Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Harry Stottle

England Cricket, needs to thank RL

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

Did you spend most of the time counting the empty seats for some enjoyment?

Lord, no. I was out and about enjoying summer. Cricket was boring enough to play let alone watch 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason I'd always assumed that Ben was related to George Stokes, the referee who resigned with some strong accusations against the RFL. Solely because of the height, hair and name I suppose.


"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."

Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

That was nearly 50 years ago to be fair. 

Why not have another over? 

what happens if its a draw then, another over? what happens if its a draw then, another over? what happens if its a draw then, another over?.... penalties is a stupid way to end a football match or Rugby match for that matter.. at some point you have to have something and that is what they decided.. is it perfect? no but then i dont see anything in any other sport that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double post

Edited by RP London

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

triple post, well done me!

Edited by RP London

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RP London said:

what happens if its a draw then, another over? what happens if its a draw then, another over? what happens if its a draw then, another over?.... penalties is a stupid way to end a football match or Rugby match for that matter.. at some point you have to have something and that is what they decided.. is it perfect? no but then i dont see anything in any other sport that is.

Really once the game was tied they could’ve decided the winner on boundary’s then. No need for a super over what the super over did was give NZ another chance to win. Unfortunately for them they couldn’t take it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Really once the game was tied they could’ve decided the winner on boundary’s then. No need for a super over what the super over did was give NZ another chance to win. Unfortunately for them they couldn’t take it. 

A lot of English league cricket (i.e. amateur) cup competitions decide the winner, in the event of a tie, by fewest wickets lost. No idea why boundaries was the chosen yardstick for this tournament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bobbruce said:

Really once the game was tied they could’ve decided the winner on boundary’s then. No need for a super over what the super over did was give NZ another chance to win. Unfortunately for them they couldn’t take it. 

Thats a bit like Extra time and into penalties though, you wouldnt go straight to penalties etc so I can understand that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hopping Mad said:

A lot of English league cricket (i.e. amateur) cup competitions decide the winner, in the event of a tie, by fewest wickets lost. No idea why boundaries was the chosen yardstick for this tournament.

my understanding is to encourage attacking play.

equally you change the rules you change the game so lets say it does down to wickets remaining and england know that... then would Rashid have swung at a "ball to nothing" (as they described it on tv) probably not.. so its him instead of Mark Wood running on the last ball. so they then probably wouldnt have tried to get the last run to win knowing that if he was out we would lose.. therefore if the rule had been different we would have probably finished exactly the same.

therefore back into a super over we go... do the kiwis then go for the last run at which point we are tied again with same wickets down in the super over... so how do you decide it then?

equally Joffra Archer also swung at a "ball to nothing" does he now not do that and we finish 7 down and win anyway. 

The good thing with boundaries is you get more of them and so there is less chance of that being tied.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hopping Mad said:

A lot of English league cricket (i.e. amateur) cup competitions decide the winner, in the event of a tie, by fewest wickets lost. No idea why boundaries was the chosen yardstick for this tournament.

I couldn't work that one out either.


rldfsignature.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RP London said:

my understanding is to encourage attacking play.

equally you change the rules you change the game so lets say it does down to wickets remaining and england know that... then would Rashid have swung at a "ball to nothing" (as they described it on tv) probably not.. so its him instead of Mark Wood running on the last ball. so they then probably wouldnt have tried to get the last run to win knowing that if he was out we would lose.. therefore if the rule had been different we would have probably finished exactly the same.

therefore back into a super over we go... do the kiwis then go for the last run at which point we are tied again with same wickets down in the super over... so how do you decide it then?

equally Joffra Archer also swung at a "ball to nothing" does he now not do that and we finish 7 down and win anyway. 

The good thing with boundaries is you get more of them and so there is less chance of that being tied.

But England were pegged down early on and it was the need to increase the run rate that meant they had to go for boundaries. That's an advantage the team batting first doesn't get.


rldfsignature.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What i find so amazing is how so many English people just can't go...we won how fantastic was that, instead of always trying to be so bloody negative about it. That game yesterday grabbed the attention like Rugby League could only dream of

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, deluded pom? said:

But England were pegged down early on and it was the need to increase the run rate that meant they had to go for boundaries. That's an advantage the team batting first doesn't get.

it is.. but you could say that in any sport about wind direction etc.. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

England hero Ben Stokes - Kiwi by birth - would not be here but for his father Ged coming over to play and coach Whitehaven and stay!

Actually Marra Ged Stokes came to these shores firstly to play for Workington Town...he made his debut on 25th August 1982 when Town beat Warrington 8-0 at Derwent Park.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Sticklebricks said:

Think you will find he came over to coach Workington marra,Ben went to school in Workington ?

He came to play for Town in season 1982/83.....was in truth a poor replacement for Kiwi of previous season Shane Varley...and when the Derwent Park faithfull sussed this they let poor Ged know about it, thereby he only appeared 12 times for Town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, deluded pom? said:

But England were pegged down early on and it was the need to increase the run rate that meant they had to go for boundaries. That's an advantage the team batting first doesn't get.

to be honest i think the biggest part of it is the likelihood of a tie on wickets vs a tie on boundaries.. its potentially the biggest chance to actually have a decider.. nothing is perfect though.. 

the only other way i would do it is bowl at 1 stump... one after the other. first 5 is a best of.. then sudden death.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, deluded pom? said:

But England were pegged down early on and it was the need to increase the run rate that meant they had to go for boundaries. That's an advantage the team batting first doesn't get.

NZ chose to bat first. 

Edited by bobbruce
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hopping Mad said:

A lot of English league cricket (i.e. amateur) cup competitions decide the winner, in the event of a tie, by fewest wickets lost. No idea why boundaries was the chosen yardstick for this tournament.

It doesn't really matter why. 

What matters is that this was the agreed method picked before the tournament started and all teams knew those rules from the start, and all played to the same rules throughout.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A draw... and A draw again... hang on rule 19B subsection 3 states in case of a draw any side who invented the sport and had previously lost 3 One day cricket World Cup Finals could interpret the rules as they please in order to win said competition final at 4th attempt...  Congratulations. At least it was a little bit more exciting than a test cricket draw!!! 

Ged Stokes was selected for The "Kiwis" New Zealand Rugby League Team in 1982 he later coached Canterbury and Wellington Sides in the Batercard Cup National Competition. He moved with his family to coach in the UK.... 

Edited by kiwis 13 6
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

Surely this can’t be true, every English cricketer must be a born and bred Englishman or Cricket would be the laughingstock of sport, as apparently will happen with Rugby League if Hastings and Austin play for Great Britain 

Many a true word.


rldfsignature.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

Surely this can’t be true, every English cricketer must be a born and bred Englishman or Cricket would be the laughingstock of sport, as apparently will happen with Rugby League if Hastings and Austin play for Great Britain 

My feelings on heritage and residential qualification has nothing to do with how others see our sport... I care not one bit.

What it is based on however is how satisfying the result will be when we finally beat the Aussies in a series or tournament final after 30 years of waiting. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...