To be fair, Stokes was intent on making his ground, he never once looked round to see the ball coming in from the deep or tried to deliberately position himself between fielder and sight-line to the stumps. And if the return had hit the stumps and ricocheted to the boundary, instead of his bat, not a word would have been said. Apart from "Buzzers" in the commentary box. You could equally argue that NZ should have won by virtue of losing fewer wickets at the 50 over mark - which would have been enough for them to win in some competitions. Personally, I feel that if the ball hits the stumps or opposing player at any point during a run out attempt it should be declared a 'dead ball' until back in the bowler's hand - but I'm not an ECB or ICC bigwig, sadly. So tough on New Zealand to be losing finalists in two consecutive world cups. They played with such an intensity and were an absolute credit to the sport And the lad Lockie Ferguson is one to watch for the future, too.
On the first point, wickets aren't the important commodity, it's runs on the board. The chasing team are always going to throw away wickets in the pursuit of runs, it'd be unfair to then penalise them for hitting the same total. A second super over rather than deciding it by boundaries scored would be a better conclusion though. If it were football, it'd be like a draw at the end of a penalty shootout being settled by yellow cards. The issue with making the ball dead in that scenario is it adds an incentive to aim the ball at an unaware player. If the batsmen taps the ball halfway down the track and tries to sprint a single, then the fielder picking the ball up has the choice of attempting a 10 yard run out, or hit the back of the batsmen running past him. It's a freak scenario which is only being focused on because of when it happened. Not sure it's worth revisiting the rules for.
Really surprised by negativity regarding the way we won yesterday. We beat NZ within the rules of the game. I feel no sympathy for NZ. We beat them fair and square.
Brilliant game of cricket played in the right manner. Yes England had the rub of the green but arguably so did NZ winning important tosses to both semi and the final. The point regarding fewer wickets lost is irrelevant. It was the rule at the start of the tournament and the same for both sides. You could also have broken the tie by who finished higher in the group stage or who won the head to head Inthe group game or net run rate all of which England were ahead on so maybe we were a bit lucky yesterday but I reckon the better team over the tournament won. Hope we haven't used all our luck up before the Aussies come back for the Ashes.
At least the Kiwis are hands down winners of the prize for sportsmanship and maturity of perspective, as witness this quote regarding the run that was but shouldn't have been: "New Zealand batsman Henry Nicholls brushed off the decision as part of the sport. "It doesn't mean anything to us now. It's the game; things happen," he told BBC Radio 5 Live. "Sometimes you get the rub of the green. England had a great tournament, they have been the dominant team for the last four years so they deserve to win it."
That game was amazing! I watched the first innings and England bowled well, especially Plunkett, Woakes and Archer's second spell against De Grandhomme was very very good. By then it was already nearly 10 PM and I was at work so I forced myself to bed. Sometime after 1 I woke up and realised that it was getting close so either like Dr Who I almost watched from behind the sofa. I was flicking between the tennis and the cricket because I couldn't face either. I thought England were out so many times, but Stokes kept them in it, he could hardly run, he was exhausted, but kept on going. Then the super over, oh boy England batted well, but when NZ got the 6 I thought it was over, then England did it, oh my word, what a match! P.S. I have just got back into civilization hence the late post and catching up
As we mustered over 170 responses on here (169 of them from myself and Bure Budgie!) I thought we might morph it into an Ashes thread in readiness for Thursday at Edgbaston?
Don't see how they can stick with Burns - but who do you bring in with just 5 days to go? Can't afford to be reliant on Stokes and Buttler for runs, need some up top, as you say. We'll know in 96 minutes time!
Selectors have bottled it, imho by sticking with out-of-form Burns and Moeen Ali (with the bat - hardly worthy of the 'all rounder' tag these days) But hey, we've made our bed......roll on Thursday England squad for first Ashes Test: Joe Root (capt), Moeen Ali, James Anderson, Jofra Archer, Jonny Bairstow (wk), Stuart Broad, Rory Burns, Jos Buttler (wk), Sam Curran, Joe Denly, Jason Roy, Ben Stokes, Olly Stone, Chris Woakes.
Totally agree regarding Moeen. Not cut it with bat or ball recently and such a form player. I cannot recall the last significant contribution he made to a test match. Even in Sri Lanka he was not our best spinner. But who do you play as a spinner Rashid has not made a great impact in red ball cricket and do we move Denly down the order and rely n him? I hope we grasp the nettle and play Root at three because we will need some stability in the top order and I can see us being 20-2 an awful lot against the Aussies otherwise Having seem the game v Ireland the Aussies may dust off Peter Siddle who is half way through another good season for Essex. Flashbacks of Terry Alderman if he does..
All the above being said I fancy our attack to skittles the Aussies out on green tops. An attack of Anderson, Broad, Archer, Woakes and Stokes is pretty handy in those conditions although I'd like to see a left armer in for variety but who would you drop? Harsh on Woakes or career ending for Broad as I can't see Anderson or Archer being left out for Curran.
Team for tomorrow, England XI: Rory Burns, Jason Roy, Joe Root (capt), Joe Denly, Ben Stokes, Jos Buttler, Jonny Bairstow, Moeen Ali, Chris Woakes, Stuart Broad, James Anderson. No Archer?? Interesting
Archer's time will come soon enough. And after the final day vs Ireland, there's no way they could omit Broad or Woakes. And Jimmy is, well, Jimmy Let's hope for a green seamer