England test tour of Pakistan December 2022

[Prince EWS]

You make your own luck.

Nah sometimes luck is just lucky tbh.

 

[slow deck]

Yeah I think it is tbh.

Were they or were they not advantaged by a rule that has now been changed (due to the backlash of the world cup final) due to its perceived and publicised unfairness?

Was the rule changed because of unreasonable cricket fans then?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

That's awful. That must've been terrible for both of you (you and your dad).

The worst part was when something went wrong with dad’s teeth, he couldn’t wait for the socialised dental appointment so usually had to pay privately- making everything else harder.

However, the confusion of the same dental practices offering social and private appointments did come back to ‘bite’ them.

When I was about 10, I finally got a socialised check-up appointment. Newly minted adult back teeth. The dentist recommended some kind of plastic capping for the tops to prevent decay in those complicated parts. My dad acquiesced to the suggestion, assuming that because the check up was socialised, that the caps would be. But no, along comes a bill for god knows how much - definitely in the hundreds.

Dad went ballistic given they’d quoted no price and assumed it’d be on the social. Dentist caved and we didn’t have to pay and - as I recall - as they’d issued it through the private practice they had to write it off and not charge it to the government.

All a bloody long time ago mind. Probably completely different (I.e. worse) now.

Fluoridation is probably a big difference between Dad and I though. He’s a Second World War baby - not much fluoridation (or nutrition) when he was growing up. My teeth aren’t too bad, other than a Terry-Thomas gap between the top two middle which could easily have been fixed if we could afford it!

 

[Prince EWS]

Were they or were they not advantaged by a rule that has now been changed (due to the backlash of the world cup final) due to its perceived and publicised unfairness?

Was the rule changed because of unreasonable cricket fans then?

The fact that people disagree with the rule doesn't mean they didn't win fair and square. To me, the term basically means "legitimately and without cheating"... and yeah, they did win legitimately and without cheating.

They were lucky as a seven, but they won fair and square.

 

[Spark]

How was the rule unfair? You can say it was ridiculous, and it was, but it was perfectly and entirely fair, in that there's nothing about it which advantages a particular team inherently.

 

[trundler]

Is this the first time Pakistan have been whitewashed at home? Shocking!

Also, here's a picture of me:

 

[SteveNZ]

As an avid NZ fan, who watched literally every ball of that final through the night/morning, honestly, I imagine short of the XI guys on the field and the support players/staff, I'd have as much reason as anyone to bemoan England's victory or put an asterisk on it.

I don't. They won. They deserve to be champions - mind you, potentially so did we. And we had enough chances to ice it. I just can't get my head around anyone who thinks they didn't win 'fair', that luck more than skill determined it and that England should feel less pride about the whole thing. It's all a bit lame.

 

[Chubb]

The worst part was when something went wrong with dad’s teeth, he couldn’t wait for the socialised dental appointment so usually had to pay privately- making everything else harder.

However, the confusion of the same dental practices offering social and private appointments did come back to ‘bite’ them.

When I was about 10, I finally got a socialised check-up appointment. Newly minted adult back teeth. The dentist recommended some kind of plastic capping for the tops to prevent decay in those complicated parts. My dad acquiesced to the suggestion, assuming that because the check up was socialised, that the caps would be. But no, along comes a bill for god knows how much - definitely in the hundreds.

Dad went ballistic given they’d quoted no price and assumed it’d be on the social. Dentist caved and we didn’t have to pay and - as I recall - as they’d issued it through the private practice they had to write it off and not charge it to the government.

All a bloody long time ago mind. Probably completely different (I.e. worse) now.

Fluoridation is probably a big difference between Dad and I though. He’s a Second World War baby - not much fluoridation (or nutrition) when he was growing up. My teeth aren’t too bad, other than a Terry-Thomas gap between the top two middle which could easily have been fixed if we could afford it!

While this is obviously veering off cricket, my own experience with NHS dentistry was pretty good. Had 5 years of braces fully funded, as did others in my family.

Braces were hell for the obvious reasons but cost wasn't one of them. And my teeth are still in good nick for a 36 year old I've only had to have a couple of fillings, both times in NZ where you pay a lot more (but can also get same or next-day appointments).

 

[Spark]

As an avid NZ fan, who watched literally every ball of that final through the night/morning, honestly, I imagine short of the XI guys on the field and the support players/staff, I'd have as much reason as anyone to bemoan England's victory or put an asterisk on it.

I don't. They won. They deserve to be champions - mind you, potentially so did we. And we had enough chances to ice it. I just can't get my head around anyone who thinks they didn't win 'fair', that luck more than skill determined it and that England should feel less pride about the whole thing. It's all a bit lame.

Haha I can't get on board with that though. The amount of luck Stokes got in the last five overs of the regular innings alone is off the scale.

 

[SteveNZ]

Haha I can't get on board with that though. The amount of luck Stokes got in the last five overs of the regular innings alone is off the scale.

The overthrown aside...what else? I was delirious at that point. The Boult drop I wouldn't count, you could say luck but it was moreso poor execution of fielding skill. I mean, shots like the 6 with 15 off 4 required, to a near yorker, was insane skill. And he did it again in the super over.

Were NZ the better team in the final? Not for me.

 

[Daemon]

The overthrown aside...what else? I was delirious at that point. The Boult drop I wouldn't count, you could say luck but it was moreso poor execution of fielding skill. I mean, shots like the 6 with 15 off 4 required, to a near yorker, was insane skill. And he did it again in the super over.

He should've been in prison firstly. Lucky to get away.

 

[SteveNZ]

He should've been in prison firstly. Lucky to get away.

I don't recall that part of his innings.

 

[Burgey]

Is this the first time Pakistan have been whitewashed at home? Shocking!

Also, here's a picture of me:


View attachment 34037

Do you even lift?

 

[slow deck]

The fact that people disagree with the rule doesn't mean they didn't win fair and square. To me, the term basically means "legitimately and without cheating"... and yeah, they did win legitimately and without cheating.

They were lucky as a seven, but they won fair and square.

They obviously didn't cheat.

The rule was an afterthought. They never thought it would happen. That is the issue. It's also extremely counter-intuitive to me.

The fact that it got found out in such a spectacularly big game, and in such a way that will haunt most Kiwi fans forever, is just really sad.

And the fact is Eng fans will use that game as a reason why they're the undisputable best team. I mean am I allowed to find that a bit rich?

In every form of cricket good bowling is more important than good batting. That's just what I think. If that makes me unreasonable then so be it.

 

[ashley bach]

As an avid NZ fan, who watched literally every ball of that final through the night/morning, honestly, I imagine short of the XI guys on the field and the support players/staff, I'd have as much reason as anyone to bemoan England's victory or put an asterisk on it.

I don't. They won. They deserve to be champions - mind you, potentially so did we. And we had enough chances to ice it. I just can't get my head around anyone who thinks they didn't win 'fair', that luck more than skill determined it and that England should feel less pride about the whole thing. It's all a bit lame.

Probably because they didn't actually win anything. That's just a simple fact, they tied the game and the super over, and they were indeed lucky to do
that. Not trying to take anything away from them here, but just a reminder that they won absolutely nothing.

 

[SteveNZ]

The fact that it got found out in such a spectacularly big game, and in such a way that will haunt most Kiwi fans forever, is just really sad.

And the fact is Eng fans will use that game as a reason why they're the undisputable best team. I mean am I allowed to find that a bit rich?

You'd have to canvas other NZ fans but it doesn't haunt me. In fact by the next day I had moved on. We could've - should've- won that game but didn't for other reasons. I can still be proud of my team in defeat.

And winning a World Cup allows you to identify as world champions for four years, does it not?

 

[SteveNZ]

Probably because they didn't actually win anything. That's just a simple fact, they tied the game and the super over, and they were indeed lucky to do
that. Not trying to take anything away from them here, but just a reminder that they won absolutely nothing.

They won the World Cup mate. I've seen photos.

 

[Daemon]

The fact that people disagree with the rule doesn't mean they didn't win fair and square. To me, the term basically means "legitimately and without cheating"... and yeah, they did win legitimately and without cheating.

They were lucky as a seven, but they won fair and square.

This is basically it.

The only 'unfairness' was the incorrect decision to award 6 instead 5 runs and put the wrong batter on strike, but incorrect umpiring decisions happen all the time and are just part of the game. England were just lucky that it game at such a crucial juncture.

This stuff about England not 'winning' the finals and whatnot is just semantics - at worst wrong and at best irrelevant.

 

[Howe_zat]

England didn't win the final. They did win the tournament though, after beating every other contender quite comfortably.

It doesn't really matter for this argument though. If England had won every single game ever played this clown would still be posting his complaints about Mark Wood's bowling average instead. Complete nincompoop.

 

[Line and Length]

They obviously didn't cheat.
The rule was an afterthought. They never thought it would happen. That is the issue. It's also extremely counter-intuitive to me.

It wasn't an 'afterthought'. It was a rule that was in place prior to the tournament. The fact that the rule made a farce of the finalis unfortunate.