Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

TomF

England Cricket Summer Internationals

Recommended Posts

In test match cricket huge importance is put on pace bowling and 90+ mph is a rarity. England have two capable of that pace in Archer and Wood and I’d be very surprised if they both don’t feature in the upcoming Ashes series.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Robbored said:

In test match cricket huge importance is put on pace bowling and 90+ mph is a rarity. England have two capable of that pace in Archer and Wood and I’d be very surprised if they both don’t feature in the upcoming Ashes series.

But you need the ability to bowl 18 plus overs in a day if needed, I think Archer's action will let him but he's very untested even in first class cricket in general. Wood, I simply think he won't hold up. Archer definitely plays the game against Ireland, Edgbaston will be interesting however depending on the pitch. 

Jofra's first class record

 

matches 28   inn 54  overs 5953  maidens 3071  wickets 131  best /67  best game 11/137 avg 23.44 RR 3.09  SR 45.4 4 fers10 5 fers 5  1 fer  1
Edited by hodge
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hodge said:

But you need the ability to bowl 18 plus overs in a day if needed, I think Archer's action will let him but he's very untested even in first class cricket in general. Wood, I simply think he won't hold up. Archer definitely plays the game against Ireland, Edgbaston will be interesting however depending on the pitch. 

Jofra's first class record

 

matches 28   inn 54  overs 5953  maidens 3071  wickets 131  best /67  best game 11/137 avg 23.44 RR 3.09  SR 45.4 4 fers10 5 fers 5  1 fer  1

Wood has had injury problems, particularly with his ankle caused by his delivery with the angle at which he lands his front foot and that frequently leads to him falling over. 

No doubt at all that the coaches will be working with him on adapting his run up and leap without reducing his pace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Northern Red said:

Old Trafford.

I've tickets to the first day at Edgbaston, got a nice extended weekend of cricket that weekend, Thursday Edgbaston, Friday T20 at Taunton, Saturday umpiring and Sunday back to Edgbaston if it goes to a 4th day😀

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Image may contain: 2 people, people playing sport and outdoor
 
What a great picture. Game was played in a great spirit. What sport is  all about
 
 
 
 
Edited by Super
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My god there are some bitter and sad Aussies around today.   Shall we talk about sandpaper and underarm balls lads? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TomF said:

My god there are some bitter and sad Aussies around today.   Shall we talk about sandpaper and underarm balls lads? 

I found Shane Warne’s post match Sky comments particularly sour..........”NZ were the better team”.........:cool2:

Truth is there was bugger all between the two teams and it went our way with a combination of good fortune, Stokes ‘accidental’ 6 and Boult stepping back on the boundary after the catch.

Gotta feel for the Kiwi’s tho. A very desperate way to lose. 

Cant say I’d have had any compassion to the cheaters had they been the opposition.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Robbored said:

I found Shane Warne’s post match Sky comments particularly sour..........”NZ were the better team”.........:cool2:

Truth is there was bugger all between the two teams and it went our way with a combination of good fortune, Stokes ‘accidental’ 6 and Boult stepping back on the boundary after the catch.

Gotta feel for the Kiwi’s tho. A very desperate way to lose. 

Cant say I’d have had any compassion to the cheaters had they been the opposition.

 

Warne seemed ok at times - McCullan was very gracious but then he always comes across as a very nice bloke. 

Ian Smith is probably still crying somewhere around St Johns Wood. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we rode our luck a bit at the end and definitely had the rub of the green, but there's a few famous phrases surrounding luck....something about "creating your own" and "the more I practice, the luckier I get".

Our lads deserved that, for fours years of having a plan, implementing it, even when it looked like it was going to rat-shit.

Everyone deserves huge credit for the vision and application. 

This hasn't just happened....we're English....we're never THAT lucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Robbored said:

I found Shane Warne’s post match Sky comments particularly sour..........”NZ were the better team”.........:cool2:

Truth is there was bugger all between the two teams and it went our way with a combination of good fortune, Stokes ‘accidental’ 6 and Boult stepping back on the boundary after the catch.

Gotta feel for the Kiwi’s tho. A very desperate way to lose. 

Cant say I’d have had any compassion to the cheaters had they been the opposition.

 

I agreed with Warne to be honest. We totally had the rub of the luck in some situations but then again NZ didnt help themselves especially Boult and his failure to throw to Guptil or even just drop it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TomF said:

Warne seemed ok at times - McCullan was very gracious but then he always comes across as a very nice bloke. 

Ian Smith is probably still crying somewhere around St Johns Wood. 

I thought Kane Williamson and the whole NZ team were superbly sporting and magnanimous in defeat, especially considering the circumstances in how they lost. If it was the other way round, I'd be pissed at losing to a countback. (Why doesn't it just go back to Head to Head?).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said:

I agreed with Warne to be honest. We totally had the rub of the luck in some situations but then again NZ didnt help themselves especially Boult and his failure to throw to Guptil or even just drop it

NZ had a little bit of luck on the run up lets not forget - got through to semi's on net run rate, they won the toss in the semi and then had the overnight delay which resulted in a completely different favourable bowling conditions when India had to bat and then also won the toss yesterday.  Not that anyone from NZ seems to be bitter about it, just mostly those from further down under..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, WesM said:

I thought Kane Williamson and the whole NZ team were superbly sporting and magnanimous in defeat, especially considering the circumstances in how they lost. If it was the other way round, I'd be pissed at losing to a countback. (Why doesn't it just go back to Head to Head?).

It used to be who had lost the fewer wickets

But got changed a few years back at one of the oversees tournaments someone was chucking silly money at

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see Simon Taufel has said England should have been awarded 5 runs not 6 with the Stokes Incident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Super said:

I see Simon Taufel has said England should have been awarded 5 runs not 6 with the Stokes Incident.

Which may have completely changed Stokes mindset - who's to say he wouldn't have clubbed the next ball away for 4 if that was the case.   He knew at worst he could run singles for the next two balls and get to a tie.  3 off 2 he's going to aim for the boundary imo - perhaps this might have been better and shut up the bitters. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Super said:

I see Simon Taufel has said England should have been awarded 5 runs not 6 with the Stokes Incident.

He would say that being an Australian. Classic example of sour grapes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TomF said:

Warne seemed ok at times - McCullan was very gracious but then he always comes across as a very nice bloke. 

Ian Smith is probably still crying somewhere around St Johns Wood. 

I thought exactly the same when watching the game.  But fair play to him - have a listen to the commentary when Guptill is run out and he hands over to Nasser.  Went up in my estimation for that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Super said:

I see Simon Taufel has said England should have been awarded 5 runs not 6 with the Stokes Incident.

I saw that on the Daily Mail site, he is wrong in what he is saying and the idiots at the Mail are running with the story

The ball wasn't dead, we ran two there were an additional 4 over throws

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

66    Conceding a last kick equaliser , Sir Geoff’s effort bouncing , just over the line (:whistle2:

2003 Jonny Wilkinson’s last minute drop goal

2019 A drawn game , a drawn superover , after seven weeks ....we win by Guptills missing two yards 

 

Even when we actually do it , we don’t make it easy do we !!

 

Reflecting on yesterday , still the most electric tension at a cricket match , I’ve ever seen in the conclusion and the series of

events still unbelievable

Watching the highlights last night the amount of key moments or moments that could have won or lost the match as it turned out  incrdible

Guptills crazy review meaning Taylor had to walk when not out

Woakes awful slow bumper that spun past Buttler for four byes late in their innings 

Santner ducking (Wtf ?) the final ball of their Innings

Roy so close to LBW first ball

Santner throwing to wrong end to get Rashid when he could of easily picked off Stokes , and the game 

When you look back at that incredible finish the amount of moments that look significant...mind blowing !

Niesham losing the ball in the sun allowing us to pinch two instead of one

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, phantom said:

I saw that on the Daily Mail site, he is wrong in what he is saying and the idiots at the Mail are running with the story

The ball wasn't dead, we ran two there were an additional 4 over throws

The law actually isn’t very clear and talks about runs completed , batsmen crossing , and  when the act happens , or similar

The Aussies are suggesting its when Guptill takes his throw (At which point Stokes and Rashid hadn’t crossed for the second)

 

Anyway , Keep whinging you bitter cheats 

We won the World Cup 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Northern Red said:

They're taking it worse than the Kiwis are.

Marvellous, isn't it?

Indians too.  Best thing is we beat both of them comprehensively.  Suck it up loosers. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alf Ramsey - football and Clive Woodward - rugby were awarded knighthoods after managing the World Cup winners and their players received lesser awards. Presumably the New Years Honours list will feature a few cricketers.

Thinking back; football won after AET. Rugby won after AET. Now the cricket's gone to that Super over. What will they do if scores are level at full time in the netball world cup currently taking place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 22A said:

Alf Ramsey - football and Clive Woodward - rugby were awarded knighthoods after managing the World Cup winners and their players received lesser awards. Presumably the New Years Honours list will feature a few cricketers.

Thinking back; football won after AET. Rugby won after AET. Now the cricket's gone to that Super over. What will they do if scores are level at full time in the netball world cup currently taking place?

Play extra time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 22A said:

Alf Ramsey - football and Clive Woodward - rugby were awarded knighthoods after managing the World Cup winners and their players received lesser awards. Presumably the New Years Honours list will feature a few cricketers.

Thinking back; football won after AET. Rugby won after AET. Now the cricket's gone to that Super over. What will they do if scores are level at full time in the netball world cup currently taking place?

Stokes currently favourite for SPOTY, what a comeback that would be after the T20 final and Mbargos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 22A said:

Alf Ramsey - football and Clive Woodward - rugby were awarded knighthoods after managing the World Cup winners and their players received lesser awards. Presumably the New Years Honours list will feature a few cricketers.

Thinking back; football won after AET. Rugby won after AET. Now the cricket's gone to that Super over. What will they do if scores are level at full time in the netball world cup currently taking place?

Strauss probably deserves one . Bayliss can only have an fake one not being British I think? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, TomF said:

Strauss probably deserves one . Bayliss can only have an fake one not being British I think? 

They can be awarded to anyone from any country that the Queen is their head of state

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, phantom said:

They can be awarded to anyone from any country that the Queen is their head of state

Handy that Eoin Morgan has an English mother and a British passport then.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, phantom said:

They can be awarded to anyone from any country that the Queen is their head of state

I think you can get them from other countries just not use the salutation of Sir/Dame.   Bob Geldof for example although he seems to get called Sir Bob a lot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phantom said:

I saw that on the Daily Mail site, he is wrong in what he is saying and the idiots at the Mail are running with the story

The ball wasn't dead, we ran two there were an additional 4 over throws

He is actually correct. It's nothing to do with a dead ball. 

Only one of the two runs that were 'ran' should have counted, as at the moment the ball was thrown they hadn't yet crossed.

The law is:

“If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be any runs for penalties awarded to either side and the allowance for the boundary and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act.”

And they clearly hadn't crossed:

run.png

But hey, who gives a shit?! :laugh::winner_third_h4h:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, elhombrecito said:

He is actually correct. It's nothing to do with a dead ball. 

Only one of the two runs that were 'ran' should have counted, as at the moment the ball was thrown they hadn't yet crossed.

The law is:

“If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be any runs for penalties awarded to either side and the allowance for the boundary and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act.”

And they clearly hadn't crossed:

run.png

But hey, who gives a shit?! :laugh::winner_third_h4h:

But I think Stokes mindset would have probably been different if that was the outcome.    The last ball was a full toss, if he needed 3 off that he'd have smashed it to the boundary.

More bitter Aussies who forget about things like the underarm ball. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TomF said:

But I think Stokes mindset would have probably been different if that was the outcome.    The last ball was a full toss, if he needed 3 off that he'd have smashed it to the boundary.

More bitter Aussies who forget about things like the underarm ball. 

The height it was bowled at, it would have landed in Marylebone

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Super said:

I see Simon Taufel has said England should have been awarded 5 runs not 6 with the Stokes Incident.

Got my umpires hat on now, 

 

Law 19.8 Overthrow or wilful act of fielder

If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be:

  • any runs for penalties awarded to either side
  • and the allowance for the boundary
  • and the runs completed by the batsman together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act.

benstokes6.jpg

Edited by northsomersetred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, northsomersetred said:

Got my umpires hat on now, 

 

Law 19.8 Overthrow or wilful act of fielder

If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be:

  • any runs for penalties awarded to either side
  • and the allowance for the boundary
  • and the runs completed by the batsman together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act.

benstokes6.jpg

So basically, exactly what I said a couple of posts higher up (complete with almost the exact same photo)? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, elhombrecito said:

He is actually correct. It's nothing to do with a dead ball. 

Only one of the two runs that were 'ran' should have counted, as at the moment the ball was thrown they hadn't yet crossed.

The law is:

“If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be any runs for penalties awarded to either side and the allowance for the boundary and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act.”

And they clearly hadn't crossed:

run.png

But hey, who gives a shit?! :laugh::winner_third_h4h:

To me thats another rule that hasn't kept up with the times, would love to know when that rule was made. My bet is over 50 years ago when fielders weren't able to launch it from the boundary looking for a run out and batsman weren't so intent in taking on a run against the arm of a fielder.

5 hours ago, TomF said:

News.com.au though :laughcont:

Salty much, lads?

Capture.PNG

Image result for cartman tears gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TomF said:

Which may have completely changed Stokes mindset - who's to say he wouldn't have clubbed the next ball away for 4 if that was the case.   He knew at worst he could run singles for the next two balls and get to a tie.  3 off 2 he's going to aim for the boundary imo - perhaps this might have been better and shut up the bitters. 

 

3 hours ago, phantom said:

He is wrong in what he is saying 

The ball wasn't dead, we ran two there were an additional 4 over throws

 

3 hours ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

The law actually isn’t very clear and talks about runs completed , batsmen crossing , and  when the act happens , or similar

The Aussies are suggesting its when Guptill takes his throw (At which point Stokes and Rashid hadn’t crossed for the second)

Hmmm.

I believe @BobBobSuperBob is correct, i.e. the 'incident' starts at the time of Guptill's throw.

Accordingly, the second run wasn't completed and only 5 runs, not 6, should have been awarded.

More importantly, as the batsmen hadn't crossed at the time of the 'incident', Rashid would have been on strike, thus rendering @TomF's comment about Stokes' mindset academic - it would have been Rashid to hit the four, although a single (rather than being run-out) would have brought Stokes back on strike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, hodge said:

To me thats another rule that hasn't kept up with the times, would love to know when that rule was made. My bet is over 50 years ago when fielders weren't able to launch it from the boundary looking for a run out and batsman weren't so intent in taking on a run against the arm of a fielder.

 

Although, back in those days, we were always encouraged to 'take one for the throw'....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TomF said:

Indians too.  Best thing is we beat both of them comprehensively.  Suck it up loosers. 

I saw a tweet from someone who'd shared a train back to Manchester last night with Sourav Ganguly, who was telling anyone who'd listen that England had ‘drawn the game’ and ‘hadn’t won the world cup’.

No wonder everyone at Lancs thought he was a ***** when he did a season as overseas player.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, elhombrecito said:

He is actually correct. It's nothing to do with a dead ball. 

Only one of the two runs that were 'ran' should have counted, as at the moment the ball was thrown they hadn't yet crossed.

The law is:

“If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be any runs for penalties awarded to either side and the allowance for the boundary and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act.”

And they clearly hadn't crossed:

 

But hey, who gives a shit?! :laugh::winner_third_h4h:

Interesting quote from a commenter on Cricket365

"In no way is this is clear as Taufel is suggesting and I suggest there's an ABE attitude in his comments. Rule 19.8 is somewhat open to interpretation because it covers overthrows or a wilful act of fielder. It wasn't an overthrow and wilful is open to interpretation because clearly the fielder wanted to throw the ball towards the stumps but they didn't want a deflection ergo. If the umpires determined it wasn't wilful then 19.7.3.2 applies and there it states "the runs completed by the batsmen together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant the boundary is scored" which means 2 + 6 = 6."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Robbored said:

I found Shane Warne’s post match Sky comments particularly sour..........”NZ were the better team”.........:cool2:

Truth is there was bugger all between the two teams and it went our way with a combination of good fortune, Stokes ‘accidental’ 6 and Boult stepping back on the boundary after the catch.

Gotta feel for the Kiwi’s tho. A very desperate way to lose. 

Cant say I’d have had any compassion to the cheaters had they been the opposition.

 

Feel sorry for NZ and they showed class in defeat. So wish it had been AUS instead!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Moments of Pleasure said:

We gave the Kiwis a free run first ball of their super over, they then had 6 balls to score 15, same as us. They scored 14, and just missed out. I'm sure @kiwicolin will concur....

More like the umpire, the ball landed on the line which in every other game your hear commentators saying on the line is fine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bristolmoose said:

Interesting quote from a commenter on Cricket365

"In no way is this is clear as Taufel is suggesting and I suggest there's an ABE attitude in his comments. Rule 19.8 is somewhat open to interpretation because it covers overthrows or a wilful act of fielder. It wasn't an overthrow and wilful is open to interpretation because clearly the fielder wanted to throw the ball towards the stumps but they didn't want a deflection ergo. If the umpires determined it wasn't wilful then 19.7.3.2 applies and there it states "the runs completed by the batsmen together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant the boundary is scored" which means 2 + 6 = 6."

 

 

8?😲

Another point i've read elsewhere, is did the 'act' start when the ball hit Stokes' bat? If so they'd already crossed therefore 2 runs completed before the boundary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, northsomersetred said:

8?😲

Another point i've read elsewhere, is did the 'act' start when the ball hit Stokes' bat? If so they'd already crossed therefore 2 runs completed before the boundary.

I think he meant to write 2+4=6. It wasn't a 6 it was along the ground

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...