbledon Men's final and the cricket World Cup final all on the same day?
There are probably a few TV execs either rubbing their hands with glee that they can get one over on another channel....Or they're all spitting ! ;)
Must admit I don't even bother to watch F1 nowadays.....Even when it's on a 'free' channel.....And I used to really enjoy it. :(
Cheers - Phil
Quote from: Raider4 on 12 July 2019, 08:07:22 AM
"Brits" <> England!
And what genius thought it would be a good idea to have the British GP, the Wimbledon Men's final and the cricket World Cup final all on the same day?
Same person that put Copa America, Gold Cup and Women's Word Cup finals on the same day?
Due to the time difference I'm not looking forward to work on Monday. As well as lack of sleep, I have a new manager starting and a deadline that can't be missed :'(
Should be fun
cheers
Ian
"Sleep is for the weak!" Life is for the weekend! ;)
"I love deadlines. I love the whooshing noise they make as they go by." ― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt
Hope your day is better than you expect Ian.
Who's up for following the Netball World Cup?
It's in Liverpool! I saw the Malawian team- they looked very cold and miserable.
And they were beaten by the Silver Ferns ;) :) :) :)
With the final, today.
Have they got tomorrow booked for 'extra time' if it gets interrupted by rain ?
I'd hate to see it being decided on the Duckworth-Lewis (?) 'formula'.
I know it's as fair as it can get....But I still think that makes it a bit of a lottery.
Cheers - Phil
Well done England. It was a mighty close run thing, eventually decided in a "super over".
Much respect to the Black Caps too. They were very, very unlucky. They did New Zealand proud.
Geoff
NZ should have won that, but what an ending! Wow! 😎
Both the tennis and the cricket were amazing finals. We kept flicking between both. Felt really sorry for NZ who would/should have won if it hadn't have been for the Stoke's bat incident.
That was a bit tense!!! X_X
I think after the super-over was tied they should have come back tomorrow for an additional 10 overs :-\ ;)
The Kiwi's were robbed, they only lost 8 wickets to Englands 10.
That does seem a more logical tie breaker ;)
What a magnificent game, with stunning performances all round! For once, fate seemed to have decided to be on England's side, but that did not take away from the splendid Kiwi side. Once upon a time I seem to recall a "tie" was only if both sides had also lost the same number of wickets (is this really true?) which would have complicated England's decision making process somewhat in the last two balls of the main game! The Kiwis should take a bow for playing out of their skins, and for the way they accepted a most cruel and bizarre turn of fate. Surely the strangest six ever scored?
Stokes, to his credit, asked for those runs to be disallowed, but was overruled.
Just Google Stokes on Twitter, some brilliant comments.
If he said that, fair play to him as truly in the spirit of the game.
Quote from: mad lemmey on 14 July 2019, 08:04:54 PM
NZ should have won that, but what an ending! Wow! 😎
Agreed.....Shame the trophy couldn't have been shared.
Quote from: Steve J on 14 July 2019, 08:27:50 PM
Both the tennis and the cricket were amazing finals. We kept flicking between both. Felt really sorry for NZ who would/should have won if it hadn't have been for the Stoke's bat incident.
I was constantly changing channels too, Steve.....Also felt really sorry for NZ....and that nice Mr Federer.
Cheers - Phil
Great match, followed by probably my least productive day at work ever :)
Cheers
Ian
Quote from: jimduncanuk on 14 July 2019, 09:04:57 PM
The Kiwi's were robbed, they only lost 8 wickets to Englands 10.
This.
Perhaps, but not to the rules of the tournament.
Here in NZ many Black Caps fans at work were whinging worse than the Aussies usually do ;D
Cheers
Ian
Quote from: Sandinista on 15 July 2019, 10:40:52 AM
Here in NZ many Black Caps fans at work were whinging worse than the Aussies usually do ;D
I don't think I could blame them, in the slightest, Ian.
Cheers - Phil
Awesome game, a credit to both teams.
Just like to say the Kiwis handled themselves exemplary and if we had of lost I couldn't think of a better team to lose to, always play fair, always play hard, credit to their nation.
Quote from: Sandinista on 15 July 2019, 10:40:52 AM
Perhaps, but not to the rules of the tournament.
So, in game that's a contest between batting and bowling, only batting counts? And that's why I'll go back to ignoring OD cricket.
Also, NZ score 241 --> Eng score 241 --> match is tied. Then Eng score 15 --> NZ score 15 --> Eng win? Don't make sense to me.
If wickets had been relevant then England would have played the last over differently, the run outs of Rashid and Woods wouldn't have happened as they wouldn't have pushed for the suicidal 2's.
Looks like England didn't win it...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/48991962 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/48991962)
Quote from: Matt J on 15 July 2019, 12:07:40 PM
Awesome game, a credit to both teams.
Just like to say the Kiwis handled themselves exemplary and if we had of lost I couldn't think of a better team to lose to, always play fair, always play hard, credit to their nation.
Hear, hear !
It WAS a treat to see both teams 'being gentlemen'.....(For a bl**dy change)...... in today's sporting 'climate'.
I
really hope NZ win the next one.....They deserve that.
I'll be supporting the All Blacks in the oval ball game, from now on.
Cheers - Phil
Quote from: Techno on 15 July 2019, 03:40:59 PM
I'll be supporting the All Blacks in the oval ball game, from now on.
Spoken like a true Welshman !!! :D :D
:P ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Cheers - Phil.