Molehill
Cricketer Of The Year
And yet somehow he's won an ODI World Cup, T20 World Cup, the IPL, skippered a team to the Blast, got a Test hatrick etc etc.
He maybe crap now, but it's not a bad career!!
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
England thread
- Thread starter GIMH
- Start date
He maybe crap now, but it's not a bad career!!
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
And Paul Collingwood got an MBE
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
You know, I find the 'gifted a trophy by Dharmasena's error' trope so much more tedious than the tied stuff. Reasons being:
A - Any close match in cricket history has umpiring decisions that can be pointed to. Have you gone back and checked that no front foot no-balls were missed in England's innings? Checked for any inconsistent wides? Have you ****
B - How do you know that if we'd been given 5, Rashid wouldn't hit the next ball for 6? You don't know. You can't Nobody knows. Or maybe he gets a quick single leaving Stokes needing 3 off the last ball, or 2 for the tie? Or maybe Rashid gets out and Wood hits a 6. Or or or any million of things because unless it is the last ball then you have no way of knowing what would have happened and pretending the next two balls go the same is beyond idiotic. Especially given there would be a different player hitting it.
It is utterly ludicrous. People do this in all sports, pretend that one event not happening changes the result while still acting as if everything that happens afterwards goes the same. It is hugely dishonest, and you know this, but you find yourself resorting to TJB posting, which is maybe something you should think about.
Buffoon
If the players weren't going to each play many odi's in the last few years they should have at least organised the likely xi to play the ones they could all together. They haven't played as a team in ages. Bowling partnerships haven't developed and the batsman can't build an innings together
Shri
Mr. Glass
100% right
Molehill
Cricketer Of The Year
It's becoming clear that this is a Kiwi coping strategy. Have you seen the grief they've been giving Wayne Barnes on Saturday.....which probably stems from the forward pass stuff from 2007!!
It's never actually their fault that they lost....
Chin Music
State Vice-Captain
Like Liverpool and VAR decisions that don't go their way.........
Pup Clarke
Cricketer Of The Year
Matthew Mott has entered the chat
Flem274*
123/5
Lots of whataboutery here mate. Kumar choked on the call. Every 50/50 went England's way. And still the game was a tie that we never hear the end of as an English 'victory'.
NZ were robbed by one of the self elected main characters of cricket. Is what it is. All we can hope for is one day there will be a kiwi boot stamping on English sport forever, rather than the usual often.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
It's not whataboutery you absolute fool, it's you engaging that if anyone. What I have written in Point B cannot be rationally argued with.
As for no 50/50, hmm, the wide in the Super Over has escaped your memory I guess.
It's been four years. Get over it you sad little boy
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ironic, calling it a Kiwi coping strategy is actually an English coping strategy
Flem274*
123/5
Haha you picked this argument my man.
It's absolute whataboutery bro. You posted 'hey maybe if Kumar gets that call right all these other things that didn't happen mean England auto win'. No point in getting amongst that for me.
I've moved on. I am content with knowing the true result of the game, and Taranaki mowed through several superpowers of NZ rugby to win the NPC so until an English TMO elected himself the protaganist (seeing a strong trend here) I was pretty happy with sport but SA are deserved champions and tbh, I'll take the Taranaki victory as a very high class salve.
I guarantee you that when England win their first World Cup you will all look back on the 2019 event and admit it was not a win. Until then, I'm enjoying this one. England suck and we're on track for our usual semi-final exit. Pretty standard.
I still love ya though.
Red_Ink_Squid
Global Moderator
Double ironic, as calling calling it a Kiwi coping strategy is actually an English coping strategy is actually an Australian coping strategy.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
No no no. You said Dharmasena's error gifted us a tie. That is factually incorrect because NOBODY KNOWS WHAT HAPPENS IF HE AWARDS 5. That is not whataboutery is and you know it. You know what you said was wrong, because you're not so simple as to go 'well because that should have been 5 so we take 1 off the score and that's how it works'. In reality you know the world doesn't work like that.
If Richard has never signed up for CW, would the forum's post count drop by his post count exactly?
Flem274*
123/5
I know what happens if Kumar Dharmasena awards 5 runs instead of 6.
England score one less run from that ball. Given it was a tied game, sounds like it was important.
This continual re-writing of history over our 2019 WC win is an ever present theme on here.
Were England a bit lucky in the final - yeah I'd say so.
Were NZ robbed by the umpires- no.
Did England win the final - yes. We didn't tie the final - we won it after the Super Over was tied on the boundary count.
Was the boundary count the best way of deciding a final - no but that was the rule in place.
We won the WC because over the course of the competition, we were the best team.
Were England a bit lucky in the final - yeah I'd say so.
Were NZ robbed by the umpires- no.
Did England win the final - yes. We didn't tie the final - we won it after the Super Over was tied on the boundary count.
Was the boundary count the best way of deciding a final - no but that was the rule in place.
We won the WC because over the course of the competition, we were the best team.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Agreed. It would have made our job harder. Nobody disagrees. But you don't know what would have happened next.
Red_Ink_Squid
Global Moderator
You're living in the past Flem! Living in the past! Quit living in the past!
...On an unrelated note, remember when England should have won a Test series away in New Zealand a few months ago but the umpire didn't call an obvious wide with England trailing by 1 run in the second Test?
I remember. I remember.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
& that actually would have changed the result, factually!
Flem274*
123/5
NZ win by 25 runs.
How is 'no one knows' even an argument? It's just meant to shut down voices saying the tie was bullshit to begin with.
England scoring one less run from that ball tips the balance slightly in favour of the opposition. Given the game was a tie due in part to that error, I think it is obvious that the mistake strongly favoured one side in the 'who knows??????' stakes.