Reply With QuoteOriginally Posted by navypie
Fair enough Sinbad, you’ve got me there.
Hall Of Fame
f
Extras are part of the game, it isn't their fault if we bowl wides or no balls but those extra runs off Stokes bat was the difference.
But I am glad we won.
Hall Of Fame
Fair enough Sinbad, you’ve got me there.
Hall Of Fame
I could never get you, not in a million years Fidel.
Edit. I do however 'get you' in your choice of supporting the greatest football team in the world.
Last edited by navypie; 15-07-2019 at 01:16 PM.
Hall Of Fame
The fact is, cricket is also a game largely played by toffs, as is rugby. Except in Wales I suppose, where it isn't seen as a punishment for errant pupils.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/48745093
Elitist Britain 2019 looked at more than 5,000 people in the country's top professions and their educational background and concluded that "a lucky few" were given the most opportunities.
Cricket is one of the top 10 professions for independent school attendance, behind the likes of Cabinet members, military top brass and those sitting in the House of Lords - 43% of men and 35% of women playing international cricket for England went to private school.
Some 37% of male British rugby union internationals attended fee-paying schools, and about one in three Olympic medallists.
Across the wider population some 7% of people are privately educated.
Men's and women's football were the two lowest professions looked at for the study in terms of independent school attendance.
The report found 2% of female footballers went to private school, and 5% of the men.
I am still glad England won, because I support them at football, cricket, tiddlywinks, whatever. Only football would get me out of my seat though
Hall Of Fame
Hall Of Fame
We could have celebrated too soon if New Zealand make an appeal:
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-a9004826.html
First Team
There's no suggestion here that they will appeal and surely, such retrospective action is without precedent and very unlikely?
Isn't there also a cricket law that states that the umpires decision is final so by definition, irreversible, outside the realms of VAR of course?
For an appeal such as this, the actual score would have to be wrong which, umpire awarding six runs, although maybe in error, it wasn't?
Last edited by Nottsowell; 15-07-2019 at 03:08 PM.
Hall Of Fame
Cricket is, was and always will be the best sport in the world, but only in my humble opinion 😏
Hall Of Fame
Not even Notts CCC are gonna spoil my day.
Hall Of Fame
Some good opinions voiced on here which interest me, as local cricket has been a large part of my life both as a player, administrator and finally as a qualified umpire. One or two points I'd like to mention.
Firstly I agree that this was the best game of international cricket I have ever seen and not likely to see again. To answer a few points which to the best of my knowledge are factually correct.
1. The Archer wide: In limited over international games a line is marked on both sides of the wicket from the bowling crease marking to the popping crease marking. The inside edge of this line is 17" from the inside edge of the return crease markings. If the delivered ball passes outside this marking OR lands on the line (as Jofre's delivery did) then the umpire will signal 'Wide ball' on the offside of the batsman. Any ball passing the batsman's body and wide of the leg stump will also be deemed a wide.
2. Bohinen's stats: The stats may be correct but there is a simple answer. To the best of my knowledge cricket was not part of the curriculum at Secondary Modern schools ...... although football was. any kid liking cricket back in the day played outside of school in the street or on the local rec. Remember the streets with 3 stumps painted on a wall?
For Bo to insinuate that privately educated kids had a better chance of playing the game is true to an extent but really far from the actual facts. Nobody can tell me that most of the players today in local cricket had a private education. Go and look at some of the best teams in our local leagues ....... KImberley, West Indian Cav's, and only a few years ago, all the colliery and works teams who produced fine cricketers. I would suggest that more of the players of today in Nottinghamshire did not play cricket at school and simply were introduced to the game by their local clubs if they showed an appetite for the game.
3. The ball and Stokes's bat: Stokes did not WILFULLY divert the ball. If he had, he would have been given out on appeal for Obstructing the Field. Here's the tricky bit ...... At the instant of the throw (as soon as the ball left the fielder's hand) had Stokes crossed with Rashid before the ball reached the boundary? If he hadn't, then only 5 runs should have been given and not six. A very fine point and could be an umpire error which I think was the case. Fortunate for England by the letter of the law ..... and horrible for the Kiwis.
3. Whatever the sporting occasion it's a matter of cash where you watch a game, not whether you are rich or famous.
You can pay a grand or more a year for a seat in the Pavis with a lunch thrown in or watch for 20 odd quid a game on a match by match basis. There is a waiting list for members of MCC but if you have the cash, anybody can become a member and have access to the Long Room although it may take a few years! I don't particularly like Prince Andrew but I've seen many Royals in different countries where they have a Royal family, presenting cups at football matches.
To conclude, one of the most important facets of the game of cricket is laid out before all the Laws are taken into account. It is simply called 'The Spirit of the Game' and the umpires decision is final. In all the games played this was adhered to and I'd be the first to applaud the Kiwis for their sporting attitude in this final. You had the bad luck against you lads but you conducted yourselves with honour.
Posting Permissions