The Cricket thread

[Capt Pat]

It was an Irish man who captained them to their only world cup win. Not sure how I feel about that.

Why were New Zealand not declared winners by 2 wickets after 50 overs. That is the way I saw the result?

[sid waddell]

We'll never hear the end of this!

Don't worry, Ireland are going to beat them in the Test match at Lords this month!

I'm not sure how I should be feeling about that 

Why's that then? You want England to win?!

I just can't support England at anything. But I mean, it's cricket like. It hardly fills me with pride or gets me all patriotic to see Ireland beat England at cricket.

I'd imagine it's a bit like how some unionists from Co Armagh or Tyrone might have felt seeing their respective county team win the Sam Maguire in the 2000's.

If you'd watched the last hour of Ireland v England in the 2011 World Cup you might think differently.

One of the most astonishing comebacks and tensest finishes I've ever seen supporting an Irish team.

Kevin O'Brien blasting the English bowlers out of the stadium, the winning runs struck by Man O'War GAA stalwart John "I hope Thatcher's death was slow and painful" Mooney.

Their boys took one hell of a beating that day.

[gallsman]

It was an Irish man who captained them to their only world cup win. Not sure how I feel about that.

Why were New Zealand not declared winners by 2 wickets after 50 overs. That is the way I saw the result?

Because losing wickets isn't necessarily an indicator of superior performance. At the end of their innings, England sacrificed a couple of wickets to get the final runs they needed. It wasn't down to the NZ attack taking them out. The objective is run scoring and they matched each other, simple as that.

That doesn't make England winning due to hitting more boundaries any less ridiculous. As Boycey said, Judi play another super over.

[michaelg]

We'll never hear the end of this!

Don't worry, Ireland are going to beat them in the Test match at Lords this month!

I'm not sure how I should be feeling about that 

Why's that then? You want England to win?!

I just can't support England at anything. But I mean, it's cricket like. It hardly fills me with pride or gets me all patriotic to see Ireland beat England at cricket.

I'd imagine it's a bit like how some unionists from Co Armagh or Tyrone might have felt seeing their respective county team win the Sam Maguire in the 2000's.

Why not?  It's a game run on a 32 county basis.  Do you feel the same about rugby too?  Quite sad too that you bring your analogy with unionists and GAA into something like this. 

[BennyCake]

We'll never hear the end of this!

Don't worry, Ireland are going to beat them in the Test match at Lords this month!

I'm not sure how I should be feeling about that 

Why's that then? You want England to win?!

I just can't support England at anything. But I mean, it's cricket like. It hardly fills me with pride or gets me all patriotic to see Ireland beat England at cricket.

I'd imagine it's a bit like how some unionists from Co Armagh or Tyrone might have felt seeing their respective county team win the Sam Maguire in the 2000's.

Why not?  It's a game run on a 32 county basis.  Do you feel the same about rugby too?  Quite sad too that you bring your analogy with unionists and GAA into something like this.

I understand it's a 32 county team and all that, but it's cricket. I mean... cricket.

Actually, I lied earlier. I would rather England win than the Ireland rugby team. I detest everything to do with rugby, and feel no connection or have no interest towards the Ireland rugby team. None whatsoever. (However, the cricket thing I wouldn't wish them beaten).

Yes, but it's the only thing I could sort of compare it to. Would I be right in saying that?

[Boycey]

Genuinely interested here what does 'but it's cricket' mean?

[bennydorano]

Thought that was a pretty good analogy myself!

Have always been a cricket fan, got an interest one Summer watching Test Cricket as a youngster over the Summer holidays and it's always stuck, can watch any form, T20 has brought it to the masses a bit more. Some game yesterday, NZ will be wondering how they lost it.

[Denn Forever]

Genuinely interested here what does 'but it's cricket' mean?

Acceptance of the result, end of.  Think of rugby referees time 10.

[Boycey]

Genuinely interested here what does 'but it's cricket' mean?

Acceptance of the result, end of.  Think of rugby referees time 10.

Im referring specifically to BennyCakes comment.

[Mikhail Prokhorov]

genuinely disheartened by these comments, NZ were cheated yesterday (the 6 should actually have been a 5) but this board puts forward a british triumph as if it were their own family winning. Shows the power of media, esp all those who grew up watching english tv and reading their papers 

[Denn Forever]

Surely it was a six?  Did the batsmen not run 2 runs?

[Never beat the deeler]

Surely it was a six?  Did the batsmen not run 2 runs?

Should only have counted the ruins they completed before the throw. When Guptil the the ball they only had one

[square_ball]

It was an Irish man who captained them to their only world cup win. Not sure how I feel about that.

Why were New Zealand not declared winners by 2 wickets after 50 overs. That is the way I saw the result?

Because losing wickets isn't necessarily an indicator of superior performance. At the end of their innings, England sacrificed a couple of wickets to get the final runs they needed. It wasn't down to the NZ attack taking them out. The objective is run scoring and they matched each other, simple as that.

That doesn't make England winning due to hitting more boundaries any less ridiculous. As Boycey said, Judi play another super over.

I'd have thought the logical conclusion would have been NZ win because they lost less wickets than England over the 50 overs. But then I guess on the other hand taking it out of the equation means that it encourages more attacking play rather than defending your wicket at all costs.

Also yesterday shows the value of sports coverage on terrestrial TV. I'd assume without it there'd be a lot less fanfare around the whole thing today.

[Boycey]

It was an Irish man who captained them to their only world cup win. Not sure how I feel about that.

Why were New Zealand not declared winners by 2 wickets after 50 overs. That is the way I saw the result?

Because losing wickets isn't necessarily an indicator of superior performance. At the end of their innings, England sacrificed a couple of wickets to get the final runs they needed. It wasn't down to the NZ attack taking them out. The objective is run scoring and they matched each other, simple as that.

That doesn't make England winning due to hitting more boundaries any less ridiculous. As Boycey said, Judi play another super over.

I'd have thought the logical conclusion would have been NZ win because they lost less wickets than England over the 50 overs. But then I guess on the other hand taking it out of the equation means that it encourages more attacking play rather than defending your wicket at all costs.

Also yesterday shows the value of sports coverage on terrestrial TV. I'd assume without it there'd be a lot less fanfare around the whole thing today.

There was a time that the team losing the fewest wickets would prevail but it's a while back. It's strange that a tournament that took 7 weeks to play can be ended just like that was the sake of 20mins which would have been pure theatre!!

[Denn Forever]

Surely it was a six?  Did the batsmen not run 2 runs?

Should only have counted the ruins they completed before the throw. When Guptil the the ball they only had one

He was running the second run which he completed  If the throw at the wicket had hit, the batsman may have been out (don't know if he had made it). The over throw went on it's merry way to the boundray.  So 2 runs and 4 overthrows.