When Will England Ever Win A World Cup?

[marc71178]

Anyone fancy finding some D/L tables and working out who would have won?

No point, with DL in position England would've also had 5 more overs!

 

[marc71178]

And as such you cannot say

"SA were denied victory"

And I did not ever say that in this whole thread.
[/quote]

But you did say that South Afrcia didn't lose to the English!

 

[marc71178]

The unfortunate thing about that match was that it was not cricket that determined the winner but some extraneous elements.That's why we are talking about it even today after ten long years.

Couldn't agree more - it's been a good debate without resorting to name-calling!

 

[marc71178]

Although I don't think you need to use the word deluded to descibe me in EVERY post you make

I happen to have a different view on it to you on the grounds that I don't think SA obeyed the spirit of the game, but I have never said that the rain-ended finish was just or fair!

 

[aussie_beater]

But you did say that South Afrcia didn't lose to the English!

Yes the cricket match remained inconclusive in the eyes of the spectators and so in a way I can say that SA did not lose to England just to make my point that the situation was unfair to the SA team.

Although I don't think you need to use the word deluded to descibe me in EVERY post you make.

sorry dude.....that's just what you came across as, and I was just being honest

[Edited on 9/17/02 by aussie_beater]

 

[full_length]

mark: ..but I have never said that the rain-ended finish was just or fair!

Now you can if you want to. was the result fair ?

At the end of the day it's a judgement call.. Like said earlier, it looked very clear that SA would win the way they were going before being interrupted. This arguement has shown that there was real possibility that the eventual outcome could have occured even without the rain . It did look like SA would win but..

The captaincy issue seems valid enough to me, only I don't think it can be called cheating. If indeed done on purpose, it can be called negative, cunning, but not cheating.

[Edited on 9/17/02 by full_length]

 

[marc71178]

sorry dude.....that's just what you came across as, and I was just being honest

We just happen to have differing of opinions on an incident. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong though as there is no answer.

 

[marc71178]

mark: ..but I have never said that the rain-ended finish was just or fair!

Now you can if you want to. was the result fair ?

I still think it was a fair result for reasons I've gone into before, but I do not think it was a fair ending.

 

[marc71178]

The captaincy issue seems valid enough to me, only I don't think it can be called cheating. If indeed done on purpose, it can be called negative, cunning, but not cheating.

What about the batting second captaincy issue, that keeps being ignored.

In my view if the SA team deliberately slowed the over rate to prevent their target being massive, that is cheating.

 

[aussie_beater]

What about the batting second captaincy issue, that keeps being ignored.

In my view if the SA team deliberately slowed the over rate to prevent their target being massive, that is cheating.

And how many times should it be stressed that it was normal tactics in those days employed by each and every team, and as such cannot be called cheating.It was was known to England that it was happening in that match and so they took counter measures in trying to accelerate towards the end.If you have any information that may point to anything different then please say it, otherwise this argument is over.

 

[henochschon]

What about the batting second captaincy issue, that keeps being ignored.

In my view if the SA team deliberately slowed the over rate to prevent their target being massive, that is cheating.

That is tactics not cheating, and whatever ur point is u don't have to repeat it over and over again!

 

[marc71178]

At the end of the day, they willingly broke the rules which is cheating - you cannot call it tactics.

By your logic a defneder in football should be able to punch the ball off the line and just say "it was tactics".

 

[full_length]

Or punch a ball into an English goal
You still haven't forgotten that have you. lol.
Heil Maradona.

 

[marc71178]

How could we ever forget that?

At least we've got our own back (fairly) this year.

 

[full_length]

Yeah. that was probably the most keenly anticipated match of this World Cup. I slept some 1 hour before it was telecast, that day

I think Kerala (a state in India) went into depression. lol.

I guess it must suck to have that happen as an English fan. Maradona did come back with an out of the world goal though, to put all issues to rest.

You got that back a bit too late - a decade and half No Maradona in the team either.

 

[marc71178]

One thing that always taints that goal is that the English defence was still shell shocked from previous incidents.

I'd have preferred it if they'd been out for revenge and kicked the little s*** into the stand, breaking both his legs