Better still if the ecb hadn't screwed us.......
Is it always like this?
Hahaha.No that was quite a quiet game really. Bit disappointing as they're usually a bit more exciting.
The richochet off Stokes to the boundary that resulted in 6 off that particular ball (2 ran, 4 overthrows) was indeed the difference.
I do wonder if the rule on that needs looking at. It's one thing when it's the fielding sides fault (i.e. fielder throws it and there's a misfield that sends it for four) but it doesn't quite feel right that you can score four runs for an accidental deflection. Surely should be dead ball at that point?
Yes exactly. Etiquette covers what would normally happen to a deflection like that but I can't help but feel the laws should cover what happens when it reaches the boundary!If it wasn't a boundary, etiquette dictates that the batting side doesn't run, but as the ball reached the boundary it is classed as overthrows
Don't worry, this sequence of events will never happen again. Oh, wait a minute, didn't someone win the lottery jackpot on two different occasions? :LOL:Yes exactly. Etiquette covers what would normally happen to a deflection like that but I can't help but feel the laws should cover what happens when it reaches the boundary!
Yes exactly. Etiquette covers what would normally happen to a deflection like that but I can't help but feel the laws should cover what happens when it reaches the boundary!
I’ve been listening on the radio since 3pm while working on the car.
Good grief!
Is it always like this?
Do you know what Rich, I actually would listen to it again.Worth noting the game was played in the correct spirt. The best examples being boult and guptill indicating 6 when the former stood on the boundary rope attempting a catch and stokes pleading for the runs if
off his dive not to count!
Cant say I would have done that!
One of the goals of the ecb for this world cup was to get new people interested in cricket. They might just have managed it!
Really good that game was on council tv. Let so many people see it. Let's hope this ( and the 100) gets people into the game.
Btw how did you find the bonkers world of test match special?
Do you know what Rich, I actually would listen to it again.
I have listened to some of the Ashes in the past. But I feel like I got lot of enjoyment out of this tournament.
Stokes to the rescue.
Let's hope this ( and the 100) gets people into the game.
Worth noting the game was played in the correct spirt. The best examples being boult and guptill indicating 6 when the former stood on the boundary rope attempting a catch and stokes pleading for the runs if
off his dive not to count!
Cant say I would have done that!
One of the goals of the ecb for this world cup was to get new people interested in cricket. They might just have managed it!
Really good that game was on council tv. Let so many people see it. Let's hope this ( and the 100) gets people into the game.
Btw how did you find the bonkers world of test match special?
Courtesy of some obscure rule.
Just imagine if it had happened to India!Definitely think that the rules need adjusting. There's no way it's fair on a fielding side to end up conceding four runs (+whatever is run) in the circumstances that occurred yesterday.
I hope the 100 dies a quick and painful (to the sponsors) death. It's an unnecessary and unwanted variation of the game. County games, One Day and T20 is all the variety we need. A ludicrous city-based franchise will do little for the clubs and squeeze more into an already busy schedule.
Apologies for being the voice of doom and gloom on such a gripping day for Cricket.
Hopefully!
It's a shame, it's a game that's really underappreciated in the wider community, it's a shame because I find it's a lot more interesting than football, plus it's a sport that England is actually good at.
We had a World Cup in our own country, and no-one cared!
My friends were like, why the hell do you care about cricket, it's really boring
Hope this and the Hundred attracts more people to the game.
Have to say though, that Sky's coverage has been superb, I doubt the BBC's would have been as good.
Ideally I'd like both broadcasters to show the sport.
I think the choice of Kane Williamson of New Zealand as the "Man of the series" award was one that was well deserved, considering his performances overall and his captaincy.
Courtesy of some obscure rule.
Just imagine if it had happened to India!
Rule change - if any - will be if the ball hit's the batsman mid-run then he must finish his run and the fielders can still run him out...but once the run's finished they can't run any more regardless of where the ball ends up. Also think the same should apply if a ball hits the stumps and runs away....why punish great accuracy?
I've always wondered what would happen if it was the last ball, one to win; bowler bowls, hits the pads and runs away, bowler appeals and ump gives them out; the batsman refer immediately and the video shows the ball going down the leg and not out.....so the batsmen have been deprived of the winning run by an incorrect decision and no further chance to replay the delivery.
The batsmen could set out to run BUT as soon as the umpire gives "out" the ball's dead so the run wouldn't count. Even if it went for four leg byes.
There is a sort of gentleman's agreement that one doesn't run after it unintentionally hits the bat.Just imagine if it had happened to India!
Rule change - if any - will be if the ball hit's the batsman mid-run then he must finish his run and the fielders can still run him out...but once the run's finished they can't run any more regardless of where the ball ends up. Also think the same should apply if a ball hits the stumps and runs away....why punish great accuracy?
I don't think it's the first time it's happened but it is a first late in a game like that. I wouldn't be surprised if they do tinker with the rules in time for the next world cup.Definitely think that the rules need adjusting. There's no way it's fair on a fielding side to end up conceding four runs (+whatever is run) in the circumstances that occurred yesterday.
There is a sort of gentleman's agreement that one doesn't run after it unintentionally hits the bat.
I don't think it's the first time it's happened but it is a first late in a game like that. I wouldn't be surprised if they do tinker with the rules in time for the next world cup.
That's exactly right.Agreed - the fact it hit the bat and went to the boundary was the complicating factor. Stokes, despite his sporting efforts, could not decline the runs as he could have done if the ball remained inside the rope.
The problem is Cricket in this country IS dying. There has been a cliff edge drop off in participation and involvement since the end of the last free to air TV deal in 2005. That ashes feel good factor was wasted. People simply are not interested in cricket because they don't see it. Kids are not playing it, clubs are fol,ding at an alarming rate. We need new people interested in the game and we need them NOW. We need hte fact the game yesterday was seen by the masses as a catalyst for change and in developing interest. That is what the 100 is about.
The county game is moribund. It is dull and watched by 7 old blokes. One day is also getting squeezed out by 20/20 and still, as we saw yesterday, takes all day. People aren't going to watch the games. People wont give their time to that sort of event these days. That game has been a success but isnt getting families involved. It has turned into a post work booze up. Cricket is going to die as a sport if we carry on like that.
For me the key aspect of this new tournament is the fact it is to be shown on the BBC. The Sky deal has brought lots of money into the game but at the expense of access, publicity, public perception and participation The other point to note is that the 100 isnt aimed at the duffers who know every bowling average for Yorkshire part time seamers since 1922. It is aimed at getting new people into the game of cricket by giving them an exciting taster, it is aimed at using that taster to get kids down to their local club and playing the game. We need exposure and participation as a game or we will die.
We have to be honest about the state of cricket as a game in this country. We cant carry on like we always have. Things have to change.
No one but Sky has shown cricket since 2005. That said TMS is always top class and the BBC always cover sport properly.
See above on my views on the need for the 100
Agreed. NZ were superb and it is worth noting we didn't actually score more runs them in either the final or the extra final! Worth noting the ECB and Eoin Morgan based their plans on the work in NZ by Brendon McCullum
Agreed - it is no way to win a world cup, but I will take it! Mind you thinking about Australia and rule bending I give you the underarm bowling incident of 1981! ( I sneakingly really like this sort of despicable behavior! )
For those that don't know: In the final of a one day series between Australia and New Zealand and with one ball of the final over remaining, New Zealand required a six to tie the match. To ensure that New Zealand did not get the runs they needed, the Australian captain, Greg Chappell, instructed his bowler (and younger brother), Trevor Chappell, to deliver the last ball to Brian McKechnie underarm, along the ground. This action was legal at the time, but nevertheless seen as being against the spirit of cricketing fair play.
I did wonder if someone might try something like that in the super over until I remembered it had been banned!
The simple thing is to say the ball is dead if it strikes the batsman or part of his equipment in this situation.
As for your final situation you run no matter what, try to complete the run while the fielding team appeal THEN you refer. You do not stand still. You run on the last ball even if it is in the keepers hands
The problem is Cricket in this country IS dying. There has been a cliff edge drop off in participation and involvement since the end of the last free to air TV deal in 2005. That ashes feel good factor was wasted. People simply are not interested in cricket because they don't see it. Kids are not playing it, clubs are fol,ding at an alarming rate. We need new people interested in the game and we need them NOW. We need hte fact the game yesterday was seen by the masses as a catalyst for change and in developing interest. That is what the 100 is about.
The county game is moribund. It is dull and watched by 7 old blokes. One day is also getting squeezed out by 20/20 and still, as we saw yesterday, takes all day. People aren't going to watch the games. People wont give their time to that sort of event these days. That game has been a success but isnt getting families involved. It has turned into a post work booze up. Cricket is going to die as a sport if we carry on like that.
For me the key aspect of this new tournament is the fact it is to be shown on the BBC. The Sky deal has brought lots of money into the game but at the expense of access, publicity, public perception and participation The other point to note is that the 100 isnt aimed at the duffers who know every bowling average for Yorkshire part time seamers since 1922. It is aimed at getting new people into the game of cricket by giving them an exciting taster, it is aimed at using that taster to get kids down to their local club and playing the game. We need exposure and participation as a game or we will die.
Looks to me that it's not the competition, it's the lack of Free To Air TV coverage that's at the root of the problem.
Yes, cricket needs to attract a bigger and younger audience. But if T20 hasn't done it, why is the Hundred more likely to succeed? BBC coverage, playing in the school holidays and promoting it properly are all good ideas, but didn't need a new format, which as far as I know is not currently planned to be played in any other competition, at any level, anywhere in the world - no kid will find it at their local club. It doesn't make sense for both the Hundred and T20 to survive, in the same way the peculiarly English 40 over game is now dead.
What in particular attracts women and children to a 100-ball game that T20 doesn't have - is shaving another 25 minutes off the match duration going to make a huge difference if cutting the game in half for T20 didn't? 8 teams will presumably be each of a higher standard than 18 counties, but the perennial problem of England contracted players being unavailable for most of the summer will still exist, and fewer people will have the opportunity to watch a match in person. City based T20 competitions are already successful in India, Australia etc. Copious amounts of alcohol will still be consumed in the stands - certain grounds are quite happy to promote this, and obtaining any form of refreshments usually means going to the bar.
Great if it succeeds, but I don't think the 100 ball format will be the reason if it does.
As well as getting children to see the game, we also need to give them the opportunity to play it - our kids school has no shortage of outdoor space, but the boys will play a game resembling cricket perhaps two or three times a year, and the girls never. It is not offered as an extracurricular activity at all.
The problem with Sky is that the prices are tailored to the Premiership watchers, so cricket fans have to pay a premium for something they aren't gonna watch.The main trouble is (and I speak as a Club Secretary) that whilst English cricket is absolutely overflowing with money because of the Sky deals, the public profile of the game is very low because of the Sky deals!
Unfortunately, I don't know what the answer is … and neither do most of the people (most of whom are involved in the club game) that I talk to about it, either.