Essex Outfielder : The Unofficial Essex CCC Forum
Cricket => England ODI => Topic started by: bwildered on May 22, 2019, 05:44:53 AM
-
New retro World Cup shirt released. Will sell more while England progress .
-
Is there any enthusiasm on this board for this tournament? Due to the way everything else was marginalised in order for England to win this and previously the Champion's Trophy I have taken against the 50 over side. I also disagree with the fast tracking of Archer. Shades of Zola Budd. I particularly dislike Morgan and all his pro 100 comments. Therefore I will not be following events closely and am happy that there is plenty of County cricket for me to take an interest in.
-
Is there any enthusiasm on this board for this tournament? Due to the way everything else was marginalised in order for England to win this and previously the Champion's Trophy I have taken against the 50 over side. I also disagree with the fast tracking of Archer. Shades of Zola Budd. I particularly dislike Morgan and all his pro 100 comments. Therefore I will not be following events closely and am happy that there is plenty of County cricket for me to take an interest in.
Agree entirely.
-
We only have a passing interest here - as has been said, plenty of county cricket to focus on while it's on.
Lynda and Steve
-
Not sure Archer has been fast tracked, has he has passed the qualifacation period stated by the ICC latest terms and conditions . He did actually play in the Championship game played at Colchester .
-
Archer is the nuts.
Choosing Denly over him is just nuts.
-
It is unfortunate that the rules have changed conveniently for him - but they did for Graham Hick. Problem is the over expectations that might be on him (or he might put on himself). Personally, I feel 3 years is too short but then again plenty of foreign born players have played for England. No one complains about Douglas Jardine or Colin Cowdrey after all.
However, I prefer to see players that learnt the game here - by which I mean schools cricket. Others, like Archer, should have to play county cricket for 5 seasons before turning out for the full team. Just feels that we are a 'flag of convenience' for Archer and it's a snub for the country that he started his first class career with. But he is better than those who've been complaining.
-
Not sure Archer has been fast tracked, has he has passed the qualifacation period stated by the ICC latest terms and conditions . He did actually play in the Championship game played at Colchester .
The ICC qualifications were 4 years residence which was changed recently to 3. The ECB's used to be much stricter with 7 years residence needed but they've now changed it to go alongside the ICCs. It looks like they've done it with Archer in mind.
-
Not sure Archer has been fast tracked, has he has passed the qualifacation period stated by the ICC latest terms and conditions . He did actually play in the Championship game played at Colchester .
The ICC qualifications were 4 years residence which was changed recently to 3. The ECB's used to be much stricter with 7 years residence needed but they've now changed it to go alongside the ICCs. It looks like they've done it with Archer in mind.
Yep. Shabby.
-
Not sure Archer has been fast tracked, has he has passed the qualifacation period stated by the ICC latest terms and conditions . He did actually play in the Championship game played at Colchester .
I saw him in that game , he batted very well, bowled very fast & is a good fielder, he also played at Chelmsford in RL in 2017 & again was fast. He is a very worthy addition to England, not defending Morgan (far from it as I detest the man) but he is probably told to say good things re The 100 as also with all other white ball cricket.
-
I don't get the impression that Morgan is told to say anything that he does not agree with.
-
I don't get the impression that Morgan is told to say anything that he does not agree with.
He agreed to be pictured as a woman via that Snapchat filter.
Mind you it did flatter him unlike Ben "Ugly Sister" Stokes. :o
-
Provided its the same rules for every country about players qualifying to represent their chosen one, shouldn't be to much of a problem. However saying that, ICC regulations about pulling players out of cup finals for domestic competitions is harsh, especially as the actual World Cup tournament hasn't started yet.
-
Provided its the same rules for every country about players qualifying to represent their chosen one, shouldn't be to much of a problem. However saying that, ICC regulations about pulling players out of cup finals for domestic competitions is harsh, especially as the actual World Cup tournament hasn't started yet.
Since when do ICC rules usurp the law of the land?
-
Obviously did not qualify for the World Cup, what happened to Dutch cricket ?
-
To answer the question about dutch cricket. They are still doing ok and now have full ODI status restored. The ICC were widely criticised for excluding "lesser" teams from this World cup. However the increasingly pathetic performances by Afghanistan suggest they got that right. One sided contests of this nature are poor viewing and must be difficult to play in.
-
So presume the experiment in playing Holland in the RL cup, did not help progress in the long term .
-
On the contrary both The Netherlands and Scotland gained valuable experience by playing in our domestic competition and now both have full ODI status.
-
Am I a bad person for enjoying the farcical way England played today, the prospect that they’re going out in the group stage and that there's been a record number of matches rained off? Colin Graves must be spinning in his...er...
-
Am I a bad person for enjoying the farcical way England played today, the prospect that they’re going out in the group stage and that there's been a record number of matches rained off? Colin Graves must be spinning in his...er...
A not so secret pleasure. Capt Carpetbagger Morgan might have to find another country to gatecrash.
-
Just imagine if England need to clinch qualification in the final match v NZ who have won their 3rd tight finish so far, NZ have shown what Eng need - bottle!!
-
NZ survived the best game so far, brilliant innings by Braithwaite. All the emotions in a game for the Windies .
Aussies next up for stumbling England.
-
Just imagine if England need to clinch qualification in the final match v NZ who have won their 3rd tight finish so far, NZ have shown what Eng need - bottle!!
They almost did an Essex verses Sussex, losing from an almost impossible losing position. West Indies needed 130 with three tailenders left from one end and they were very lucky the last ball didn't go for six. They also did the same against Bangladesh. They were cruising and almost threw it away.
-
England are exceedingly flaky. All the hype about being the best team in the world means nothing when you crumble on the big occasions. On the contrary the likes of NZ & Australia are able to raise their game. They still can qualify but I wouldn’t put any money on it &if they do will they hold it together in final stages?
-
If, and a big if, they now go unbeaten and lift the trophy, three defeats makes the expectation now very underwhelming .
Cancel the open top bus around St Johns Wood, might have to take the tube .
-
From what I've seen (and given I work, watch Essex a lot and have other sporting interests, that's not very much) India and Australia appear to be the best balanced teams. I reckon Pakistan might pip England to the last four. An erratic team who can probably beat anyone on their day.
Vince appears to be a walking wicket. I wouldn't have him anywhere near the Ashes squad.
-
Vince appears to be a walking wicket. I wouldn't have him anywhere near the Ashes squad.
Farbrace rates him highly, saying he’s only one big innings away from being an outstanding England player. Somehow I doubt that as he’s had numerous opportunities & is yet to convince.
-
Farbrace was on the other day. Would not have a bad word against any England player. Should have told it as it is...
Vince - Never good enough, need Roy back
Ali - Brain dead cricketer. Looks good when things are going well but when the going is tough he looks lost.
Rashid - Hit a bad patch at the wrong time.
Im all for positive cricket but England have not played smart cricket in the games they have lost.
-
The England team are shaping up in the way the football team used to be, good when it doesn't matter but can't hack big games/tournaments ie flat track bullies. Granted they have been unlucky with injury to Jason Roy who has been sorely missed but India & Australia are able to adapt as the Aussies proved so well on Tuesday, I think these 2 will meet in the Final, Pakistan with, on paper, 2 very winnable games could well now sneak in & eliminate us, so much for prioritising 50 over cricket!!
-
Reading about Durham expecting to make £1m from the CWC makes me wonder what happens to the Counties who don't have Test grounds or grounds that don't host games, Do they get any money from the ECB? Can anybody answer this, please?
-
England need to get their mojo back . Vince Bairstow has been replaced by his brother Roy Bairstow against the Orangemen of Netherlands .. Oops mean India.
-
Looks like Bairstow has been stung by the criticism. Good.
-
Looks like Bairstow has been stung by the criticism. Good.
When the wicket is flat he always looks better. Still, good to see Kohli looking frustrated...
-
Well we beat India but there's no way we will the competition. Bowling not good enough and batting is reliant on Bairstow/Roy getting off to a flier.
-
I wouldn’t say “no way” but I think it’s going to be either Australia or India.
-
Three game knock out, now for England . It is in there own hands, can they grab the opportunity .
-
I agree, three must win games. But I still think India's approach to the run chase was odd. Did we really bowl so well that they could only get 20 oddd from the first 10 overs, and why was Dohni going so slow
-
India's approach was only odd if not viewed from the perspective of sticking it to Pakistan. ;)
-
It has been suggested that India 'gave up the run chase' and did not want to lose wickets to affect their run rate.
-
The tournament commenced in May and the group games are still going on in July. Totally ridiculous. No other World Cup is so protracted nor could you lose three games and still win the thing.
-
They should have had 2 games a day more often ie starting 10.30 & 1pm, or 2 groups of, say, 6 teams still playing 10 games but 1 match per day per group with an occasional rest day in between. I suspect most of us have not watched any games in full, certainly not when Essex play, dip in & out of games like I do, the last hour tends to be the best.
-
Down to the final four .
India V NZ
England v Australia
Something special by somebody usually sees your side through . But who ?
-
A hell of a lot of World Cup Final tickets have suddenly become available ;)
-
Well done to the Kiwis, that will shut up the cocky,arrogant Indian team & their fans for a while. Kohli's face was a picture when he was given out, may have been a close call but the ball would have hit the stumps anyway.
-
What's that skippy , thrashed by the the Pommies , in the semi's and play the Kiwis in the final. Better get down the DIY store for some more sandpaper .
-
Unfortunately, I don't work with any Aussies but I do with a kiwi...
-
Unfortunately, I don't work with any Aussies but I do with a kiwi...
I work with lots of Indians lovely people who have now fallen into two camps, those with a back up England shirt under their Indian one, and those that are now no longer interested in Cricket.
-
Earls Court should be quite quiet tonight, at least Lyon & Co won't be shooting their mouths off for a couple of weeks (until The Ashes).
-
Dame Edna, Rolf Harris, and sir Les Patterson your boys took a hell of a beating...
-
Well two out of three ain’t bad
-
Got to be in it ( final ) to win it .
So now let's win it .
-
Only caught the end but that was a terrific advert for the game.
Especially as the England football team will never win the equivalent again.
-
If you wrote a storybook finish, this was it . Roy of the Rovers stuff for cricket . Better check my blood pressure.
Remarkable .
-
Astonishing finish that I just got back from the ground to see.
-
Me too, now England have finally got to the top in football, cricket & Rugby Union albeit spread over 53 years!
-
Whilst popping open the Champagne lets be true Essex supporters & have a bit of a moan. The bowlers did us proud but with the notable exceptions of Stokes, Butler & Bairstow the batting was awful & after the early collapse we really required Lady Luck to get us over the line & barely deserved to do so.
-
Whilst popping open the Champagne lets be true Essex supporters & have a bit of a moan. The bowlers did us proud but with the notable exceptions of Stokes, Butler & Bairstow the batting was awful & after the early collapse we really required Lady Luck to get us over the line & barely deserved to do so.
It would have been even more so for a Kiwi team that wasn’t particularly strong even on paper.
I’m not sure we were the best at the tournament- the Aussies missed Khawaja, something I never thought I’d say, the Windies blew it at Old Trafford and whatever goes on in the mind of certain Indian or Pakistani crickets I’m not sure.
-
Obviously a great game to complete the competition. It would have been great sportsmanship if Stokes had refused to run off the ball following the 4 overthrows. Perhaps an even greater legacy than the one we have got as a result of this great finish to a game.
-
The best team in the tournament has not always won. A lot depends on luck & how you play on the day. We have possibly been the best team in the competition in the past & lost out. The only disappointing thing this time is that we seem to have had most of the luck but failed to win. It should have been deemed a tie & the Cup shared.
-
Don't agree with sharing.
Except when Kent had to share the County Championship. ;D
-
Obviously a great game to complete the competition. It would have been great sportsmanship if Stokes had refused to run off the ball following the 4 overthrows. Perhaps an even greater legacy than the one we have got as a result of this great finish to a game.
Don't be daft! Kiwis should never have been allowed to push us that close. A modest team whose big name bats didn't quite hit their straps. More rounded one day players from the olden days (e.g. Neil Fairbrother, even our own GG) would've seen off the new ball and jogged the score along. The Kiwis did their country proud, but they didn't do enough to deserve winning IMHO.
I wish people would just accept we won fair and square. It's just like the 1966 ball over the line incident...it was.
-
Seems like umpiring error cost New Zealand the game.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27194046/umpires-made-error-judgement-awarding-six-runs-says-simon-taufel
wonder what Tony Choat made of it?
-
wonder what Tony Choat made of it?
He as to score what the umpires say - he has no choice even if he knew it was wrong.
-
Seems like umpiring error cost New Zealand the game.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27194046/umpires-made-error-judgement-awarding-six-runs-says-simon-taufel
wonder what Tony Choat made of it?
Typical whinging Aussie trying to tarnish our moment of glory to deflect from sandpapergate. It's our trophy and we're not giving it back. After being cheated by corrupt umpires in previous World Cups, I think we deserve a rub of the green. If nothing else, the weird 'number of boundaries' ruling and this (potential) miscalculation on the field shows how poorly the sport is served nowadays.
-
In the old days if 2 sides finished level then whoever lost fewer wickets was declared the winner eg 1978 S/F of Gillette Cup - Somerset 287-7/8 can't remember, Essex 287, Somerset won, if that had applied then NZ would have won.
-
So what?
The rules for this competition were that in the event of a tie after the super over the game would be decided by the number of boundaries scored. NZ knew this and that is why they went for the second off the last ball and not settle for the single to result in a second tie.
Same as the ball that deflected off Stoke's bat. Equally as important were the six runs we got when Boult stepped on the boundary but less has been made of that. There were also probably numerous occasions during the 100 overs where an extra run could have been scored.
We won. End of conversation. Enjoy the fact and that we are the World Champions.
-
Enjoy the fact and that we are the World Champions.
I am. Big time! :) :) :)
-
Seems like umpiring error cost New Zealand the game.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27194046/umpires-made-error-judgement-awarding-six-runs-says-simon-taufel
wonder what Tony Choat made of it?
That law about overthrows is very difficult to apply because there will be scores or 100s of throws from fielders in any match and perhaps 1 in 100 at top level might be an overthrow, yet the umpires have to retain a mental image of whether the batsmen had crossed at the point of the throw just in case there is one. It's even harder than judging offside in football when you have to almost look at two things at once. I doubt if most people who have played all their lives understand what the overthrow law says. I presume the TV umpire was unable to whisper in their ears, even if he saw the error. It will have to go down with the Geraint Jones "catch" at Edgbaston 2005 as just one of those things.
-
In the old days if 2 sides finished level then whoever lost fewer wickets was declared the winner eg 1978 S/F of Gillette Cup - Somerset 287-7/8 can't remember, Essex 287, Somerset won, if that had applied then NZ would have won.
After reflecting for a few days, I suddenly questioned why we accepted the 'fewer wickets lost' rule as somehow the most appropriate rule. After all, cricket matches are won by whoever scores the most runs...
-
The fewer lost rule seemed to go out of fashion when T20 took off, and became a change to show a different competition .
Perhaps some OD games were played out for a win knowing that wickets in hand had the advantage, which was less exciting unless Peter Such was at the crease .
Full credit to Kane Williamson winning the player of the tournament, leading his side with great integrity . A credit to his country .
-
Seems like umpiring error cost New Zealand the game.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27194046/umpires-made-error-judgement-awarding-six-runs-says-simon-taufel
wonder what Tony Choat made of it?
Three weeks after the event and we have all had time to consider what we thought about the incident. It was all very fast-moving and my thoughts go to the Umpires who would have had to make a split-second decision under very difficult circumstances. Only the Umpire at square leg, IMHO, would have had any chance of seeing whether the two batsmen had crossed for the second time before Guptill released the ball, because of the angles involved, but then his attention would have been drawn to the stumps towards which Stokes was running to be able to decide on a possible run-out appeal. It is all very well giving a judgement with the benefit of slow motion action replay but the on-field Umpires do not have that luxury available to them. Even so, I do not feel that the result would necessarily have been any different because Stokes attitude to the next ball received might have been different and the "lost" run made up anyway.
At the end of the day both teams accepted the situation for what it was - just one of those things that happen in cricket - and accepted the result.
At the end of the day it was an exciting game to watch and a terrific game to score. I am so grateful that I was given the honour of scoring such a unique match (two ties in the same match?) and having the opportunity, in years to come, to say "I was there".
-
The ruling on that situation may indicate that we shouldn’t have got those four runs...but the stupidity of the law is that is it essentially requiring umpires to both look for the throw, whilst at the same time looking at what’s happening at the wicket. The law is an ass here. Whether fewer wickets ruling needs to come back, I’m not sure as cricket (especially single innings) is ultimately about scoring more runs than the opposition.
-
The ruling on that situation may indicate that we shouldn’t have got those four runs...but the stupidity of the law is that is it essentially requiring umpires to both look for the throw, whilst at the same time looking at what’s happening at the wicket. The law is an ass here. Whether fewer wickets ruling needs to come back, I’m not sure as cricket (especially single innings) is ultimately about scoring more runs than the opposition.
Getting the four runs was never in question, Andy, it was merely the one run which was involved in the "did they cross for the second time or not?". So the argument goes "was it 5 runs or 6?" The Umpires indicated 6 and so that is what was registered.
-
Getting the four runs was never in question, Andy, it was merely the one run which was involved in the "did they cross for the second time or not?". So the argument goes "was it 5 runs or 6?" The Umpires indicated 6 and so that is what was registered.
Ah I get your point, but the law is unenforceable without video replays - and I don’t see why it matters whether the throw has been completed or not. Sounds like a law invented by people who haven’t played (or umpired) the game at the highest level.